Agenda and minutes
PDF 98 KBVenue: Council Chamber - Trinity Road. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services
Media
| No. | Item | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Apologies Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Dilys Neill and Gary Selwyn. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Substitute Members To note details of any substitution arrangements in place for the Meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Juliet Layton substituted for Councillor Dilys Neill. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Mark Harris stated that the application on Swallow’s Nest (22/03206/FUL) had previously been to Committee in 2016, and as a result, had determined a previous application. Councillor Harris stated that Councillors Juliet Layton, David Fowles, and Ray Brassington were also committee members at the time.
The Interim Head of Legal Services advised that this did not count as pre-determination, as the members could still keep an open mind in deciding this new application on its own merits.
Councillor David Fowles had stated that he knew the applicant’s husband, Ian Woodward-Court on the Birdlip View application (23/01233/FUL) due to Mr Woodward-Court’s ownership of Watermoor Point, where the Cotswold Conservatives had their offices. As Deputy Leader of the Cotswold Conservatives, Councillor Fowles was an Officer of the Conservative party, but this did not constitute a pecuniary interest. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 9th August 2023. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair reminded Members that only those in attendance at the previous meeting should vote on the minutes.
RESOLVED: To approve the minutes of the meeting held on the 9th August as a true and correct record.
Voting Record- For 9, Abstentions 1, Against 0
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chair's Announcements (if any) Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair announced that the two applications on the Berry Bank site (22/04337/FUL and 22/04303/FUL) would be dealt with as one item, as the second application hinged on the permission of the first. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Extension to Pavement Licensing Regime Under the Business and Planning Act 2020 Summary Draft policy document for approval following the extension of the current pavement licensing regime to 30th September 2024.
Recommendations That the Planning and Licensing Committee considers the draft Policy at Annex A and resolves to
Additional documents: Minutes: The purpose of the item was to review the draft policy document for approval following the extension of the current pavement licensing regime to 30 September 2024.
The Licensing Team Leader introduced the report and provided an overview of the report’s contents and recommendations
Councillor Patrick Coleman proposed the recommendations, welcoming the initiative and stating that the areas that have so far had pavement licenses have worked well.
Councillor Julia Judd seconded.
Councillor Juliet Layton, as the accountable Cabinet Member thanked officers for their work.
RESOLVED that: That the Planning and Licensing Committee considered the draft Policy at Annex A and resolved to;
Voting record: For 10, Against 0, Abstentions 0.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
22/04337/FUL- Berry Bank, Main Road, Oddington Summary Change of use of the land from agricultural to outdoor live performance venue (sui generis), an engineering operation resulting in a sunken amphitheatre, erection of a kitchen pod, installation of a permanent pavilion base, temporary use of part of the site for car parking, laying out of an access track (part retrospective) at Berry Bank, Main Road, Oddington, Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, GL56 0XW
Case Officer Harrison Bowley
Ward Member Councillor David Cunningham
Recommendation PERMIT Additional documents:
Minutes: The applications 22/04337/FUL and 22/04303/FUL were both dealt with by the committee as one item, due to them being on the same site. At the Chair’s discretion, the Public Speakers combined their speaking time and therefore had six minutes instead of three to speak. The Ward Member had a combined speaking time ten minutes instead of five minutes.
The first application (22/04337/FUL) was for the change of use of the land from agricultural to outdoor live performance venue (sui generis), an engineering operation resulting in a sunken amphitheatre, erection of a kitchen pod, installation of a permanent pavilion base, temporary use of part of the site for car parking, laying out of an access track (part retrospective) at Berry Bank, Main Road, Oddington, Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, GL56 0XW.
The recommendation by the case officer was to permit.
The second application (22/04303/FUL) was for the erection of a marquee pavilion, installation of outdoor lighting structures and installation of other 'pod' structures for a temporary period each calendar year from 30 April to 1 October to facilitate outdoor leisure events at Berry Bank, Main Road, Oddington, Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, GL56 0XW. The recommendation by officers was to permit.
The Senior Case Officer introduced the application. The Senior Case Officer stated that one of the objections had made reference to the land ownership in light of the previous dissolution of the applicant- Berry Bank and Park Events LTD. As Berrybank Park Events Limited had been established in the place of the original applicant, carrying over two of its directors, the Senior Case Officer confirmed that they were satisfied that there was no change in land ownership.
Cllr David Thorpe representing Oddington Parish Council addressed the Committee, objecting to the application.
Mr Gary Johnson addressed the committee to object to the application, making reference to noise and the impact on his equestrian business.
The Ward Member, Councillor David Cunningham addressed the Committee, highlighting community concerns, including concerns over the live event and noise.
It was noted that the Site Inspection Briefing had occurred ahead of the committee in July and the Chair invited those who had attended it to provide their feedback to the committee.
Members highlighted that the road was busy, with the existing structures visible from the road. Members also stated that they perceived applications for such live events to be increasing, making reference to an application decided by the Licensing Sub-Committee for a premises license at the Badminton Estate.
Member Questions
Members asked for more further details on the noise complaints. The Environmental Health Officer had stated that six complaints had been received between 2022 and September 2023. Environmental Health Officers had been in touch with the complainants and issued them with diary record sheets and a noise recording app. The Environmental Health Officer stated that the next step would be for officers to visit the site to record the noise levels during an event but that Environmental Health officers had not yet visited the site.
A condition had been put ... view the full minutes text for item 245. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
22/04303/FUL- Berry Bank, Main Road, Oddington Summary Erection of a marquee pavilion, installation of outdoor lighting structures and installation of other 'pod' structures for a temporary period each calendar year from 30 April to 1 October to facilitate outdoor leisure events at Berry Bank, Main Road, Oddington, Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, GL56 0XW.
Case Officer Harrison Bowley
Ward Member Councillor David Cunningham
Recommendation PERMIT Additional documents:
Minutes: The application had been discussed with the previous item in relation to the change of use.
RESOLVED: To REFUSEthe application.
scale and design that fails to contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area. The scheme would fail to create a functional relationship or special affinity with the historic and natural heritage of the wider area. The development would therefore be contrary to Local Plan Policies EC5 and EC10.
Beauty (AONB). Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRWO) Act 2000 stated that relevant authorities have a statutory duty to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the AONB. The proposed development would result in the introduction of intrusive and incongruous features that would diminish the character and special qualities of the open rural landscape. The development would also facilitate an intensive use of the site, through additional visitors, vehicle movements and noise, which would harm the tranquillity of the area. The development would therefore fail to conserve or enhance the character and special qualities of the AONB, contrary to Local Plan Policies EN4 and EN5 and Section 15 of the NPPF.
Voting Record: For - 8, Against – 1
*As Councillor Maclean left the room, he could not vote
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
22/03206/FUL- Swallows Nest, Arlington, Bibury Summary/purpose Erection of a 1.5 storey extension and other associated works at Swallows Nest Arlington Bibury Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 5ND
Case Officer Kristina Carter
Ward Member Councillor David Fowles
Recommendation REFUSE Additional documents:
Minutes: The application was for the erection of a 1.5 storey extension and other associated works at Swallows Nest Arlington Bibury Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 5ND
The recommendation was to refuse the application.
The Case Officer introduced the item and highlighted that additional photographs had been provided. The Case Officer explained that the site was within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Bibury Conservation Area. The Case Officer also added that the pergola had been omitted from the application.
The Case Officer highlighted the history of the application:
The Case Officer explained that the 2016 application entailed minimal external works.
The Interim Development Manager highlighted the reasons that the Case Officer recommended refusal. These were due to the impact on the setting of a listed building, and encroachment onto the open space with the Bibury Conservation Area, as well as impact on the AONB.
The Interim Development Manager advised members that in considering the application, due regard must be given for the development to preserve or enhance the conservation area.
Cllr Craig Chapman, representing Bibury Parish Council addressed the Committee.
Mrs Ann Haigh addressed the Committee to support the application.
Mr and Mrs Wright, the applicants addressed the Committee.
Councillor David Fowles, the Ward Member addressed the Committee, highlighting that if the Committee permitted the application, it would allow the residents to remain in Bibury.
The Chair then invited members who had attended the Sites Inspection Briefing to share their thoughts.
Members discussed the impact of the site, stating that they could see the visual impact it would have from the roadside though it was concealed by the hilly landscape and the hedge. It was stated that there would be large visual impact from the field side.
Members welcomed that the materials would match the existing, being in natural Cotswold stone, and some members commented that the dormer windows were deemed to be attractive.
Members stated that the pergola would have been of detrimental impact and were pleased it had been removed.
Member Questions
Before proceeding on to Member questions, the Interim Development Manager mentioned the personal circumstances referenced by several of the public speakers. The Development Manager reminded members that public benefit should not be conflated with personal considerations. Personal considerations were material planning considerations, but did not hold much weight in planning terms.
The Development Manager stated that the application could only be considered on its own merit.
The Development Manager also stated that optimum viable use was not a material consideration in this case, as the building was not a designated heritage asset. The ... view the full minutes text for item 247. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
23/01233/FUL- Birdlip View, Cirencester Road, Birdlip Summary/purpose Erection of 1 ½ storey detached double garage annex at Birdlip View Cirencester Road Birdlip Gloucestershire GL4 8JL
Case Officer Cameron Berry
Ward Member Councillor Julia Judd
Recommendation PERMIT Additional documents:
Minutes: The application was for the erection of 1 ½ storey detached double garage annex at Birdlip View Cirencester Road Birdlip Gloucestershire GL4 8JL
The Case Officer’s recommendation was to permit.
The Case Officer introduced the report, stating that the site was with the AONB but not within the Conservation Area. The site was also not within a development boundary.
The Case Officer stated that concerns had been raised that the garage would be used as dwelling and that conditions had been applied in light of this.
Cllr Eileen Mckay representing Birdlip Parish Council addressed the Committee objecting to the application
Ms Emily Woodward-Court, the applicant addressed the Committee.
Councillor Julia Judd, the Ward Member addressed the Committee, highlighting the local objections to it, and stating that a site visit would have been beneficial.
Member Questions
Members asked if the site had permitted development rights. The Interim Development Manager stated that the usual permitted development rights applied as the application was not in a Conservation Area. The Interim Development Manager also stated that the impact on the AONB was considered to be small, as the extension was minimally visible from the AONB and is within the built up envelope of the site and its surrounds.
Members stated that the drawings were difficult to interpret and asked if a site visit could be arranged. The Committee had the ability to propose this, but did not, as the Case Officer had advised that the site was difficult to see due to it being overgrown, with construction work taking place.
Members asked if the garden was deemed to be sufficient for a family. The Interim Development Manager stated that the Local Plan did not have many requirements for this, but that in their view it was sufficient garden space, albeit unconventional in layout.
Members asked why there had been so many planning applications on the site. The Interim Development Manager stated that the applications had been comprised of applications for various extensions to the main dwelling, (which had been granted) and applications to build a new dwelling in place of the garage, (which had been refused on principle alone, under Local Plan Policy DS4).
Members asked if the application was refused, whether the applicants would still be able to build the garage, without the extension. The Interim Development Manager, confirmed that this was the case, so long as the use remained incidental to the main dwelling. The Interim Development Manager stated that a condition could be added to prevent sale or let of the building separate to the main house. Although, it was recognised that the local plan states that tourism should be encouraged, so members would need strong planning reasons to add these conditions.
Member Comments
It was discussed whether a condition that the site could not be sold (but allowing letting) separate to the main site. The Interim Development Manager stated that the condition requiring ancillary use would cover this.
Councillor Mark Harris proposed permitting the application.
Councillor Juliet Layton seconded the ... view the full minutes text for item 248. |