Skip to main content

Agenda item

22/03206/FUL- Swallows Nest, Arlington, Bibury

Summary/purpose

Erection of a 1.5 storey extension and other associated works at Swallows Nest Arlington Bibury Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 5ND

 

Case Officer

Kristina Carter

 

Ward Member

Councillor David Fowles

 

Recommendation

REFUSE

Minutes:

The application was for the erection of a 1.5 storey extension and other associated works at Swallows Nest Arlington Bibury Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 5ND

 

The recommendation was to refuse the application.

 

The Case Officer introduced the item and highlighted that additional photographs had been provided. The Case Officer explained that the site was within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Bibury Conservation Area. The Case Officer also added that the pergola had been omitted from the application.

 

The Case Officer highlighted the history of the application:

  • 14/05466/FUL - Erection of one dwelling, refused on 9 April 2015
  • 15/04341/FUL - Erection of one dwelling, refused on  14 April 2016; appealed and refused on appeal on 26 January 2017
  • 16/01744/FUL - Change of use from a garage with studio above to one bedroom dwelling, permitted on 18 July 2016
  • 17/03060/FUL - Change of use from a garage with studio above to one bedroom dwelling, permitted on 6 December 2017

 

The Case Officer explained that the 2016 application entailed minimal external works.

 

The Interim Development Manager highlighted the reasons that the Case Officer recommended refusal. These were due to the impact on the setting of a listed building, and encroachment onto the open space with the Bibury Conservation Area, as well as impact on the AONB.

 

The Interim Development Manager advised members that in considering the application, due regard must be given for the development to preserve or enhance the conservation area.

 

Cllr Craig Chapman, representing Bibury Parish Council addressed the Committee.

 

Mrs Ann Haigh addressed the Committee to support the application.

 

Mr and Mrs Wright, the applicants addressed the Committee.

 

Councillor David Fowles, the Ward Member addressed the Committee, highlighting that if the Committee permitted the application, it would allow the residents to remain in Bibury.

 

The Chair then invited members who had attended the Sites Inspection Briefing to share their thoughts.

 

Members discussed the impact of the site, stating that they could see the visual impact it would have from the roadside though it was concealed by the hilly landscape and the hedge. It was stated that there would be large visual impact from the field side.

 

Members welcomed that the materials would match the existing, being in natural Cotswold stone, and some members commented that the dormer windows were deemed to be attractive.

 

Members stated that the pergola would have been of detrimental impact and were pleased it had been removed.

 

Member Questions

 

Before proceeding on to Member questions, the Interim Development Manager mentioned the personal circumstances referenced by several of the public speakers. The Development Manager reminded members that public benefit should not be conflated with personal considerations. Personal considerations were material planning considerations, but did not hold much weight in planning terms.

 

The Development Manager stated that the application could only be considered on its own merit.

 

The Development Manager also stated that optimum viable use was not a material consideration in this case, as the building was not a designated heritage asset. The Development Manager advised that members should be looking at the impact on the Conservation Area and AONB, and whether the application preserved or enhances these.

 

Member Questions

 

Members noted that the ancillary building that would be turned into a dwelling was presently a holiday let, and asked officers whether it could be conditioned to not revert to a holiday let if the permission was granted. The Interim Development Manager stated that this could not be conditioned as there was no such policy in the local plan.

 

The Interim Head of Legal Services added that there would be nothing preventing anyone from using the dwelling as a holiday home in the future.

 

Members asked whether any design changes could be made to the proposals to make them more in keeping with the Conservation Area. The Interim Development Manager stated that this would be difficult due to the history of the site.

 

The Conservation Officer made reference to the previous refusals, and particularly noted the application which had been refused at appeal. The Conservation Officer stated that the boundary of the historic development was clear and that the gap that visually maintained this, and would be encroached on by the development was specifically mentioned by the Planning Inspector.

 

The Conservation Officer also added that the hedge did not reduce the harm of the proposals as it was visually clear that it was intended to screen the site. The Conservation Officer stated that they could not identify any way to extend the building without harming the Conservation Area in direct contradiction to the appeal decision.

 

Members asked whether the gap delineating the historic settlement boundary of Bibury referenced by the Conservation Officer was a common feature seen in similar developments across the District. The Conservation Officer stated that this varied across the District, as a lot of villages had experienced modern development, but stated that where this gap existed, the Council had tried to preserve it. The Conservation Officer gave the example of a similar gap in Horcott, where the judgement over preserving this had been agreed with at a planning appeal.

 

Members asked about the weight that Planning Inspectors tend to put on considerations such as Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas. The Conservation Officer stated that legislation put special regard on preserving these, which was also reinforced by case law.

 

Members asked why the area was considered to be encroaching on open space when the space was a garden. The Conservation Officer stated that this was defined by the planning inspector in the appeal decision, as shown on the diagram on page 2 preliminary view assessment.

 

Members questioned the wording on paragraph 11.1 of the officer report. The interim Development Manager stated that this should read ‘extension’ as opposed to ‘dwelling’.

 

Members asked if permitting the application would be contrary to the appeal decision. Both the Conservation Officer and the Interim Development Manager agreed that this was the case.

 

Member Comments

 

Members stated that though they felt sympathy to the applicant’s personal circumstances, there were no planning reasons to support the application.

 

Some members stated that the dormer windows were visually appealing but others felt they were harmful.

 

While some members felt that the overall dwelling would be of a modest size, it was recognised that the extension was not subservient to the original structure, and members felt that the footprint would be considerable, doubling the size of the building.

 

Members stated that they did not feel that they could contradict an appeal decision unless there were very strong material planning reasons to do so.

 

Councillor Coleman proposed refusing the proposal, which Councillor Layton seconded.

 

RESOLVED: To REFUSE the application

 

 

Voting record: For - 7, Against - 2, Abstentions 0

 

For

Against

Abstain/ Did not vote

Ray Brassington

David Fowles

Andrew Maclean

Julia Judd

Ian Watson

 

Mark Harris

 

Daryl Corps

 

 

Patrick Coleman

 

 

Michael Vann

 

 

Juliet Layton

 

 

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages