Agenda and decisions
PDF 533 KBVenue: the Council Chamber - Council Offices, Trinity Road, Cirencester, GL7 1PX. View directions
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Cabinet Member Introduction To welcome the public and introduce all participants.
Additional documents: Decision: Councillor Juliet Layton, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning opened the meeting, confirming it was being livestreamed and welcomed those viewing online.
Officers present were invited to introduce themselves.
Councillor Layton noted that the meeting would consider three Neighbourhood Development Plans with substantial documentation (approximately 970 pages in total), covering:
· Moreton-in-Marsh: Moreton East, Moreton West · Cirencester:Abbey,Chesterton, FourAcres, NewMills, St. Michael’s, Stratton, The Beeches, Watermoor · ChippingCampden:Campden& Vale
It was highlighted that each plan had progressed through Regulation 14 consultation and was now at either Regulation 16 consultation or examination stage, with independent examination forming a key part of the statutory process.
Councillor Layton explained that each plan had progressed through Regulation 14 consultation and was now at either Regulation 16 consultation or examination stage, with independent examination forming a key part of the statutory process.
|
|
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest made by the Cabinet Member or any officers present.
Additional documents: Decision: There were no declarations of interest from the Cabinet Member or officers present. |
|
|
Officer Overview of the Report Officer to provide a brief verbal summary of the report with key details relating to the decision, providing any updates that need to be considered by the Cabinet Member when taking the decision.
To agree CDC responses to Neighbourhood Plan consultations for Moreton (Reg. 16), Cirencester (Reg. 16) and Chipping Campden (Reg. 16). Additional documents:
Decision: Moreton-in-Marsh Neighbourhood Plan (Regulation 16) The Senior Local & Neighbourhood Planning Policy Officer introduced the report and explained: · The plan had been formally submitted with Annex B (plan document) and Annexes C–H (supporting evidence). · A Regulation 16 consultation had been undertaken over six weeks, involving statutory consultees, residents, and internal planning officers. · The Council’s response was set out in Annex A.
He also confirmed that the plan contained 20 policies which had been developed over several years with significant community input.
It was noted that the Council was broadly supportive of the plan’s vision and policy framework. Most comments were minor drafting amendments aimed at: · improving clarity of policy wording, · avoiding duplication across policies, · ensuring consistency with development management interpretation.
It was noted that the only substantive point of divergence related to Policy 15 (Local Green Space Site 5). Officers considered the site might not fully meet national criteria for designation. However, the parish had retained the designation despite earlier Reg. 14 comments. It was noted that this matter would be tested through independent examination.
It was further noted that following receiptof therecommendations, thenext steps would be for anotherCabinet Member Decision Meeting to decide on the following: · Reg18: Publicationof theExamination Reportand CDCDecision Statement; · Arrange aReferendum forMoreton parishto voteon adoptingthe Neighbourhood Plan; · Making (oradoption) ofthe Planif amajority (>50%)support itsadoption (this decision could be deferred to a later meeting).
Cirencester The Senior Local & Neighbourhood Planning Policy Officer introduced the report and explained: · That the plan submission included Annex J (main plan) and Annexes K–O (supporting material). · A Regulation 16 consultation had been completed. · It was noted that the Council’s response was set out in Annex I.
He noted that colleagues, statutory bodies and landowners had all been consulted on and that the comments had been taken into account in Annex I the CDC response. It was note that there had been some initial delays due to the absence of a policies map, which had since been resolved.
It was further noted that once a Neighbourhood Plan was adopted it would be taken into account as part of the assessment of planning applications in the area it covered. The aim of the input and CDC’s comments was to ensure that the policies were effective. A key theme was ensuring that policies were clearly worded for decision-making, capable of being applied consistently in planning applications, and aligned with both the adopted and emerging Local Plan.
Chipping Campden The Senior Local & Neighbourhood Planning Policy Officer introduced the report and explained that the examination of that particular Neighbourhood Plan had been completed and reported that the examination had included a public hearing with landowners and town council participation, held at the Independent Examiners request, to try to come to an agreement regarding Local Green Space designations. The complexity of Local Green Space designation and relationship with land ownership and management (including Tree Preservation Orders) was discussed. ... view the full decision text for item 3. |
|
|
Confirmation of Comments Confirmation of comments received by officer or Democratic Services.
Additional documents: Decision: Moreton-In-Marsh It was confirmed that: · If approved, the Independent Examiner (IE) would be appointed via a bid process. · The examiner would assess the plan documents, consultation responses, including the Council’s, and assess whether the plan met the “basic conditions”. · It was clarified that the examiner was able to recommend modifications to the plan, but that the final decisions rested with the Council.
Cirencester Councillor Layton asked for clarification regarding the current Local Plan and the emerging Local Plan.
It was confirmed that Neighbourhood Plans must be tested against the adopted Local Plan alone, it was accepted that this could be challenging where new Local Plan policies are known but not yet adopted. Cirencester’s Neighbourhood Plan had therefore focused on: design; green infrastructure; parking; and the protection of local amenities, rather than strategic housing allocations.
Chipping Campden The complexity of Local Green Space designation and relationship with land ownership and management (including Tree Preservation Orders) was discussed. |
|
|
Public Questions The Cabinet Member may allow members of the public present at the meeting to speak or make representations. However, all questions must relate directly to the decision being discussed. If a question is deemed irrelevant by the Cabinet Member the member of the public will be advised where to direct their question. Additional documents: Decision: There were no public questions. |
|
|
Cabinet Member Questions The Cabinet Member may request clarifications on the report and the proposed decision, including any alternative options for consideration.
Additional documents: Decision: Moreton-in-Marsh The Cabinet Member asked the officer to clarify whether the proposed Local Green Space remained disputed and questioned whether the decision was now entirely in the hands of the independent examiner? The Officer clarified that the examiner would make recommendations, but the Council would decide whether to accept them, taking account of the Town Council's views. The disagreement stemmed from whether the site met the Local Green Space criteria.
Cirencester The Cabinet Member questioned how Cirencester could prepare neighbourhood plan policies when the new Local Plan was not yet adopted? It was stated that the neighbourhood plan must be assessed against the current adopted Local Plan, despite a new plan being in preparation. Cirencester had therefore focused on design, green spaces, parking and similar matters rather than housing allocations, allowing the neighbourhood plan to complement future Local Plan policies.
Chipping Campden The Cabinet Member asked for clarification on the following points: · What would happen following the examiner's recommendation on Policy 4 (Non-Designated Heritage Assets)? Would Chipping Campden make the decision? In reply the officer noted that the decision rested with Cotswold District Council. The examiner's recommendations could be accepted or rejected. Chipping Campden Town Council had been consulted and supported the officer recommendation to accept the wording change from "designated" to "identified" but reject the reference restricting the assets to Local Plan Policy EN12.
· Would the examiner accept changes suggested to their recommended wording? It was noted that where wording lacks clarity, officers and the Town Council could suggest amendments during the examination process. In the case of Policy 5, the examiner had accepted revised wording to clarify the intended hierarchy for Local Nature Recovery Areas.
The Cabinet Member questioned when were decisions on the disputed Local Green Spaces made, and when were the Town Council aware? The Officer answered that the hearing had gathered evidence and representations but no decisions had been made on the day. The examiner had considered the evidence afterwards and set out conclusions in the final report.
· Was Local Green Space hearing public and who could participate? The Officer clarified that the hearing had been open to the public to observe, but that only specified participants could speak: CDC officers, Chipping Campden Town Council representatives, the affected landowners and their planning agents. Discussion had been limited to the disputed Local Green Spaces and the town centre boundary.
· Had the Town Council consulted landowners before proposing Local Green Spaces? The Officer responded that it was good practice to consult landowners early, although ownership does not determine whether land can be designated as Local Green Space. In this case, landowners had been able to submit representations and participate fully in the examination and hearing process.
· The Cabinet Member asked whether a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) already provided protection for Local Green Space 21 ("The Cleys")? Officer responded that the site was covered by a TPO, and any future tree works would require approval from the Council. Landowners were also working with Forestry England on ... view the full decision text for item 6. |
|
|
Decision The Cabinet Member will verbally confirm the decision, stating whether they: · Accept the recommendations of the officer, · Decide to take a different decision contrary to the officer’s recommendation, or · Decide to refer the decision to a meeting of Cabinet.
The Cabinet Member must inform the Democratic Services Officer of the reason for the decision, which will be officially recorded on the Decision Notice. Additional documents: Decision: Moreton-in-Marsh The CabinetMember forHousing andPlanning resolved to: 1. APPPROVEthe CDCresponse (AnnexA) tothe Reg.16 Moreton NP consultation. 2. CONFIRM that CDC would procure through a bid process an Independent Examiner to undertake examination of the MoretonNP (Reg.17). Theappointment would have to beconsented by the qualifying body (Moreton-in-Marsh Town Council). 3. CONFIRMthat thecomments agreedat part1 (AnnexA) and thosesubmitted byother stakeholders(Annex H;collated and redacted), and the submission documents for Moreton (Annexes B-G), would be sent to the IE once appointed.
Cirencester The Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning resolved to: 1. APPROVE the CDC response (Annex I) to the Reg. 16 Cirencester NP consultation. 2. CONFIRM that CDC would procure through a bid process an Independent Examiner to undertake examination of the Cirencester NP (Reg. 17). The appointment would need to be consented by the qualifying body (Cirencester Town Council). 3. CONFIRM that the comments agreed at part 1 (Annex I) and those submitted by other stakeholders (Annex O; collated and redacted), and the submission documents for Cirencester (Annexes J-N), would be sent to the IE once appointed.
Chipping Campden The Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning considered the Examiner’s recommended modifications (Annex R) to the Chipping Campden Neighbourhood Plan, to ensure it met the basic conditions and RESOLVED to : 1. ACCEPT the Independent Examiners proposed modifications for Policies 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. 2. PARTIALLY ACCEPT the proposed Policy 4 modification (rejecting reference to Policy EN12 limitation). 3. APPROVE a Referendum on the Chipping Campden Neighbourhood Plan (with accepted modifications), should take place on Thursday 13 August 2026, or as soon as possible to comply with electoral publication considerations.
The Cabinet Member thanked officers for the detailed work involved in progressing all three Neighbourhood Plans, noting the complexity of balancing local aspirations with statutory planning requirements and closed the meeting.
The meeting was closed. |