Skip to main content

Agenda item

25/01970/PLP - Land At Ethans Orchard

Proposal

Permission in Principle for the erection of 1 self-build dwelling.

 

Case Officer

Amy Hill

 

Ward Member

Councillor Paul Hodgkinson

 

Recommendation

PERMIT

Minutes:

The proposal was for Permission in Principle for the erection of 1 self-build dwelling.

 

Case Officer-Amy Hill

Ward Member-Cllr Paul Hodgkinson

Original Recommendation: PERMIT

 

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

  • A late comment raised concerns about flooding, ecology, heritage, and landscape impact.
  • There was a recap of location maps, aerial photographs and photographs from various directions.

 

Public speaker 1 – Objector – Sarah Calder

The objector argued that development would harm the landscape, conflict with the Cotswold Landscape Strategy, and breach duties under the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 to protect the AONB.

 

Public speaker 2 – applicant – George Charnick

The applicant claimed that the scheme would enhance the site’s appearance, hide vehicles, and improve drainage, whilst offering an innovative, energy-efficient home of architectural quality. They stressed that design details would be reviewed to ensure it preserved the conservation area.

 

Ward Member

Councillor Paul Hodgkinson stated that the site lay within the Chedworth

Conservation Area and the Cotswold National Landscape, both of which were highly protected. There were concerns raised that development would cause harm to heritage and landscape, including the loss of an important rural gap and intrusion into key views. It was noted that the proposal conflicted with statutory duties, national and local policies, with no clear public benefit.

 

Site Inspection Briefing Feedback

Following the Site Inspection Briefing the following observations were made:

  • The site’s open landscape was a distinctive and important feature of Middle Chedworth.
  • The hedging was quite tall and the existing garage structure was lower down the slope.
  • The existing hedge now blocked the valley view and there was consideration as to whether removing the garage and hardstanding and landscaping the right-hand side of the site would offset the visual impact of a dwelling.

 

Member Questions

Members asked questions of the officers, which were responded to in the following way:

  • If permission was granted, the applicant must submit a technical details application, which could return to committee if ward members request it.
  • The Council cannot control the existing hedges indefinitely. At the technical details stage, a landscaping condition could require the applicant to submit a scheme and maintain hedges for five years, after which control would revert.
  • The existing hedges were a material consideration for the landscape, including the Cotswold National Landscape, but they were not permanent and could be removed at any time.
  • The eastern half of the site could be considered more prominent and visible from the public right of way.
  • Past advice stated that any building permitted on the site must not block the view.
  • The site was not within a Site of Special Scientific Interest.
  • In consideration of whether the site was “in” or “abutting” the village under policies DS3 and DS4, it was explained that the land was currently agricultural and if developed it would read as part of the village.

 

Member Comments

In discussing the application, Members made the following comments:

  • The existing hedge was being used as a bargaining tool and granting Planning in Principle on the left-hand side could result in unacceptable development.
  • Members questioned whether an acceptable design could be achieved, noting that features like a grass roof alone would not address broader impacts.
  • The openness and punctuated housing pattern on the lower side of the road was an important feature of the community’s landscape.
  • A Member noted that to achieve an acceptable building would be a challenge but believed these conditions could be met.

 

Councillor Julia Judd proposed to REFUSE the application against the Case Officer’s recommendations and Councillor David Fowles seconded the proposal.

Reasons for refusal included:

  • The site lay within the Chedworth Conservation Area, which required special attention to preserve or enhance its character.
  • The site provided a valuable open space which linked the village to surrounding agricultural land and reinforced the village’s development pattern, with differences in density across the site.
  • A dwelling with domestic paraphernalia would materially alter the character and appearance, causing harm to the conservation area.
  • Any harm could not be sufficiently mitigated or outweighed by public benefits.
  • The proposal was contrary to Local Plan Policies EN2, EN10, EN11 and NPPF Chapters 2, 12, 16.
  • The site was within the Cotswolds National Landscape, requiring consideration for conserving and enhancing natural beauty.
  • The site provided open space linking the village to agricultural land, reinforced rural character and contributed positively to the character and appearance of the National Landscape.
  • The construction of a dwelling would detrimentally impact the site’s character and appearance and even with sensitive design, the site would no longer form an integral part of the countryside.
  • The proposal failed to conserve and enhance natural beauty, contrary to Section 85A1 of the Countryside Rights of Way Act, Local Plan Policies EN1, EN2, EN4, EN5, NPPF Paragraphs 187 and 189, and the Cotswold Landscape Management Plan.

 

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

RESOLVED: to REFUSE the application.

14:55 – 15:03 break

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages