Agenda and draft minutes
PDF 656 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 Councillors Joe Harris, Ian Watson, Ray Brassington and Daryl Corps. |
|||||||||||||
|
Substitute Members To note details of any substitution arrangements in place for the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Juliet Layton substituted for Councillor Ray Brassington and Councillor Paul Evans substituted for Councillor Joe Harris. Councillor Julia Judd substituted as Vice Chair. |
|||||||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest from Members relating to items to be considered at the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Members were advised that one of the landowners was Mr Lynden Stowe, a former Councillor. Councillor Nikki Ind had met with Newland Homes but had had no discussion regarding the application. As a former Council Chair, she had attended an initial planning information meeting with the RAU but did not amount to pre-determination. Councillor Patrick Coleman declared that a senior officer of Newland Homes was a constituent within their ward but did not consider this to create a conflict. Councillor Juliet Layton confirmed previous professional acquaintance with Mr Lyndon Stowe through council service. She had previously visited Newland Homes properties in a professional capacity but confirmed this was unrelated to the current application. Councillor David Fowles declared a personal interest in the Mickleton application due to a long-standing personal friendship with Mr Lynden Stowe, and confirmed they would withdraw from the meeting and take no part in the discussion or vote. Councillor Fowles also declared an additional interest in agenda items 10 and 11. He would speak as Ward Member but withdraw from decision-making due to prior involvement and an acknowledged lack of an open mind on those applications. Councillor Julia Judd declared prior knowledge of Mr Lynden Stowe and also the Town and Parish Council representative for Bibury, but confirmed that these are historical or limited contacts. The public speaker, Andy Farmer was known to various Members of the Committee. The legal representative was satisfied that it did not bias the Members’ decision making |
|||||||||||||
|
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8 April 2026. Additional documents: Minutes: The Minutes of the meeting held on 8 April 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 8 April 2026.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Chair's Announcements To receive any announcements from the Chair of the Planning and Licensing Committee.
Additional documents: Minutes: An all-Member hybrid Planning Committee training was planned for 3 June 2pm. |
|||||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||||
|
25/03351/OUT - Land North of Tops Nursery, Mickleton Proposal Outline planning application for demolition of existing buildings and for up to 95 dwellings with associated access and infrastructure, all other matters reserved at Land North of Tops Nursery, Broadway Road, Mickleton, Gloucestershire.
Case Officer Martin Perks
Ward Members Councillors Gina Blomefield and Tom Stowe
Recommendation PERMIT subject to no objection from Biodiversity Officer and the completion of a S106 legal agreement covering affordable housing, self-build/ custom build housing, financial contributions to Biodiversity Net Gain monitoring, secondary education and library services. Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillor David Fowles left the Chamber.
The proposal was for Outline planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and for up to 95 dwellings with associated access and infrastructure.
Case Officer: Martin Perks Ward Members: Councillors Gina Blomefield and Tom Stowe
Recommendation: PERMIT subject to no objection from Biodiversity Officer and the completion of a S106 legal agreement covering affordable housing, self-build/custom build housing, financial contributions to Biodiversity Net Gain monitoring, secondary education and library services.
The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application. The Case Officer shared the application details with the Committee including additional pages: · Councillor Tom Stowe declared an interest on 20 November 2025 due to his father’s partial ownership of the application site. · A contribution request had been received from Gloucestershire County Council for school transport, which the applicant had not objected to. The Case Officer advised that, if permission was granted, it was recommended that this contribution be secured through the Section 106 agreement. · An updated bat survey and Biodiversity net gain information were received shortly before the meeting and would be reviewed. · Biodiversity net gain matters were capable of resolution, with further clarification needed on whether they would be secured via Section 106 agreement or condition (e.g. habitat management plan)
Case Officer shared the application details with the Committee. Public Speakers Speaker 1 – Councillor Chris Cottam - Mickleton Parish Council Concerns were raised that further development would bring limited local benefits and could increase pressure on existing infrastructure. Support was expressed for delivering affordable housing, but concerns were raised about the scale and type of market housing. It was noted that cumulative growth could expand Mickleton and risk harming the character of the village and its setting near the Cotswolds National Landscape. The Parish Council concluded that no further significant development should proceed until infrastructure needs are properly addressed.
Speaker 2 – Andy Crump – Objector The proposal would not deliver any infrastructure improvements and that existing deficiencies in employment, health, social, and transport infrastructure would remain unresolved. The development would increase reliance on car use, with limited public transport provision.
Speaker 3 – Catherine Shepherd – Agent The site was largely brownfield with being well located to local services and public transport, with separation distances to neighbouring properties and over one third of the site as open space. Biodiversity and environmental enhancements had been proposed, including ecological corridors, hedgehog highways, bat and bird boxes, tree and shrub planting, and a mix of on-site and off-site biodiversity net gain. Sustainability credentials were highlighted, including zero-carbon homes using air source heat pumps, solar PV, high insulation standards, and EV charging infrastructure.
Speaker 4 – Ward Member – Councillor Gina Blomefield Concern was raised regarding cumulative housing growth in Mickleton. The village had grown in recent years without infrastructure improvements, including education, healthcare, retail, and leisure provision. Education capacity was already constrained, with local schools reportedly full or oversubscribed. Highways and transport impacts were highlighted, including reliance on private cars, increasing ... view the full minutes text for item 280.
|
|||||||||||||
|
25/01623/FUL - Land at Grid Reference 401975 198339 - Spratsgate Lane , Siddington Purpose Installation of solar farm, associated infrastructure and grid connection cable run at Land at Grid Reference 401975 198339 Spratsgate Lane, Siddington, Cirencester.
Case Officer Martin Perks
Ward Member Councillor Mike Evemy
Recommendation PERMIT subject to no objection from the Biodiversity Officer and the Environment Agency and the completion of a S106 legal agreement covering a Biodiversity Net Gain monitoring fee. Additional documents:
Minutes: The proposal was the installation of solar farm, associated infrastructure and grid connection cable.
Case Officer: Martin Perks Ward Member: Councillor Mike Evemy
Recommendation: PERMIT subject to no objection from the Biodiversity Officer and the Environment Agency and the completion of a S106 legal agreement covering a Biodiversity Net Gain monitoring fee.
Councillor David Fowles returned to the Committee meeting.
The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application. The Case Officer shared the application details with the Committee along with additional pages: · One additional objection was received regarding orientation and drainage.
Public Speakers Public Speaker 1 – Andy Farmer – supporter They expressed conditional support for the solar farm, subject to appropriate controls during construction regarding noise, dust, and protection of neighbouring residents. Support was given on environmental grounds, citing potential biodiversity benefits, soil recovery from long-term intensive farming, and the suitability of lower-grade agricultural land for solar use. Potential community benefits, including business rates contributions to the local authority and opportunities to address existing drainage issues were highlighted.
Speaker 2 – Agent – Harry Singh-Judd The scheme aligned with local and national climate and energy policy, contributing to renewable energy generation, energy security, and reduced reliance on fossil fuels, with the site also prioritised for grid connection before 2030. 79% of the site would be taken out of intensive farming during the operational period to allow soil recovery. Additional landscaping, infrastructure reconfiguration, and drainage improvements, evolved through community engagement A surface water drainage strategy was secured by condition, alongside an annual community benefit fund of £10,000. The development was temporary and reversible, with decommissioning and material reuse/recycling at the end of its operational life.
Member Questions Members of the Committee asked a series of questions and noted that: · Solar panel orientation (east–west tracking) did not undermine the visual impact assessment. · Additional landscaping and buffering had been agreed along parts of the southern boundary to increase separation and reduce visual impact. Whilst maintenance access and hedgerow management would be needed, a 3.5m buffer was considered acceptable.
· Existing hedgerows around the site was generally substantial and provide year-round screening. Additional landscaping was proposed along the southern boundary to strengthen visual mitigation. · Proposed equipment and storage/transformer units were distributed across the site rather than concentrated on the boundary, with some repositioned ... view the full minutes text for item 281.
|
|||||||||||||
|
25/02960/FUL - Shoecroft Barn, Ablington, Bibury, Cirencester Gloucestershire Purpose Conversion of ground floor of existing barns from general storage to cafe with retail area, including amendments to the lean-to and decking/patio area, and associated alterations at Shoecroft Barn Ablington Bibury Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 5NU
Case Officer Amy Hill
Ward Member Councillor David Fowles
Recommendation PERMIT subject to securing a legal agreement Additional documents:
Minutes: The proposal was the conversion of ground floor of existing barns from general storage to cafe with retail area, including amendments to the lean-to and decking/patio area, and associated alterations.
Case Officer: Amy Hill Ward Member: Councillor David Fowles Recommendation: PERMIT subject to securing a legal agreement
The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application. The Case Officer shared the application details with the Committee including Additional pages: · There had been a minor error in the application red line plan, which had omitted a small corner of one barn. It was considered that the error did not prejudice determination of the application, as the extent of development was clear from the wider submitted plans. · If permission was granted a limited re-consultation exercise would be required, with any new issues raised.
Public Speakers
Speaker 1 – Bibury Town and Parish Council – Councillor Craig Chapman An objection was raised on highways safety grounds, with reference to concerns from a local group, Bibury One, addressing wider tourism-related parking and traffic issues. Ablington Lane was described as a narrow rural lane already under significant pressure from visitors, with limited pedestrian provision and reports of congestion, verge damage, and conflict between road users. The Highway Authority was referenced as raising concerns that the proposal could not be adequately assessed due to insufficient information. The proposed café and retail use would become a destination, increasing traffic, parking demand, and pedestrian activity and potentially leading to overspill parking onto surrounding roads and verges.
Speaker 2-Michelle Follett-Holt- Objector Concern was raised that insufficient weight had been given to local harms, including highways safety, landscape character, environmental impacts, and increased tourism pressure. There was no demonstrated local need for an additional café. Concerns were made regarding tourism pressure in Bibury and the sensitive location within the Cotswolds National Landscape and Conservation Area. Assumptions regarding visitor behaviour, infrastructure capacity, and pedestrian access were not supported by evidence. Pedestrian access arrangements were unsafe. Environmental concerns were raised regarding drainage and recent reports of untreated sewage entering the River Coln.
Speaker 3- Councillor David Fowles - Ward Member It was noted that there was no pedestrian access into the centre of the village. Concerns were raised regarding access and highway safety. The café would provide additional catering facilities in addition to existing on-site and other nearby café provision within the village with existing venues already serving similar demand. The access route was described as a narrow rural lane subject to existing use pressures. Highways officers had raised concerns that it would not be practical to control traffic movements and the provision of 15 parking spaces was considered insufficient. It was noted that 102 objections were received with no letters of support. Reference was made to the Bibury One group, involving GCC, the district council, police, and local tourism and business representatives, established to address wider traffic and tourism impacts.
Councillor Fowles left the chamber.
SIB Feedback · There were concerns about pedestrian safety. A direct footpath into the village became ... view the full minutes text for item 282.
|
|||||||||||||
|
25/02961/LBC - Shoecroft Barn, Ablington, Bibury, Cirencester Purpose Conversion of ground floor of existing barns from general storage to cafe with retail area, including amendments to the lean-to and decking/patio area, and associated alterations at Shoecroft Barn Ablington Bibury Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 5NU
Case Officer Amy Hill
Ward Member Councillor David Fowles
Recommendation CONSENT Additional documents: Minutes: Proposal Conversion of ground floor of existing barns from general storage to cafe with retail area, including amendments to the lean-to and decking/patio area, and associated alterations.
Case Officer Amy Hill Ward Member Councillor David Fowles Recommendation CONSENT
The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application. The Case Officer shared the application details with the Committee.
Public Speakers Speaker 1 – Michelle Follett-Holt – Objector The applicant’s past treatment of listed buildings had raised concerns. The building was described as a sensitive heritage asset within Bibury Conservation Area, forming part of the village’s historic identity. The proposal represented a significant change of use from a rural/residential building to a large-scale commercial café, with associated operational impacts such as servicing, lighting, waste, and visitor pressure. Heritage harm arose not only from physical alterations but also from changes in use and character.
Speaker 2 – Councillor David Fowles – Ward Member Shoecroft Barn was identified as a Grade II listed building, requiring special regard to its preservation and enhancement. National policy was referenced, including the importance of viable uses for heritage assets, their contribution to sustainable communities, and the need for development to respect local character and distinctiveness. Weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets, and that any harm must be clearly justified and weighed against public benefits.
Member Questions Members of the Committee asked a series of questions and noted that: · The Conservation Officer raised no objection to the proposal following amendments. The amendments primarily related to revisions to the lean-to structure, including changes affecting the flooring and associated detailing. · The kitchen was located within the lean-to structure and included a serving hatch. Concern was implied that the absence of identified extraction infrastructure made it unclear how cooking operations would be accommodated in practice within the listed building.
Member comments · Concern was expressed that insufficient detail had been provided on how the development would manage sewage and drainage impacts, particularly in light of existing reported issues at the site · The barn appeared in need of repair and improvement. It appeared as a mixture of inconsistent architectural alterations with a generally tired appearance.
