Skip to main content

Agenda item

25/02960/FUL - Shoecroft Barn, Ablington, Bibury, Cirencester Gloucestershire

Purpose

Conversion of ground floor of existing barns from general storage to cafe with retail area, including amendments to the lean-to and decking/patio area, and associated alterations at Shoecroft Barn Ablington Bibury Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 5NU

 

Case Officer

Amy Hill

 

Ward Member

Councillor David Fowles

 

Recommendation

PERMIT subject to securing a legal agreement

Minutes:

The proposal was the conversion of ground floor of existing barns from general storage to cafe with retail area, including amendments to the lean-to and decking/patio area, and associated alterations.

 

Case Officer: Amy Hill

Ward Member: Councillor David Fowles

Recommendation: PERMIT subject to securing a legal agreement

 

The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application.

The Case Officer shared the application details with the Committee including Additional pages:

·         There had been a minor error in the application red line plan, which had omitted a small corner of one barn. It was considered that the error did not prejudice determination of the application, as the extent of development was clear from the wider submitted plans.

·         If permission was granted a limited re-consultation exercise would be required, with any new issues raised.

 

Public Speakers

 

Speaker 1 – Bibury Town and Parish Council – Councillor Craig Chapman

An objection was raised on highways safety grounds, with reference to concerns from a local group, Bibury One, addressing wider tourism-related parking and traffic issues.  Ablington Lane was described as a narrow rural lane already under significant pressure from visitors, with limited pedestrian provision and reports of congestion, verge damage, and conflict between road users.

The Highway Authority was referenced as raising concerns that the proposal could not be adequately assessed due to insufficient information. The proposed café and retail use would become a destination, increasing traffic, parking demand, and pedestrian activity and potentially leading to overspill parking onto surrounding roads and verges.

 

Speaker 2-Michelle Follett-Holt- Objector

Concern was raised that insufficient weight had been given to local harms, including highways safety, landscape character, environmental impacts, and increased tourism pressure. There was no demonstrated local need for an additional café. Concerns were made regarding tourism pressure in Bibury and the sensitive location within the Cotswolds National Landscape and Conservation Area.

Assumptions regarding visitor behaviour, infrastructure capacity, and pedestrian access were not supported by evidence. Pedestrian access arrangements were unsafe. Environmental concerns were raised regarding drainage and recent reports of untreated sewage entering the River Coln.

 

Speaker 3- Councillor David Fowles - Ward Member

It was noted that there was no pedestrian access into the centre of the village. Concerns were raised regarding access and highway safety. The café would provide additional catering facilities in addition to existing on-site and other nearby café provision within the village with existing venues already serving similar demand. The access route was described as a narrow rural lane subject to existing use pressures.

Highways officers had raised concerns that it would not be practical to control traffic movements and the provision of 15 parking spaces was considered insufficient. It was noted that 102 objections were received with no letters of support. Reference was made to the Bibury One group, involving GCC, the district council, police, and local tourism and business representatives, established to address wider traffic and tourism impacts.

 

Councillor Fowles left the chamber.

 

SIB Feedback

·         There were concerns about pedestrian safety. A direct footpath into the village became narrow, uneven and difficult to navigate, with a hazardous bend and limited visibility for both pedestrians and vehicles.  Members had narrowly avoided a collision with a double-decker coach, highlighting dangers for pedestrians along the route.

·         Vehicle movements in the area were frequent and at times difficult to manage, with limited clarity over appropriate parking arrangements and instances of informal or overspill parking.

·         In relation to the barn, members noted that it had been significantly and unsympathetically altered through modern interventions, including window replacements, roof alterations, and large glazed additions, which were considered to have affected its historic character and significance.

 

Member Questions

Members of the Committee asked a series of questions and noted that:

·         The main car parks associated with the trout farm included a historically established main car park, a regularised northern car park, and an unregulated overflow car park.

·         The proposed café would be accessible both to visitors to the trout farm and to those visiting Bibury more generally.

·         The Case Officer proposed that the café would not materially increase traffic generation. The proposal was considered more likely to serve existing visitors already on site rather than create a significant number of additional trips. The Case Officer acknowledged that this interpretation differed from that of objectors.

·         The Highway Authority had raised concerns in relation to the potential for the café to become a destination in its own right. Members queried whether any quantification or modelling had been provided regarding potential café-generated traffic. It was confirmed that no formal traffic impact assessment had been submitted as part of the application.

 

Member Comments

·         Concern was expressed that there was insufficient evidence available to assess the transport impacts of the proposal, noting the Highway Authority’s view that a formal traffic impact assessment had not been provided.

·         It was stated that while policy EC1E supports sustainable tourism, the Member’s view was that the application does not meet the requirements of that policy.

·         It was confirmed that the recommendation was to permit the application subject to a legal agreement. The legal agreement would link to a previously approved 2023 permission for a café and gift shop near the main car park. The agreement would prevent both schemes operating simultaneously, limiting development to either the previously approved café or the current proposal, but not both.

 

Councillor Michael Vann proposed PERMITTING the application and Councillor Patrick Coleman seconded the proposal.  The proposal was put to the vote but did not pass.

 

This development had the potential to increase the number of trip generations down that road. Members felt that there was not sufficient information to make an assessment as to whether or not it would have an impact on the highway safety.

 

Councillor Patrick Coleman proposed DEFERRING the application and Councillor Julia Judd seconded the proposal.  The proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.

 

RESOLVED: to DEFER the application to request that a traffic impact assessment.

 

Councillor Paul Evans left the Chamber.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages