Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Frank Allen. Councillor Jackie Chelin acted as a substitute.

There were none.

The following Councillors attended site 6a during Planning View:

-       Councillor Frank Allen

-       Councillor Garth Barnes

-       Councillor Barbara Clark

-       Councillor Iain Dobie

-       Councillor Jan Foster

-       Councillor Tony Oliver

-       Councillor Dr Steve Steinhardt

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 19 February 2026.

It was noted that Councillor Simon Wheeler had sent apologies to the meeting on the 19 February 2026.

Subject to the correction, the minutes of the meeting held on 19 February 2026 were approved and signed as a correct record.

There were none.

Planning Application Documents

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

There were three public speakers on the item: an objector, the applicant, and the Ward Member.

The objector addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       Disappointed that the request for an informal face-to-face meeting with the applicant or a representative to respectfully address concerns was not fulfilled.

-       The objector and her husband have lived at a neighbouring property with adjacent land to the site for a combined 30 years and are very proud of the countryside that they maintain. It is a small area of the Cotswolds, but its wildlife, views and public footpaths are truly precious. They are deserving of protection so that hopefully it will continue to flourish for the many generations to come.

-       As close neighbours they have witnessed the conception of Dunkerton’s Park over the last six years or so. Aside from the occasional loud music, much of its development has been very positive, which they have happily embraced. They have enjoyed visits with friends and families. It is a quality, unique venue that offers much to the community and the many young people it employs.

-       However, this objection is about the shared national local and the environment. It is about protecting and preserving the national landscape, a place within the community that is free for all to use and enjoy without cost or compromise.

-       This potential commercial venue, is to be repurposed from a brand new seemingly unfinished agricultural barn standing for less than one year, built with intentions of being for farm use. It should not be clearing established woodland boundaries, upsetting wildlife habitats and ancient river corridors views. It should not be doing any of this under the guise of it being good for the community. Because no matter how nice it might look or how much money is spent, nature and its wildlife does not appreciate our human view on aesthetics because nature is messy.

-       Aware there is to be some replanting of trees that were removed in response to the ecology reports request, but doubt it will be sufficient for at least decades in its aid for lost habitats, visual screening, light pollution, and additional noise. Especially as plans state that the business will be in use for 7 days a week, 16 hours a day on average.

-       No objection at all to the concept of the padel courts but feel other commercial land at Dunkerton’s Park should and could have been considered first before allowing an 87% biodiversity loss of an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB).

-       Studying the plans it was seemingly always the intention to build padel courts, rather than a building for agricultural use. This method of legitimately getting around planning loopholes is misleading. It points to an assumption that the agricultural barn was constructed under false pretences, perhaps for fear of its true intention being rejected. The fear for neighbours is that if change of use permission is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Listed Building Consent Application Documents

The Head of Planning introduced the report as published.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

-       The current windows have deteriorated to the point where they are essentially leaking air and are not meeting the thermal requirements that they should.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to grant.
 

For: 11

Against: 0

Abstain: 0

Voted UNANIMOUSLY for the officer recommendation to grant.

The appeal updates were noted.

There were none.