Skip to main content

Agenda item

26/01821/PLP - Land to the South of Manor Court, Eastleach

Proposal

Permission in Principle application for the erection of 1 x modest single storey dwellinghouse.

 

Case Officer: Joanne Reeves

 

Ward Member: Councillor David Fowles

 

Recommendation

REFUSE

Minutes:

The proposal was Permission in Principle application for the erection of 1 x modest single storey dwellinghouse.

 

Case Officer: Joanne Reeves

Ward Member: Councillor David Fowles

Recommendation: REFUSE

 

The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application.

The Case Officer shared the application details with the Committee:

 

Public Speakers

Public speaker – Eastleach Town and Parish Council

The proposal would fail to protect the Cotswold National Landscape and would result in incremental harm to the village character and Conservation Area. Concerns were raised regarding the loss of the transition between the built settlement and open countryside, the change from agricultural to residential use, the lack of affordable housing provision and the absence of details demonstrating satisfactory access from the public highway.

 

Public speaker – Roderick Wordie – Objector

The proposal was unacceptable in terms of location, land use and amount of development, noting the site's position in open countryside, within the Cotswold National Landscape and adjacent to the East Leach Conservation Area. Concerns were raised regarding harm to the landscape and heritage assets, loss of agricultural land, lack of access rights and the precedent for further residential development.

 

Public speaker – Peter Lang – Agent/Applicant

The proposal was informed by positive pre-application advice. They considered the site to have an established domestic character rather than being agricultural land and a sensitively designed single-storey dwelling would not harm the landscape or nearby heritage assets. They also disputed concerns regarding access.

 

Public Speaker – Councillor David Fowles – Ward Member

There were concerns regarding the applicant’s lack of engagement with the parish. They considered that the site change from agricultural use to a garden would fail to protect the Cotswolds National Landscape. Concerns were raised regarding access arrangements and an existing covenant, the lack of affordable housing provision, and the potential for irreversible harm to heritage assets and the National Landscape.

 

Councillor David Fowles left the Chamber and did not vote due to predetermination.

 

Site Inspection Briefing

The site was described as an agricultural area and historic orchard, with concerns that access was difficult and relied on an existing shared access private drive. The development would be visible across the field and was located close to the manor house.

 

Members questions

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

•          Rights of access were a private legal matter, but the uncertainty over whether the applicant could lawfully use the existing access raised concerns about whether a new access would be required.

•          There was uncertainty as to whether the existing access should be included within the application red line. Previous appeal decisions had reached different conclusions on this point, and therefore it was considered that insufficient information had been provided regarding access.

•          Officers proposed amending the third reason for refusal by removing the opening sentence so that it began with “insufficient information”, making clear that the reason related to the lack of information regarding access. Officers also advised that, in their professional view, the first two refusal reasons carried greater weight, with the third included because of the outstanding uncertainty regarding access.

•          The site was separate from the curtilage of the Grade II listed building.

 

Councillor Daryl Corps proposed REFUSING the application and Councillor Nikki Ind seconded the proposal. The proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee

RESOLVED: to REFUSE the application.

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages