195-home outline scheme at London Road, Moreton-in-Marsh

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for up to 195 homes, access from London Road, landscaping and associated development including active travel measures.

“Outline application for up to 195 dwellings together with vehicular access from London Road, landscaping together with associated development including active travel measures along London Road at Land East of Cotswold Business Village South of London Road Moreton-In-Marsh Gloucestershire…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was mainly a 10.41-hectare agricultural field outside Moreton-in-Marsh’s development boundary, beside an employment estate, London Road, a watercourse and sewage works.

“This application relates primarily to an agricultural field located adjacent to the eastern edge of the town of Moreton-in-Marsh. The existing field measures approximately 10.41 hectares in size and is used for arable purposes. The field is located outside, but adjacent to, Moreton-in-Marsh Development Boundary. The aforementioned boundary extends along the western boundary of the application site.”

“The application field is bordered to the west by an employment estate (Cotswold Business Village). The aforementioned business village is designated as an Established Employment Estate (Cotswold Business Park/Village EES32) in the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031. A line of post war employment units extend along the eastern edge of the business village and are visible from the application field.”

Officer report

Relevant planning history

An environmental impact assessment screening request for the proposed development concluded that an environmental impact assessment was not required in 2025.

“25/00381/SCR Request for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening opinion in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (as amended) to determine whether an EIA is required in relation to development of up to 195 dwellings together with vehicular access from London Road, landscaping together with associated development. EIA not required 2025.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweighed housing and affordable housing benefits.

“It is therefore considered that the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole. It is therefore recommended that the application is refused.”

“It is therefore considered that the proposed development does not constitute sustainable development and is contrary to Section 2, and paragraphs 110 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The adverse impacts of the proposed development are considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The proposal is therefore also considered to be contrary to paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

Highways and flood authorities raised no objection subject to conditions, while the biodiversity officer objected and many residents raised sewage, flooding, traffic and landscape concerns.

“Gloucestershire County Council Highways: No objection subject to conditions.”

“Tree Officer: No objection subject to conditions…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Town Council supported refusal, a parish council representative raised flooding and sewage concerns, the agent supported the scheme, and the ward member opposed it overall.

What members discussed

Members questioned flooding, sewage capacity, air quality, noise and sustainability, and said the scheme was a piecemeal enclave poorly integrated with the settlement and landscape.

“Noise surveys had been carried out, identifying an exclusion zone around the western part of the application site within which housing would be restricted. • The application was considered not to be sustainable for a number of reasons including the cumulative impact of development on the town, transport, poor integration with the existing settlement, car dependence, air quality, congestion, sewage provision and landscape impact.”

“Members Comments In discussing the application, Members made the following comments: • That simply building more homes did not improve affordability of homes and that affordability in the Cotswold District had continued to worsen. • Members applauded the inclusion of 40% affordable housing within the scheme. • The proposal created a piecemeal, standalone enclave of housing that integrated poorly with both the existing settlement and the surrounding landscape.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillor Julia Judd proposed refusal, Councillor Ray Brassington seconded it, and the committee agreed the proposal.

“Councillor Julia Judd proposed REFUSING the application and Councillor Ray Brassington seconded the proposal. This proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee. Recommendation: to REFUSE the application.”

Minutes