Skip to main content

Agenda item

25/02443/FUL - Land to the West of Fosseway Farm, Moreton-In-Marsh

Proposal

Construction of 10no. dwellings

 

Case Officer: Rebecca McAndrew

 

Ward Member: Councillor Daryl Corps

 

Recommendation

Permit, subject to confirmation from Gloucestershire County Council Highways that, following review of additional swept-path analysis relating to refuse vehicle maneuvering within the site, its recommendation of no objection remains unchanged, and subject to the conditions set out below.

 

Minutes:

The proposal was for construction of 10 dwellings.

 

Case Officer: Rebecca Mc Andrew

Ward Member: Councillor: Councillor Daryl Corps

Recommendation: Permit, subject to confirmation from Gloucestershire County Council Highways that, following review of additional swept-path analysis relating to refuse vehicle manoeuvring within the site, its recommendation of no objection remains unchanged, and subject to the conditions set out below.

 

The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application. The Case Officer shared the application details with the Committee including:

•          The application had been deferred at the previous meeting for a site visit. Further information had demonstrated that a refuse vehicle could be accommodated on site, and the Highways Authority had raised no objection. The recommendation was therefore updated to approve the application, subject to the conditions in the officer report.

 

Public Speakers

Public speaker – Councillor Eileen Viviani – Town and Parish Council

They raised concerns regarding the proposed 10-dwelling scheme, noting that the emerging Local Plan identified capacity for approximately 20 dwellings on the site. Clarification was sought on the viability and affordable housing provision, and whether the proposal would prejudice future delivery of the site capacity.

 

Public speaker – Carol Sugrue – Objector

The site’s location within the Cotswold National Landscape and existing development boundary was highlighted. Concern was raised about the impact of construction, traffic and loss of the open countryside setting on residents of the adjacent nursing home. Emphasised was placed on the importance of the landscape to residents’ wellbeing, dignity and quality of life.

 

Public speaker – Dale Radford – Agent/Applicant

The speaker highlighted the additional highways information provided following the previous deferral and site visit. The proposal for 10 single-storey homes was addressing housing need, with benefits including biodiversity, accessibility and improved access to the countryside.

 

Public Speaker – Councillor Daryl Corps – Ward Member

The Ward member raised concerns regarding the site being outside the development boundary, its sensitive location adjoining the Cotswold National Landscape, and the impact of development in Moreton-in-Marsh. They questioned that the proposal provided no affordable or social rented housing.  They highlighted the neighbouring Esmere Gardens nursing home and its vulnerable residents, including those receiving end-of-life care. A letter from the nursing home’s director explained that the Care home had been contractually prevented from commenting on the application. 

 

Cllr Daryl Corps left the Chamber for the rest of the application

 

Site Inspection Briefing

•          The site formed part of a wider pattern of development on the edge of Moreton-in-Marsh

•          This particular part of the Cotswold National Landscape was thought to be relatively ordinary and affected by road noise.

•          The access route passed close to the nursing home, including a bedroom.

•          The site was described as open scrubland, enclosed by trees.

•          Several nursing home rooms had balconies overlooking the site, meaning residents using them could see and hear activity associated with the development.

•          One of the windows appeared to serve a resident’s room and noted the proximity of the nursing home and public footpath to the site.

•          Highlighted the impact on nursing home residents and their visitors, particularly those using the balconies and garden and those visiting residents who were seriously ill or receiving end-of-life care.

•          The site entrance was particularly tight.

•          Noted the loss of two parking spaces serving the care home, with most of the remaining spaces occupied.

 

Members questions

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

•          A letter from the neighbouring nursing home indicated that the home was contractually unable to comment on the application.  Legal Services advised that Members should not make assumptions as to the nursing home's position beyond what was stated.

•          The proposed footway alongside the access would be approximately 1.8 metres wide. The access would narrow to a single carriageway with a passing space provided. The number of vehicles using the access road in the peak morning hour was expected to be six.

•          The viability assessment had assumed a normal developer profit of approximately 15-20%. The assessment had been reviewed with the independent assessor, who confirmed that the site's marginal viability was primarily due to its small scale and the higher costs associated with bespoke development. The applicant’s viability assessment had been independently examined and officers were satisfied that the viability evidence could be accepted.

•          The draft Local Plan currently carried minimal to no weight, as it had not yet progressed to Regulation 19. The proposed development remained outside the existing development boundary and was therefore contrary to Policy DS4. 

•          The scheme had been amended so that so that bikes would not use the Monarch’s Way footpath.

•          There would be no age restriction on the purchase of the bungalows, which would be open-market properties.

•          Exceptional circumstances for development within a National Landscape applied only to major development under the National Planning Policy Framework.

•          The application site had historically formed part of a single ownership before being subdivided and sold to Aldi and the owners of Esmere Gardens. The applicant had retained legal rights of access across the intervening land, including rights to construct and use an adoptable highway and provide necessary services. The relevant landowners had been served with the required notices.

•          Additional construction restrictions would need to be necessary and reasonable, and Officers suggested discussing appropriate measures with the applicant to minimise the impact on the vulnerable residents of the neighbouring nursing home.

Member comments

•          The site represented a poor use of land and could potentially accommodate 15–20 dwellings, including approximately 40% affordable housing.

•          A Member felt that the impact on nursing home residents would be principally during the construction period and that the presence of new residents could provide activity and connection for those living in the home.

•          Members were mindful of the impact on nursing home residents, noting that the potential effects were not limited to vehicle movements, as there would also be deliveries and other activity associated with the development.

•          Members deliberated on the fine balance of benefit and harm

 

Councillor Patrick Coleman proposed that the application be permitted, but the proposal was not seconded and therefore fell.

 

Members debated the following reasons for refusal:

•          Impact on residents of the nursing home, with reference to Policies EN1 and EN2 and paragraph 135 of the NPPF concerning residential amenity.

•          Inefficient use of the site and lack of affordable housing, with reference to paragraph 129 of the NPPF and Policy H2, on the basis that a more efficient use of the site could potentially provide additional dwellings and affordable housing.

The Head of Planning requested delegation to Officers for the refusal wording.

 

Councillor Ray Brassington proposed REFUSING the application and Councillor David Fowles seconded the proposal. The proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee

RESOLVED: to REFUSE the application

 

Meeting adjourned 15:32 – 15:41

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages