20 homes and nature enhancement at Land West Of Combe Road, Stonesfield

The site and surroundings

The site was a grass meadow with trees, hedgerows and stable buildings, within the conservation area and Cotswolds National Landscape, beside existing homes.

“The application site (0.64 hectares) is located on the southern side of Combe Road within the village of Stonesfield. It comprises predominantly a grass meadow with two coppices of trees (to be retained in the proposal) and two wooden stable buildings in its western corner. The site forms the southern edge of a plateau of land above steeply sloping ground to the south, descending to the River Evenlode.”

“The majority of the local street scene is made up of two / two and a half storey traditional styled Cotswold stone buildings with slate roofs. The buildings closest to the site on Combe Road itself comprise predominantly semi-detached former Council houses, dating from the 1920s onwards. The site falls within the Stonesfield Conservation Area (the northwestern front part only) and Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL) (formerly Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to a legal agreement because the benefits, especially affordable housing and public access to enhanced open space, were not substantially outweighed by the harms.

“The applicant has confirmed its willingness to secure, via the s106 legal agreement, the permanent retention, nature enhancement and full public accessibility of the 2.02ha of the wider field outside the application's red line boundary, land which is currently in private ownership and has no public right of access.”

“Officers have therefore carried out a balancing exercise, weighing the loss of part of the LGS2 area to residential development, which attracts great weight as a harm, reflecting the very exceptional circumstances test now engaged, against, on the other hand: (i) the well-evidenced and significant need for affordable housing addressed at paragraphs 7.10 and 7.11 above; and (ii) the permanent, s106- secured delivery of public access to, and protection of, the…”

Officer report

What consultees said

Most technical consultees raised no objection subject to conditions or contributions, while the flood authority sought infiltration testing and groundwater monitoring before development.

“Major Planning Applications Team Transport: No Objection subject to conditions relating to means of access, visibility splays, Construction Traffic Management Plan, off-site highway works, cycle parking, and Travel Plan/Travel Information Pack and associated informatives as suggested being attached to any permission granted.”

“Lead Local Flood Authority: Holding objection. A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted and is acceptable in principle. A Sustainable Drainage Options Appraisal and Strategy has also been provided to demonstrate how surface water runoff will be managed post-development. Notwithstanding this, the LLFA currently objects to the application pending the submission of infiltration testing in accordance with BRE365 to demonstrate soakage rates.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, parish council representatives and the applicant’s agent addressed the committee, opposing or supporting the proposal respectively.

What members debated

Members questioned drainage, neighbourhood plan weight, housing need, landscape, conservation area harm and whether the proposal was major development.

“Instead, they consider it appropriate to require this information through a planning condition, with the detailed work to be provided and assessed at the reserved matters stage before development proceeds. • Members asked whether an adopted Neighbourhood Plan would materially alter the planning balance, and whether planning policy should prioritise local housing need alone or also consider the Council's wider obligation to meet district-wide housing needs.”

“Members raised concerns about the development having an urbanising effect on the conservation area with harm to the character, appearance of the area and the impacts on the heritage. Members asked for clarity on whether the application was a major development. Members felt that there were inconsistencies in the application including housing need, which made it difficult to come to a decision.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillors voted six for refusal, one against and three abstentions.

“This was seconded by Councillor Phil Godfrey and put to the vote. Vote: for refusal 6, against refusal 1, abstain 3 The Sub-Committee Resolved to: Refuse the application against officer’s recommendations due to: 1.”

Minutes