Agenda and minutes
PDF 102 KBVenue: Council Chamber - Trinity Road. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services
Media
| No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Apologies Additional documents: Minutes: No apologies were received. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 and Officers, relating to items to be considered at the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Brassington stated that he knew the Agent on the Tunnel House Inn application from his previous employment at the Council but that they were not friends.
Councillors Harris, Judd and Coleman all stated that they knew Lord Bathurst through their roles as ward members but had never worked for the Bathurst Estate.
Councillor Fowles also knew Lord Bathurst socially.
Councillor Harris stated that he had worked with the principal at the surgery, referring to the first application on the agenda.
Councillor Watson declared a pecuniary interest as he had voted for the application in a Town Council meeting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on the 26th April 2023. Additional documents: Minutes: A correction was made on line 187 – where it stated “worked for” this was incorrect. Councillor Harris had worked with the estate, not for the estate, and Councillor Judd had not worked with the estate.
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on the 26th April be APPROVED as a correct record
For – 6 – Against – 0 Abstentions – 5 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chair's Announcements (if any) Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair encouraged members of the public to submit objections to the planning portal on the Council’s website instead of directly to Ward members. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 two minutes. 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 notice of them was received, except that 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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Appointments to Licensing Sub-Committee Purpose To invite the Licensing Committee to confirm the appointment of Sub-Committees for the 2023/24 municipal year.
Recommendation That the Planning and Licensing Committee resolves to: a) Appoint five members of the Committee to the LicensingSub-Committee (Taxi, Private Hire and Street Trading)) in accordance with political proportionality and the wishes of political groups (3 Liberal Democrat, 2 Conservative) b) Note that Licensing Sub-Committee membership will comprise the Chair or Vice Chair of the Planning and Licensing Committee and two other members of the Planning and Licensing Committee drawn on a rota basis from the remaining members of the Planning and Licensing Committee (subject to their availability and completion of licensing training prior to participation in a Licensing Sub Committee (Licensing Act 2003) meeting). Additional documents:
Minutes: The Chair introduced the report, which was taken as read.
There were no questions or comments.
RESOLVED: Planning and Licensing Committee agreed to; a) APPOINT five members of the Committee to the Licensing Sub-Committee (Taxi, Private Hire and Street Trading)) in accordance with political proportionality and the wishes of political groups (3 Liberal Democrat, 2 Conservative) b) NOTE the Licensing Sub-Committee membership, (Licensing Act 2003)
For- 11, against- 0, Abstentions 0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
22/03495/FUL- Land West Of Worwell Farmhouse, Cirencester Road, Tetbury Description Mixed use development comprising healthcare facility, 27 dwellings (including 11 affordable units), landscaping, site access, internal estate road and associated works at Land West Of Worwell Farmhouse Cirencester Road Tetbury Gloucestershire GL8 8RY
Ward Member Councillor Chris Twells
Case Officer Harrison Bowley
Recommendation DELEGATED PERMISSION subject to; i) completion of S106 in respect of Affordable Housing, ii) completion of S106 in respect of library contribution, and iii) subject to the finalisation of discussions regarding the Highways Officer’s conditions and legal arrangements for the payment of Travel Plan monitoring contributions
Additional documents:
Minutes: Members asked what the number of affordable housing and social rented housing would be delivered on the site. The Case Officer provided the figures as follows – eleven affordable houses, of which three were first homes and eight were affordable rent.
Members asked for further information on the sequential testing undertaken, and asked the Case Officer to clarify whether there were other suitable sites for the development, as there was difference of opinion on this. The Case Officer stated that as there was no legal requirement for sequential testing. The Case Officer stated that following the submitted sequential test, there was insufficient evidence to prove that this was the only potential site for development, therefore lessening the weight of the Public benefit in the Case Officer’s view. However, the Case Officer also stated that there was no other application that had come forward or any allocations in the Local Plan.
The Case Officer also stated that the sequential test had been undertaken by Phoenix Healthcare Group, who were not the applicant.
Members stated that they did not believe that the proposal was compliant with INF2, and asked what weight should be given to this. The Development Manager stated that Members could provide this whichever weight they chose, as it was an adopted Local Plan policy.
Members asked about the 25 year lease for the healthcare centre stated in the report, and what the implications of this were. The officer stated that the tenancy would be 30 years with the option of automatic renewal at the end of the initial tenancy. Members asked about the number of parking spaces, The Case Officer advised that there were 56 parking spaces and 20 full-time equivalent staff members.
Members also asked whether the decision would set a precedent. The Development Manager stated that planning applications were all considered on their own merit, on a case-by-case basis, with no weight given to precedent.
Members referred to paragraph 10.56 and the comments regarding quality of design. The comments from the conservation officer stated that there was ‘unfortunate repetitive monotony’, Members asked if there had been successful negotiation with applicant in improving this. The Case Officer stated that the applicant had been engaged and that this was the final submission. While the Case Officer stated that improvements would have been preferred, the site did relate to the existing modern housing development. The Development Manager also added that there is a balance to be struck on all developments, and in this case the merits were the Healthcare centre. Developing on this point, Members also asked what weight should be given to the design. The Development Manager stated that this is not something Officers can advise on beyond the earlier Officer judgement stated.
Members asked whether this site would be considered without the inclusion of the healthcare centre. Officers stated that it was the possible benefit of the healthcare centre that swayed the balance, and without it the scheme would be unlikely to be supported
Members also asked whether ... view the full minutes text for item 205. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
21/03698/FUL- Tunnel House Inn, Coates Description Single storey extension to both Inn and barn, and use of land for the siting of six accommodation units and associated works at Tunnel House Inn Coates Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 6PW
Ward Member Councillor Mike McKeown
Case Officer Hannah Rose
Recommendation PERMIT Additional documents:
Minutes:
The application was for a single storey extension to both Inn and barn, and use of land for the siting of six accommodation units and associated works at Tunnel House Inn Coates Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 6PW.
The Officer recommendation was to permit the application.
The Senior Case Officer introduced the report. The Senior Case Officer referred to a letter from the applicant as distributed in the additional pages, which confirmed the intention to remove the hot tubs from the application, any reference from kitchenettes, as well as confirming the fact that the units could not be placed to the rear of the inn due to the ancient woodland.
It was highlighted the extension to the inn first, with garden room style extension, to the left side of the inn into the pub garden. The Case Officer stated that the landscaping scheme was very strong and that the design of the ‘pods’ was of an organic form and low profile and considered to be of high quality and integrated into the woodland. The Tunnel house Inn itself was a non-designated heritage asset.
Councillor Mark Grimes, representing Rodmarton Parish Council addressed the committee to object to the proposal, due to the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, trees and wild life.
Jacqueline Brown addressed the committee to object to the application. Ms Brown stated that the noise mitigation plan was insufficient, and that there would be disruption to local residents and wildlife.
Kirsty Peploe, who represented the applicant addressed the committee and discussed the business case and stated mitigations would be made to reduce disruption by the application.
Councillor McKeown, as the Ward Member sent his apologies for the meeting, his statement was read by the Democratic Services Officer. Councillor McKeown referenced the removal of trees in the area, with reference made to the fact that more trees might be removed than initially anticipated and the resultant impact on the environment.
The Chair invited members to reflect on the Sites Inspection Briefing. Members commented on the following;
Members Questions
Members asked why the development was considered to have limited impact. Officers responded that the landscaping plan mitigated the impact. There was an Arboriculture condition that minimised the prevented trees from being removed. Officers explained that as the site was in a conservation area, there was a restriction on the amount of work that can be done to trees, the planning permission would allow that works be carried out ... view the full minutes text for item 206. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
21/04539/FUL- Land Off Cricklade Road, South Cerney Description Change of use of land to 3 No. Traveller pitches and associated works including, 3 No. day rooms, 3 No. mobile homes, 3 No. touring caravans, and hard standing at Land Off Cricklade Road South Cerney Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 5QE
Ward Member Councillor Mike Evemy
Case Officer Andrew Moody
Recommendation PERMIT subject to the Applicant completing a S.111 legal agreement and making the necessary financial contribution to mitigate the impact of the development upon the north meadow special area of conservation
Additional documents:
Minutes: The application was for a Change of use of land to 3 No. Traveller pitches and associated works including 3 No. day rooms, 3 No. mobile homes, 3 No. touring caravans, and hard standing at Land Off Cricklade Road South Cerney Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 5QE.
The Officer recommendation was to permit subject to the applicant Completing a S.111 legal agreement and making the necessary financial contribution to mitigate the impact of the development upon the north meadow special area of conservation.
The case officer introduced the report, and drew the Committee’s attention the revised wording for Condition 3, which was shared with the committee and differed from the wording in the additional pages update –
“The site shall not be occupied by any persons than gypsies and travellers, defined as persons of a nomadic have of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, but excluding members of an organised group of travelling show people or circus people travelling together as such”
A printed copy of this had been circulated to the Committee.
Dr Simon Ruston, who was the agent, addressed the committee. Dr Ruston made reference to the objection comments which had been to the application. The agent stated that there was no contradiction with the neighbourhood plan. The agent had stated that Gypsy and Traveller sites are in keeping with rural sites, and that they did not need to be allocated within the Local Plan. The agent also stated that impact on property values were not a material planning consideration. The agent stated that a landscaping plan was included in the Officer’s report. The agent outlined that the Council would be able to meet the need for plans without needing to impact the AONB.
Councillor Evemy addressed the committee as the ward member. Councillor Evemy stated that he had referred this decision to committee due to the normal presumption against development outside of principal settlements, but felt that the Committee should decide on whether there were compelling reasons to permit additional Gypsy and traveller locations at this site.
The Chair invited members to provide feedback following the Sites Inspection Briefing. The Committee reflected on the following;
Member Questions
Members asked what the landscaping plan consisted of, and whether there would be any planting between the units. Officers stated that the planting was intended to supplement the existing breaks in the hedgerows, and there would be no planting between the mobile homes.
Member Comments
Councillor Maclean proposed to accept the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor Watson seconded the proposal.
There was sentiment by some members that the decision should ... view the full minutes text for item 207. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
22/03307/ADV- John Stayte Services, 82 Chesterton Lane,Cirencester Description Installation of single illuminated 48-sheet digital advertisement display at John Stayte Services 82 Chesterton Lane Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 1YD
Ward Member Councillor Gary Selwyn
Case Officer Cameron Berry
Recommendation PERMIT
Additional documents:
Minutes: The application was for the installation of a single illuminated 48-sheet digital advertisement display at John Stayte Services 82 Chesterton Lane Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 1YD.
The recommendation was to permit the application.
The Case officer introduced the item, and stated that the brightness of the sign would be around 600 candelas. The flats facing the application were about 45 metres away. The site was not in the AONB or conservation area.
Councillor Selwyn, as the ward member addressed the committee and stated that the sign would detrimentally impact on the residential area and cause light pollution to the nearby residents, and that the sign was contrary to the design code. Councillor Selwyn urged the committee to refuse the application.
Member questions
Members asked whether the advertising would be only for the business, or whether the applicant would rent it out to customers. The Officers advised that they were assuming that the applicant would rent it out, and the purpose would not only be for advertising the business.
Members asked for an approximation of the size of the legs on which the advertisement would be placed, and the overall advertisement. Officers gave an approximate size of 3 metres for the legs, and a height of about 5-6 metres overall.
Members asked whether a mock-up could be included. The Development Manager advised member against requesting this unless it was essential to determining the application.
Members also asked whether there was a consideration of dark skies. The Development Manager stated that as it was a built up area there was not.
Member Comments
Members stated that the sign was inappropriate with the residential area, and contrary to the design code.
Councillor Coleman proposed to refuse the application, Councillor Maclean seconded.
Councillor Selwyn was advised that he was not able to not to vote on the application, as he had pre-determined it by being strongly opposed to it in his remarks to the Committee
RESOLVED: That the Committee REFUSE the application
Refusal reasons;
Voting Record - For, 10, Against 0 Abstentions 1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
23/00892/FUL- Old Farm House, Preston Description Relocate and increase size of swimming pool and associated landscaping at Old Farm House Preston Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 5PR
Ward Member Councillor Mike Evemy
Case Officer Ben Bendall
Recommendation PERMIT Additional documents:
Minutes: The application was to relocate and increase the size of the swimming pool and associated landscaping at Old Farm House Preston Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 5PR.
The recommendation was to permit the application.
The Case Officer introduced the item.
The Ward Member did not speak on the item.
Members Questions
Members confirmed with officers that the reason for referral was due to the applicant being a ward member. The Case Officer confirmed this, and that the development would otherwise be permissible.
Members asked whether the power supply would need to be upgraded. The Development Manager advised that this was not a material planning consideration.
Member Comments
Councillor Harris proposed permitting the application, Councillor Fowles seconded the proposal.
RESOLVED: That the Committee PERMIT the application
Voting Record - For -11, Against – 0, Abstentions – 0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sites Inspection Briefing Members for 5th July
Councillors Ray Brassington, Patrick Coleman, Julia Judd, Dilys Neill, Michael Vann Additional documents: Minutes: The item was noted. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Licensing Sub-Committee (2003 Licensing Act Matters) Members for 29th July (if required)
Councillors Ray Brassington (Chair), David Fowles, Dilys Neill
Additional documents: Minutes: The item was noted. |