Agenda and minutes
PDF 533 KBVenue: the Council Chamber - Council Offices, Trinity Road, Cirencester, GL7 1PX. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services
Media
| No. | Item | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. The quorum for the Planning and Licensing Committee is 3 members.
Additional documents: Minutes: There were apologies for absence from Councillors Ian Watson, Ray Brassington and Andrew Maclean.
|
|||||||||
|
Substitute Members To note details of any substitution arrangements in place for the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Juliet Layton substituted for Councillor Ian Watson. Councillor Julia Judd acted as Vice-Chair. |
|||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest from Members relating to items to be considered at the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor David Fowles declared non-pecuniary interests in relation to Item 8, as the Clerk, John Dooley, was a parish councillor in one of the parishes they represented. Councillors David Fowles and Julia Judd declared that in relation to Item 11, Councillor Bella Amory was a friend. The Members confirmed that, having taken advice from the Legal Representative, they would take part in the debate.
|
|||||||||
|
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 August 2025. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 13 August 2025 were discussed. Councillor David Fowles proposed accepting the minutes and Councillor Patrick Coleman seconded the proposal which was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.
RESOLVED: To APPROVE the minutes of the meeting held on 13 August 2025. |
|||||||||
|
Chair's Announcements To receive any announcements from the Chair of the Planning and Licensing Committee.
Additional documents: Minutes: It was announced that the first item on the schedule of applications, relating to land north-east of Mickleton, had been withdrawn. |
|||||||||
|
Public questions A maximum of 15 minutes is allocated for an “open forum” of public questions at committee meetings. No person may ask more than two questions (including supplementary questions) and no more than two such questions may be asked on behalf of one organisation. The maximum length of oral questions or supplementary questions by the public will be one minute. Questions must relate to the responsibilities of the Committee but questions in this section cannot relate to applications for determination at the meeting.
The response may take the form of: a) A direct oral response (maximum length: 2 minutes); b) Where the desired information is in a publication of the Council or other published work, a reference to that publication; or c) Where the reply cannot conveniently be given orally, a written answer circulated later to the questioner. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no public questions. |
|||||||||
|
Member questions A maximum period of fifteen minutes is allowed for Member questions. Questions must be directed to the Chair and must relate to the remit of the Committee but may not relate to applications for determination at the meeting.
Questions will be asked in the order in which they were received but the Chair may group together similar questions.
The deadline for submitting questions is 5.00pm on the working day before the day of the meeting unless the Chair agrees that the question relates to an urgent matter, in which case the deadline is 9.30am on the day of the meeting.
A member may submit no more than two questions. At the meeting the member may ask a supplementary question arising directly from the original question or the reply. The maximum length of a supplementary question is one minute.
The response to a question or supplementary question may take the form of: a) A direct oral response (maximum length: 2 minutes); b) Where the desired information is in a publication of the Council or other published work, a reference to that publication; or c) Where the reply cannot conveniently be given orally, a written answer circulated later to the questioner. Additional documents: Minutes: A Member noted that the Planning and Licensing Committee had always operated on a non-political basis and suggested mixing the seating of groups at the next meeting. |
|||||||||
|
25/01621/OUT - Land North East of Mickleton Proposal Outline application for up to 120 dwellings
Case Officer Martin Perks
Ward Members Cllrs Gina Blomefield and Tom Stowe
Recommendation REFUSE Additional documents:
Minutes: This application had been withdrawn.
|
|||||||||
|
25/01194/OUT - Land Parcel North of Olimpick Drive Proposal Outline application for residential development of up to 30 dwellings.
Case Officer Martin Perks
Ward Members Cllrs Gina Blomefield and Tom Stowe
Recommendation REFUSE
Additional documents:
Minutes: The proposal was for outline application for residential development of up to 30 dwellings.
Case Officer: Martin Perks Ward Members: Cllrs Gina Blomefield and Tom Stowe Original recommendation: REFUSE
The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application who made the following points:
Public Speakers Speaker 1 - Chipping Campden Town Council John Dooley (Town Council Clerk) explained that Chipping Campden Town Council opposed the application due to ongoing flooding concerns, noting that previous development at the site had inadequate flood mitigation measures that were not resolved, and they sought guarantees that the existing flooding issues would be properly addressed.
Speaker 2 – Objector David Jennings-Riley raised concerns that the Sequential Test omitted guidance on cumulative flood risk, noting that previous development at Leasows One had increased flood risk to nearby areas, and that the proposed cut-off ditches for Leasows Two could worsen downstream flooding due to omissions in the plans. These concerns were supported by the 2023 Cotswold District Council Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and local flooding evidence.
Speaker 3 - Agent Wendy Hopkins noted that the Council’s five-year housing land supply shortfall was the key consideration. She stated that landscape impact concerns were likely exaggerated, and that previous refusals were outdated or untested. She argued that applying the tilted balance meant the landscape harm was insufficient to justify refusal.
Speaker 4 – Ward Member Councillor Tom Stowe, the Ward Member, supported refusal of the application, citing inadequate flood mitigation, significant landscape harm within the Cotswold National Landscape, and conflict with Local Plan policies and statutory duties. They concluded that adverse impacts outweighed any benefits.
Member questions Members asked questions of the officers, who responded in the following way:
|
|||||||||
|
25/01717/FUL - Land West of Hatherop Road Proposal Erection of 98 dwellings
Case Officer Martin Perks
Ward Member Cllr Michael Vann
Recommendation PERMIT subject to no objection from Gloucestershire County Council Lead Local Flood Authority, completion of S106 legal agreement(s) covering affordable housing, custom/self-building housing, Biodiversity Net Gain monitoring, financial contribution to North Meadow and Clattinger Farm Special Area of Conservation, provision of public open space, access connection to field to west, financial contributions to library services, public transport and travel plan.
Additional documents:
Minutes: The proposal was for erection of 98 dwellings.
Case Officer: Martin Perks Ward Members: Cllr Michael Vann
Original recommendation: PERMIT The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application.
Public Speaker 1 – Fairford Town Council Councillor Richard Harrison noted that the proposal aligned with the Fairford Neighbourhood Plan, would meet local housing needs sustainably, and offered improved housing mix and energy efficiency. He claimed that minor tree-planting concerns could be addressed via the Biodiversity Gain Plan, while sewage treatment capacity must prevent pollution or flooding. Public Speaker 2 - Objector Rod Hill raised concerns over sewage capacity, potential illumination of Lovers Lane, and insufficient car parking, particularly given school-related congestion. The increase from 86 to 98 dwellings was considered likely to worsen these issues. Public Speaker 3 – Agent Matthew Jeal highlighted the community engagement undertaken and noted that the site already had planning consent. The application proposed 11 additional units, including four affordable homes, along with an improved housing mix and footpath upgrades. He confirmed that conditions on foul and water connections, as well as additional tree planting along the northern boundary, were accepted. Upgrades to Lovers Lane and sensitive lighting would be carefully managed to protect bat habitats, and the proposal provided over 150 car parking spaces, meeting County Council standards. Public Speaker 4 – Ward Member Councillor Michael Vann noted that the site lay outside of the Conservation Area and the Cotswold National Landscape and was allocated for housing in the Fairford Neighbourhood Plan. He explained that the plan required connection to the sewer network only where capacity exists or is planned, and Thames Water had confirmed capacity for 50 dwellings now, with reinforcement works needed for additional units.
Members Questions Members asked questions of the officers, which were responded to in the following way:
|
|||||||||
|
25/01970/PLP - Land At Ethans Orchard Proposal Permission in Principle for the erection of 1 self-build dwelling
Case Officer Amy Hill
Ward Member Cllr Paul Hodgkinson
Recommendation
PERMIT subject to agreement of appropriate assessment by Natural England.
Additional documents: Minutes: The proposal was Permission in Principle for the erection of 1 self-build dwelling. Case Officer-Amy Hill Ward Member-Cllr Paul Hodgkinson Original Recommendation - PERMIT subject to agreement of appropriate assessment by Natural England.
The Case Officer introduced the report explaining that additional pages contained comments in support and objection and also acceptance of the appropriate assessment from Natural England.
Comments from the Parish Council had been received which raised concerns about limited facilities in Chedworth and poor bus services. There were also concerns about the site being outside of the village envelope. The Case Officer clarified that Chedworth is a non-principal settlement and that the conservation area was not the village envelope.
The Case Officer highlighted the principles behind a Planning in Principle planning decision for Committee Members.
Public speaker 1 Councillor Bella Amory from Chedworth Parish Council explained that there was strong local opposition, citing harm to the conservation area, National Landscape, and settlement character. There were also concerns raised over the lack of facilities, the reliance on private cars, and minimal housing need.
Public speaker 2 - Objector Jenny Wigley argued that the site was highly sensitive being within the conservation area and National Landscape and the close setting of listed buildings. She felt that the Case Officer recommendation relied on mitigation outside the application site, which she stated was undeliverable and legally flawed.
Public speaker 3 – Applicant Mr George Charnick explained that the proposal sought a modest, carefully designed self-build dwelling, with removal of the garage and improvements such as a treatment plant, landscaping, and restored orchard.
Speaker 4 – Ward Member Councillor Paul Hodgekinson stated that the site lay within the Chedworth Conservation Area and the Cotswold National Landscape, both of which were highly protected, and that there was a history of refusals. There were concerns raised that development would cause harm to heritage and landscape, including the loss of an important rural gap and intrusion into key views. It was noted that the proposal conflicted with statutory duties, national and local policies, with no clear public benefit to outweigh the identified harm.
Member Questions Members asked questions of the officers, which were responded to in the following way:
Recommendation
|
|||||||||
|
Sites Inspection Briefing Members for 1 October 2025 (if required)
Councillors Dilys Neill, Ian Watson. Nick Bridges, Tristan Wilkinson, Andrew Maclean. Additional documents: Minutes: An all-Member Site Inspection Briefing was required for 1 October 2025. |
|||||||||
|
Licensing Sub-Committee Members for 25 September (if required)
Councillors Dilys Neill, David Fowles, Ray Brassington. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no licensing sub-committees planned.
|
Carried