Self-build bungalow at Land At May View Gloucester Road, Hartpury

What was proposed

The application sought a self-build three-bedroom bungalow, detached garage, parking, landscaping and associated works.

“The proposal seeks full planning permission for the erection of a self-build detached 3- bedroom bungalow and detached garage with associated parking, landscaping and works.”

“The bungalow comprises of a rectangular form with projecting gable. The accommodation comprises of an open plan kitchen, dining and living room area, three double bedrooms (one with en-suite), bathroom, and utility room. A double garage is proposed to the rear of the dwelling.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a grassed area beside an existing house, about 270 metres north of Hartpury’s settlement boundary, in an area of sporadic countryside development.

“The application site lies on the eastern side of the Gloucester Road (A417) some 270 metres north of the settlement boundary of Hartpury as defined in the Allocations Plan.”

“In terms of the character of the area when one progresses out of the defined Hartpury settlement to the south in a northward direction, the character of the area is immediately that of open countryside on its eastern side and any development on that side of the road is definitely sporadic in nature.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals for separate dwellings were refused, while permissions for a replacement dwelling, residential curtilage and an annexe were granted.

“P0342/08/COU - Amendment to previously approved scheme DF13475 dated 27/06/2006, to include the retention of a replacement dwelling and change of use of land to residential curtilage and alterations to vehicular access (Retrospective) - Refused June 2008.”

“P0650/06/FUL - Erection of a replacement dwelling and detached private garage. Use of land as additional residential curtilage. Alterations to vehicular access - Granted permission June 2006.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the site suitable because of its proximity to Hartpury, access to services and transport, and the benefits of additional housing outweighed the countryside location.

“Approximately 110 metres north of the application site lies land adjacent to Woodbine Cottage, where planning permission for a self-build dwelling (P0755/24/FUL) was granted in January 2025. Prior to this, an appeal was lodged against a refusal of permission in principle (P1555/21/PIP), which was refused due to the site’s location outside the settlement boundary and concerns about sustainability.”

“In conclusion, while the site is located within open countryside, its proximity to Hartpury and access to services and transport options make it suitable in principle for residential development. However, further consideration must be given to other material planning matters, including the impact on the character and appearance of the area, residential amenity, highway safety, drainage, ecology, and trees.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council and a neighbour objected over the settlement boundary, flooding and sewerage, while key technical consultees raised no objection subject to conditions.

“The proposed development is significantly in front of the building line. • There are flooding and sewerage issues in this area which, at times, are very severe and are currently being investigated by Severn Trent Water. Any development in this area will exacerbate the existing issues. • The proposed development is outside the settlement boundary.”

“There are issues with flooding in Hartpury, including sewerage. • Fullers Lane is private, and no consent was given to connect to the main sewer. • The plans do not show where the sewerage is going. • Since the connection of May View to the sewer, there have been flooding issues to other properties. • Neighbouring properties sit at a lower level than the proposed site.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A member of the public spoke against the application and a parish councillor spoke for the parish council; nobody spoke in support.

What members debated

Members focused on whether the existing sewer connection was suitable, whether Fullers Lane problems had been properly investigated and whether further consultation was needed.

“A: The Senior Planning Officer advised that Severn Trent had been consulted, and their comments were noted in the late material. They did not have any concerns. The Senior Planning Officer also clarified that as a Statutory undertaker, Severn Trent do have the right to carry out works on their assets on land even if they are not the landowner.”

“Q: Are we permitted to defer or refuse on the basis of unsatisfactory information as to the legalities or practicalities and whether surveys have been properly done by Severn Trent about the consequences of this extra plug in to the existing sewerage that goes into Fullers Lane?”

Minutes

The decision

The application was deferred so officers could ask Severn Trent to satisfy the committee about the sewer connection’s suitability in light of Fullers Lane issues.

“Councillor John Francis proposed a deferment of the application to request officers to ask Severn Trent to satisfy the committee on the suitability of the sewerage connection having regard to issues in Fullers Lane.”

“RESOLVED:- That the application is deferred to allow time for officers to ask Severn Trent to satisfy the committee on the suitability of the sewerage connection having regard to issues in Fullers Lane.”

Minutes