Agenda item

Erection of replacement dwelling (Revised application).

Public Participation

Simon Chambers (agent) spoke in support of the application.

The Senior Planning Officer, Raymond Cole presented a report which outlined the proposal for the erection of a replacement dwelling on Meadowside, Tetbury Road, Sherston.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the potential for harm to the countryside and the transition from the urban fringe to the rural surroundings. The Senior Planning Officer also shared the Case Officer’s findings that the application was not reflective of local character, and her concerns surrounding the size of the proposed property in terms of its visibility and impact on the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on the ownership of land directly north of the application site (within family’s ownership but not applicant’s) and the proposal’s impact on the transition from urban fringe to countryside. Clarity was sought on whether the settlement boundary had any weight on the Officer’s recommendation, and on the view of the AONB board. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the site was outside of the defined settlement boundary and that they had not consulted the AONB board and thus had no feedback from them. Councillors also enquired as to the details of the proposed building compared to the existing one and that which was granted planning permission in 2022.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Martin Smith, then spoke regarding the application. Councillor Smith noted that this was an atypical application due to the lack of any objectors. He further noted that the Parish Council consulted a retired town planner before confirming their support of the application. Councillor Smith stated that the proposed property was undeniably an improvement on the existing one, and then referred to several aspects of the Officer’s report that he disagreed with, specifically the suggestion that the proposed building would create a “contiguous expanse of unbroken frontage” and a “harmfully abrupt edge to the dwelling”. He concluded by stating that the vastly improved sustainability of the proposed property, both ecologically and socially, meant that in his view the benefits of the application did outweigh the harm, and so affirmed his support for the application.

At the start of the debate a motion to refuse the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Martin Smith and seconded by Councillor Steve Bucknell, with authority delegated to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission subject to appropriate conditions to be prepared by officers.

During the debate, issues were raised including the lack of harm to the surroundings and the improved sustainability of the application. Councillor Elizabeth Threlfall countered that the scale of the building verged on unacceptable and was incongruent with the surrounding area. Councillor Gavin Grant voiced his support for the motion, noting that the application had its issues but on balance was acceptable.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that were the Committee minded to grant planning permission, he would advise them to include similar conditions to those that were attached to the previously approved application.

Councillor Jacqui Lay noted that the Officer recommendation should be given due respect and that regardless of a present-day lack of representations against the application, they still needed to consider future opposition.

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be GRANTED, with authority delegated to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission subject to appropriate conditions to be prepared by officers.