Skip to main content

Agenda item

25/02175/FUL - Thyme - Southrop Estate Office

Proposal

Erection of 3 new structures and associated landscaping to provide additional spa facilities and hotel accommodation at Thyme.

 

Case Officer

Amy Hill

 

Ward Member

Councillor David Fowles

 

Recommendation

PERMIT

Minutes:

The proposal was for the erection of 3 new structures and associated landscaping to provide additional spa facilities and hotel accommodation.

 

Case Officer: Amy Hill

Ward Member: Councillor David Fowles

Officer Recommendation: PERMIT

 

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

  • Updates were provided in the additional pages including conditions 4 and 5 which had been reviewed and updated.
  • Maps of the location site and the background of the business.
  • Ariel photographs showing location and Public Right of Way (PROW).
  • Photographs of the site from various directions.
  • Site location plan, site sections and site elevations.

 

Public Speakers

Speaker 1 – Southrop Parish Council – Councillor Cathy Brickley

The Parish Council noted that, although the application had been subject to pre-application discussions, no local consultation had taken place. An objection was raised due to concerns about new development within a conservation area, including potential noise and light pollution, the risk of further incremental development, and impacts on nearby listed buildings. The speaker raised concerns about increased traffic on narrow village roads and the absence of a traffic survey. The level of local objection was highlighted as evidence of concern that the proposal represented over-development harmful to the character and scale of the village.

 

Speaker 2 - Objector - Jonathan Turnock

Dr Jonathan Turnock, Associate Heritage Consultant, spoke on behalf of the owners of The Dovecote, a building adjacent to the site. He raised concerns that the application had not been supported by an adequate heritage assessment and that the level of heritage harm identified was understated. He considered that the proposed development would cause harm to the Southrop Conservation Area and to the significance of nearby Grade II listed buildings. He stated that the loss of open land would harm the historic setting and functional relationship of these assets and adversely affect important views from public footpaths. He concluded that public benefits had not been sufficiently demonstrated.

 

Speaker 3 – Supporter - Flavia Mann

She considered that the level of local support for Thyme had not been fully reflected and emphasised the value of Thyme’s role in sustaining village amenities, employment and community life. She described Thyme as a locally rooted business that provided quiet facilities and supported a wide range of local jobs and suppliers. She did not believe the proposal would result in increased noise, light or traffic, and considered the development to be a modest and appropriate evolution.

 

Speaker 4 – Applicant - Camilla Hibbert

The General Manager of Thyme outlined that the business employed a local team of approximately 130 people and had restored the former farmstead. She highlighted ongoing investment in listed buildings and local trades and crafts and its commitment to sustainability. She stated that the design had been developed in accordance with heritage guidance and that the applicant had engaged with neighbours and the Parish Council, resulting in revisions to the scheme.

 

Speaker 5 – Ward Member – Councillor David Fowles

The Ward Member acknowledged Thyme’s achievements and its positive role within a close-knit community. He outlined the history of Thyme’s development since 2002 and recognised its success, local employment and use of local suppliers. However, he emphasised that the current proposal differed from previous applications as it involved new development in open countryside.

He noted that 49 residents had objected, raising concerns about overdevelopment, impacts on the Cotswolds landscape, noise, light pollution, traffic, future expansion and harm to listed buildings and the conservation area. Whilst acknowledging recent amendments made by the applicant, he stated that concerns remained regarding traffic increases and heritage impacts. He described the application as finely balanced and requested that a site visit be arranged to allow Members to fully understand the village context and potential impacts.

 

Member questions

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

  • The officer highlighted recent changes to the siting of the plant room to mitigate impacts on neighbouring properties.
  • The green roof on the spa building was not included as part of the noise mitigation measures, and biodiversity officers did not give significant weight to green roofs for biodiversity benefits.
  • Controlling construction traffic and protecting narrow lanes and grass verges could be managed through a Construction Management Plan.  It was advised that this would be an onerous condition, noting that the applicant could appeal against conditions they consider excessive.
  • No traffic survey had been requested, and Highways had indicated they were satisfied that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable increase in traffic.
  • The paddock contributed mainly to the soft, low-density rural edge of the settlement. While historically associated with nearby buildings, there was no direct functional relationship. Proposed development would respect this character and comprise of low, small-scale buildings with meadow grass roofs to integrate with the landscape.
  • Proposed buildings were designed to be low, small-scale, and broken up, reflecting traditional outbuildings, with contemporary, green-roofed elements discreetly integrated so that impacts on the Conservation Area and adjacent listed buildings would be limited.
  • Price’s Barn on the site location plan was now known as the Dovecot.
  • Limited height of the new building reduced prominence, but would still be visible.
  • The main overflow car park was accessible from the south and did not require driving through the village. Whilst some visitors might pass through the village, the additional parking demand was expected to be minimal, with a small increase in winter visitor traffic.

 

Member Comments

Members proposed the following reasons to arrange a Site Inspection Briefing:

  • Complexity of the site, both existing and proposed.
  • Evolution of the proposal in late submissions and papers, including design changes.
  • Topography and the special nature of the landscape.
  • Multiple protections: National Landscape, Conservation Area, and Listed Buildings.
  • Widespread public concern.
  • Evidence from debate highlighted difficulty in fully understanding all elements without a recent site visit.
  • A previous site visit was many years ago and the site had likely changed significantly since then.

 

Councillor Ray Brassington proposed an All-Member Site Inspection Briefing and Councillor Daryl Corps seconded the proposal.  The proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.

 

RESOLVED: To DEFER the application.

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages