Agenda and minutes
PDF 93 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: Apologies were received from Councillor Ray Brassington.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Substitute Members To note details of any substitution arrangements in place for the Meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Joe Harris substituted for Councillor Ray Brassington. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Dilys Neill declared an interest on the first item;
On agenda item 8. Land North of Oddington Road, Stow-on-the-Wold, Councillor Neill declared that they were a board member of the Stow Community Land Trust, which had submitted a supporting statement. Councillor Neill explained that they had discussed the application with the Interim Head of Legal Services, who had advised that Councillor Neill should leave the room at the beginning of the item, return to speak as the ward member, and leave again for the remainder of the item.
Councillor Neill also stated that they had initially believed to have an interest in the second item, but upon rethinking believed they could approach it with an open mind.
Councillor Joe Harris stated that they had met with the Stow Community Land Trust as part of their portfolio responsibility for housing, but that they had not discussed the site in detail and was approaching the meeting with an open mind. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8 November 2023. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no amendments to the minutes.
RESOLVED: To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 8th November 2023 as an accurate record.
Voting record – For 10, against 0, abstention 1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chair's Announcements (if any) Additional documents: Minutes: There were no chair’s announcements. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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: Councillor Dilys Neill had submitted a member question, and read it out;
“During the period 2011-2018 when there was no local plan, two developments with a restriction on occupation to older people were allowed in Stow by the planning inspector.
Hawkesbury Place which has 44 apartments, has vacancies, I think about 7 but I will confirm. At Beechwood Park, where there are 104 units of accommodation, only between 20 – 30 are occupied.
How many units of accommodation for older people are there in the district, & how many of these units are empty? Is council tax being paid on the empty properties?
What can the council do to bring these empty properties into use for people of all ages on the housing list?
Will there be provision in the updated local plan to restrict this type of the development when there is clearly an oversupply?
Can the council feedback to the planning inspectorate that this was a bad decision & has landed Stow with an enormous white elephant?”
The Democratic Services Officer stated that this question had been sent to officers and a response would be distributed with the minutes.
The Interim Development Manager added that the response would largely be from the Forward Planning Manager, but indicated agreement and stated they would write to the Planning Inspectorate in the new year. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Land North Of Oddington Road, Stow-on-the-Wold Summary Exception Site for 37 Affordable Homes (22 Rented and 15 Shared Ownership) at Land North Of Oddington Road Stow-on-the-Wold Gloucestershire.
Case Officer Martin Perks
Ward Member Councillor Dilys Neill
Recommendation PERMIT subject to completion of a S106 Legal Agreement covering provision of affordable housing and financial contribution to secondary education, libraries, school transport and bus stop improvements. Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillor Dilys Neill left the room, having declared an interest.
The Case Officer introduced the report.
The application was for an exception Site for 37 Affordable Homes (22 Rented and 15 Shared Ownership) at
Land North Of Oddington Road Stow-on-the-Wold Gloucestershire.
The recommendation was to PERMIT subject to completion of a S106 Legal Agreement covering provision of affordable housing and financial contribution to secondary education, libraries, school transport and bus stop improvements.
Councillor Ben Eddolls from Stow-on the Wild Town Council addressed the Committee to object to the application.
Geoff Williams, an objector, addressed the Committee.
Dr Nigel Moor addressed the Committee on behalf of the Stow Community Land trust.
Councillor Dilys Neill, as the ward member addressed the Committee.
The Chair thanked the public speakers.
Member questions
Cllr David Fowles stated that they knew Nigel Moor from the Conservative Party, but had not spoken to them for a number of years.
Members discussed the affordable housing element, as the affordable housing mix of the application was 100% affordable housing. The Case Officer explained that this was on a rural exception site, outside of the development boundary as the affordable housing element had fulfilled Policy H3, Rural Exception Site of the local plan.
The Stow Neighbourhood Plan was also discussed, and the Case Officer stated that due to the need for affordable housing across the district, if the Committee were minded to permit the application, in their view this shouldn’t jeopardise a future site for affordable housing. The Case Officer stated that the emerging neighbourhood plan had not yet been adopted, so while it was a consideration, the local plan bore more weight as a planning document. The Case Officer also explained that the emerging neighbourhood plan had made no reference to rural exception sites, due to the exceptional nature of these.
Members asked about infrastructure considerations, specifically highways and sewage. The Case Officer stated that the County Council had expressed no concerns over highways. The sewage system was also deemed to be able to accommodate the additional housing.
The report, in paragraph 10.3 stated that .3 hectares of land would remain as grassland but could be brought forward for future housing if there was a need. The Case Officer stated that any future application that came forward would need to be judged on its own merit.
Councillor Ray Brassington entered the room at 14:59, attending as an observer.
Members discussed the ward member’s statement, but the Interim Development Manager advised that as the ward member had declared an interest in the application, they had intentionally phrased it in an open way, so as to not be seen as unduly influencing the Committee’s decision.
The homes were stated on the application and report as being zero carbon. Members asked for further details on this. The Case Officer stated that the applicant provided an energy statement which satisfied the local plan requirement on this. Some members felt that this was insufficient for the homes to be ‘truly zero carbon’ but the ... view the full minutes text for item 31. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Land Parcel Opposite Wheat Close, Kennel Lane, Broadwell Summary Outline application for the erection of 3 dwellings including details of access (some matters reserved) at Land Parcel Opposite Wheat Close, Kennel Lane, Broadwell.
Case Officer Martin Perks
Ward Member Councillor David Cunningham
Recommendation PERMIT Additional documents:
Minutes: The Case Officer introduced the report.
The application was for Outline application for the erection of 3 dwellings including details of access (some matters reserved) at Land Parcel Opposite Wheat Close, Kennel Lane, Broadwell.
Cllr Cunningham read representations from the objector and from the Town and Parish Council.
Member questions
Members discussed the established use of the site, which was a parking area and which previously contained garages which were demolished in 2019. As the site had previously been developed, the Interim Development manager stated that the site was classed as ancillary use. The land was in private ownership. Members discussed the loss of car parking facilities as a result of the application. Officers advised that the the owner could remove access to the site without seeking planning permission which could result in on-street parking regardless of the outcome of this planning application. The Case Officer stated that the parking provision associated with the new dwellings was sufficient to fulfil the policies in the local plan.
Members asked about the relationship between the nearby dwellings, the residents of which who had been paying for the maintenance and use of the parking spaces. Officers stated that the land that there was never a direct association between the two (in planning terms) and the applicant had confirmed that any aforementioned contractual arrangements would be terminated as part of the permission of the application.
In terms of providing new car parking, the Interim Development Manager stated that Council had no such responsibility or powers. The Interim Development Manager stated that this would be down to Gloucestershire County Council, the District Council’s role would be to engage with them but could not require them to build more spaces.
Members asked questions regarding the highway safety elements of the proposal. The Case Officer stated that GCC Highways had been consulted but had not provided a response to the additional visibility splay information submitted by the applicant. Officers were satisfied with the visibility splays provided by the applicant given the established use of the site.
Member Comments
Members discussed that the parking was an issue but acknowledged that the provision of parking spaces to the neighbouring properties was not a material planning consideration for the application in question.
Some Members stated that they would not support the application due to the fact that there would be a removal of parking to existing houses.
It was also noted by some members, that given that Bromford Housing was an affordable housing provider, the application was not for affordable housing. Although it was acknowledged by others that the application would likely fund future affordable housing (although not necessarily in Cotswold District).
Impact on AONB was discussed, with some members stating that there was a negative impact, but the Interim Development Manager stated that the land was previously developed, so the weight given to this should be reduced, in their opinion.
Councillor Andrew Maclean proposed refusing the application on the grounds of
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Licensing Sub-Committee Licensing Sub-Committee not required at present.
Members on the rota for the next meeting; Councillors Patrick Coleman, Ian Watson, Mark Harris.
Additional documents: |