It was proposed to defer the application to obtain clarification of kitchen-related infrastructure such as flues, extraction systems, and ventilation arrangements. Further information was also requested regarding foul drainage and sewage capacity, particularly in relation to how increased usage from a café would be managed within the listed building.
Councillor Juliet Layton proposed DEFERRING the application and Councillor Patrick Coleman seconded the proposal. The proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.
RESOLVED: to DEFER the application to obtain clarification of kitchen-related infrastructure such as flues, extraction systems, and ventilation arrangements.
Councillor Juliet Layton – left the meeting.
|
|||||||||||||
|
25/03713/FUL - Hill Farm, Main Road, Oddington Purpose Replacement, part conversion and remodelling of existing General/Heavy Industrial buildings/site with a Rural Business Hub including associated landscaping and consolidated parking at Hill Farm, Main Road, Oddington
Case Officer Amy Hill
Ward Member Councillor David Cunningham
Recommendation PERMIT Additional documents:
Minutes: Proposal Replacement park conversion and remodelling of existing general heavy industrial buildings site with a rural business hub, including associated landscaping and consolidated parking.
Case Officer Amy Hill Ward Member Councillor David Cunningham Recommendation PERMIT
Councillor David Fowles returned to the chamber.
The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application. The Case Officer shared the application details with the Committee.
Public Speaker Mark Godson – Agent The proposal was a redevelopment of an existing B2 employment site into a more modern, lower-impact rural business use. The scheme would reduce the intensity of existing industrial activity and manage impacts through planning controls and sustainability measures. National and local policy supported rural employment growth, including the acceptability of sites outside settlements where appropriate. The proposal was described as locally led, supporting jobs and the rural economy, with a largely local workforce. Additional benefits cited included Biodiversity Net Gain, landscape improvements, and design quality.
Member Questions Members of the Committee asked a series of questions and noted that: · The proposed barn height was approximately 8.8m, compared to an existing height of around 8.4m. This was a marginal increase in height. · Past permissions and established lawful uses form part of the “fallback position” that must be considered when assessing current traffic impacts. It was clarified by the Head of Planning, that this context may affect the weight given to a highways objection, depending on whether additional traffic generated by the proposal was materially different from what was already permitted.
Member comments · Few significant highways concerns had been raised. · The employment units were welcomed as a positive addition. · The proposal was considered a good use of the site/land. Councillor Patrick Coleman proposed to PERMIT the application and Councillor David Fowles seconded the proposal. The proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.
RESOLVED: to PERMIT the application.
Councillor David Fowles left the meeting.
|
|||||||||||||
|
24/01143/OUT - The Royal Agricultural University, Stroud Road, Cirencester Purpose Outline planning application with all matters reserved except for access, for a mixed-use development associated with the Royal Agricultural University comprising up to 24,012 sqm of floorspace for office (Use Class E(g)(i)), research and development (E(g)(ii)), education (F1(a)), conferencing (F1(e)), and café (E(b)) uses, Including the conversion of Trent Lodge to café use, associated parking, access and highway works, landscaping, public realm, utilities, and all ancillary works and structures. The development is known as The RAU Innovation Village and forms part of its wider masterplan, supporting research and innovation in food production, climate change, and land management at The Royal Agricultural University Stroud Road Cirencester
Case Officer Ceri Porter
Ward Member Councillor Mark Harris
Recommendation That the application be PERMITTED subject to: i. legal agreement(s) between the Applicant and the District Council and Gloucestershire County Council prior to the decision notice being issued; ii. agreement of the draft conditions set out in the report together with any draft conditions as may be agreed by Members at Planning & Licensing Committee; iii. delegated authority being given to the Head of Planning Services, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning & Licensing Committee, to amend and/or add to the suggested draft conditions where such amendments would not deviate significantly from the purpose of the draft conditions. Additional documents:
Minutes: The proposal was for Outline planning application with all matters reserved except for access, for a mixed-use development associated with the Royal Agricultural University comprising up to 24,012 sqm of floorspace for office (Use Class E(g)(i)), research and development (E(g)(ii)), education (F1(a)), conferencing (F1(e)), and café (E(b)) uses, Including the conversion of Trent Lodge to café use, associated parking, access and highway works, landscaping, public realm, utilities, and all ancillary works and structures. The development is known as The RAU Innovation Village and forms part of its wider masterplan, supporting research and innovation in food production, climate change, and land management.
