Up to six dwellings at Land At Cerney Wick, Cirencester

What was proposed

Permission in Principle was sought for up to six dwellings, with detailed design and other matters to be considered later.

“The applicant is seeking Permission in Principle (PIP) to erect up to 6 dwellings on the application site and has been submitted in accordance with the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) (Amendment) Order 2017. The Government's Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) sets out the matters that can be covered by a PIP application:”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 0.58-hectare paddock and stable site lies west of the road through Cerney Wick, beside housing, open land, trees and hedgerows.

“The site measures approximately 0.58 hectares and is located to the west of the road that runs through Cerney Wick. It currently consists of an area of paddock land in the north and southern parts of the site with the central part of the site being comprised of some stable buildings. The various boundaries of the application site are comprised, for the most part, of trees and hedgerows.”

“The hamlet of Cerney Wick is a diffuse form of settlement extending along Cerney Wick Lane. It comprises of a string of development to the north of the application site. There is then a gap in development before there is some further development to the south of the proposed site.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier application for up to six dwellings was refused in 2022, while nearby schemes for four dwellings were granted permission.

“22/00118/PLP: Permission in principle for the construction of up to 6 dwellings. Refused 14.03.2022; appeal withdrawn…”

“24/00712/FUL: Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of permission of 19/03503/FUL- Erection of 2 detached dwellings. Granted 28.06.2024”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because housing benefits and the lack of a five-year supply outweighed the site’s location outside a development boundary.

“Footnote 8 of the NPPF advises that 'out-of-date' for the purposes of paragraph 11 includes 'for applications involving the provision of housing, situations where: the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites (with the appropriate buffer as set out in paragraph 78): or where the Housing Delivery Test indicates that the delivery of housing was substantially below (less than 75% of) the housing requirements over the…”

“With regard to 11 d) ii., and in the absence of a 5-year housing land supply, the site is adjacent to the existing housing development at Cerney Wick. It is, therefore, considered to be in a reasonably sustainable location. It is also worth noting having regard to the planning history above, that the site is near to two housing developments that have been constructed within the last 5 years, totalling 4 dwellings and granted permission having regard to Policy DS3.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, drainage and Natural England raised no objection subject to specified requirements, while archaeology required assessment at the detailed stage.

“Biodiversity Officer: No objection subject to appropriate mitigation for the North Meadow SAC being provided; any technical details consent should be supported by ecological impact assessment and details regarding biodiversity gain objective…”

“Natural England: No objection subject to appropriate mitigation for the North Meadow SAC being provided…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent supported the proposal, while the Ward Member opposed it because of sustainability, limited facilities, green space and harm to the village setting.

Members’ discussion

Members debated the village’s open spaces, cumulative development, private-car reliance, housing supply, the tilted balance and the prospects of refusing permission.

“SIB feedback Members commented that the village was characterised by open spaces and that development of the site would harm its character, particularly given its scale in relation to the size of the settlement. Green space within the village had already been reduced, including the loss of allotments, and concern was expressed about the cumulative impact of further development.”

“Member Questions: Members of the Committee asked a series of questions and noted that: • The Council did not currently have a five-year housing land supply and that planning permission should generally be granted unless adverse impacts significantly outweighed the benefits. • The site was not subject to heritage or landscape designations. • Ecological matters, including surveys and biodiversity net gain, were not required at the Permission in Principle stage.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Ian Watson proposed permitting the application and Councillor Joe Harris seconded the proposal.

“Councillor Ian Watson proposed and Councillor Joe Harris seconded the proposal to PERMIT the application…”

Minutes