Three homes and alterations at Land Adjacent Parkend Club Castlemain, Parkend, Lydney

What was proposed

The application sought changes to an earlier permission, including off-site ecology, alterations to the homes and access, and discharge of two conditions.

“The application is made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and seeks a minor material amendment to planning approval P0983/20/FUL through the variation of conditions 02 (Approved Plans) and 06 (Biodiversity Enhancement). The application also includes the discharge of Condition 08 (Coal Mining Risks) and Condition 11 (Land Contamination).”

“During the course of the application’s consideration, the description of development was revised to ensure that all elements requiring regularisation were appropriately incorporated. The application is partly retrospective; of the works described above, only the offsite and onsite ecological mitigation and enhancement measures, along with the proposed changes to the site access, have not yet been implemented.”

Officer report

The site

The site contains three detached homes, two garages, shared access and private amenity space within Parkend, beside a footpath, homes and a working men’s club.

“The application site lies within the defined settlement boundary of Parkend and currently accommodates three substantial, detached dwellings, two garages, a shared driveway, and associated private amenity space.”

“The dwellings are of contemporary design, characterised by white render finishes, anthracite grey window frames, and extensive glazing. Vehicular access is gained from Yorkley Road, located to the south of the site, via a shared access road which also serves Parkend Working Men’s Club and an adjacent residential property to the southeast.”

Officer report

Planning history

Earlier permissions covered homes and access, while a separate application for electric gates was refused by the committee but allowed on appeal.

“The relevant planning history is as follows:”

“- P0843/24/FUL - Erection of electric gates and associated wall and piers (retrospective). Refused by the Development Management Committee against officer recommendation 11 th September 2024. Appeal allowed 8 th July 2025. - P0049/21/DISCON - Discharge of condition 07 (external lighting), 10 (land contamination), and 12 (culverted water course) of planning permission P0983/20/FUL. Approved 15th June 2021. - P0983/20/FUL - Erection of 3 No. detached dwellings and 2 No.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission subject to a legal agreement and conditions because they considered the ecological, access and amenity benefits outweighed the limited adverse impacts.

“- A significant ecological enhancement – the ecological mitigation and enhancement area is over three times the size of the original and offers district wide ecological benefits; - Improvements to pedestrian accessibility – including the regrading of the pedestrian route to the west of the access road and the addition of dropped kerbs; and - An increase in usable amenity space for each dwelling resulting in a net benefit to residential amenity.”

“It is recommended that Delegated Authority be given to the Development Manager to Grant Permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement securing the long term management and maintenance of the ecological mitigation and enhancement of the site including the submission of a Landscape Ecological Management Plan LEMP , and the conditions set out below.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council and ecology consultees initially objected, while highways, flood risk, trees, contamination and coal mining consultees ultimately raised no objection subject to requirements.

“Objection - West Dean Parish Council has raised several concerns regarding the application, summarised as follows:”

“No objection. - The proposal is expected to reduce flood risk to neighbouring properties by limiting surface water runoff from the highway into the site. - On the basis that the scheme represents an improvement to the existing situation, complies with the previously approved drainage strategy, and no evidence has been submitted indicating an increased flood risk, the Flood Risk Management Team has…”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Residents objected to habitat loss, fencing, narrowed footpaths, drainage, alleged encroachment, contamination, enforcement and the retrospective changes.

“Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy (Condition 6) - Loss of Wildlife Buffer Zone: The original approved biodiversity mitigation strategy included a 7m deep wildlife corridor with hedging, fencing, reptile shelters, and designated planting. This has been reduced to approximately 1m, with no access for wildlife or maintenance. - Non-compliance and Retrospective Changes: o Artificial grass and summer houses have been installed in areas designated for wildlife.”

“Encroachment and Public Access - Footpath Obstruction: The footpath linking Yorkley Road to Mount Pleasant has been narrowed due to fencing and planting. This path is a vital pedestrian route for families, schoolchildren, and residents with mobility issues. - Encroachment on Public and Crown Land: Allegations that the developer has claimed land outside the approved red line boundary and incorporated it into Plot 1, including…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident spoke against the application, a parish council representative spoke for the parish, and the applicant spoke in support.

Committee debate

Members debated whether the western boundary should follow the original design, then considered refusal because of habitat and visual harm.

“There was further discussion between Councillors, the Senior Planning Officer and Development Manager to clarify the details of the original permitted western boundary design in comparison to the amended western boundary design being considered now.”

“The Development Manager addressed the committee using the Senior Planning Officers’ slides to identify the western boundary of the application and clarified what was originally permitted in comparison to what the developer was requesting to be amended now. He explained if the Committee defer the application to request the developer to build what was originally approved, this would not make sense, because permission for this is already granted.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused the application because it considered the development harmful to natural habitat and the visual aspects of the area.

“The Legal Officer summed up what was to be voted on that the Committee refuse the application for reasons of harm to the natural habitat and harm to the visual aspects of the area.”

“RESOLVED:- That the committee refuse the application for reasons of harm to the natural habitat and harm to the visual aspects of the area.”

Minutes