Self-build bungalow at Land Adjacent Bridewell Farm, Woodland Road, Christchurch

The site

The site was outside Coleford’s settlement boundary, about 9 metres from it, and had residential properties nearby.

“The application site is located outside of the defined settlement boundary of Coleford, although is located opposite approximately 9m away. Whilst, located in the open countryside the site is not in an isolated located with residential properties in the vicinity.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals for housing were refused or dismissed on appeal, while permission for a dwelling and garage was later granted and built.

“P9354/88/FUL - Outline Application for the erection of one dwelling and construction of new vehicular and pedestrian access – Refused November 1988 – Appeal Dismissed…”

“P0199/08/OUT - Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling – Refused P1043/18/OUT - Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling. (All matters reserved) – Refused January 2019 – Appeal Dismissed…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because the site was close to services, not isolated, and the benefits outweighed the countryside and open-space harm.

“Despite the site being located in the open countryside, it is within very close proximity and accessible to the Coleford (Berry Hill) settlement boundary, approximately 10m away, which has a number of available services/facilities, for instance schools, shops and bus stops. In addition, the site is not in an isolated location for housing with residential development bounding the site on all sides.”

“In terms of the planning balance, it is recognised that the proposal will provide a number of social, economic and environmental benefits as listed above which supports the application. Whilst there is harm arising from the fact that the site is located in the open countryside and the proposal will result in the loss of an open feature further consolidating the urban built form of the locality, it is determined that the benefits of the scheme will outweigh the harm caused…”

Officer report

Who spoke

There were no public speakers and no ward members present.

Members’ questions

Members asked about great crested newts, the previous appeal, roof height, changes to the open area, the earlier dwelling and an oil tank.

“Will the roof height of the proposed bungalow be similar to the neighbouring property? The proposed dwelling will be higher than the neighbouring dwelling, however, is considered to be acceptable as there are two story properties within the area.”

“If this proposal, as previously suggested as a reason for refusal when appealed, caused the loss of character of the open area, why would that be different now? Since the time of the appeal a property had been built within that area which further consolidated the built form of the area. Therefore, it is determined at the present time, that the proposed dwelling would not further impact or present adverse harm.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Julia Gooch proposed the officer recommendation, Councillor John Francis seconded it, and 11 members voted for it with one abstention.

“Councillor Julia Gooch proposed to move to the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor John Francis seconded the proposal.”

“For (11) Councillors Sid Phelps, David Tradgett, Beth Llewellyn, Andrew McDermid, Patrick Kyne, Julia Gooch, Stuart Graham, Jonathan Beeston, Simon Phelps, John Francis and, Gill Moseley.”

Minutes

The decision

Permission was granted subject to the recommended conditions.

“That application P1081/25/FUL be granted permission subject to the recommended conditions as detailed in the Schedule.”

Minutes