Case Officer Ceri Porter Ward Member Councillor Mark Harris Recommendation That the application be PERMITTED subject to: i. legal agreement(s) between the Applicant and the District Council and Gloucestershire County Council prior to the decision notice being issued; ii. agreement of the draft conditions set out in the report together with any draft conditions as may be agreed by Members at Planning & Licensing Committee; iii. delegated authority being given to the Head of Planning Services, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning & Licensing Committee, to amend and/or add to the suggested draft conditions where such amendments would not deviate significantly from the purpose of the draft conditions.
The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application. Harrison Bowley presented the application in Ceri Porter’s absence. Updates: · Active Travel England had recommended deferral, but following discussions with Gloucestershire County Council Highways, the proposed active travel measures were considered acceptable as part of wider committed infrastructure, subject to existing Grampian-style conditions. · An air quality consultation was ongoing due to revised transport assessment data
Public Speaker Speaker 1 - Alex O’Dell – Objector The close proximity to existing homes was highlighted, particularly the location of plot 4B near residential boundaries, with concerns raised about privacy, noise, outlook, and sense of enclosure. Concerns were raised about increased pedestrian activity near residential boundaries, with potential impacts including disturbance, overlooking, and loss of privacy. Mitigation was requested through landscaping, screening, lighting control, and path design. A detailed Construction Management Plan was requested covering programme timing, working hours, construction traffic routes, dust and noise control, and ongoing communication with residents during construction.
Speaker 2 – Mr Peter McCaffery – Applicant’s representative The Innovation Village brought together industry, farmers, landowners and researchers to develop practical solutions for sustainable agriculture and biodiversity recovery, whilst supporting rural resilience and skills development. It was expected to attract investment and generate significant local economic benefits, including increased employment and opportunities for young people to remain in Gloucestershire. The development was designed as a landscape-led, low-carbon campus that set high standards for sustainability, nature recovery and environmental performance, supporting the university’s mission to equip future graduates to address global challenges.
Member questions Members of the Committee asked a series of questions and noted that: · The Innovation Village was not expected to directly increase student numbers requiring accommodation in the local area. A wider Estate Masterplan ... view the full minutes text for item 285.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Purpose The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is consulting (23 March–18 May 2026) on reforms to planning application fees in England, to better resource Local Planning Authorities (LPA) and improve timeliness and quality of decision?making. The main proposal is a new National Default Fee Schedule set at around 90% of the estimated cost of processing each application type, updated annually for inflation, alongside a local variation model (enabled by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025) allowing authorities to vary fees locally based on evidenced costs, potentially subject to a cap.
The consultation also proposes simplifying and restructuring fee categories (including for outline/full/reserved matters, agricultural development, prior approvals, permission in principle and s73/s73B applications) and seeks initial views on a ~10% surcharge on fees to help fund statutory consultees, with further detail to follow.
Recommendations That the Planning and Licensing committee resolves to: 1. Agree to the consultation response and; 2. Delegate authority to the Head of Planning Services to respond to the consultation on behalf of Cotswold District Council. Additional documents: Minutes: Purpose The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is consulting (23 March–18 May 2026) on reforms to planning application fees in England, to better resource Local Planning Authorities (LPA) and improve timeliness and quality of decision?making.
Accountable Member Councillor Juliet Layton Report author Harrison Bowley
The Government had asked 22 questions. The Head of Planning explained that the draft responses had been prepared, and members were invited to raise any comments or queries either now or by email. Written comments can be submitted by Friday 15 May, ahead of a required response to Government on Monday.
A Member strongly urged the Government to review Permission in Principle (PIP) applications and consider their abolition, citing concerns that PIP had created uncertainty and difficulties for committees, communities and officers.
Recommendations That the Planning and Licensing committee resolves to: 1. Agree to the consultation response and; 2. Delegate authority to the Head of Planning Services to respond to the consultation on behalf of Cotswold District Council.
Councillor Michael Vann proposed to agree the recommendations and Councillor Julia Judd seconded the proposal. The proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.
RESOLVED: to AGREE the recommendations.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Sites Inspection Briefing Members for 3 June 2026 (if required)
Councillors Dilys Neill, Ray Brassingdon, Patrick Coleman, Julia Judd, Michael Vann Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair advised members to keep the 3 June 2026 free for a possible Site Inspection Briefing. Councillors Dilys Neill (Chair), Ray Brassingdon, Patrick Coleman, Julia Judd, Michael Vann. |
|||||||||||||
|
Licensing Sub-Committee Members for 28 May to be notified (if required)
Additional documents: Minutes: There were no licensing sub-committees planned. |
Carried
Rejected