Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Dr Brian Mathew, who was substituted by Councillor Clare Cape.

To approve as a true and correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 1 March 2023.

To receive any declarations of disclosable interests or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

Councillor Martin Smith declared that the applicant for Item 7a was the son-in-law of a longstanding Sherston family that he knew but affirmed that he had no pecuniary interest in the application and would aim to be entirely objective.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman noted the fire alarm procedure.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to speak either in favour or against an application or any other item on this agenda are asked to register no later than 10 minutes before the start of the meeting. If it is on the day of the meeting registration should be done in person.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are linked to in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice. The Chairman will allow up to 3 speakers in favour and up to 3 speakers against an application, and up to 3 speakers on any other item on this agenda. Each speaker will be given up to 3 minutes and invited to speak immediately prior to the item being considered.

Members of the public will have had the opportunity to make representations on the planning applications and to contact and lobby their local member and any other members of the planning committee prior to the meeting. Lobbying once the debate has started at the meeting is not permitted, including the circulation of new information, written or photographic which have not been verified by planning officers.

Questions

To receive any questions from members of the public or members of the Council received in accordance with the constitution which excludes, in particular, questions on non-determined planning applications.

Those wishing to ask questions are required to give notice of any such questions in writing to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on Wednesday 29 March 2023 in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on Friday 31 March 2023. Please contact the officer named on the front of this agenda for further advice. Questions may be asked without notice if the Chairman decides that the matter is urgent.

Details of any questions received will be circulated to Committee members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website.

No questions had been received from councillors or members of the public.

The Chairman welcomed all present. He then explained the protocol for public participation.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate.

The Chairman moved that the Committee note the contents of the appeals report included within the agenda. It was seconded by Councillor Chuck Berry.

Resolved:

To note the Planning Appeals Update Report.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The Committee considered and determined the following planning applications:

Erection of replacement dwelling (Revised application).

Public Participation

Simon Chambers (agent) spoke in support of the application.

The Senior Planning Officer, Raymond Cole presented a report which outlined the proposal for the erection of a replacement dwelling on Meadowside, Tetbury Road, Sherston.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the potential for harm to the countryside and the transition from the urban fringe to the rural surroundings. The Senior Planning Officer also shared the Case Officer’s findings that the application was not reflective of local character, and her concerns surrounding the size of the proposed property in terms of its visibility and impact on the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on the ownership of land directly north of the application site (within family’s ownership but not applicant’s) and the proposal’s impact on the transition from urban fringe to countryside. Clarity was sought on whether the settlement boundary had any weight on the Officer’s recommendation, and on the view of the AONB board. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the site was outside of the defined settlement boundary and that they had not consulted the AONB board and thus had no feedback from them. Councillors also enquired as to the details of the proposed building compared to the existing one and that which was granted planning permission in 2022.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Martin Smith, then spoke regarding the application. Councillor Smith noted that this was an atypical application due to the lack of any objectors. He further noted that the Parish Council consulted a retired town planner before confirming their support of the application. Councillor Smith stated that the proposed property was undeniably an improvement on the existing one, and then referred to several aspects of the Officer’s report that he disagreed with, specifically the suggestion that the proposed building would create a “contiguous expanse of unbroken frontage” and a “harmfully abrupt edge to the dwelling”. He concluded by stating that the vastly improved sustainability of the proposed property, both ecologically and socially, meant that in his view the benefits of the application did outweigh the harm, and so affirmed his support for the application.

At the start of the debate a motion to refuse the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Martin Smith and seconded by Councillor Steve Bucknell, with authority delegated to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission subject to appropriate conditions to be prepared by officers.

During the debate, issues were raised including the lack of harm to the surroundings and the improved sustainability of the application. Councillor Elizabeth Threlfall countered that the scale of the building verged on unacceptable and was incongruent with the surrounding area. Councillor Gavin Grant voiced his support for the motion, noting that the application had its issues but on balance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25a

Retrospective change of use from agricultural and extension of commercial curtilage (Class E(b)) with retention of car parking, toilet facilities, covered canopy and decking area + associated works.

Public Participation

Peter Gallagher spoke on behalf of the local ramblers in objection to the application.

Jason Bayliffe spoke in support of the application.

Stuart Hinson spoke on behalf of Adrian Smith in support of the application.

John Bell spoke in support of the application.

Rupert Pearce spoke on behalf of Broad Town Parish Council.

The Senior Planning Officer, Raymond Cole presented a report which outlined the proposal from Broadtown Brewery Ltd for a retrospective change of use from agricultural and extension of commercial curtilage (Class E(b)) with retention of car parking, toilet facilities, covered canopy and decking area, plus associated works. The Senior Planning Officer noted that as this application was the subject of an ongoing non-determination appeal being overseen by a Planning Inspector, the Committee were being asked to vote on what they would have decided had the application come to them within the time.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the urbanisation of the open countryside and the visual intrusion of the locality, as well as the potential harm to the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties. Additionally, details were provided about the previously undertaken noise assessment and the inclusion of an acoustic fence in the application. Reference was also made to the proposed business hours and to the suitability of the proposed car parking arrangements.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on the acoustic fence, with public protection supporting the application because of it and the landscape officer objecting because of it. Councillors also sought further detail on the history of applications from the applicant and the nature of their unauthorised works. Councillors queried the difficult balancing act of the harm caused by the bund and acoustic fence and the merit of providing Broad Town with potentially its only community hub. The Senior Planning Officer explained for Councillors that the site is outside the AONB and that they received no comment from the board. The road adjacent to the site was the subject of several questions on account of it being a national speed limit road with little room for pedestrians. As such, Councillors asked about the viability of a potential speed reduction as a condition or whether such a matter would need to be resolved at Area Board level. Questions were asked of the nature of the site during the off-season, as well as the fairness of the Council being taken to appeal. Lastly, Councillors sought clarification on how busy the site might be considering its recent growth compared to several local pubs closing, whether any limits on crowds were in place, and whether licencing issues were foreseeable in the future.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.

The Senior Planning Officer referred to Core Policy 52 as a possible further reason for refusal considering the impact on green infrastructure. Alternatively, he recommended the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Any other items of business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency.

There were no urgent items.