One four-bed dwelling at Rockfield Stables, Wapley Hill, Westerleigh

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing two equine buildings and erecting a detached four-bedroom dwelling with associated works.

“The application was the subject of a visit by the Sites Inspection Sub-Committee on the 12 th June 2026 when it was resolved that a full and detailed report be presented to the Development Management Committee to include: • Consideration of the application in the context of Paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy PSP11 • See paragraphs 5.40 – 5.45 • A planning history • See section 3 • Elevations to compare the height of the proposed dwelling with the…”

“1.2The application site comprises land (0.12ha) at Rockfield Stables which is located within the open countryside to the east of Wapley Hill, Westerleigh. Within this equine facility is a large storage building and associated smaller storage building which are both proposed to be demolished and replaced with the proposed dwelling.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site is in open countryside within the Bristol and Bath Green Belt, with access from Wapley Hill and a Grade II* church nearby.

“OFFTEM 1.3Approximately 90m to the north-west is St Peter’s Church (a Grade II* listed building). The intervening boundary between the site and St Peter’s Church comprises large conifer trees. 1.4The proposed dwelling would be constructed immediately to the south east of the equine buildings, which are to be demolished. Vehicular and pedestrian access would continue to be gained via the existing access track onto Wapley Hill.”

Officer report

Earlier site history

An application for stables at the site was approved in September 1985.

“OFFTEM PSP11 Transport Impact Management PSP16 Parking Standards PSP17 Heritage Assets and the Historic Environment PSP18 Statutory Wildlife Protection PSP19 Wider Biodiversity PSP20 Flood Risk, Surface Water and Watercourse Management PSP40 Residential Development in the Countryside PSP43 Private Amenity Space Standards 2.3Supplementary Planning Guidance Design Checklist SPD (Adopted) 2007 Residential Parking Standards SPD (Adopted) 2013 Waste Collection Guidance for New…”

“Erection of Stables. Approved 15 th Sept. 1985 4.CONSULTATION RESPONSES As a result of amendments and the submission of revised plans, there have been 4 rounds of consultations. The following responses are summaries of the total responses.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the isolated location would make the dwelling car-dependent and unsustainable despite limited Green Belt and heritage harm.

“OFFTEM 5.87The proposal is not inappropriate within the Green Belt. Any loss to Green Belt openness would be very limited and this is consistent with the findings of the Council’s Landscape Officer. Furthermore any harm to the setting of the nearby Listed Church would be negligible. The proposal would be built to high design standards and includes ecological enhancements. It could be delivered quickly.”

“The recommendation to refuse permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Core Strategy (Adopted) December 2013 and the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (Adopted) November 2017 set out above, and to all the relevant material considerations set out in the report. 7.RECOMMENDATION 7.1 That planning permission be REFUSED for the reason listed on the Decision Notice.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent and ward councillor spoke in support, while Councillor Tristan Clark spoke against the application because the site was unsustainable.

Members’ discussion

Supportive members highlighted redevelopment of previously developed land, limited Green Belt harm, improved visual amenity and the lack of consultee objections.

“Redevelopment of previously developed land. • There will be no substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.”

“The proposed dwelling will have a smaller footprint than the buildings to be demolished. • Visual amenity would be improved. • Rural areas are rural by nature • No objections have been raised on the grounds of design, highways, drainage, ecology or landscape impact…”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillor Stansfield moved to grant permission with delegated authority for conditions, and the motion passed by five votes to two.

“That officers be granted delegated authority to impose appropriate conditions…”

“On being put to a vote, Councillor Stansfield’s motion was CARRIED (5:2:0) and…”

Minutes