Agenda item
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.
Minutes:
There were two public speakers.
David Hindle, introduced themselves as a resident of Tetbury, and asked the Committee;
“It may be recalled that in early November 23, Committee resolved to grant planning permission for a new Healthcare Centre, and facilitating residential in Tetbury, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement. Most people in Tetbury and the surrounding area were thankful for that decision.
All the matters to be in the Agreement were known. The applicant has not yet received even a first draft of the Legal Agreement from the Legal people acting on behalf of CDC, although 4 months has passed. The applicant, has just received, a first draft from Gloucestershire County Council, for matters that are the responsibility of GCC.
1. Is the Chair aware of who within CDC monitors the progress from resolution, to signing a Legal Agreement?
2. Will the Chair consider requesting Councillor Juliet Layton, as the appropriate Cabinet Member, to promote the introduction of new Key Performance Indicators for different complexities of Section 106 Agreements (3 or 4), setting target times for each level of complexity from resolution, to planning permission being issued, % performance against each?”
The Chair stated that a written response would be circulated from the Legal team.
Bella Amory, who introduced themselves as a resident of the Chedworth and Churn Valley Ward
I am concerned about an application for Rendcomb Airfield. Various iterations of it have been with the Planning Department since 2021. Rendcomb Airfield was granted planning permission in 1990 for private use. Any notion of commercial activity was to be confined to aircraft storage with operations planned elsewhere. The current application is for 1,000 commercial wing-walking flights. The flights can be anywhere in class G airspace. Just this week, Councillor Michael Dentith of Chedworth Parish Council, who flew for Rendcomb Airfield, confirmed residents' worst fears that these flights can descend as low as 60 metres above the airfield and as low as 152 metres above our homes. The stress caused by this application keeps me and my neighbours awake at night.
There have been nearly 100 objections, many of whom live adjacent to this site. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has a statutory duty to promote aviation and Rendcomb got permission from the CAA to operate commercial wing-walking flights to the public in October 2015. Rendcomb didn't also apply for planning permission from CDC, instead, in 2016 it started to operate unlawful commercial wing-walking flights. Enforcement notices from the Cotswold District Council followed suit. The current unlawful flights create a noise that is unbearable in the summer months. For locals who live nearby, the stress caused by the noise is oppressive. I have sought hypnotherapy, I have been told it won't work. You can't keep your window open nor be in the garden, and the applicant wants to fly five days a week during the day, including Saturdays on the nicest days of the year.
in May 2021, a noise survey which monitored the unlawful flights was conducted by nearby residents in Rendcomb and in Chatsworth, and we recorded on average 60 decibels of noise pollution from the unlawful flight flights (Often it was more). the World Health Organisation states that 55 decibels causes a critical health effect.
CDC has a statutory duty to follow the NPPF and the Local Plan. So my questions are;
1) When are you going to follow the policies, the planning documents and reject the latest application, and
2) When are you going to enforce the current Section 106 agreement?
The Chair stated that the application was due to come to Committee, but that a date had not yet been set. The Chair explained that an officer response would be provided.