Community nature area at Land South Of Longfurlong Lane, Tetbury

The land and access

The applicant said the site already had public footpath access, visitors, existing car access and no proposed extra parking.

“Public access concerns - The site already has unlimited public access via the definitive public footpath network. - The site already receives many visitors, sometimes in large numbers as it links to Westonbirt and…”

Officer report

The applicant’s response

The applicant disputed the recommendation, saying enough information had been supplied, the biodiversity exemption applied and there were no highways or flooding objections.

“A further supporting statement has been received from the applicant on the 4th August 2026 – please see attached…”

“In summary the applicant disputes the officer’s recommendation and says the proposal is for a community nature area, with Class F2(c) used only because no more specific use class exists. They maintain sufficient information has been submitted, the BNG de minimis exemption applies, and there are no highways or LLFA objections.”

Officer report

What people said

The applicant said support letters outnumbered objections, while some objections concerned separate potential housing development.

“Letters of support clearly outweigh letters of objection - No objection has been received from the landowner of the two woodland areas (The King's Foundation). - The planning portal lists letters of objection from only eight parties excluding CDC officers. However, there is confusion in some these letters of objection, with several objecting to potential residential development by Miller Homes, which was only a rumour at the time.”

“The planning portal lists 70 public letters of support, not including those from statutory consultees.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A supporter, the agent or applicant, and the ward member supported protecting the land from development and housing.

Members’ questions and debate

Members considered land ownership, the effect of permission on future housing, biodiversity requirements and whether approval would create a precedent.

“Members questions Members of the Committee asked a series of questions and noted that: • Legal Services confirmed that an applicant could submit a planning application on land they did not own, provided the required notices were served. Officers confirmed that the necessary notices had been served on the landowners and that the application was valid, regardless of the landowner’s intentions for the site.”

“Granting permission would establish the planning permission for the proposed community use, but implementation would depend on the applicant’s ability to use the land. • Granting the proposed change of use would not prevent the landowner from subsequently submitting a residential planning application. Any future application would be considered on its own merits, and the proposed recreational use would not prevent a future housing proposal.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A deferral motion and an approval motion were not seconded, while a refusal motion was seconded and agreed.

“Councillor David Fowles proposed that the application be deferred due to insufficient information to enable the Committee to determine the application. The motion was not seconded and therefore fell.”

“Councillor Patrick Coleman proposed that the application be approved. The motion was not seconded and therefore fell.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused the application.

“Councillor Paul Evans 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.”

Minutes