Skip to main content

Agenda item

25/01036/OUT - Land East Of Cotswold Business Village

Proposal

Outline application for up to 195 dwellings.

 

Case Officer

Martin Perks

 

Ward Member

Councillor Angus Jenkinson

 

Recommendation

REFUSE

Minutes:

The proposal was for outline application for up to 195 dwellings.

 

Case Officer: Martin Perks

Ward Member: Cllr Angus Jenkinson

Original recommendation: REFUSE

The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application who made the following points:

  • The applicants confirmed they were exploring the purchase of biodiversity net gain units; however, this would require inclusion in a Section 106 agreement with no formal mechanism to secure this.
  • Representations were received from Councillor Jenkinson, the final response from GCC Highways and a copy of the Environment Agency’s response.
  • Location maps, aerial photographs, potential building plan, photographs of location from different areas showing views from different approaches were shared.
  • A summary of 2 further objections from local residents was presented.

 

Public speaker 1 - Moreton in Marsh Town Council - Cllr Eileen Viviani

The Town Council objected to the development as it lay outside the town boundary and should be considered windfall. The Town Council supported the officer’s recommendation for refusal and raised concerns about unclear financial contributions. They also highlighted the need for co-ordinated, sustainable planning to address cumulative development, infrastructure needs, and potential garden village proposals near the parish boundary.

 

Public Speaker 2 – Objector – Cllr Simon Randall

The Chair of Shipton Under Wychwood Parish Council had spoken in support of refusal, highlighting shared flooding concerns along the River Evenlode, which linked Moreton-in-Marsh and downstream villages. He noted that additional development could worsen sewage discharge and flooding.

 

Public Speaker 3 – Agent Bloor Homes – Jonathan Brown

Bloor Homes stated that the site was sustainable, outside protected landscapes, and supported the Council’s corporate plan by addressing the affordable housing shortfall. The proposal included up to 195 homes (78 affordable), green infrastructure, biodiversity net gain, PV panels, EV charging, and a new active travel corridor. Bloor Homes argued that the scheme resolved infrastructure concerns and represented a sustainable development for the district.

 

Ward Member – Cllr Angus Jenkinson

The Ward Member noted that while some elements, such as landscaping, tree planting, and bus stop design, were positive, the overall scheme was flawed. Key concerns included the site’s isolation outside the town boundary, inadequate infrastructure for waste, foul water, medical services, and highways, potential safety issues with cycle lanes, road noise and pollution, and the strain on local services.

 

Member Questions

Members asked questions of the officers, who responded in the following way:

  • The majority of the site lay within Flood Zone 1, with areas in Flood Zones 2 and 3 at the eastern part of the site.
  • The application did not fully meet the NPPF criteria as highlighted by the Town Council.
  • The Primrose Court treatment works and the treatment works next to the current site were interconnected, but the Environment Agency’s focus had been on the capacity of the latter, where the waste ultimately flows. Rising capacity issues had led to water being discharged into watercourses. Thames Water had recommended a condition that no occupation occurred until necessary upgrades were completed, and the local authority must be satisfied that these issues can be addressed.
  • The Air Quality Officer agreed that the Nitrogen Oxide air levels would be below the objectives whilst also recognising that any increase in traffic would affect air pollution levels.
  • The adjacent employment site comprised of a mix of B1, B2, and B8 use (storage and distribution). Noise surveys had been carried out, identifying an exclusion zone around the western part of the application site within which housing would be restricted.
  • The application was considered not to be sustainablefor a number of reasons including the cumulative impact of development on the town, transport, poor integration with the existing settlement, car dependence, air quality, congestion, sewage provision and landscape impact.
  • The risk of foul water discharged into a watercourse was a material consideration and must be adequately mitigated. Thames Water had recommended a condition preventing occupation of the development until the necessary upgrades had been completed.

 

Members Comments

In discussing the application, Members made the following comments:

  • That simply building more homes did not improve affordability of homes and that affordability in the Cotswold District had continued to worsen.
  • Members applauded the inclusion of 40% affordable housing within the scheme.
  • The proposal created a piecemeal, standalone enclave of housing that integrated poorly with both the existing settlement and the surrounding landscape.

 

Councillor Julia Judd proposed REFUSING the application and Councillor Ray Brassington seconded the proposal. This proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.

 

Recommendation: to REFUSE the application.

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages