Replacement self-build dwelling at Brook Close, Rodmarton, Cirencester

What was proposed

The application sought demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings and construction of a larger self-build home, garage, landscaping and related works.

“Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings and replacement with a self- build dwelling, garage outbuilding, landscaping and associated ancillary works at Brook Close Rodmarton Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 6PE”

Officer report

The site

The site contained a detached dwelling in a generous plot on Rodmarton’s eastern edge, within the Cotswolds National Landscape and nearby protected areas.

“Brook Close is a detached two-storey dwellinghouse located on the eastern outskirts of Rodmarton. Originally a much smaller Arts and Crafts cottage, it has clearly been extended over the years and now features a double-pile roof, but the original building can still be clearly read and it is therefore considered to be a non-designated heritage asset. The dwellinghouse is sited in the centre and towards the rear of a generous plot, with gardens to the sides and front.”

“The application site is within the Cotswolds National Landscape (formerly known as the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)) and the identified zone of influence for the Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC). It is also located in a red impact risk zone for Great Crested Newts as identified using District Licence mapping tools.”

Officer report

Earlier site history

Earlier permissions covered a private garage, a new vehicle access and alterations and extensions to the dwelling.

“CT.3662: Erection of one private car garage. Granted 01.12.1966”

“CT.3662/B: Alterations and extensions to existing private dwelling. Granted 15.12.1976”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal would destroy a heritage asset and its benefits would not outweigh harm to heritage settings and local character.

“Reasons for Refusal: Brook Close is a non-designated heritage asset by virtue of its architectural and historic interest. The proposed development would result in its total loss, representing the highest level of harm. The proposed benefits, including sustainability measures, are not considered sufficient to outweigh this harm, having regard to Local Plan Policy EN12 and paragraph 216 of the NPPF.”

Officer report

Consultation and support

The parish council did not object, consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, and seven representations supported the proposal.

“Biodiversity Officer: No objection subject to conditions…”

“Flood Risk Management Officer: No objection subject to conditions…”

Officer report

What speakers said

A supporter, the applicant and the ward member argued that the existing house had limited value and the replacement would support families, sustainability and biodiversity.

What members debated

Members accepted potential sustainability benefits but considered the proposed house and garage too large, too high and disproportionate to the modest village setting.

“The Conservation Officer explained that introducing a modern, contemporary structure of this size in the historic context could increase perceived harm. The site sat between two designated heritage assets, the conservation area and the Little Tarlton listed buildings and the spatial separation and treatment of this area was important.”

“Member Comments In discussing the application, Members made the following comments: • The existing cottage could be replaced to gain the sustainability benefits of a new dwelling, but the proposed house was considered too large for its location, with a significant impact on the site and surroundings. • The hierarchy of the site and heritage asset had been considered, reflecting a finely balanced assessment of the setting.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

A motion to refuse was proposed, seconded and agreed, so the committee refused the application.

“Councillor Fowles proposed refusing the application and Councillor Brassington seconded the proposal. The proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.”

Minutes