Agenda and minutes
PDF 537 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 Daryl Corps, Tristan Wilkinson and Andrew Maclean.
|
|||||||||
|
Substitute Members To note details of any substitution arrangements in place for the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Len Wilkins substituted for Councillor Daryl Corps. |
|||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest from Members relating to items to be considered at the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no declarations of interest.
|
|||||||||
|
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 September 2025. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 10 September 2025 were discussed. Councillor 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 10 September 2025.
|
|||||||||
|
Chair's Announcements To receive any announcements from the Chair of the Planning and Licensing Committee.
Additional documents: Minutes: There were no 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 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 was one public question. Nicholas Arbuthnot raised concerns about the ongoing commercial use of Rendcomb Airfield, despite assurances under the Section 106 agreement that no commercial or circuit flying would occur. They highlighted that wing-walking flights were operating at low altitudes, causing noise disturbance for nearby residents. The speaker requested clarification on when the Airfield’s response to the Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) would be made public and when enforcement action would begin if the response proved inadequate.
The Chair advised that an oral response could not be provided as enforcement investigations are confidential and not for discussion in a public forum. However, a written response would be issued within two weeks. |
|||||||||
|
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.
Question 1 from Councillor Andrew Maclean to Councillor Dilys Neill (Chair).
Please could you explain the decision making process behind the decision not to bring 25/01431/FUL to the committee but instead approve the application by delegated responsibility?
Having studied the plans, I completely understand the officers' approval of this much improved application and why it has been allowed when the previous application was refused. I therefore am not asking for any explanation as to the planning reasons behind the approval of this much improved scheme.
However, in my opinion, the process followed shows a complete contempt for the democratic process, for this committee and the amount of time that myself and my fellow councillors give to supporting the planning process in this district. Having visited the site, listened to the officer's opinions and carefully studied the plans for the first application I believe it would have far more appropriate for the revised application to have also been brought before the committee too.
Additional documents: Minutes: There were no Member questions.
|
|||||||||
|
25/01036/OUT - Land East Of Cotswold Business Village Proposal Outline application for up to 195 dwellings.
Case Officer Martin Perks
Ward Member Councillor Angus Jenkinson
Recommendation REFUSE Additional documents:
Minutes: The proposal was for outline application for up to 195 dwellings.
Case Officer: Martin Perks Ward Member: Cllr Angus Jenkinson Original recommendation: REFUSE The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application who made the following points:
Public speaker 1 - Moreton in Marsh Town Council - Cllr Eileen Viviani The Town Council objected to the development as it lay outside the town boundary and should be considered windfall. The Town Council supported the officer’s recommendation for refusal and raised concerns about unclear financial contributions. They also highlighted the need for co-ordinated, sustainable planning to address cumulative development, infrastructure needs, and potential garden village proposals near the parish boundary.
Public Speaker 2 – Objector – Cllr Simon Randall The Chair of Shipton Under Wychwood Parish Council had spoken in support of refusal, highlighting shared flooding concerns along the River Evenlode, which linked Moreton-in-Marsh and downstream villages. He noted that additional development could worsen sewage discharge and flooding.
Public Speaker 3 – Agent Bloor Homes – Jonathan Brown Bloor Homes stated that the site was sustainable, outside protected landscapes, and supported the Council’s corporate plan by addressing the affordable housing shortfall. The proposal included up to 195 homes (78 affordable), green infrastructure, biodiversity net gain, PV panels, EV charging, and a new active travel corridor. Bloor Homes argued that the scheme resolved infrastructure concerns and represented a sustainable development for the district.
Ward Member – Cllr Angus Jenkinson The Ward Member noted that while some elements, such as landscaping, tree planting, and bus stop design, were positive, the overall scheme was flawed. Key concerns included the site’s isolation outside the town boundary, inadequate infrastructure for waste, foul water, medical services, and highways, potential safety issues with cycle lanes, road noise and pollution, and the strain on local services.
Member Questions Members asked questions of the officers, who responded 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 Councillor Paul Hodgkinson
Recommendation PERMIT Additional documents: Minutes: The proposal was for Permission in Principle for the erection of 1 self-build dwelling.
Case Officer-Amy Hill Ward Member-Cllr Paul Hodgkinson Original Recommendation: PERMIT
The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application who made the following points:
Public speaker 1 – Objector – Sarah Calder The objector argued that development would harm the landscape, conflict with the Cotswold Landscape Strategy, and breach duties under the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 to protect the AONB.
Public speaker 2 – applicant – George Charnick The applicant claimed that the scheme would enhance the site’s appearance, hide vehicles, and improve drainage, whilst offering an innovative, energy-efficient home of architectural quality. They stressed that design details would be reviewed to ensure it preserved the conservation area.
Ward Member Councillor Paul Hodgkinson stated that the site lay within the Chedworth Conservation Area and the Cotswold National Landscape, both of which were highly protected. 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.
Site Inspection Briefing Feedback Following the Site Inspection Briefing the following observations were made:
Member Questions Members asked questions of the officers, which were responded to in the following way:
Member Comments In discussing the application, Members made the following comments:
|
|||||||||
|
25/02584/TPO - Abbey Grounds Proposal Tree T32 - London Plane. Reduce back to previous pruning points and crown thin by 10%. To be repeated every three years.
Case Officer Jordan Hawes
Ward Member Councillor Mark Harris
Recommendation PERMIT Additional documents:
Minutes: The proposal was for Tree T32 – London Plane. To reduce back to previous pruning points and crown thin by 10%. Case Officer – Jordan Hawes Ward Member – Councillor Mark Harris Original recommendation: PERMIT
The Case Officer to introduce the application showing aerial and side photographs and site maps.
Member Questions Members asked questions of the officer, which were responded to in the following way:
Member Comments In discussing the application, Members made the following comments:
Councillor Ray Brassington proposed accepting the Case Officer recommendation to PERMIT the application and Councillor Julia Judd seconded the proposal. This proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee. RESOLVED: to PERMIT the application.
|
|||||||||
|
25/00002 - Tree Preservation Order - Mill Close, Blockley Purpose To consider the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) made on trees at 5 Mill Close, Blockley. To determine whether the TPO should be confirmed, confirmed subject to modification, or not confirmed. Additional documents:
Minutes: The proposal was for the making of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) at Mill Close, Blockley.
Case Officer – Justin Hobbs Ward Member – Councillor Clare Turner Original Recommendation: to CONFIRM the TPO.
The Case Officer introduced the proposal showing aerial and side photographs and site maps. It was confirmed to Members that their options were to confirm the TPO, confirm subject to modification or to not confirm the TPO. The Case Officer explained that there was no significant structural or physiological risk features apparent and described the health of the trees as expected for the age.
Public Speaker – Ward Member – Councillor Clare Turner:
Member Questions
Councillor Ray Brassington proposed accepting the Case Officer recommendation to CONFIRM the Tree Preservation Order and Councillor Julia Judd seconded the proposal. This proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee. RESOLVED: to CONFIRM the Tree Preservation Order.
|
|||||||||
|
Sites Inspection Briefing Members for 5 November 2025 (if required)
Councillors Dilys Neill (Chair), Ray Brassington, Patrick Coleman, David Fowles, Julia Judd. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair advised members to keep the 5 November 2025 free for a possible Site Inspection Briefing. Councillors Dilys Neill (Chair), Ray Brassington, Patrick Coleman, David Fowles, Julia Judd. |
|||||||||
|
Licensing Sub-Committee Members for 28 October 2025 (if required)
Councillors Dilys Neill (Chair), David Fowles, Ray Brassington. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no licensing sub-committees planned.
|
Carried