Agenda and draft minutes
PDF 536 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 Councillor Nick Bridges. |
||||||||||
|
Substitute Members To note details of any substitution arrangements in place for the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no substitute Members. |
||||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest from Members relating to items to be considered at the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: 2:05 Councillor Fowles arrived at the Chamber. Councillor Brassington declared that he lived in close proximity to application 24/02513/FUL. Councillor Julia Judd declared that she had known the applicant for 25/02175/FUL approximately 17 years ago but approached the application with an open mind. Councillor Fowles declared an interest as the Coln Valley Ward Member and confirmed that he approached the application, 25/02175/FUL, with an open mind whilst representing residents’ views. Councillor Coleman declared an interest as a member of Cirencester Town Council and its Planning Committee in relation to application 25/02763/REM. He had not played a significant role in the Town Council’s response and had no predetermined view. |
||||||||||
|
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 December 2025. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 10 December 2025 were discussed. Councillor David Fowles proposed accepting the minutes and Councillor Ray Brassington 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 December 2025.
|
||||||||||
|
Chair's Announcements To receive any announcements from the Chair of the Planning and Licensing Committee.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair announced that the planning lunch had been postponed until later in the year. |
||||||||||
|
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. |
||||||||||
|
New Fee for Primate Licenses Purpose: To seek approval to implement a fee for primate licensing applications.
Recommendations: That the Committee: 1. Note the contents of the report and the implications of the Animal Welfare (Primate Licences) (England) Regulations 2024 on the Council; and, 2. Recommend to Council that the fees applicable to Primate Keeper Licence applications are set as detailed in paragraph 3.9 Additional documents: Minutes: The purpose of the report was to seek approval to implement a fee for primate licensing applications.
The report was presented by Councillor Andrea Pellegram, Cabinet Member for Environment and Regulatory Services and Andrea Thomas, Licensing Officer, who made the following points: · Fees for Primate Keeper Licences were introduced under the Animal Welfare (Primate Licences) (England) Regulations 2024. The regulations came into force on 6 April 2025, and it was noted that from 6 April 2026 it would be an offence to keep a primate without a licence. · Provision existed to renew, vary, surrender, or revoke a licence, with inspections included. · Proposed fees aligned with similar licensing regimes (e.g. horse-riding establishments). · Proposed fees: o £530 for a new licence, £364 for a renewal, £30 for a variation · Fees would be reviewed annually.
In discussion and questioning the following points were made: · No primates were currently known to require a licence in the District. · Plans were to contact local vets to identify any primates that may need licensing. · If a primate was discovered and the keeper did not obtain a licence, the Council had enforcement powers, including prosecutions, rectification notices, or licence revocation/variation.
Councillor Ian Watson proposed supporting the recommendations in the New Primate Licencing report. Councillor Julia Judd seconded the proposal which was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.
RESOLVED: To PERMIT the application.
|
||||||||||
|
25/02763/REM - Chesterton Farm Proposal Reserved Matters pursuant to outline permission 16/00054/OUT relating to appearance, layout, landscaping and scale for the erection of 100 dwellings, landscaping and public open space for Phase 2 A of the development, and discharge of conditions 11, 16, 18, 48, 56 at Chesterton Farm Cranhams Lane Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 6JP.
Case Officer
Ray Brassington
Recommendation Approval of Reserved Matters subject to conditions. Additional documents:
Minutes: Reserved Matters pursuant to outline permission 16/00054/OUT relating to appearance, layout, landscaping and scale for the erection of 100 dwellings.
Case Officer: Julian Pye Ward Member: Councillor Andrea Pellegram Officer recommendation: APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application who made the following points:
Speaker 1 – Cirencester Town Councillor Andy Jopp Cirencester Town Council had objected to the Reserved Matters application at its Planning Committee meeting on 18 November 2025. Concerns raised by the Conservation Officer had been addressed, and Gloucestershire Highways had withdrawn their objection. However, the Gloucestershire Constabulary’s objection remained, particularly regarding safety and the potential fear of crime associated within ‘Parking Courts’ at the rear of properties. No Solar PV panels, air source heat pumps, or battery storage had been included in the plans. The Energy and Sustainability Statement assessed what may be appropriate but did not commit to provision; therefore, the objection on this matter was maintained.
Speaker 2 – Ben Leather – Applicant The applicant explained that the site benefitted from outline permission and agreed design codes, which provided parameters and guidance for high-quality homes. The development contributed to the Council’s housing target with 31 affordable homes. Amendments had been made to the eastern entrance to the Steadings plan. All homes would be electric-only, exceeding current building requirements, and including air source heat pumps and solar PV cells.
Member Questions: Members asked questions of the officers, who responded in the following way:
|
||||||||||
|
25/02175/FUL Thyme - Southrop Estate Office Proposal Erection of 3 new structures.
Case Officer Amy Hill
Ward Member Councillor David Fowles
Recommendation PERMIT Additional documents:
Minutes: The proposal was for the erection of 3 new structures and associated landscaping to provide additional spa facilities and hotel accommodation.
Case Officer: Amy Hill Ward Member: Councillor David Fowles Officer Recommendation: PERMIT
The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application who made the following points:
Public Speakers Speaker 1 – Southrop Parish Council – Councillor Timothy Guest Southrop Parish Council confirmed that their previously submitted statement reflected their unanimous view and remained unchanged. Whilst recognising the applicant’s rationale to increase room numbers and local employment benefits, the Parish Council raised concerns about impacts on residents’ enjoyment of the village, protection of heritage assets, and potential construction disruption. They did not oppose the application in principle but requested mitigation through design changes and enforceable conditions.
Speaker 2 - Objector - Jonathan Turnock The objector reiterated concerns regarding visual impact, design, and proximity to listed buildings. Concern was raised about the proposed hotel accommodation block being overly dense, forming a hard edge to the village, and dominating views from public footpaths. The proximity of new buildings to the Dovecote, Newman's House, and other listed structures was highlighted, with potential harm to the conservation area and the significance of these heritage assets. The objector concluded that the development would result in substantial and permanent heritage harm, including the loss of a green gap, negative visual impact, inappropriate density and design, and loss of historic legibility, and urged the Committee to refuse the application in accordance with the 1990 Planning Act and local plan policies EN1, EN10, and EN11.
Speaker 3 – Supporter – Kirsty Wills The supporter highlighted their long-term residence in Southrop and personal experience with the business. They emphasised the positive local impact of Thyme, including year-round employment, use of local suppliers, support for community events, and contribution to the village’s heritage and landscape. The supporter noted that the proposed development would have minimal impact on traffic and neighbouring properties, and would be in keeping with the village character.
Speaker 4 – Applicant - Camilla Hibbert The applicant noted the restoration of the derelict farmstead into a significant rural business. They highlighted the challenges of maintaining year-round occupancy and explained that the proposed spa facilities were essential to improving off-season demand, extending guest stays, and supporting local employment. The applicant noted that Planning, Environmental Health, Gloucestershire Highways, and Conservation Officers had all recommended approval, and that the scheme would sustain the business’s long-term viability and contribution to the local economy.
Speaker 5 – Ward Member – Councillor David Fowles The Ward Member noted that 50 residents, approximately 40% of the village, had objected, while 36 letters of support had also been submitted. They highlighted the significant contribution of Thyme to the local economy, employing ... view the full minutes text for item 233.
|
||||||||||
|
25/02722/LBC Thyme - Southrop Estate Office Purpose Erection of glazed extension to curtilage listed building.
Case Officer Amy Hill
Ward Member David Fowles
Recommendation PERMIT Additional documents:
Minutes: The proposal was for the erection of glazed extension to curtilage listed building at Thyme.
Case Officer: Amy Hill Ward Member: Councillor David Fowles Officer Recommendation: PERMIT
The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application. The Case Officer shared the Site Location Map, aerial photographs and photographs from different directions.
Member Comments:
Councillor Michael Vann proposed and Councillor Ian Watson seconded the proposal to permit the application. The proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.
RESOLVED: To PERMIT the application.
|
||||||||||
|
24/02513/FUL Siddington Park Proposal Development of land and erection of buildings to expand an existing Integrated Retirement Community (Use Class C2).
Case Officer Andrew Moody
Ward Member Councillor Mike Evemy
Recommendation PERMIT subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement for the payment of financial contributions towards library facilities and travel plan; also the payment of the financial contribution to mitigate the impact of the development upon the North Meadow and Clattinger Farm Special Area of Conservation.
Additional documents:
Minutes: Development of land and erection of buildings to expand an existing Integrated Retirement Community (Use Class C2).
Case Officer: Andrew Moody Ward Member: Councillor Mike Evemy Officer recommendation: PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETION OF A SECTION 106 LEGAL AGREEMENT.
The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application who made the following points:
Public Speakers Speaker 1 – John Vale - Objector The Objector claimed that the scheme was flawed, with officer assessments considered unreliable. They noted that the Council’s Conservation Officer had unresolved concerns and that local residents and the ward councillor objected. The proposed development was described as overdevelopment, causing overlooking and harm to residential amenity. The Shadow Study was criticised for failing to account for the loss of mature boundary trees and reduced privacy. Phase 2 building heights and massing were not seen as responsive to site levels or the surrounding low-rise homes.
Speaker 2 – Rob Henderson – Agent The agent stated that the applicant had worked closely with officers, particularly the Conservation Officer, to refine the design over time. Revisions addressed impacts on neighbouring homes, avoided overlooking and exceeded separation standards. The Care Village required a certain density to function, which was carefully balanced with its setting. Most concerns raised had been resolved, parking was acceptable, biodiversity gains were high, and the scheme had been presented as a successful and appropriate extension of the existing village.
17:34 – Councillor Ray Brassington returned to the Chamber but did not vote on the application.
Speaker 3 – Councillor Mike Evemy – Ward Member The Ward Member identified the concerns of the size, scale and impact of the development whilst acknowledging the community value of providing 55 dwellings for older people and accepting that demand had been demonstrated. They expressed disappointment that the scheme contained no affordable housing and would be entirely market-led. The Ward Member concluded that the decision rested on whether 55 market units in six blocks, including one four-storey block, was too large and too close to neighbouring properties at Preston Lye with the potential loss of mature boundary trees. They urged the Committee to give careful consideration to whether the proposal was overly intensive and harmful to neighbouring amenity.
Member Questions: Members asked questions of the officers, who responded in the following way:
|
||||||||||
|
Licensing Sub-Committee Members for 29 January 2026 (if required)
Councillors Dilys Neill, David Fowles, Ray Brassington.
Additional documents: Minutes: There were no licensing sub-committees planned.
Subsequently, a Licensing Committee meeting was called for 12 February 11am. |
||||||||||
|
Sites Inspection Briefing Members for 4 February 2026 (if required)
Councillors Dilys Neill, Patrick Coleman, David Fowles, Julia Judd, Ian Watson Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair advised all Members to keep 4 February 2026 free for a Site Inspection Briefing. |
Carried