Staff dwelling at Peppard Farm, Rotherfield Peppard

What was proposed

The application proposed a new detached dwelling for staff of Peppard Farm, within the farm’s confines.

“The application proposes a new detached dwelling on land within the Peppard Farm confines.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site retained a concrete base after a dilapidated farm structure was removed, and lay beside neighbouring properties and an existing farm building.

“The site, like the whole village, lies within the Chilterns National Landscape. The site lies outside but adjacent to the Rotherfield Peppard conservation area.”

“Historically the site has contained a dilapidated farm structure which has since been removed, leaving the concrete base. The site shares a boundary with neighbouring properties and lies north of an existing farm building.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A proposal for a mobile home was withdrawn in 2025, while an outline dwelling application was refused in 1973.

“RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY P25/S1816/FUL – Withdrawn - 24/11/2025 Proposed mobile home to replace farm buildings.”

“P73/H0614 - Refusal of Planning Permission - 23/08/1973 Erection of 1 dwellinghouse with garage (Outline).”

Officer report

Officers recommended approval

Officers considered the dwelling appropriate infill with acceptable design, heritage, amenity, highway, drainage, ecology and biodiversity impacts.

“PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposed development would provide a modest single-storey dwelling within an established settlement, on a site that is considered to represent an appropriate infill opportunity.”

“The dwelling is considered to be of an appropriate scale, form and appearance, which would not adversely impact the character of the surrounding area. Its location to the rear of existing development, together with its modest single- storey form, would ensure that its visual impact is limited. The proposal would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the Rotherfield Peppard Conservation Area or the setting of nearby listed buildings.”

Officer report

Consultes and residents’ views

The parish council and residents objected over need, heritage, landscape, countryside character, neighbours’ amenity and reliance on private vehicles, while technical consultees raised no objections.

“Consultees Rotherfield Peppard Parish Council - RPPC strongly recommends refusal with the same refusal grounds that we wrote for P25/S1816/FUL and for the following reasons: • Development is inappropriate in a conservation area and will impact a neighbouring listed building. • No agricultural or farming need or justification; the site is not a farm but a DIY livery yard.”

“Public responses Objections • The need for staff accommodation has not been justified • Harm to the setting of the Grade II neighbouring property • The proposal represents an inappropriate form of development within the countryside (and Chilterns National Landscape) – would harm the rural character and low density of built form – fails to complement the area • Proposal would result in harm to the amenity of neighbours; overbearing impact, loss of light and loss of privacy as…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish council representative and an objector spoke against the application, while two supporters spoke in favour.

Members’ discussion

Members found no compelling planning reason for refusal and considered the proposal justifiable infill without significant impacts on heritage or the landscape.

“Members debated the application acknowledging that they had not heard a compelling planning reason for refusal. Members noted that the proposal represented justifiable infill under policy H16. Members stated that they felt the proposal would have no significant impact on the conservation area, nearby listed buildings or the Chiltern’s National Landscape.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

Members approved the application with the reported conditions and an additional condition requiring integrated bird and bat boxes and another bat box on a retained tree.

“Additional Condition: Prior to the commencement of the development above new slab level, details of a scheme of features to be provided for protected and priority species, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Details shall include the specification (e.g. manufacturer and model) of features, and their location (position, height and orientation, as annotated on site and elevation plans/photographs as appropriate).”

“RESOLVED: to approve planning application P25/S3952/FUL subject to the conditions as set out in the report and the additional condition agreed at the meeting.”

Minutes