A summary of the appeal decision for the self-build and affordable housing development off Church Road.

 

This summary is for: 

 

20/00015/DECISI | Outline application for up to 25 dwellings (consisting of 15 self-build and 10 discounted market houses) together with access and associated works such as footpath links to village hall and play area (all matters reserved). | Part Parcel 3538 Church Road Maisemore Gloucester Gloucestershire

... relating to:

18/01202/OUT | Outline application for up to 25 dwellings (consisting of 15 self-build and 10 discounted market houses) together with access and associated works such as footpath links to village hall and play area (all matters reserved). | Part Parcel 3538 Church Road Maisemore Gloucester Gloucestershire

... which was originally refused permission by Tewkesbury BC.

Following the virtual appeal hearing on 10 November 2020, the Planning Inspectorate's decision has been released today. The appeal was dismissed.

The development was considered unacceptable on several main issues - to quote:

"The main issues in this appeal are:
• Whether the appeal site offers a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the policies of the development plan;
• the effect of the proposal on the landscape character and appearance of the area; and,
• the effect on the significance or special interest of relevant Grade II* listed buildings."

On the first point the inspector noted:

"There is no defined settlement boundary for Maisemore, the existing built-up area of which is most readily defined by the regular concentration of development that either fronts the principal linear route through the village, or the lanes and cul-de-sacs off it."

It was a surprise to hear that the Village Boundary doesn't presently exist since the forthcoming TBC Local Plan hasn't yet been adopted and it seems the previous document has expired taking the boundary along with it!

Nevertheless she continued:

" ... although the appeal site is close to Maisemore’s settlement edge, it lies beyond the built-up area of the village. ... In light of the above, the proposal would not be within the Service Village of Maisemore for the purposes of SP2. The appeal site is not within the village and so would not be infilling within Maisemore, nor would it satisfy any of the criteria JCS Policy SD10 that would otherwise allow dwellings on sites that have not been allocated for development. Rather, the appeal site is situated in the open countryside. The appeal scheme has not been predicated on satisfying any other exceptions"

On the second point the inspector considered the landscape along both sides of the stream and stated:

"Therefore, notwithstanding the relative proximity of land and buildings that are part of Maisemore’s settlement edge, the appeal site assimilates with the character and appearance of the countryside. Furthermore, forming part of a substantial physical and visual break that separates the core of the village from an enclave of historic development at the top of Church Road, the appeal site contributes to a sense of openness and rural isolation that is of value to this grouping of heritage assets, the setting of the village and the LPZ."

On the third point the inspector noted:

"The Church of St Giles and Maisemore Court are both Grade II* listed buildings in recognition of their special architectural or historic interest. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 (the Act), I have paid special regard to the desirability of preserving these listed buildings, their settings, or any features of special architectural or historic interest they may possess."

... and continued after analysis:

"...the proposal would give rise to a suburban form of development on the appeal site and an associated encroachment of built form within the rural setting of the Grade II* listed Church and Maisemore Court. The permanent change within the setting of the listed buildings would irreversibly dilute the sense of rural isolation that underpins the significance and special interest of both. It follows that the proposed development would fail to preserve the setting of the listed buildings, causing harm to their significance and special interest."

It was acknowledged that there were some public benefits to the scheme and that the appellant had gone some way to mitigating problems, but these were not sufficient to override the main three issues outlined above.

Her concluding statement was:

"The proposed development would cause serious harm to the landscape character and appearance of the area, would fail to preserve the setting of listed buildings causing harm to their significance, and would not be in a suitable location in respect of development plan policies. ... Although I note there is some local support for the proposal and the appellant’s long-standing connection to Maisemore, I do not find there to be other material considerations to justify making a decision other than in accordance with the development plan read as a whole."

The full document should appear soon at TBC's Planning website under the 18/01202/OUT entry. However if you wish to have a copy of the document sooner, please download it from https://www.dropbox.com/t/XTa2nUN2u9yDmqOj - note this link will expire in 6 days.