Skip to main content

Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: the Council Chamber - Council Offices, Trinity Road, Cirencester, GL7 1PX. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services 

Media

Items
No. Item

81.

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 Councillors Julia Judd and Andrew Maclean as well as officer Andrew Moody.

 

82.

Substitute Members

To note details of any substitution arrangements in place for the Meeting.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no substitute members.

83.

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 Selwyn stated that he knew Mr Darwin who was speaking as an objector in his professional capacity as a vet.  Councillor Selwyn stated that he did not consider this to be a prejudicial interest.

84.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 542 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday 11 December 2024.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 December were considered. There were no amendments to the minutes.

 

The recommendation to accept the minutes was proposed by Councillor Harris and seconded by Councillor Selwyn.

 

RESOLVED: That the Planning and Licensing Committee APPROVED the minutes as a correct record

 

Voting: 9 for, 0 against, 1 abstain. 

 

Recorded Vote
TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
Recommendation to approve the minutes of the Planning and Licensing Committee meeting held on the 11 December 2024 Resolution Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 85.

    Chair's Announcements

    To receive any announcements from the Chair of the Planning and Licensing Committee.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were no Chair’s announcements.

    86.

    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 was one public question from Mr David Hindle, a resident of Tetbury.

     

    It was reported that the majority of residents in Tetbury were pleased with the planning approval for the new health centre in Tetbury. The speaker expressed gratitude to the Planning Officer for successfully steering the application through the process.

     

    A question was raised regarding the officer's recent promotion to Head of Planning Services: whether they would continue to manage a caseload and specifically follow up on this case, including the conditions attached to the planning approval for the healthcare centre, and specifically the s106 agreement. Additionally, the question arose as to whether the Committee would ensure that Harrison has adequate time to follow up on this application and its conditions. In response, the Head of Planning Services stated that he remains in regular contact with the developers and would continue to monitor the case closely.

     

    87.

    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.

    88.

    24/00002/AREA Tree Preservation Order pdf icon PDF 111 KB

    Proposal

    To consider comments of objection and support to the making of Tree Preservation Order 24/00002/AREA in respect of trees at Upper Town House, Longborough.

     

    Case Officer

    Justin Hobbs

     

    Ward Member

    Councillor David Cunningham

     

    Recommendation

    That Planning and Licensing Committee resolves to:

    Confirm TPO 24/00002/AREA

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Proposal

    To consider comments of objection and support to the making of Tree Preservation Order 24/00002/AREA in respect of trees at Upper Town House, Longborough.

     

    Case Officer: Justin Hobbs

    Ward Member: Councillor David Cunningham

     

    The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the proposed TPO.

     

    1. There were no additional updates to the report included in the agenda.
    2. Various maps and photos of the site were shared to outline the existing landscape and the area to be protected under the proposed order.
    3. Key issues mentioned were: 

    (a)  Tree and Root Damage: Compaction of soil and use of heavy machinery in areas that should have been fenced off, potentially causing long-term damage to tree roots.

    (b)  Felled Trees: While some trees were legally removed, their loss highlighted the need for protection.

    (c)   Inadequate Fencing: Protective barriers were insufficient or misplaced.

    (d)  Soil Dumping: Soil mounds placed around trees risk damaging roots.

     

    It was reported that an area TPO was proposed to cover all trees in the area as an interim measure due to urgency. This proposal aimed to ensure protection while ongoing development and enforcement issues, as well as the lack of a clear landscaping plan, were addressed.

     

    Public Speakers raised the following objections to the area TPO:

     

    1. Conflict with Planning Consent: The TPO was claimed to obstruct implementation of planning consent, which included the removal of some trees.

    The Case Officer stated that the TPO did not prevent necessary tree removal for planning implementation, and most required removals had already occurred

    1. Failure to Meet Expediency Criteria: It was argued that regulations allowed necessary tree works under planning consent.

    The Case Officer responded that the TPO ensured the protection of other trees and did not prevent applications for future tree works.

    1. Amenity Value Assessment: The objector stated that there had been inadequate assessment of tree quality.

    The Case Officer replied that it used its structured appraisal, and that public support further justified the TPO.

    1. Area-Wide TPO Coverage: There was an objection suggesting that the Council should have listed specific trees instead of implementing an area-wide TPO.

    The Case Officer explained that an area-wide TPO was necessary given ongoing issues and that a reassessment would be conducted post-development for specific protection.

     

    Public Supporters

    Mr Rose, a landscape architect with 50+ years of experience, and resident of Longborough spoke in support of the TPO:

    The supporter urged approval of the TPO and urged that the TPO be made permanent to safeguard current and future trees on the site, citing:

    • The developer's poor compliance with expert recommendations, which included the unnecessary felling of many healthy trees, despite plans to retain trees in the 2024 application.
    • A 2021 report from the developers' own advisors which emphasised the mature vegetation's significant ecological and visual value.
    • Further concerns were expressed about a 2025 application proposing a retaining wall near the conservation area boundary.

     

    Ward Member Comments

    The Ward Member emphasized the importance of protecting the natural environment, particularly wooded areas, which provide significant amenities and mental health  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    24/00002/AREA - Tree Preservation Order - resolution to support the making of the TPO Resolution

    RESOLVED support to the making of Tree Preservation Order 24/00002/AREA in respect of trees at Upper Town House, Longborough.

     

    Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 89.

    24/00386/FUL - Woodleigh, Brockhampton, Cheltenham pdf icon PDF 145 KB

    Proposal

    The proposal is for the erection of three dwellings within the rear garden area to Woodleigh, Brockhampton, which is a loose knit non-principal settlement located in open countryside

     

    Case Officer

    Andrew Moody

     

    Ward Member

    Councillor Jeremy Theyer

     

    Recommendation

    Permit

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Proposal

    The proposal is for the erection of three dwellings within the rear garden area to Woodleigh, Brockhampton, which is a loose-knit non-principal settlement located in open countryside.

     

    Case Officer: Andrew Moody

    Ward Member: Councillor Jeremy Theyer

     

    Recommendation

    The recommendation was changed to DEFER consideration of the case of planning application 24/00386/FUL due to the Case Officer being absent.

     

    In support of the recommendation, it was noted that officers had contacted

    everyone who commented on the planning application and all speakers by email.

     

    Councillor Fowles enquired about the legal guidelines around what constitutes a close relative and the requirement for affected planning applications to be referred to the Committee. The Head of Legal Services pointed the Councillor to Section 6 in the Code of Conduct 2023 that defines "Member of Family" for the purposes of declaring interests.

     

    Proposed by Councillor Fowles and seconded by Councillor Watson

    The recommendation to defer was APPROVED.

     

     

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    24/00386/FUL - Woodleigh, Brockhampton, Proposal to defer consideration of the application Resolution

    RESOLVED to defer consideration of the application 24/00386/FUL - Woodleigh, Brockhampton.

    Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 90.

    24/02773/FUL - Manor Farm, Chedworth, Cheltenham pdf icon PDF 130 KB

    Proposal

    The proposal is for the erection of an agricultural building for the housing of dairy cattle at Manor Farm Chedworth Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL54 3LJ

     

    Case Officer

    Amy Hill

     

    Ward Member

    Councillor Paul Hodgkinson

     

    Recommendation

    Refuse

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Proposal

    The proposal concerned the erection of an agricultural building for the housing of dairy cattle at Manor Farm Chedworth Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL54 3LJ.

     

    Case Officer: Amy Hill

    Ward Member: Councillor Paul Hodgkinson

     

    Original recommendation:

    The recommendation was to refuse the proposal as it was considered contrary to the requirements of Local Plan Policies EN2, EN4 and

    EN5, and National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 187 and 189.

     

    The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the case, which involved the erection of a building to shelter cattle measuring just over 100 metres long, 30 metres wide and 9 metres high.

     

    1. There were no additional updates to the report included in the agenda.
    2. Various maps and photos of the site were shared to outline the existing landscape and the location of the proposed construction.
    3. Key issues mentioned were:

    (a)  Size and orientation of the proposed building which was perceived as being oversize for the generally flat location.

    (b)  Public Right-of-Way: Concerns about how the building's positioning impacts views from the public right-of-way.

    (c)   Character and appearance: Concerns about how the building's positioning impacts the character and appearance of the landscape.

    (d)  Future development impact: general concern was expressed about how the proposed building would affect the overall landscape and aesthetics of the area.

    (e)  Agricultural Landscape: The flat, agricultural landscape poses concerns about how the proposed building integrates into the environment, potentially limiting views and affecting the natural setting.

     

    Public Speaker 1

    Rob Darvill introduced himself as the farm vet and made the following points in support of the application:

    1. The need for a first biodiverse grassland near the north-western side of Chedworth village was introduced, emphasizing its environmental significance.
    2. He explained that the attempt to run a New Zealand-style system, with cattle outside year-round, had resulted in welfare issues, including increased deaths and a rise in diseases. He highlighted that the current dairy system was unsustainable without a suitable cattle building, pointing out the lack of adequate shelter to protect cattle from harsh weather and disease.
    3. The lack of a building had led to severe outbreaks of TB, with 87 cows culled as TB reactors since October 2024. Together with spiralling costs, this meant that without a building for shelter, farming would not be viable.
    4. The supporter noted that the rejection of planning permission was based on the size, type, and location of the proposed cattle building, which did, however, meet welfare regulations for farmed animals regarding ground area and height for ventilation.
    5. The suggestion to break the building into smaller units would create significant management challenges around observation, feeding, slurry management, and balanced group dynamics.
    6. Dairy cattle buildings should ideally be located close to milking parlours to reduce stress and danger for cows moving between locations, as greater distances were linked to increased mastitis and lameness.
    7. Lastly, he argued that the flat nature of the site was considered beneficial for a dairy building, as sloped areas could lead to cattle injuring themselves.

     

     

    Public Speaker 2  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    24/02773/FUL - Manor Farm, Chedworth, Cheltenham Proposal to approve with conditions Resolution

    RESOLVED to approve 24/02773/FUL - Manor Farm, Chedworth, Cheltenham with conditions.

    Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 91.

    Sites Inspection Briefing

    Members for 5 February 2025 (if required)

     

    Councillors Ray Brassington, Mark Harris, Andrew Maclean, Gary Selwyn and Michael Vann.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Chair advised members to keep the date of 5 February 2025 free in their diaries.


    92.

    Licensing Sub-Committee

    Members for Thursday 30 January 2025 Licensing Sub-Committee (Taxis, Private Hire and Street Trading Consent Matters) (if required)

     

    To be confirmed.

     

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were no licensing sub-committees planned.