Skip to main content

Agenda item

24/03501/OUT - Land North of The Wern, Lechlade

Proposal

Residential development of up to 54 residential dwellings.

 

Case Officer

Martin Perks

 

Ward Member

Councillors Helene Mansilla and Tristan Wilkinson

 

Recommendation

REFUSE

Minutes:

Proposal

The proposal was for the residential development of up to 54 residential dwellings at Land North of The Wern, Lechlade.

 

Case Officer : Martin Perks

Ward Members: Councillor Helene Mansilla and Cllr Tristian Wilkinson

 

Original recommendations : REFUSE

 

The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application.

 

  • Additional pages containing further information on biodiversity net gain were received. Although this information was under review, the current recommendation remained one of refusal.
  • Various supporting documents were presented, including location maps, extracts from the Local Plan, photographs of neighbouring land and roads, the site location plan, a roadworks plan, the Design and Access Statement, details of listed buildings, photographs of recent flooding, and information on recently refused applications.

 

Public speakers

Speaker 1

Councillor Steve Trotter – Lechlade on Thames Town Council.

He stated that Lechlade is a small principal settlement with limited infrastructure, and that the Local Plan strategy supports only small-scale development within the defined settlement boundary. It was noted that a previously allocated site within the boundary, controlled by the same landowner, remained undeveloped.

Councillor Trotter expressed concern that speculative applications outside the settlement boundary undermined both the Local and Neighbourhood Plans. He advised that the site had a history of applications, one withdrawn and two refused and continued to raise significant landscape, ecological, heritage, and drainage issues. The current application had attracted strong objections from three councils and approximately 100 residents.

While acknowledging the housing land supply position, he emphasised that the NPPF allowed refusal where the harms outweighed the benefits. He noted that proposed community infrastructure benefits had been reduced or removed in successive applications, while adverse impacts, including flooding concerns and harm to the setting of a Grade II listed building and the conservation area remained significant.

He urged the Committee to support the officer’s recommendation for refusal, in order to uphold the integrity of local planning policy and avoid setting a precedent for speculative development in the countryside.

 

Speaker 2

Alick Kitchen – Objector

A local resident, living in a listed building near the proposed site, spoke in objection to the application and raised eight main concerns:

  1. The proposal breached the housing limits set out in the Lechlade Neighbourhood Plan (2016–2031), undermining its purpose and potentially opening the door to further greenfield development.
  2. CDC’s 2021 SHLAA highlighted the need to preserve the rural character of Lechlade’s western approaches.
  3. Lechlade already faced issues with traffic, limited parking, and overstretched services. The town lacked key infrastructure such as a secondary school, railway station, and major employers.
  4. Development on the Thames floodplain posed increased flood risk, especially in light of recent severe flooding and climate change.
  5. Despite ecological assessments, the speaker reported recent illegal habitat destruction on the site, allegedly under investigation.
  6. The landowner had not developed nearby sites with existing permission, raising concerns about motives and delivery.
  7. With all matters reserved, there was no detail on housing numbers, parking, or design, making it unclear what was actually proposed.
  8. The application was materially identical to previously refused schemes, with the latest objection deadline having fallen on Christmas Day.

The speaker urged refusal.

 

Speaker 3

On behalf of Councillor Helene Mansilla – Ward Member

 

The Ward Member supported Lechlade Town Council’s objections and the Case Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

She stated that the proposal was fundamentally incompatible with both the adopted Cotswold District Local Plan and the Lechlade Neighbourhood Plan. It proposed major housing development on a greenfield site outside the settlement boundary, with no allocation, demonstrated local need, or overriding justification.

She noted that the officer’s report identified clear conflicts with Local Plan policies DS2, EN6, and H1, as well as Neighbourhood Plan policy H2. The proposal was considered to cause unjustified harm to the rural landscape, adversely impact heritage assets, and failed to demonstrate the required biodiversity net gain.

Councillor Mansilla emphasised that previous applications for the site had already been refused, most recently application 23/02917/OUT. She stated that the current proposal had not addressed the previous reasons for refusal and that additional concerns had since emerged, including flood risk and the absence of a secured Section 106 agreement.

She concluded by stating that planning decisions should support long-term sustainability rather than speculative development that strained infrastructure, lacked integration, and failed to meet policy objectives. She urged the Committee to uphold the officer’s recommendation and refuse the application in order to maintain the integrity of the planning system and public confidence.

 

Members questions

 

A Member queried the proposed housing density of the site, noting that the Design section had described it as very high. They asked what the proposed density was and what level would be considered unacceptable.

The Case Officer explained that while housing density figures can be misleading the proposed density of over 20 dwellings per hectare was relatively high for a rural edge-of-settlement location. By comparison, the allocated site to the south, just over half the size, had been agreed at nine dwellings. The Case Officer noted that accommodating 54 dwellings on the current site would represent a significant increase and would be difficult to deliver without harming the site’s context, especially given its proximity to a listed building.

 

A Member asked how much consideration could be given to potential revised layouts due to the application being an outline application.The Case Officer explained that the applicant had submitted an indicative layout in an updated Design and Access Statement but this had not addressed Officer concerns about the level of development being proposed and its impact on the area, including the setting of the nearby listed buildings.

 

A Member inquired how much of the site would be located within Flood Zone 3.

The Case Officer confirmed that none of the proposed residential development would be within Flood Zone 3.

 

A Member asked what the use class of the allocated employment land was.

The Case Officer explained that it was Class E(g), which would be compatible with nearby residential properties.

 

The Conservation Officer outlined serious concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development on the setting of Butler’s Court, a high-status listed farmhouse.

They explained that the building was historically surrounded by open countryside, but that development to the east in 2005 had already compromised its setting. The remaining open aspect to the west, where the proposed site is located was the only side retaining a meaningful rural relationship. If developed, the listed building would be enclosed by suburban housing, with its approach altered to a road through a housing estate. This, the Officer advised, would cause significant harm to its setting and could affect its long-term viability as a single dwelling.

 

A Member raised concerns about the predicted traffic movements, noting that only 27 vehicle movements had been forecast despite the site being at the opposite end of Lechlade from the school. They highlighted the lack of proposed cycle provision and limited footpath access, suggesting that the development would likely lead to greater car dependency and traffic impact.

The Case Officer responded that the applicant had been asked to undertake further movement studies to assess access routes into the town centre. Several walking options had been identified, and Gloucestershire County Highways had reviewed the data and found it acceptable. Highways officers considered the site to offer reasonable pedestrian and cycle access to local facilities, with distances of around one kilometre falling within acceptable thresholds under national guidance. The site was therefore not considered unsustainable in terms of accessibility.

 

Members comments

Members made the following comments on the application:

  • One Member expressed support for the Town Council’s objection, emphasising the importance of adhering to the Lechlade Neighbourhood Plan.
  • Another Member described the proposal as a misuse of the planning process, suggesting it lacked planning merit and appeared to rely on persistence rather than substance.
  • A further Member commented that the proposal did not integrate with the existing village and welcomed the Committee’s stance in supporting the officer’s recommendation and the objections raised by the parish councils.

 

Members discussed the nature of the applications coming before the Committee and whether some applications were seeking to manipulate constitutional proceedings around major applications.

 

A proposal to REFUSE the application in line with the officer recommendations was proposed by Councillor Judd and seconded by Councillor Fowles.

 

This proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages