Agenda and draft minutes
PDF 532 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 from Councillor Julia Judd. |
|||||||||
|
Substitute Members To note details of any substitution arrangements in place for the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no substitute Members. |
|||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest from Members relating to items to be considered at the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Joe Harris advised that he had previously met with the objectors to application 25/03700/FUL. Following legal advice from the Monitoring Officer, it was agreed that he would not participate in the debate or vote on the application. Councillor David Fowles referred to previous applications involving the Red Lion pub near Poulton and the Waggon and Horses pub, noting his past involvement in supporting the retention of pubs. He confirmed he had not been involved in relation to application 25/03700/FUL and approached the application with an open mind. Councillor Patrick Coleman declared he had been present at a Cirencester Town Council Planning Committee on 2 December 2025 where application 25/03700/FUL was discussed. Councillor Coleman was also acquainted with the Objector speaker, Mr James Brown and has a shared interest in Corinium Brewery. He declared that he made no predetermination on the application. Councillor Nick Bridges declared that he was a Cirencester Town Council member and that he approached application 25/03700/FUL with an open mind. He confirmed he knew some objectors but had not discussed the application with them. |
|||||||||
|
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 March 2026. Additional documents: Minutes: The Minutes of the meeting held on 11 March 2026 were discussed. Councillor Joe Harris apologised that he had not submitted formal apologies ahead of the meeting on 11 March 2026.
Councillor Fowles proposed accepting the minutes and Councillor Coleman seconded the proposal which was put to the vote and accepted by the Committee.
RESOLVED: To APPROVE the minutes of the meeting held on 11 March 2026.
|
|||||||||
|
Chair's Announcements To receive any announcements from the Chair of the Planning and Licensing Committee.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair welcomed Councillor Nikki Ind as a new member of the Planning and Licensing Committee and expressed the Committee’s appreciation of their appointment and anticipated contributions. The Chair reminded members that if they were unable to attend a site inspection briefing (SIB), they should arrange a substitute.
Harrison Bowley, Head of Planning Services advised the Committee that a government consultation on Planning Committee reform was underway. Members were invited to submit any comments by 14 April for inclusion. A further consultation on fee regulations would be considered at the May Planning Committee meeting. He reminded members of the annual Planning Committee training on 3 June 2026 which was required for committee membership and open to all Members, including prospective substitutes. |
|||||||||
|
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: There were no Member questions. |
|||||||||
|
25/03700/FUL - The Twelve Bells, 12 Lewis Lane, Cirencester. Proposal Change of Use of a Public House (Sui Generis) to a Residential Dwelling (C3) with ancillary B&B outbuilding.
Case Officer Amy Hill
Ward Member Councillor Joe Harris
Officer recommendation: PERMIT Additional documents: Minutes: The proposal was the Change of Use of a Public House (Sui Generis) to a Residential Dwelling (C3) with ancillary B&B outbuilding.
Case Officer: Amy Hill Ward Member: Councillor Joe Harris Recommendation: PERMIT.
The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application who confirmed that there were no updates since the publication of the agenda and: · Shared the location plan and accommodation layout, map of location of listed buildings and Conservation areas, photographs and floor plan. · Shared a map of the location of pubs within 400m of the application · Confirmed that the location was outside the defined town centre.
Speaker 1 – Objector – Mr James Brown The speaker stated that the 12 Bells was a valued community asset, evidenced by over 150 objections, including from the Town Council, Civic Society, and the Council’s Conservation Officer. They argued that there were no public benefits arising from the scheme, as the loss of the pub would outweigh any housing considerations, noting it provided a community meeting space and local employment. The speaker questioned the claim of non-viability, citing reported profitability, concerns about marketing and valuation, and a lack of independent evidence, and concluded that approval would result in harm to the community and set a negative precedent for other pubs.
Speaker 2 – Applicant – Mr Joe Seymour The agent stated that a robust marketing exercise over 18 months failed to attract interest in continuing the pub use despite the reduced price. They argued this demonstrated lack of viability in line with policy requirements. The agent explained that planning decisions are guided by evidence and policy, and that the system supports the management of land-use change when current uses are no longer viable.
Speaker 3 – Ward Member – Councillor Joe Harris The Ward Member stated that the application required a planning balance between the loss of a valued community asset in a sensitive historic setting and any public benefits. They felt that no meaningful public benefits had been demonstrated, noting there was no net housing gain or wider regeneration benefit. The Ward Member argued that the policy test regarding community facilities had not been met, as neither need nor viability had been demonstrated, and questioned the evidence supporting the claim of non-viability, including reported profitability and marketing arrangements. They stated that required viability evidence, including independent valuation and trading information had not been provided. The loss of the pub would set an undesirable precedent for the erosion of community infrastructure.
Member Questions: Members of the Committee asked a series of questions and noted that: · The property had been marketed as going concern from January 2023 whilst with Christie & Fleurets, and subsequently with Moor Allen (from June 2024) who maintained the pub status despite placing a greater emphasis on residential potential. · Historic England were consulted due to the potential impact on nearby scheduled ancient monuments and focused their comments on archaeological considerations rather than the impact on the Listed Building. The Conservation Officer had assessed the impact on the ... view the full minutes text for item 268.
|
|||||||||
|
26/00072/PLP - Land at Cerney Wick, Cirencester. Proposal Permission in Principle for up to 6 dwellings.
Case Officer Andrew Moody
Ward Member Councillor Mike Evemy
Officer recommendation: PERMIT Additional documents:
Minutes: The application was for Permission in Principle for up to 6 dwellings at Land at Cerney Wick. Case Officer: Andrew Moody Ward Member: Councillor Mike Evemy Recommendation: PERMIT.
The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application who made the following points: · There were no updates following agenda publication. · Aerial photographs and site plans were shared. · Cerney Wick was considered a non-principal settlement.
Public speaker 1 – Agent – Mr Joe Seymour The agent stated that Officers had considered the application acceptable in terms of location, land use and scale of development. They noted that detailed design would be considered at a later stage, no highways objections had been raised, and that the proposed level of housing growth was proportionate in the context of local plan policies and comparable developments in other settlements.
Speaker 3 – Ward Member – Councillor Mike Evemy The Ward Member advised that they were a long-standing resident of Cerney Wick and expressed concerns that the village was not a sustainable location for development, citing limited local facilities, reliance on car travel and the rural, linear character of the settlement. It was noted that the site represented an important green space with ecological value, and that development would harm the character and setting of the village.
Councillor David Fowles left the chamber at 15:44
SIB feedback Members commented that the village was characterised by open spaces and that development of the site would harm its character, particularly given its scale in relation to the size of the settlement. Green space within the village had already been reduced, including the loss of allotments, and concern was expressed about the cumulative impact of further development. Members raised concerns regarding the sustainability of the location, noting the lack of public transport and reliance on private vehicles. There was a good sized pub and beautiful views and walks.
Member Questions: Members of the Committee asked a series of questions and noted that: · The Council did not currently have a five-year housing land supply and that planning permission should generally be granted unless adverse impacts significantly outweighed the benefits. · The site was not subject to heritage or landscape designations. · Ecological matters, including surveys and biodiversity net gain, were not required at the Permission in Principle stage. · Additional housing in smaller settlements may be considered to support nearby services and facilities in increasing sustainability of nearby settlements
Member Comments · Members noted that the Council’s housing land supply position and the tilted balance were key material considerations. It was considered that this limited the scope to refuse the application. · Members acknowledged the issues between policy requirements and local concerns about the site. · The potential for appeal costs and the likelihood of an unsuccessful refusal was noted.
Councillor Ian Watson proposed and Councillor Joe Harris seconded the proposal to PERMIT the application
RESOLVED: To PERMIT the application.
|
|||||||||
|
25/00006 - Tree Preservation Order - 55 Thomas Street, Cirencester Proposal To consider the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) made on a mature beech tree at 55 Thomas Street, Cirencester. To determine whether the TPO should be confirmed or not confirmed.
Case Officer Justin Hobbs
Ward Member Councillor Mark Harris
Officer recommendation: CONFIRM TPO 25/00006 Additional documents:
Minutes: To consider the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) made on a mature beech tree at 55 Thomas Street, Cirencester.
Case Officer: Justin Hobbs Ward Members: Councillor Mark Harris Recommendation: to CONFIRM the TPO.
The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application who made the following points: · There were no additional details. · Photographs of the tree from various directions were shared along with background information of the TPO application.
Speaker 1 – Ward Member – Councillor Mark Harris The Ward Member noted that the tree was a healthy and valued specimen, supported by the Council’s Tree Officer and local Civic Society. Whilst acknowledging concerns regarding maintenance issues, such as leaf fall and shading, these were considered insufficient to justify removal. The tree had been established for many decades and ongoing management and pruning could address associated issues.
Member Questions: Members of the Committee asked a series of questions and noted that: · Potential damage from tree roots was difficult to predict and usually evidenced through monitoring reports and insurance claims where issues arise. No evidence had been submitted to indicate that the tree had caused structural damage.
Member Comments: · The tree was a mature, healthy and valued feature of the area pre-dating the dwelling. · Members noted its contribution to local character and amenity. · It was acknowledged that any maintenance issues could be managed through pruning rather than removal. · A Tree Preservation Order would ensure any future works were controlled and assessed and if felled a replacement specimen could be insisted on.
Councillor Daryl Corps proposed and Councillor Ray Brassington seconded the proposal to PERMIT the application.
RESOLVED: To CONFIRM the TPO.
|
|||||||||
|
Sites Inspection Briefing Members for 6 May 2026 (if required)
Councillors Dilys Neill (Chair). Ian Watson, David Fowles, Patrick Coleman, Nick Bridges. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair advised members to keep the 6 May 2026 free for a possible Site Inspection Briefing. Councillors Dilys Neill (Chair), Ian Watson, David Fowles, Patrick Coleman, Nick Bridges. |
|||||||||
|
Licensing Sub-Committee Members for 23 April 2026 (if required)
To be confirmed. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no licensing sub-committees planned. |
Carried