10 bungalows at Stow Road, Moreton-in-Marsh

What was proposed

The application sought 10 single-storey, three-bedroom bungalows with access, parking, landscaping and infrastructure works.

“Full planning permission is sought for the construction of 10 no. dwellings. The proposed development comprises 10 single-storey, 3-bedroom bungalows, with associated access, parking, landscaping and infrastructure works.”

“The layout proposes a low-density form of development arranged within the site, with vehicular access taken from the existing access serving adjacent development. Each dwelling is provided with private amenity space and parking provision.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The undeveloped site lies outside the settlement boundary, within the Cotswolds National Landscape, beside a care home, supermarket, recreation facilities and countryside.

“The application site comprises approximately 0.79 hectares of land (circa 0.97ha including access) located to the west of Stow Road (A429) on the edge of Moreton-in-Marsh. The site lies immediately adjacent to, but outside, the defined settlement boundary and is currently undeveloped.”

“The site lies within the Cotswolds National Landscape (AONB) and is relatively flat, enclosed by established hedgerows and tree boundaries, with some trees along the northern boundary subject to Tree Preservation Orders. Public Footpath HMM7 (part of the Monarch's Way) runs along the western boundary, providing pedestrian connectivity to the town and surrounding countryside.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the sustainable location, housing contribution and technical safeguards outweighed the settlement-boundary conflict.

“The proposal would result in the delivery of 10 dwellings, including single- storey bungalow accommodation, on a site immediately adjoining the built-up area of Moreton-in-Marsh. Whilst the site lies outside the defined settlement boundary and therefore conflicts with Policy DS4 of the Local Plan, the site occupies a sustainable location with good access to local services, facilities and public transport opportunities.”

“On balance, officers consider that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the identified conflict with Policy DS4 and that the scheme represents a sustainable form of development. Subject to Gloucestershire County Council Highways confirming that the additional swept-path analysis satisfactorily addresses the refuse vehicle manoeuvring requirements and that its recommendation of no objection remains unchanged, the proposal is considered to accord with the Development…”

Officer report

What consultees said

Most technical consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while the town council objected over access, ecology, flooding, infrastructure and amenity.

“The Council's Biodiversity Officer raises no objection to the proposed development, subject to conditions. A series of ecological conditions are recommended, including the submission of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (Biodiversity) and a 30-year Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) to secure the long-term establishment, management and monitoring of habitats.”

“No objection is raised to surface water proposals subject to a sequential approach and agreement with the LLFA. No objection is raised in respect of water supply capacity, subject to standard informatives.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Speakers included the town council, an objector, the agent or applicant, and the ward member, who raised concerns about the proposal and its effects.

What members debated

Members discussed care-home impacts, access, construction activity, viability, affordable housing, site capacity and whether the development used the land efficiently.

“Site Inspection Briefing • The site formed part of a wider pattern of development on the edge of Moreton-in-Marsh • This particular part of the Cotswold National Landscape was thought to be relatively ordinary and affected by road noise. • The access route passed close to the nursing home, including a bedroom. • The site was described as open scrubland, enclosed by trees.”

“Additional construction restrictions would need to be necessary and reasonable, and Officers suggested discussing appropriate measures with the applicant to minimise the impact on the vulnerable residents of the neighbouring nursing home. Member comments • The site represented a poor use of land and could potentially accommodate 15– 20 dwellings, including approximately 40% affordable housing.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A motion to permit was not seconded, and a second motion to refuse was proposed, seconded and agreed.

“Councillor Patrick Coleman proposed that the application be permitted, but the proposal was not seconded and therefore fell.”

“Councillor Ray Brassington 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

The decision and reasons

The committee refused the application because of impacts on nursing-home residents, inefficient land use and the absence of affordable housing.

“Members debated the following reasons for refusal: • Impact on residents of the nursing home, with reference to Policies EN1 and EN2 and paragraph 135 of the NPPF concerning residential amenity. • Inefficient use of the site and lack of affordable housing, with reference to paragraph 129 of the NPPF and Policy H2, on the basis that a more efficient use of the site could potentially provide additional dwellings and affordable housing.”

Minutes