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

 

Original Recommendation: PERMIT

 

The Chair invited the Case Officer to present the application:

  • The Case Officer shared site location plan, aerial photograph, original and revised design and layout, existing building, surrounding views and surrounding highways.

 

Public speakers

Speaker 1

Councillor Liza Hanks – Temple Guiting Parish Council

The Parish Councillor spoke in objection, describing the site as a well-maintained, cherished green space, not a brownfield or neglected plot. They noted that 74% of the hamlet’s residents had submitted formal objections, fearing loss of this valued landscape.

The speaker argued that the proposed development did not reflect local building traditions or landscape character, disrupting the village’s historic pattern. They referenced relevant local plan policies that call for proportionate and respectful development, stating the proposal was out of scale and context.

The speaker acknowledged the challenge of meeting housing targets but urged the Committee to protect the site and refuse the application.

 

Speaker 2

James Emtage – Objector

The speaker highlighted that the site was small, with the proposed development nearly three times the height of the existing stables and was prominently visible from the road, especially if a large tree screening the site were removed. The speaker expressed concern that the new building would dominate the area, leaving little space for parking or gardens.

They requested that if development were permitted, it should be limited to a bungalow matching the current stables’ height and footprint to preserve the character of the site.

The stables had been rented by the speaker’s parents for over 35 years and had served as an open, community-focused space used by local families, children with special needs, and others to engage with animals and nature. The speaker questioned whether replacing this valued community asset with housing that might increase patronage at a local pub truly benefited the community. They urged the Committee to protect the stables as an important rural asset rather than allowing an out-of-character, dominant new build.

 

Speaker 3

Mark Pettit – Agent

The Agent described the site as a natural infill plot within Kineton’s built-up area, proposing one additional dwelling on previously developed land amid a housing land supply shortage.

The speaker noted that the scheme had been refined through officer engagement and no statutory consultees, except the parish council, had objected. The proposed dwelling, though larger than the existing stables, was consistent in scale with nearby properties and was designed in a traditional barn-like style using local materials to blend with the area.

They highlighted the scheme’s alignment with Local Plan policies allowing small-scale development, its lack of adverse impacts on landscape, amenity, or heritage, and the applicant’s willingness to accept recommended conditions. The speaker requested the Committee approve the application in line with officer recommendation, emphasising its positive contribution to the rural community.

 

Speaker 4

Councillor Len Wilkins – Ward Member

The Ward Member, representing Kineton, objected to the proposal, clarifying that Kineton was a hamlet with limited amenities; a pub and a saddlery. They stated the proposed building was out of scale and dominant, located on a prominent high bank.

The Ward Member emphasised the breach of Cotswolds National Landscape policies, the loss of a much-loved stable used by local children and visitors, and potential negative impacts on biodiversity, including loss of trees, a pond, and wildlife movement. They also raised concerns about light pollution and the design being out of character with the area.

They noted the proximity of the development to a 700-year-old listed building and the resulting loss of privacy. The Ward Member highlighted narrow local roads and limited parking as further issues. Overall, they urged the Committee to consider conservation policies and to protect the hamlet’s character and natural environment.

 

Site Inspection Briefing

Councillors Corps, Vann, Maclean, Brassington, Watson

  • The site was located on the edge of the village, located between tall farm buildings and an existing house. It was considered that a dwelling on the site would neither overlook nor be overlooked by neighbouring properties, as hedges provided screening from the adjacent house.
  • Kineton was described as a village that blended naturally into the landscape. It was noted that the existing saddlery sat gently within the hillside, partially screened by trees, and harmonised with the surrounding Cotswold stone buildings. From the nearby footpath, Members observed that the proposed development would appear significantly larger and more prominent than the existing structure at the village entrance.
  • The proposal involved demolition of the existing stables and the construction of a new build barn conversion designed to resemble a traditional barn conversion. Members also observed nearby redundant-looking modern farm buildings, expressing concern that approving this application might set a precedent for future development on adjacent sites.
  • The existing stables were currently well screened by trees and vegetation when approaching the village from both the south and the north. A new, taller building positioned further forward on the plot would be significantly more prominent from multiple viewpoints, including from the nearby footpath.

 

Member questions

A Member asked whether the Conservation Officer could comment on how the design related to policies EN2 and EN4, particularly in terms of respecting local character, landscape quality, and tranquillity.  Additional questions were raised regarding the acceptability of the design as it was still perceived to be a "fake barn conversion" rather than a traditional dwelling. Members asked the Officer to explain why this style was considered acceptable in a small village such as Kineton.

 

The Case Officer confirmed that, following consultation with landscape and conservation officers, the design was considered acceptable and not harmful to the landscape.

The Conservation Officer clarified the reasoning for supporting the proposed design:

  • Kineton was not a conservation area, and the application site was not close enough to listed buildings to significantly affect their setting. The existing stable was not considered a non-designated heritage asset.
  • Whilst the proposal was for a new build, the design approach taken had been to reflect the agricultural character of the site. The Cotswold threshing barn was considered to preserve the rural character which remained notably agricultural and open.
  • Although the gable appeared tall, the house was effectively 1.5 storeys high. The design included minimal fenestration and modest materials to reduce its visual impact.
  • A bungalow might have been lower in height but was considered to have a more domestic appearance, which was regarded as less appropriate in this rural setting.

The Conservation Officer concluded that, if a dwelling were to be permitted on this site, an agricultural-style design approach was considered appropriate.

 

A Member asked the Case Officer to clarify what was meant by “modest benefits” in the context of the proposal.

The Case Officer explained that the “modest benefits” referred to in the report included the provision of an additional dwelling, contributing to the housing supply, and the associated economic benefits from construction activity.

 

Members asked for clarification on the height of the existing and proposed buildings.
The Case Officer explained that the existing stable was estimated to be 3.5 metres high, while the proposed new dwelling would be 8 metres to the ridge and 4.2 metres to the eaves.
In terms of floor space, the existing stable measured approximately 6.5 metres by 16.5 metres. The proposed dwelling measured approximately 8 metres by 18 metres and also included an additional storey, resulting in an increase in internal floorspace.

A Member questioned the location of the tree proposed for removal.
The Case Officer was unable to access the Arboricultural Survey, however, the Arboricultural Officer had advised that the proposal would result in the removal of one tree of low quality and a replacement tree could be secured by the recommended landscaping condition.

 

Member Comments

Members made the following comments:

  • This was not considered a modest Cotswold home, but rather a large, high-value property unlikely to serve local needs. It was felt it risked becoming a second home, offering little benefit to the community, while resulting in the loss of a much-loved amenity.
  • Some Members expressed surprise that Corpus Christi College had supported the removal of trees and a valued community amenity, suggesting that the proposal appeared to be motivated by profit rather than community interest.

The Case Office informed Members that the Saddlery could not be considered a community facility, as its planning history related solely to use as a stable block.

 

A Member expressed the view that the proposed development was contrary to several key Local Plan policies:

  • Policy EN1: It was considered that the proposal failed to promote the protection, conservation, and enhancement of the historic and natural environment. The removal of an established community amenity and its replacement with a large, incongruous dwelling was seen as undermining these objectives.
  • Policy EN2: Members felt that the design did not reflect high-quality architecture or respect the distinctive character and appearance of the local area. Evidence from the site visit, local representations, and the parish council suggested that the scale, height, and visual prominence of the new building would result in a building which was out of keeping with the traditional rural form of the settlement.
  • Policy EN4: The development was considered to have a detrimental impact on the local landscape. In particular, concerns were raised about its elevated and prominent position, the loss of rural openness, the removal of a tree, and the erosion of the quiet, countryside character of the hamlet.

These combined factors led Members to conclude that the proposal did not meet the standards set out in the Local Plan for development in sensitive rural locations.

 

A Member stated that the application did not support the vitality of the local community and it was not of a proportionate scale with regards to Local Plan Policy DS3. Officers referred Members to paragraph 11 of the NPPF, which was of relevance due to the Council’s housing land supply position, and advised that any adverse impacts of granting permission would have to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the framework.

 

Another Member added concerns around the sustainability of the proposal stating that the village was largely inaccessible without a car and lacked modern services. There were also biodiversity concerns, especially large windows that could cause light pollution and disrupted wildlife corridors used by bats and other animals, contrary to Policy EN8. Members were advised that the Biodiversity Officer had raised no objection to the proposal.

 

A Member found no grounds to oppose the Case Officer’s recommendations finding no material planning considerations.

 

Councillor Corps proposed REFUSING the Case Offers recommendation and Councillor Fowles seconded the proposal.

The Case Officer summed up the reasons that had been given for refusal:

 

The site occupied an elevated and prominent position within the street scene on the approach to the village of Kineton. Due to its design, scale, and form of the proposed development it failed to protect or enhance the existing natural assets and their settings, contrary to policy EN1A. The design quality failed to respect the character and distinctive appearance of the locality and had a significant detrimental impact on the natural landscape and character of the village, contrary to Policies EN1 e), EN2 and EN4 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 and Section 12 of the NPPF.

 

The proposal to refuse the application was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.

 

RESOLVED: To REFUSE the application 

16:02 – 16:14 break

Councillor Judd did not return to the Chamber

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages