Agenda and draft minutes
PDF 534 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 Councillor Dilys Neill. |
|||||||||||||
|
Substitute Members To note details of any substitution arrangements in place for the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes:
Councillor Nikki Ind was Vice Chair and Councillor Ian Watson was Chair. |
|||||||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest from Members relating to items to be considered at the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Daryl Corps declared an interest in the application for Land by the Fosseway Garden Centre. He declared that he would address the Committee as Ward Member and then leave the Chamber before the debate and vote. |
|||||||||||||
|
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 June 2026. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting on 10 June 2026 were discussed. Councillor Brassington requested an update on the Member question from the last meeting. Councillor Fowles proposed accepting the minutes and Councillor 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 June 2026.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Chair's Announcements To receive any announcements from the Chair of the Planning and Licensing Committee.
Additional documents: Minutes: Members were advised that Licensing training would take place on 27 July, the next Planning Committee meeting had been rescheduled to Tuesday 11 August, and supplementary reports had been circulated in advance of the meeting. |
|||||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||||
|
25/02687/FUL Land Parcel East of Willersey Business Park Proposal Residential development comprising 60 dwellings with associated roads, accesses, parking and servicing, open space, landscaping and drainage infrastructure at Land Parcel East of Willersey Business Park.
Case Officer: Martin Perks Ward Members: Councillors Gina Blomefield & Tom Stowe
RECOMMENDATION: PERMIT subject to no objection from Biodiversity Officer (and associated conditions), the completion of a S106 legal agreement covering matters such as affordable housing, self-build/custom build plots, Biodiversity Net Gain monitoring, and financial contributions to education and library services, highways and Willersey Parish Council Additional documents:
Minutes: The proposal was for residential development comprising 60 dwellings.
Case Officer: Martin Perks Ward Member: Councillors Gina Blomefield and Tom Stowe Recommendation: PERMIT subject to no objection from Biodiversity Officer (and associated conditions), the completion of a S106 legal agreement covering matters such as affordable housing, self-build/custom build plots, Biodiversity Net Gain monitoring, and financial contributions to education and library services, highways and Willersey Parish Council.
The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application. The Case Officer shared the application details with the Committee including additional pages: · Members were advised of two additional Parish Council representations, relating to foul drainage and a Section 106 contribution towards a Multi-Use Games Area.
Public Speakers Public Speaker – Kevin O’Donoghue – Parish Council The Parish Council requested a larger Section 106 contribution towards recreation, arguing that the proposed on-site provision did not adequately cater for older children or adults and that a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) was needed to serve the growing village population. Concerns were raised regarding foul drainage, with a request that a pre-occupation condition be added to ensure sewerage improvements were completed before any dwellings were occupied.
Public Speaker – Councillor Gina Blomefield – Ward Member Whilst welcoming the additional highway mitigation measures, concerns remained that they did not address existing highway safety issues, particularly given cumulative development and the proximity of a proposed industrial access. Concerns were also raised regarding the adequacy of the existing footway and sewerage capacity. Support was expressed for the Parish Council's proposed condition requiring drainage improvements to be completed before occupation of the development.
Members questions Members of the Committee asked a series of questions and noted that: · The requested highway contributions had been accepted. Biodiversity net gain calculations remained under discussion, although protected species and habitat issues had been resolved. · No solar panels were proposed as part of the application. · A Gloucestershire Highways site visit had been undertaken. Cumulative impacts from surrounding developments had been considered, and the proposed highway mitigation measures were considered proportionate and sufficient to provide safe and suitable access for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, including at the public footpath crossing opposite the site. · The proposed recreation provision complied with planning policy, with an £8,000 contribution secured towards the village recreation ground. A Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) was not considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and therefore could not be required through a Section 106 agreement. The Parish Council would also receive Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding, which could be used towards future infrastructure projects. · Severn Trent had not yet identified whether network improvements would be necessary. The recommended Grampian condition required drainage details and any necessary upgrade programme to be agreed before development commenced and was considered sufficiently robust while allowing flexibility for Severn Trent to determine and implement any required works. · A deferral was not considered necessary, as foul drainage was regulated under separate legislation and Severn Trent had a statutory duty to provide a connection. · The residential travel plan contribution ... view the full minutes text for item 310.
|
|||||||||||||
|
26/00613/OUT Land to the East of Nostle Road Proposal: Outline application for 50 dwellings, plus associated infrastructure and landscaping. All matters reserved except access at Land To The East Of Nostle Road, Nostle Road, Northleach.
Case Officer: Martin Perks Ward Member: Councillor Tony Dale
RECOMMENDATION: PERMIT subject to no objection from Biodiversity Officer (and any associated conditions), completion of a S106 legal agreement covering the provision of affordable and self-build/custom build housing, Biodiversity Net Gain Monitoring and financial contributions to secondary (16-18) education, library services, school transport, bus stops and a travel plan. Additional documents:
Minutes: The proposal was Outline application for 50 dwellings.
Case Officer: Martin Perks Ward Member: Councillor Tony Dale
Recommendation: PERMIT subject to no objection from Biodiversity Officer (and any associated conditions), completion of a S106 legal agreement covering the provision of affordable and self-build/custom build housing, Biodiversity Net Gain Monitoring and financial contributions to secondary (16-18) education, library services, school transport, bus stops and a travel plan.
The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application. The Case Officer shared the application details with the Committee including additional pages: · Further representation had been received from the Cotswolds National Landscape Board objecting to the application on the basis that it constituted major development within the AONB. These matters had been addressed within the report and the recommendation remained unchanged. Public Speakers Public speaker – Councillor Michael Seath – Town and Parish Council The Town Council did not object to the principle of development but remained concerned about the scale of the proposal and its impact on the landscape and local community. The proposal would result in a permanent loss of landscape and that the development did not accord with the landscape guidance for the site. Reference was made to the objection from the Cotswold National Landscape Board. Concerns were raised regarding drinking water capacity, foul drainage and flood risk, with support expressed for pre-commencement or pre-occupation conditions relating to water infrastructure. If permission was granted, it was requested that additional landscape, drainage and principal residence conditions be imposed.
Public speaker – Mr George Hudson – Agent/Applicant The proposal formed part of the allocated Local Plan site and had been developed following officer advice to deliver a comprehensive scheme. The development sought to provide high-quality homes using local materials, support the local economy during construction, and contribute to the long-term sustainability of Northleach by increasing the resident population and supporting local services.
Site Inspection Briefing · The site was prominent within the landscape, with rising ground and visible contours that were not fully apparent from the plans. · The proposed access from Nostle Road avoided the main road network. · The proposed development would extend beyond the established building line of the existing development opposite, increasing its visual prominence. · It was recognised that the detailed design of the development would be considered at the reserved matters stage and would be important in integrating the development into the surrounding area. · The adjacent residential development had become well integrated into the town over time, demonstrating good design and landscaping.
Members questions Members of the Committee asked a series of questions and noted that: · The site was allocated for housing in the Local Plan and that the submitted layout was indicative only. The increased capacity reflected changes in national planning policy promoting the efficient use of land, with officers considering the proposed extent of development to respond appropriately to the site's topography and setting. Detailed design, landscaping, lighting, green infrastructure and water supply infrastructure would be considered through reserved matters and planning conditions. · The proposed road layout ... view the full minutes text for item 311.
|
|||||||||||||
|
25/02443/FUL Land to the West of Fosseway Farm Proposal: Construction of 10no. dwellings at Land to the West of Fosseway Farm, Stow Road Moreton-In-Marsh.
Case Officer Rebecca McAndrew Ward Member Councillor Daryl Corps
RECOMMENDATION: PERMIT subject to the completion of a S.106 agreement securing: Travel plan and the offsite highways work monitoring Additional documents:
Minutes: The proposal was for the construction of 10 dwellings.
Case Officer: Rebecca McAndrew Ward Member: Councillor Daryl Corps Recommendation: PERMIT subject to the completion of a S.106 agreement securing travel plan and the offsite highways work monitoring
Subject to conditions. – Updated Recommendations.
The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application. The Case Officer shared the application details with the Committee including additional pages: · Gloucestershire Highways had withdrawn the requirement for a Travel Plan and associated Section 106 obligation. The recommendation was therefore amended to grant planning permission subject to conditions only.
Public Speakers Public speaker – Cllr Eileen Viviani – Town and Parish Council Concerns were raised that the Highway Authority's assessment did not fully reflect existing congestion in Moreton-in-Marsh or the cumulative impact of additional traffic. It was requested that the Committee apply the same pre-occupation water infrastructure conditions as those imposed by a recent Planning Inspector's appeal decision. It was further argued that, given the site's location within the Cotswold National Landscape and the absence of affordable housing, the proposal's benefits did not outweigh the perceived harm.
Public speaker – Dale Radford – Agent/Applicant The proposal had been developed in collaboration with officers and technical consultees to address issues raised during the application process. The scheme would deliver ten high-quality bungalows in a sustainable location, providing a specialist form of housing whilst incorporating landscaping and biodiversity enhancements. Technical consultees had raised no outstanding objections and the proposal represented an appropriate balance between identified impacts and the public benefits of the development.
Public Speaker – Councillor Daryl Corps – Ward Member Concerns were raised regarding the site's location adjacent to the A429, existing traffic congestion, cumulative development, the proximity of the access to the adjacent care home and the resulting highway safety impacts. The site lay outside the development boundary within the Cotswold National Landscape and was therefore contrary to Local Plan Policy DS4. Concern was also expressed that the proposal would provide no affordable housing. A site visit and further consideration by Gloucestershire Highways were requested before the application was determined. If approved, it was requested that the development be restricted to single-storey bungalows. 17:00 – Councillor Corps left the chamber and did not take any further part in the debate or vote.
Members questions Members of the Committee asked a series of questions and noted that: · Whilst the proposal met the threshold requiring affordable housing, the applicant had submitted a viability assessment demonstrating that affordable housing could not be provided. This assessment had been independently reviewed on behalf of the Council, which agreed that a viability gap existed. Concern was expressed that the development would not deliver any affordable housing despite the identified local need. · The Highway Authority had assessed the proposed site access and was satisfied that it was suitable, with officers relying on the specialist advice provided. The consultation response did not confirm whether a site visit had been undertaken. · A petition had been received objecting to the application on grounds relating ... view the full minutes text for item 312.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Sites Inspection Briefing Members for 5 August 2026 to be notified (if required)
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair advised members to keep the 5 August 2026 free for a Site Inspection Briefing.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Licensing Sub-Committee Members for 9 July 2026
Councillors Dilys Neill (Chair), David Fowles, Ray Brassington
Members for 14 July 2026
Councillors Ian Watson (Chair). Julia Judd, Michael Vann Additional documents: Minutes: Members for 9 July 2026 Councillors Ian Watson (Chair), Michael Vann, Ray Brassington Members for 14 July 2026 Councillors Ian Watson (Chair). Paul Evans, Michael Vann
|
Carried
Rejected