Skip to main content

Agenda item

25/02175/FUL Thyme - Southrop Estate Office

Proposal

Erection of 3 new structures.

 

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:

  • Further comments had been received in the late pages, including a letter of support, an additional objection, and information from the agent providing public footpath viewpoints and photo montages.
  • Shared site location, aerial photographs, tithe maps site boundaries, photographs from various directions, elevations plans.

 

Public Speakers

Speaker 1 – Southrop Parish Council – Councillor Timothy Guest

Southrop Parish Council confirmed that their previously submitted statement reflected their unanimous view and remained unchanged. Whilst recognising the applicant’s rationale to increase room numbers and local employment benefits, the Parish Council raised concerns about impacts on residents’ enjoyment of the village, protection of heritage assets, and potential construction disruption. They did not oppose the application in principle but requested mitigation through design changes and enforceable conditions.

                                                                                                           

Speaker 2 - Objector - Jonathan Turnock

The objector reiterated concerns regarding visual impact, design, and proximity to listed buildings. Concern was raised about the proposed hotel accommodation block being overly dense, forming a hard edge to the village, and dominating views from public footpaths. The proximity of new buildings to the Dovecote, Newman's House, and other listed structures was highlighted, with potential harm to the conservation area and the significance of these heritage assets. The objector concluded that the development would result in substantial and permanent heritage harm, including the loss of a green gap, negative visual impact, inappropriate density and design, and loss of historic legibility, and urged the Committee to refuse the application in accordance with the 1990 Planning Act and local plan policies EN1, EN10, and EN11.

 

Speaker 3 – Supporter – Kirsty Wills

The supporter highlighted their long-term residence in Southrop and personal experience with the business. They emphasised the positive local impact of Thyme, including year-round employment, use of local suppliers, support for community events, and contribution to the village’s heritage and landscape. The supporter noted that the proposed development would have minimal impact on traffic and neighbouring properties, and would be in keeping with the village character.

 

Speaker 4 – Applicant - Camilla Hibbert

The applicant noted the restoration of the derelict farmstead into a significant rural business. They highlighted the challenges of maintaining year-round occupancy and explained that the proposed spa facilities were essential to improving off-season demand, extending guest stays, and supporting local employment. The applicant noted that Planning, Environmental Health, Gloucestershire Highways, and Conservation Officers had all recommended approval, and that the scheme would sustain the business’s long-term viability and contribution to the local economy.

 

Speaker 5 – Ward Member – Councillor David Fowles

The Ward Member noted that 50 residents, approximately 40% of the village, had objected, while 36 letters of support had also been submitted. They highlighted the significant contribution of Thyme to the local economy, employing over 138 people and providing wider community benefits, and recognised the sensitive restoration of existing buildings over the past 18 years. The Ward Member expressed concern that the application involved new buildings in open countryside, which could result in overdevelopment, harm to the Cotswold landscape, adverse impacts on heritage and listed buildings, noise, light, and highways issues, and the creation of a “village within a village.”

 

Member Site Inspection Briefing Feedback

  • The landscape was flat with gentle slopes, the existing buildings were clearly visible with their age and use apparent, and the public footpaths were well used. They described the proposal as a finely balanced scheme.
  • The site was viewed from various public footpaths, as well as in relation to the church and nearby listed buildings. The Dovecote itself was not entered.
  • The lanes through the village were driven to assess the site context.
  • The model showing building heights and the CGI model aided visualising the development’s impact. It was commented that it was unfortunate that light pollution could not be assessed due to the time of day.

 

16:50 Councillor Ray Brassington left the meeting

Councillor David Fowles raised concerns about the number of Members on the Planning and Licensing committee.  The Chair explained that the Committee was quorate.

 

Member Questions

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

  • The closest building to the boundary was single-storey, with a one-and-a-half-storey building set further back. There were no windows on the western elevations of the hotel bedroom or yoga studio with limited windows or doors on the spa building. Therefore, there would be no unacceptable overlooking from these buildings.
  • The Flood Risk Management Officer requested additional information on drainage. The agents had agreed to the pre-commencement condition requested.
  • Some lighting would be visible in the evenings, primarily from the lightweight link between the two stone buildings, but this was not considered out of character with the setting or the Conservation Area.
  • Whilst the development would change the site, this would not necessitate harm to the significance of the listed buildings or the soft-edge character of the settlement. The proposed buildings were designed with small-scale, broken massing in an agricultural style and the setting of the barn had already been altered by existing domestic features.
  • The height of the existing boundary wall would not have affected the officer assessment or recommendation with regard to impact on heritage assets.
  • Biodiverse green roofs were proposed on the more contemporary buildings to create a visual contrast with the traditional pitched-roof buildings. These roofs were intended as meadow grass roofs rather than sedum coverage.
  • While permitted development rights could allow for the landing and taking off of helicopters, in the officer’s view, the addition of three extra bedrooms would not materially intensify helicopter activity.

 

Member Comments

  • The site was already visually cluttered and confusing, noting that some existing buildings might not receive permission if assessed today.
  • Concern was raised about the single-storey residential building whose garden faced the field, with features appearing overly urban and out of keeping with the countryside setting.
  • From public viewpoints, including footpaths, the application site was clearly visible, reinforcing the importance of how boundaries were treated.
  • The economic benefit of the proposal carried greater weight than was typically the case when assessing impacts on listed buildings and their settings.

 

Councillor Ian Watson proposed and Councillor Michael Vann seconded the proposal to permit the application. The proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.

RESOLVED: To PERMIT the application.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages