Agenda item

24/02854/OUT - Land West of Kingshill Lane, Cirencester.

Proposal

Residential development for up to 280 dwellings.

Case Officer

Martin Perks

Ward Member

Councillor Mike Evemy

Recommendation

PERMIT subject to no objection from Gloucestershire County Council Highways and completion of S106 legal agreement covering provision of affordable housing, self-build/custom build plots, highway improvements works (if required), Public Open Space management and maintenance, Biodiversity Net Gain, financial contributions to libraries and North Meadow and Clattinger Farm Special Area of Conservation

Minutes:

Proposal

Residential development for up to 280 dwellings.

Case Officer

Martin Perks

Ward Member

Councillor Mike Evemy

Recommendation

The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application.

The Case Officer introduced the application:

The additional pages published on 6 June contained an objection from a resident that was later withdrawn which was explained in the Additional pages on 10 June. Further objections were included in the additional pages on 10 June along with the response from Gloucestershire Highways consultation with no objection to the application.

A further objection was received, stating that the proposal would significantly alter the character of Preston village. Key concerns included the risk of urban sprawl, increased traffic at the Swindon Road junction, flooding issues, insufficient provision for pedestrian and cycle access, and inadequate local infrastructure.
Various location maps, aerial photographs, site master plan, footpath plan, and the 3 options for linking to the local schools were shared.

Public Speakers:

Public Speaker 1

Preston Parish Council - Mrs Julie Tomblin

The Chair of Preston Parish Council outlined concerns about the proposed development’s impact on the village’s rural character and identity.
The site separated Cirencester and Preston, raising fears of urban sprawl.
The Parish Council requested that the development include a green buffer along Kingshill Lane.
Support was expressed for Active Travel England’s recommendation to refuse the application without adequate walking and cycling infrastructure.
Suggestions included:

Extending pedestrian and cycle routes
Creating a footpath to link with schools
Implementing safe crossing at Preston Toll Bar
The Parish Council requested that the application comply with the Preston Neighbourhood Development Plan, regarding sustainable transport and protection of village character.

Public Speaker 2

Supporter – Mr Joe Harris

Reference was made to current housing waiting lists: Cirencester (794), Siddington (262), and Preston (15).
The scheme would deliver 280 homes, including 112 affordable units (40%) across social rent, shared ownership, and First Homes.
The site was described as well-located, with a layout sensitive to surroundings and commitments to biodiversity and active travel improvements.
It was noted that following changes to national policy in December 2023, the Council now had a 1.8-year housing land supply, triggering the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Ward Member

Councillor Mike Evemy

Acknowledged objectors’ and parish council concerns regarding:

Loss of farmland
Impact on Preston’s historic character
Effect on the setting of the listed Forty Farm
Loss of key views into Cirencester (as in a 2023 refusal)

Noted that the site is not allocated in the local plan and was previously refused, but national policy changes and a 1.8-year housing land supply now shift the balance to committee decision.
Recognised benefits including 112 affordable homes.
Supported the proposed foot/cycle path behind the football club for safer school access.
Raised safety concerns over Kingshill Road and the need for improved crossing at Preston Toll Bar

Member questions

A member requested a site visit, noting the significance of the proposed development and its impact on Cirencester. They raised concerns about morning traffic congestion, the existing green buffer between settlements, and stressed the importance of seeing the site first-hand, particularly in relation to the scale of development and conditions at the A417 junction.

A member sought officer guidance on whether the application could be considered premature, given the ongoing local plan review process.

A member asked for clarification on the weight that should be given to neighbourhood development plans, specifically in relation to the Preston plan

An officer clarified that, under paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Council’s local plan development strategy (DS) policies were currently considered out of date. As such, applications must be assessed under the “tilted balance” approach, weighing benefits against harms. The application was not considered premature, as the local plan review was still some way from submission or examination.

It was confirmed that the Preston Neighbourhood Plan held equal weight to the local plan and, while not prohibiting development, set expectations to preserve rural character and village identity, to be addressed through future planning conditions and a strategic masterplan.

A member expressed concern that proposed cycling infrastructure along the main road may be unsuitable. They emphasised the importance of prioritising strong walking and cycling links from the development to the town centre and amenities.

The Case Officer clarified that matters relating to internal connectivity, including pedestrian and cycle routes, would be addressed at the Reserved Matters stage. The aim would be to ensure routes would be suitable for use by non-car modes of transport.

The Highways Officer advised that installing a signal-controlled pedestrian crossing on the main road may not be feasible due to existing traffic delays but confirmed it would be explored as part of further discussions. Priority was given to routes serving the primary and secondary schools, as these had the greatest usage by vulnerable road users. Options for route placement, either alongside the carriageway or behind the hedge, were being considered relating to safety, lighting, and landscaping.

A member questioned the placement of green space along the southern edge of the site, suggesting that a central location, within the development could better serve the community.

The Case Officer explained that the latest scheme included more green space along the central hedgerow to avoid a harsh, urban feel. While the southern edge would be used for green space to buffer the village and listed building and to accommodate drainage needs, efforts had also been made to introduce greenery within the heart of the development.

A member questioned the feasibility of extending the bus route to include this part of town. They also inquired whether there was any guidance on the minimum bus contribution required within a sustainable transport plan.

The Case Officer advised that there was no specific guidance on a minimum bus contribution in this case. Contributions to public transport were usually guided by Gloucestershire County Highways. The footpath to the south improves connectivity to nearby bus stops within walking distance. Further details on sustainable transport measures would be addressed in the required travel plan.

A member expressed concerns regarding flooding, noting that although the site lies within Flood Zone 1, runoff drains into Flood Zones 2 and 3. Recent incidents included main road flooding due to river surcharging and sewer surcharging from excessive water inflow.

They referenced a condition requiring all foul water network upgrades to be completed before accommodating additional flows but questioned the enforceability of this condition, citing past delays by Thames Water in lining sewers and implementing mitigation works.

The Case Officer explained that the condition regarding foul water upgrades was recommended by Thames Water, the statutory undertaker responsible for connecting developments to the water system under the Water Industry Act. Thames Water must ensure that infrastructure can support new developments and would assess submitted details accordingly.

Regarding surface water, Gloucestershire County Council as the lead local flood authority, had reviewed drainage reports and was satisfied, subject to conditions requiring onsite infiltration basins and sustainable drainage systems.

A Member sought clarification from the Case Officer regarding Active Travel England’s recommendation to refuse the application on the grounds that it did not comply with paragraphs 109, 115, 117, and 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Case Officer noted that, given local constraints such as flood risk, landscape designations, and existing permissions, viable sites in Cirencester were extremely limited. The proposed development was considered to be in a sustainable location, with further improvements planned to pedestrian and cycle routes. Officers highlighted the importance of balancing sustainable transport concerns with the district’s significant housing delivery requirements.

A member queried whether any highway improvements were planned.

The Case Officer explained that Junction 7 (Preston Toll Bar) was already over capacity, but the additional impact from the development was not considered “severe” under national policy, so it could not be considered grounds for refusal. Traffic queuing was limited to short morning peak periods.

A question was raised about the urgency of this new application given that the nearby Steadings site already had permission for 2,350 homes, including affordable units. Concern was expressed about slow delivery on that site and how it related to current housing pressure and the local housing waiting list.

The Case Officer explained that the current local plan (2018) only supported delivery of around 100 affordable homes per year, well below the identified need of 150. Maximising affordable housing from all available sites remained crucial.

A query was raised about whether dialogue had taken place with local schools and doctor surgeries to ensure they could support an increase in pupil numbers and pressure on local infrastructure.

Gloucestershire County Council had confirmed that local primary and secondary schools had sufficient capacity and had not requested funding. No response was received from the NHS regarding GP provision.

Member comments

Members discussed the proposal of an all Member Site Inspection Briefing due to the proposed number of houses and various points of concern raised by Committee Members and the Preston Parish Council.

Councillor David Fowles proposed an all Member Site Inspection Briefing and Councillor Patrick Coleman seconded the proposal.

RESOLVED: to REFUSE a Site Inspection Briefing.

Members requested that a Construction Management Plan be implemented to limit noise and dust effects to existing properties.

Councillor Andrew Maclean proposed accepting the Officer recommendations and Councillor Ian Watson seconded the proposal.

RESOLVED: To PERMIT subject completion of S106 legal agreement covering provision of affordable housing, self-build/custom build plots, highway improvements works (if required), Public Open Space management and maintenance, Biodiversity Net Gain, financial contributions to libraries and North Meadow and Clattinger Farm Special Area of Conservation and a condition requiring the submission of this construction management plan to be agreed.

Delegated authority for minor amendments to Section 106 conditions.

Supporting documents:

Agenda item

24/02854/OUT - Land West of Kingshill Lane, Cirencester.

Related Pages