Skip to main content

Agenda item

24/03111/FUL - The Saddlery, Kineton, Guiting Power.

Proposal

Removal of stables, erection of a dwelling.

 

Case Officer

Helen Cooper

 

Ward Member

Councillor Len Wilkins

 

Recommendation

PERMIT

Minutes:

Proposal

Removal of stables, erection of a dwelling.

 

Case Officer

Helen Cooper

 

Ward Member

Councillor Len Wilkins

 

Recommendation

PERMIT

 

The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application.

 

The Case Officer introduced the application:

  • An error in the report, paragraph 10.45 should have read ‘Greenbank Cottage’ rather than ‘Wayside’
  • There was a typing error in paragraph 10.60.  It should have read ‘a new site access is proposed and the access arrangements have been reviewed by highways who have raised no objection.’
  • Additional pages were submitted containing public comments.
  • A site location plan, ariel photo, original proposal and amendment layout plans, site photographs, road view and access were shared.

 

Public Speakers

Public Speaker1

The Temple Guiting Parish Council Member, Councillor Liza Hanks, made the following points:

  • The proposed building (6.6m high) was considered too tall and overpowering for the plot.
  • It was out of keeping with local character; conflicted with Cotswold Design Code.
  • Driveway access was steep, narrow, and unsafe for vehicle manoeuvring.
  • There was no public benefit; not affordable housing.
  • There would be a 57% biodiversity loss.
  • The application failed to meet five Cotswold Local Plan policies:

DS3 – Not proportionate or supportive of local character.

EN2 – Disregards area’s distinctiveness.

EN4 – Conflicts with historic landscape character.

EN10 – No public benefit to outweigh heritage harm.

EN5 – Does not conserve or enhance the AONB.

  • They requested refusal or, alternatively, a committee site visit.

 

Public Speaker 2

Mr James Emtage, Objector, made the following points:

  • The site was situated outside the established village envelope and the application was contrary to Local Plan Policy DS3.
  • The proposed dwelling was tall and elevated, making it visually intrusive in the rural landscape and harmful to the character of the Cotswolds [AB1] National Landscape.
  • The scheme included no affordable housing. A covenant for local occupancy and a scaled-down, single-storey design were suggested to make it more suitable for local families.

 

Public Speaker 3

The agent, Mark Pettit, made the following points:

  • The proposal aligned with Local Plan policy allowing small-scale housing in non-principal settlements and contributed to housing supply.
  • The scheme was revised following officer feedback and was supported by the Conservation Officer. The barn-style design was considered appropriate for the village edge and used local materials.
  • The proposed dwelling was modest in height and well-positioned to minimise visual impact.
  • The proposal supported village vitality and aligned with NPPF aims to sustain rural services.
  • No objections were raised by highways, ecology, the tree officer, or rights of way.  

 

Councillor Len Wilkins, Ward Member, made the following points:

  • The proposed dwelling was significantly larger and taller than the existing stables, visually dominant, and out of keeping with the surrounding village and nearby listed buildings.
  • The current stables provided value to the wider community, including disadvantaged children.
  • The proposal conflicted with Local Plan policies (DS3, EN1, EN2, EN10) by failing to protect local character, landscape, and heritage assets.
  • High biodiversity loss and relocation of the pond may harm local wildlife and disrupt existing natural corridors.

 

Having addressed the Committee objecting to the application as the Ward Member, Councillor Wilkins left the Committee Room at 15:41 and did not take part in the determination of the application.

 

Members questions

A Member questioned why this new-build “barn-style” dwelling was treated differently from a similar nearby application in Temple Guiting, which was refused for being inappropriate to the Cotswold landscape.

 

The Case Officer explained that the proposed barn-style design reflected the rural setting and existing built form, including a stable block and nearby agricultural buildings. Following consultation, no objections had been raised by the Conservation and Design Officer.

 

The Head of Planning explained that the application depended on the success of the design, which was considered to be of a quality that appropriately reflected and fitted within the context of this part of the village.

 

A Member asked that given the current status of policy, which was becoming outdated, whether this application aligned with the recent policy changes.

 

The Case Officer explained that the site was still considered a sustainable location, as the plan prioritised development in principal and non-principal settlements while directing it away from open countryside. This aligned with policy DS3. Although the policy was somewhat out of date, no direct conflict was identified with the local plan or the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 11).

 

Members questioned the scale of the design and whether it complemented the existing settlement, as required by policy DS3. Questions were posed about the current policy status and how the design fitted within the largely historic character of the area.

The Case Officer explained that an earlier design raised concerns, but after collaboration with the applicant, the revised proposal now meets the design code.

 

Members asked what the existing and proposed building heights were. The proposed height was approximately 8 meters with a single storey building being 3-4 meters.

 

A Member asked if there were any material planning considerations why should this application should not be permitted. The Case Officer explained that the recommendation was that the application be permitted.

 

A Member explained that some objections raised concerns about light pollution due to the large glazed barn doors. It was asked whether there were measures to control light emissions from these glazed areas?

The Case Officer explained that there was a recommended condition controlling external lighting. However, internal lighting could not be controlled by this condition.

 

Member Comments

Members made the following comments:

  • Concerns were raised over the building height.
  • A Proposal was received for a Site Inspection Briefing to judge the location concerns.

Reason – to judge the height of proposed building against status quo. To have a ‘feel’ for architectural context for the non-principal settlement.

 

Councillor Patrick Coleman proposed a Site Inspection Briefing and Councillor David Fowles Seconded the proposal.

 

RESOLVED: To APPROVE a Site Inspection Briefing.

 

16:03 Councillor Len Wilkins returned to the Chamber

r

 [AB1]Old terminology.

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages