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

202.

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 Ian Watson, Andrew Maclean, Daryl Corps and Tristan Wilkinson.

203.

Substitute Members

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Clare Turner substituted for Councillor Andrew Maclean.

204.

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 interests declared.

205.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 569 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8 October 2025.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting on 8 October 2025 were discussed.  Councillor Fowles proposed accepting the minutes and Councillor Brassington seconded the proposal which was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.

Recorded Vote
TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
Minutes of meeting held on 8 October 2025 - APPROVE Resolution Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 206.

    Chair's Announcements

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

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Members were informed that the annual planners’ Christmas lunch will be arranged for January.

    207.

    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.

    208.

    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.  A question from Councillor Maclean was deferred.

     

    209.

    25/02458/FUL - Brook Close, Rodmarton pdf icon PDF 188 KB

    Proposal

    Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings and replacement with a self-build dwelling, garage outbuilding.

     

    Case Officer

    Andrew Moody

     

    Ward Member

    Councillor Mike McKeown

     

    Recommendation

    REFUSE

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The proposal was for the demolition of existing dwellings and outbuildings and the replacement with a self-build dwelling.

     

    Case Officer: Andrew Moody

    Ward Member: Mike McKeown

    Officer recommendation: REFUSE

     

    The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application who made the following points:

    • Various plans were shared, including block and site plans, aerial photographs, existing and proposed elevations showing the proposed dwelling’s ridge height, proposed floor plans and street view, photographs of building and neighbouring ‘arts’ buildings.

     

    Public Speakers:

    Speaker 1 – Supporter

    Candida Feversham stated that the suggestion of any ‘group value’ with the seven historic Little Tarlton cottages was incorrect, as those cottages formed a distinct and cohesive group and Brook Close was entirely separate in both style and setting. They noted the need for the village to attract younger families and believed this project supported that aim.

     

    Speaker 2 – Applicant

    Emily Olsen explained that the existing, heavily altered house was neither listed nor suitable as a modern family home. They argued that the proposed replacement would not harm the conservation area or nearby listed cottages. The new design used Cotswold stone and traditional vernacular forms, alongside a landscape scheme that enhanced biodiversity. They emphasised the high sustainability standards and reported no objections or letters of support.

     

    Speaker 3 – Ward Member

    Councillor Mike McKeown’s words were read by Democratic Services.

    The Ward Member explained that the application was referred to Committee because it represented a balanced case requiring open consideration. They noted that whilst officers recommend refusal on heritage grounds, the existing dwelling had been heavily altered and its heritage value was limited. The proposed replacement was high-quality, used local materials, improved landscaping and biodiversity, and would deliver significant sustainability benefits.

     

    SIB Feedback.

    Committee Members who attended the Site Inspection Briefing made the following observations:

    • There was an unusually large garden-to-property ratio and the outbuilding was an authentic example of Arts and Crafts design.
    • Whilst the property was a unique and attractive asset and staged development could enhance the value of an older building, there were a significant number of issues to be addressed.
    • The front façade of the property was attractive, but the rear was less so. The tall garage would be visible to neighbouring properties.
    • Previous alterations, including the sympathetically raised roof, were acceptable, whereas the 1970s extension was considered less attractive.
    • The property had traditionally been a smaller, more modest house within the village.

     

    Member questions

    Members asked questions of the officers, who responded in the following way:

    • The existing house had a ridge height of 6.8m, while the proposed dwellings ridge height was 9.395m, an increase of 2.595m. The reference to 10.865?m was the maximum height of the proposed chimney.
    • The existing ground floor area was 77.1m2 whilst the proposed area was approximately 243m2
    • The site included a non-designated heritage asset of low significance, alongside designated heritage assets, namely the conservation area and listed buildings, which carried greater weight. Under paragraph 216 of the NPPF, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 209.
    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    25/02458/FUL - Brook Close, Rodmarton - REFUSE Resolution Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 210.

    Sites Inspection Briefing

    Members for 3 December 2025 (if required)

     

    Councillors Dilys Neill, Ian Watson, Nick Bridges, Daryl Corps, Michael Vann.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Chair advised members to keep 3 December 2025 free for a possible Site Inspection Briefing.

     

    Councillors Dilys Neill, Ian Watson, Nick Bridges, Daryl Corps, Michael Vann.

    211.

    Licensing Sub-Committee

    Members for 27 November 2025 (if required)

     

    Councillors Dilys Neill, David Fowles, Ray Brassington.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There was no licensing sub-committee planned.