Skip to main content

Agenda item

24/02513/FUL - Siddington Park, Cirencester

Proposal

Development of land and erection of buildings to expand an existing Integrated Retirement Community (Use Class C2)

 

Case Officer

Andrew Moody

 

Ward Member

Councillor Mike Evemy

 

Recommendation

PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETION OF A SECTION 106 LEGAL AGREEMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS LIBRARY FACILITIES AND TRAVEL PLAN; ALSO THE PAYMENT OF THE FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT UPON THE NORTH MEADOW AND CLATTINGER FARM SPECIAL AREA OF CONSERVATION

 

 

Minutes:

The proposal was the development of land and erection of buildings to expand an existing Integrated Retirement Community (Use Class C2).

 

Case Officer: Andrew Moody

Ward Member: Councillor Mike Evemy

Officer recommendation: PERMIT subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement.

 

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

  • The Case Officer shared the site location plan, proposed site block plan, aerial photographs, proposed landscaping, block elevations, shadow diagrams, and site photographs from various directions.
  • Additional pages included the applicant’s financial viability assessment, along with a review by independent consultants commissioned by the Council, which was referenced during discussions about the approval of affordable housing.
  • The appendices included the full needs assessment, as well as the tree survey details from the Site Inspection Briefing.
  • The proposed blocks were within acceptable separation distances per the Cotswold Design Code. For two-storey blocks, a minimum of 22?m was required: Block?1 was 42.5?m from Number?2 Preston Leigh and 52m to the side of Number?3; Block?2 is 33m and 46m to the rear of Nos.?3 and?4 respectively. For three-storey blocks, a minimum of 28m was required: Block?3 ranged from 42.5m to 50m to adjacent rear elevations. Block?4, a mix of three and four storeys, also met or exceeded the 28m standard.

 

Speaker 1 – Objector – Oli Freeling-Wilkinson

Whilst local residents supported reasonable development, the current proposal for six blocks of flats, including three- and four-storey buildings close to their homes, raised serious concerns. He noted the applicant had not meaningfully engaged beyond one pre-application meeting, design revisions remained incomplete according to the Conservation Officer, and tree mitigation was inadequate due to planned felling and inaccurate shadow reports.

 

Speaker 2 – Agent

Siddington Park provided purpose-built housing with care for older residents, meeting a documented local need for housing with care. The proposed final phase added communal facilities and had addressed all planning concerns, including tree works approved on health and safety grounds. The development supported the local economy and was considered sensitive, balanced, and appropriate.

 

Speaker 3 – Ward Member – Councillor Mike Evemy

The Ward Member raised three main concerns about the application: the accuracy of tree and shadow impact evidence, the absence of any affordable housing provision, and the effect of building scale and proximity on neighbours’ amenity at Preston Leigh. They welcomed clarification on tree replacement but questioned the shadow diagrams based on observations. They also requested a viability review to secure a future affordable housing contribution, raised concerns that some blocks may be too large and too close to neighbouring properties, and sought stronger conditions on construction timing and drainage.

 

Member Site Inspection Briefing feedback:

  • Concerns were expressed about the appropriateness of four-storey buildings in Cirencester, particularly in relation to their scale and potential fire engine access difficulties due to building height and narrowing road layout.
  • Concerns were also expressed that the proposed large block would create excessive darkness and overshadowing, that parking provision appeared insufficient for the number of apartments, that the amount of usable green space and privacy may be overstated once roads and buildings were in place, and that the overall layout could feel overlooked.
  • The Phase 1 accommodation appeared densely packed with Phase 2 designed to be more densely packed.

 

Member Questions

  • The late financial viability assessment had been independently reviewed by consultants commissioned by the Council. They did conclude that the scheme would not generate sufficient profit to support an affordable housing contribution.
  • The nearest part of Block Four to Number 6 Preston Leigh was three storeys in height, with the four-storey element set about 29 metres away, and that the closest block elevation would be blank because balconies had been removed following officer concerns about overlooking of neighbouring gardens.

 

Member Comments

  • This was a finely balanced application, with notable design concerns about the height and massing of Blocks four to six, and support resting mainly on the council’s low housing land supply.
  • Due to the Council’s housing land supply being below the required five years, the scheme was being considered more favourably than it otherwise would be, but concerns remained that it conflicted with the local plan and design code. Block 4 was particularly judged to cause heritage harm through excessive scale and massing and to fail key design principles on height, bulk, and human scale.
  • The proposal provided zero affordable housing on a 55-unit scheme where up to 40% would normally be expected, meaning that the community gained no meaningful local benefit in return for the identified visual and heritage harm.
  • Concerns were raised about the need for additional retirement properties, citing examples of existing sites in the district where units remained unoccupied.
  • The site lacked meaningful green space.

 

 

Councillor Julia Judd proposed REFUSING the application and Councillor Joe Harris seconded the proposal.

 

Refusal reasons:

  1. Heritage: Impact on the setting of the listed building, conflicting with Local Plan policies EN10 and EN11, and Paragraphs 212 and 215 of the NPPF.
  2. Design: Failure to conform with Local Plan policies EN1 and EN2 and the Cotswold Design Code, conflicting with Paragraphs 135 and 139 of the NPPF.

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

 

RESOLVED: To REFUSE the application.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages