Agenda item

Demolition of barns, form new vehicular and pedestrian access, erection of 30 No. dwellings, construct village hall with parking area and provision of wildlife area, attenuation pond and public open space.

The Case Officer presented to members the demolition of barns, form new vehicular and pedestrian access, erection of 30 No. dwellings, construct village hall with parking area and provision of wildlife area, attenuation pond and public open space.

With the aid of visual representation, members were shown aerial photographs of the site and location. These images also allowed members to view nearby listed buildings. Details regarding the proposed village hall, site layout and designs of the dwellings was also provided. The Case Officer informed members of the scale of the dwellings as well as the lack of affordable housing and highlighted the local need for this in the area. He also discussed the landscaping proposal which wasn’t compliant with the development plan and believed that the development was too large for the local area. It impacted heritage and did not believe the benefits outweigh the harm. 

Steve Savage, Transport Development Manager, informed members that there were no objections from highways. He discussed how the proposed site access was compliant in terms of visibility and a swept pass analysis had also been approved. The proposed development provided adequate parking.

Public Participation

Frances and Andrew Gillet spoke in objection of the planning objection. They believed that it would change the character of the local area and the nearby listed building. They also discussed how there was not enough local immunities, therefore Bourton was not the appropriate location for these homes which didn’t contribute to the local need for affordable housing. They also discussed their concerns regarding the proposed village hall. It would have been used to hold events which would result in more noise. They did not believe that a new village hall was necessary which would have caused a significant amount of harm and create huge costs.

Other residents and the Parish Council spoke in favour of the application. They believed that the current village hall was dated and unsafe. They believed that they needed a social area for residents, like other towns, to prevent residents feeling isolated due to the lack of public transport. Residents believed that the developer had created a modern and sustainable development which would have benefitted the village. Residents and the Parish Council did not believe that there was any other way to raise funds for the construction of a new village hall. They believed it was a low-density scheme which would be detrimental to the character of Bourton. They believed that the site had many benefits and hoped the committee would approve.

Diccon Carpendale spoke in favour of the application as the agent. He hoped members would approve planning permission as the aim of the proposed development was to help Bourton develop. Mr Carpendale informed members that the scheme would have delivered good sized family homes which was appropriate for an aging village He assured members that the scheme would fit comfortably within the village and believed that the benefits outweigh the harm. Mr Carpendale hoped members would approve planning permission.

Members questions and comments

·       Clarification of size of immunity space.

·       Confirmation regarding Neighbourhood Plan as a material consideration

·       Cllr Ridout believed that the proposal was within a good location and a new village hall would have been beneficial to the area and residents.

·       Members commended the thorough officers report.

·       Members didn’t believe that the proposed development met the aims and objective of Bourton.

·       Loss of affordable housing which shouldn’t have been negotiable.

·       Members noted the neighbourhood plan and importance of supporting them.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to refuse was proposed by Cllr Val Pothecry and seconded by Cllr Stella Jones.

Decision: To refuse planning permission.