Limited support for Cotswold
We do not currently provide detailed weekly summaries for Cotswold Council. Running the service is expensive, and we need to cover our costs.
You can still subscribe!
If you're a professional subscriber and need support for this council, get in touch with us at community@opencouncil.network and we can enable it for you.
If you're a resident, subscribe below and we'll start sending you updates when they're available. We're enabling councils rapidly across the UK in order of demand, so the more people who subscribe to your council, the sooner we'll be able to support it.
If you represent this council and would like to have it supported, please contact us at community@opencouncil.network.
Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday, 7th February, 2024 2.00 pm
February 7, 2024 View on council website Watch video of meeting Read transcript (Professional subscription required)Summary
The council meeting focused on planning and licensing issues, with significant discussions on two main planning applications: the erection of five holiday lodges in Cittington and the temporary siting of seven cabins for staff accommodation at Dalesford-Arlstrup. Both applications were contentious and elicited detailed debate among council members, leading to decisions that reflected concerns about policy adherence and local impact.
Temporary Siting of Seven Cabins at Dalesford-Arlstrup: The council refused the application for temporary cabins intended for staff accommodation. Arguments for refusal centered on the lack of essential need, violation of local planning policies, and the ongoing harm to the Cotswold National Landscape's tranquility and aesthetics. The decision underscored the council's commitment to enforcing planning regulations and preserving the area's character, despite the applicant's argument about the necessity for staff accommodation due to local housing costs.
Erection of Five Holiday Lodges in Cittington: This application was also refused. The council members debated the application's alignment with local planning policies, particularly focusing on its location outside the development boundary and the absence of a safe pedestrian access. The historical use of the site as a caravan park was considered but deemed insufficient to outweigh the policy conflicts. The refusal highlighted the council's adherence to current planning frameworks over historical site uses, emphasizing sustainable development and safety.
Additional Information: The meeting was well-attended, with public input reflecting concerns about both applications. The decisions made were indicative of the council's strict stance on policy compliance and community impact in planning permissions.
Attendees
Topics
No topics have been identified for this meeting yet.
Meeting Documents
Additional Documents