Skip to main content

Agenda item

25/03351/OUT - Land North of Tops Nursery, Mickleton

Proposal

Outline planning application for demolition of existing buildings and for up to 95 dwellings with associated access and infrastructure, all other matters reserved at Land North of Tops Nursery, Broadway Road, Mickleton, Gloucestershire.

 

Case Officer

Martin Perks

 

Ward Members

Councillors Gina Blomefield and Tom Stowe

 

Recommendation

PERMIT subject to no objection from Biodiversity Officer and the completion of a S106 legal agreement covering affordable housing, self-build/ custom build housing, financial contributions to Biodiversity Net Gain monitoring, secondary education and library services.

Minutes:

Councillor David Fowles left the Chamber.

 

The proposal was for Outline planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and for up to 95 dwellings with associated access and infrastructure.

 

Case Officer: Martin Perks

Ward Members: Councillors Gina Blomefield and Tom Stowe

 

Recommendation: PERMIT subject to no objection from Biodiversity Officer and the completion of a S106 legal agreement covering affordable housing, self-build/custom build housing, financial contributions to Biodiversity Net Gain monitoring, secondary education and library services.

 

The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application.

The Case Officer shared the application details with the Committee including additional pages:

·         Councillor Tom Stowe declared an interest on 20 November 2025 due to his father’s partial ownership of the application site.

·         A contribution request had been received from Gloucestershire County Council for school transport, which the applicant had not objected to. The Case Officer advised that, if permission was granted, it was recommended that this contribution be secured through the Section 106 agreement.

·         An updated bat survey and Biodiversity net gain information were received shortly before the meeting and would be reviewed.

·         Biodiversity net gain matters were capable of resolution, with further clarification needed on whether they would be secured via Section 106 agreement or condition (e.g. habitat management plan)

 

Case Officer shared the application details with the Committee.

Public Speakers

Speaker 1 – Councillor Chris Cottam - Mickleton Parish Council

Concerns were raised that further development would bring limited local benefits and could increase pressure on existing infrastructure. Support was expressed for delivering affordable housing, but concerns were raised about the scale and type of market housing. It was noted that cumulative growth could expand Mickleton and risk harming the character of the village and its setting near the Cotswolds National Landscape. The Parish Council concluded that no further significant development should proceed until infrastructure needs are properly addressed.

 

Speaker 2 – Andy Crump – Objector

The proposal would not deliver any infrastructure improvements and that existing deficiencies in employment, health, social, and transport infrastructure would remain unresolved. The development would increase reliance on car use, with limited public transport provision.

 

Speaker 3 – Catherine Shepherd – Agent

The site was largely brownfield with being well located to local services and public transport, with separation distances to neighbouring properties and over one third of the site as open space. Biodiversity and environmental enhancements had been proposed, including ecological corridors, hedgehog highways, bat and bird boxes, tree and shrub planting, and a mix of on-site and off-site biodiversity net gain. Sustainability credentials were highlighted, including zero-carbon homes using air source heat pumps, solar PV, high insulation standards, and EV charging infrastructure.

 

Speaker 4 – Ward Member – Councillor Gina Blomefield

Concern was raised regarding cumulative housing growth in Mickleton. The village had grown in recent years without infrastructure improvements, including education, healthcare, retail, and leisure provision. Education capacity was already constrained, with local schools reportedly full or oversubscribed.

Highways and transport impacts were highlighted, including reliance on private cars, increasing traffic, road safety concerns, and potential additional pressure from nearby large-scale developments.

Capacity issues were raised in relation to water supply and wider utilities, alongside concerns about limited local employment leading to increased commuting. If approved, conditions should be applied relating to landscape impact, lighting, highway adoption, and mitigation of infrastructure impacts including education, health, employment, and retail provision.

 

Members questions

Members of the Committee asked a series of questions and noted that:

·         Thames Water had identified potential water supply pressure issues and requested a condition requiring a phased infrastructure plan to be agreed with the applicant to ensure any necessary upgrades are delivered.

·         Thames Water has a statutory duty to provide potable water supply and had raised no objection beyond the requested condition relating to infrastructure upgrades and water pressure management

·         The site was not classified as previously developed land due to its horticultural use, which is why the proposal provided 40% affordable housing.

·         Concern regarding the cumulative impact of potential future housing growth in Mickleton were acknowledged with the need for supporting infrastructure, including highways, drainage, schools, employment, and retail provision. 

·         There was a need for smaller homes, and a condition was proposed requiring 80% of the development to be three-bedroom properties or smaller.

  • The Parish Council would receive 15% of CIL receipts, alongside increased council tax income, and would also be able to bid for Section 106 contributions.

·         Any nearby large-scale development in adjacent areas cannot be given weight in the determination of the current application. 

 

Member comments

·         Support was noted for the developer’s approach to low-carbon housing, including solar panels and air source heat pumps, with a request that greater battery storage provision be considered.

·         Request was made for enhanced accessibility standards, including a higher proportion of M4(3) wheelchair-accessible homes. Clarification was sought on whether such requirements and housing mix (including the 80% smaller homes provision) could be secured at reserved matters stage.

·         Positive comments were made regarding the treatment of the woodland, including the protection of the footpath and provision of a cycle route.

·         A condition was requested to require the reserved matters application to include an energy and sustainability statement and to exceed standard building regulations where appropriate.

·         The Section 106 agreement should include school transport contributions and any requirements recommended by the biodiversity officer.

 

Councillor Juliet Layton proposed PERMITTING the application subject to no objection from Biodiversity Officer, an Energy and Renewable Energy Statement at reserved matters stage and the completion of a S106 legal agreement covering affordable housing, self-build/ custom build housing,

financial contributions to Biodiversity Net Gain monitoring, secondary education and school transport and library services and Councillor Julia Judd seconded the proposal.  The proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.

 

RESOLVED: to PERMIT the application.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages