|
|
Planning Officer's Report
|
|
Back to menu
|
RECOMMENDATION
Application No: CT.8238
Case Officer: Marcus Kitchen
Parish: Kingscote
Proposal: Erection of a country house and garden, gate lodge, walled
garden and associated park
Recommendation to: REF
Site Location: Brimpscombe Park Bagpath Kingscote
Applicant: Mr & Mrs D Cardale
Description of Proposal:
The erection of an isolated country house comprising 10 bedrooms and a gate lodge with 1 bedroom set in an 80 acre site within the Ozleworth Valley, 3 km south of Kingscote. The site is
wholly within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in an area identified as having a landscape characterised by steep-sided narrow valleys with bands of broadleaved
woodland. The proposal is derived from the provisions of Para 3.21 of PPG7. The total floorspace is 1,440 square metres and the detail that has been supplied is in full. The
means of access to the site is via Scrubbets Lane, which links Bagpath and the A4135 in the north. 3 passing places are proposed north of Bagpath. Ancillary works are proposed at
the site, which comprise the construction of 1 km of drystone walling hedgerow replacement, park trees, estate gates and new woodland planting. Conygre Wood lies adjacent to the site and
is an Ancient Woodland.
Materials
Roof - Cotswold stone tiles.
Walls - Cotswold stone.
Relevant Planning History
None.
Key Policy Background
Cotswold District Local Plan
Policy 2 (Development in Rural Areas)
Policy 18 (The Environment)
Policy 19 (Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty)
Policy 21 (Agricultural Land)
Policy 22 (Nature Conservation)
Policy 25 (Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows)
Policy 30 (Sites of Archaeological Interest)
Policy 32 (Access to the Countryside)
Policy 40 (Cotswold Design Code)
Policy 41 (Landscaping in New Development)
Policy 43 (Environmental Improvement)
Policy 46 (Roads and Footpaths)
Structure Plan Second Review
S1 (Strategy : Bulk of New Development)
S4 (Strategy : Development in Rural Settlements)
S6 (Strategy : Local Character and Distinctiveness)
H6 (Housing : Development in Rural Areas)
NHE1 (Natural and Historic Environment : Development and the Environment)
NHE2 (Natural and Historic Environment : Nature Conservation and
Biodiversity
NHE3 (Natural and Historic Environment : Agricultural Land)
NHE4 (Natural and Historic Environment : Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty)
NHE6 (Natural and Historic Environment : Historic Environment
T1 (Transport : New Development and The Transport System)
Central Government Advice
PPG1 (General Policy and Principles)
PPG3 (Housing)
PPG7 (The Countryside: Environmental Quality and Economic and Social
Development)
PPG9 (Nature Conservation)
PPG13 (Transport)
PPG16 (Archaeology and Planning)
RPG10 (Regional Planning Guidance 'South West')
Consultations and Representations
Kingscote Parish Council - Object; tortuous access road.
Ozleworth Parish Council - Object; remote and wild site; any building would be an intrusion.
Boxwell with Leighterton Parish Council - Object; this is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and really doesn't need a large building to enhance it.
Gloucestershire County Council (Highways Officer) - Refuse; remote from amenities and would increase reliance on the private car; the roads serving the site are sub-standard.
Gloucestershire County Council - (Archaeology Officer) - No objection.
Architects Panel - See attached comments.
Heritage Service - Views incorporated into the report.
English Heritage - No response received.
Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust - All the ecological constraints appear to
have been identified and taken into account; would want a Section 106 Agreement if minded to permit.
CABE - The design is of high quality; happy to endorse subject to conditions.
Bristol Water - Concern about the adequacy of the water distribution system to cope with further development; also concerned about the state of Scrubbetts Lane and the effect of construction
traffic on the lane and services beneath it.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to a condition.
Engineer - Get comments of the Environment Agency.
Ramblers Association - Object; would be totally inappropriate in this quiet country area; also have concerns about the proposal damaging the minor roads.
CPRE (Gloucestershire) - Would damage Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
CPRE (Tetbury District) - Object; difficult to conceive of any decision
enhancing the immediate setting and wider surroundings.
154 Individual Letters - Object; one of the most beautiful and unspoilt areas of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; would harm the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and not
enhance its economic and social well-being; would not enhance the surroundings; the design is pastiche; tortuous, narrow lanes; fails the tests in PPG7; small site; contrary to the Development
Plan; not an 'impoverished site'; concern about drainage.
Petition with 52 signatures - Object; should remain undeveloped.
Letter with 15 names - Object; would damage Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
35 Individual Letters - Support; would enhance the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; meets the tests in PPG7; will provide employment; an outstanding house.
Landmark Environmental Consultants - A report commissioned by objectors with alleges harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
|
|
Back to top
|
Officer Comments
Introduction
This proposal was the subject of an All Members' Site Inspection Briefing in September.
This is an application which has been lodged in accordance with the provisions of para 3.21 of PPG7 which states, inter alia, that whilst new housebuilding away from settlements should be
strictly controlled 'an isolated new house in the countryside may also be exceptionally justified if it is clearly of the highest quality, is truly outstanding in terms of its architecture and
landscape design and would significantly enhance its immediate setting and wider surroundings. Proposals for such development would need to demonstrate that proper account had been taken
of the defining characteristics of the local area, including local or regional building traditions and materials. This means that each generation would have the opportunity to add to the
tradition of the Country House which has done so much to enhance the English countryside'.
This proposal has been evolved over a period of several years. An RIBA completion was launched in September 2001, with the brief available through a dedicated website. 92
architects submitted drawings. A panel of 6 judges was selected. The architect for the scheme currently before the Authority won first prize.
The documents submitted with the planning application comprise:
architectural and landscape drawings;
a planning application supporting statement;
a landscape assessment;
an ecological appraisal;
an archaeological assessment;
an Historic Buildings Consultants statement;
an Historical Landscape Study;
a traffic report; and
a Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking.
All these documents are available in the Department and on the file. In view of their size, they are not reproduced in full for this Committee but they have been available for inspection
at any time. The planning application supporting statement is a comprehensive resume of the application and individual copies were provided to Members of the Committee (and
substitites). A photomontage was also prepared for all Members on the Site Inspection Briefing. For the benefit of those who were unable to attend, the photomontage will be
reproduced at this meeting.
|
|
Back to top
|
The main issues
There is no doubt that a new dwelling at this location in open countryside is contrary to the Development Plan (the Cotswold District Local Plan and the Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second
Review). However, paragraph 3.21 of PPG7 states that an isolated new house in the countryside may be justified exceptionally if it is clearly of the highest quality, is truly outstanding
in terms of its architecture and landscape design and would enhance its immediate setting and wider surroundings. The purpose of this exception to the normal policy of restraint is to
enable each successive generation to add to the tradition of the Country House, which has done so much to enhance the English Countryside.
Despite the fact that this site is located in open countryside, away from any established settlement, there is no justification required to establish a functional need for agricultural or
forestry purposes. If Members consider that the proposal is of sufficiently outstanding quality and subject to all other relevant material planning considerations, permission may be
granted in accordance with national guidance contained within PPG7.
This site is located, of course, within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The primary purpose of this designation is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the
landscape, and this duty is clearly set out in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, PPG7, Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review Policy NHE4 and Cotswold District Local Plan Policy
19. The significance of this issue is that in addition to the tests established in paragraph 3.21 of PPG7, the proposal must also comply with the development constraints that apply
statutorily to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and that it should not be harmful to the character and appearance of the landscape. Paragraph 3.21 of PPG7 does not give guidance
regarding such proposals in protected landscapes, but it is a critical issue nonetheless.
RPG10 also gives the highest level of protection to such landscapes and in addition requires Local Planning Authorities to reduce reliance by private motor vehicles through the appropriate
location of new development. This is reflected in strategic policies and is a further issue to take into account. On a relates matter, the proposal is to be located at the end of a long,
narrow road and the condition of that road is a material consideration.
Finally, your Officers have had regard to case studies of PPG7 houses elsewhere, including some within the District.
Architectural Design
The proposal is well presented and researched. It is based on early eighteenth century square form buildings of around 1700-1795 in date. A strict adherence to harmonic proportion
and mathematic progression through the internal spaces are reflected in the proposal. The buildings are faced in natural materials indigenous to the Cotswolds and the use of ashlar as a
facing material for the main block denotes the building as being of high status and facilitates the use of fine crisp detailing.
Officers find the design is at first glance a pleasing, yet unchallenging Queen Anne/George I country house. The central block of the main house is a cube with a typical hipped roof and
top lit stair. The elevations are more horizontal in emphasis than many earlier Corolean prototypes and lack the decorative excesses of the English Baroque. The submission is
intelligent in its subtle use of Palladian proportion and Mannerist detailing. This is a combination that is not generally encountered in Historicist schemes. The proposal employs a
sensitive blend of the Cotswold vernacular, Palladianism and Mannerism. The apparent simplicity of the scheme is overlain by a sophistication not encountered in smaller period country
houses. The confident handling of the internal spaces and fine detailing is an outstanding example of classicism in a building which is a modern house. It lacks the extensive service
accommodation which typified houses in the past. Instead, the proposal displays an efficient internal plan which successfully achieves an interior with principal rooms of sufficient
architectural presence to distance the building from other contemporary houses. It achieves a marriage between the contemporary and larger classically - derived period country
houses. It displays a consistently high design quality both internally and externally, and in terms of its own genre it is considered to be an outstanding example of its type.
In the view of your Officers, it is acceptable within the terms of paragraph 3.21 of PPG7 to use a traditional (vernacular or classical) as opposed to a modern or contemporary approach.
The key test must be whether or not the proposal is outstanding. PPG7 is not prescriptive regarding architectural style. It could be said that in this sensitive landscape of the
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty an historicist scheme is less likely to appear as an intrusion into the landscape than a strictly modern proposal, but this issue is discussed
separately below.
Notwithstanding these comments, Officer do have some criticisms of the design and detailing. The driveway approach to the house is uninspired and lacks the tension associated with the
"sublime" serpentine line and the Palladian cube. The rather direct approach to the house fails to exploit the best views of the house via a traditionally sinuous carriageway. It is
unfortunate that the principal elevation is not seen on the approach. The proposed lodge is well designed but in an illogical location. They are intended to announce and defend the
gateway to a substantial property. It would be better sited at the access from the public highway or omitted entirely.
No amendments have been made of the scheme since the original submission and following these observations being made to the applicants. Impact on the setting of listed building
Some objectors have indicated that they believe the proposal would affect the setting of Boxwell Court, a Grade II* listed building on the opposite side of Ozleworth Bottom. The proposal
has been advertised as affecting the setting of that building and key details related to the development were sent to English Heritage in July 2002. No response has been received from
them.
Officers do not consider that the proposal would adversely affect the setting of Boxwell Court, or any other listed buildings along the Ozleworth Valley.
|
|
Back to top
|
Landscape Impact
It is important to consider the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (a landscape of national importance) and the
landscape merits of the proposal in the context of paragraph 3.21 of PPG7.
The site lies in the "Incised" visual character zone as described in the Countryside Commission's landscape assessment of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (1990). The
landscape character of the site coincides with the general description contained therein.
The site and its setting can be clearly viewed from the Monarch's Way footpath to the south of the site across Ozleworth Bottom. This was one of the locations from where Members of the
Site Inspection Briefing viewed the proposal. What is most striking in this panoramic view is the virtual absence of discernible dwellings. Glimpsed views are available of
Lasborough, Boxwell Court and Ozleworth but Newark Park is not obvious, despite being at the highest elevation of all these. It is clear that the characteristic location of these country
houses is discrete, tucked into the landscape. Associated landscaping is informal, underplayed but quite extensive.
In contrast, the site proposed for the development is exposed to view. Its location is described as "a commanding position" in paragraph 4.4 of the landscape assessment with the
application and Officers agree with that description.
The size and design proposed would be intrusive in the view and would dominate its setting in a quite uncharacteristic way compared to other nearby country houses. The landscaping
proposed to mitigate this view consists of a number of trees scattered on the slope below the house.
Officers consider, therefore, that the siting, scale and massing of the house and its ancillary accommodation (including the Lodge) would be freestanding, dominant, permanent additions
adversely intrusive to both their immediate setting and the intrinsically important wider landscape attributes of the locality. We conclude, therefore, that the proposal would be harmful
to the character and appearance of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Unless, therefore, the proposal meets the criteria contained within paragraph 3.21 of PPG7 it should not be permitted because of its underlying material harm to the character and
appearance of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The following comments are made in accordance within the criteria at paragraph 3.21.
Is the house isolated ?
Although there is some intervisibility with Boxwell Court, the proposed house is isolated in the Cotswold context.
Is the proposal of the highest quality ?
The landscape proposals have been based upon landscape assessment and historical research in accordance with best practice. The presentation of the landscape proposals is exemplary.
Is the landscape design "outstanding" ?
Given the existing outstanding landscape quality of the site and its surroundings, a very low key approach has been taken to the landscape design. This has taken to form of introducing groves,
clumps and individual trees to recreate the parkland indicated to have existed on the site from about 1865 to 1934, albeit in an earlier Reptonian style. The higher plateau are to the
north of the house is generally left clear. These woods will be managed and replanted as necessary. The drystone walls will be repaired and the route of the drive has been designed
to provide a "surprise" view of the house. It is clear that the whole landscape design has been handled most skillfully. However, the location and orientation of the house itself
(as indicated above) appears strange. The proposal does not command views either up or down the valley. Only limited use seems to have been made of the topography of the site to
open these longer views by tree removal. No ground modelling is proposed to create new vistas or features. An oval garden is located discretely some distance from the house.
Thus, although the landscape design is appropriate for the overall design philosophy of the development itself, this is not considered to be a scheme which provides a siting and orientation of
the house which makes best use of its setting, or that is of such impact as to be literally and figuratively "outstanding" in the context of the landscape it is placed within.
The applicants naturally disagree with officers about the impact that the buildings would have on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and contend that it would be neither uncharacteristic
in its setting not intrusive in the view. They do not see it as being at odds with the existing country houses in the vicinity. They are critical of taking a "short section" of the
Monarch's Way and viewing the proposed site in isolation. Moreover, they strongly contest that the landscaping proposals "are intended to be a celebration of the new house and of the
qualities o the valley landscape in which they are situated, and are entirely consistent with the landscaping of the houses in the valley". Rather than introduce significant ground
modelling, they contend that they have sought to be sympathetic to the existing landscape and adopted a "entirely conservationist" approach to the landscaping.
|
|
Back to top
|
Does the proposal significantly enhance its immediate setting ?
This report has described the subtle and low key approach to landscape design that is proposed. Officers have found it difficult to see how the relatively simple landscaping proposed
"significantly enhances" the immediate setting especially when the design quality of the existing landscaping is acknowledged to be outstanding. The proposed repairs to walls, woodland
management and reversion of arable land to pasture are all encouraged to grant aid under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas scheme and are therefore nor dependant on this application for
implementation. The presence of the house is not a prerequisite to effective landscape management.
Notwithstanding these remarks, the applicants have asked for it to be pointed out that the landscaping enhancement "is over and above any grant aided scheme and will involve substantial
personal investment ..."
Will the proposal "significantly enhance" the wider surroundings ?
Apart from Newark Park, country houses in the Ozleworth Valley do not "occupy a commanding position" as is proposed here, but are discretly located so as not to dominate the landscape or
their neighbours. Officers have expressed the view that the development of a large house together with its lodge will, because of the visual dominance sought, be harmful to the wider
landscape. We believe that the applicants' point about this proposal completely a "ribbon" of parkland along the valley is overplayed. One is not aware of any abrupt changes in
landscape character and appearance between Ozleworth and Boxwell Court of such magnitude that this proposal will "repair" the damage caused by the site declining from use as designed landscape
has been "designed" in any accepted sense. In fact, evidence suggests that the landscape was only "designed" for a short period in the 19th Century. The subtle approach to landscape
design does not, in our view, significantly enhance the landscape or its wider surroundings.
For these reasons, Officers do not consider that the proposal meets all the tests outlined in paragraph 3.21 of PPG7 satisfactorily and we are not able to support it on these grounds
alone. The applicants do not agree with the analysis carried out, but discussions have now reached an impasse. Highways and access
Access to the site is gained off a Class 3 road, known as Scrubbetts Lane, which serves the settlement of Bagpath. This is predominantly a single lane carriageway bounded by
verges. There is one formal passing place close to Windy Corner crossroads but elsewhere vehicles pass by pulling in at driveways and gateways.
It is unlikely that journeys to and from work, education or shopping would be made by modes other than the private motor car. There is a bus service between Dursley and Tetbury with a
bus stop at Hunters Hall on the A4135 but it is unlikely that this would be used other than on exceptional occasions.
The applicants' highway consultant predicts that an additional 6 vehicle movements per day would be well within the traffic carrying capacities of Scrubbetts Lane and the junctions. They
find no evidence of any capacity issue which requires improvement or evidence of a safety problem associated with the road and its junctions. 20 vehicle movements per day are predicted
during the construction phase and they accept that this is till within the carrying capacity of the road and its junctions.
Nonetheless, in an attempt "to overcome the difficulty experienced when two vehicles meet, especially if one of the vehicles is construction-related" ..... it is proposed to provide 2 passing
places on the un-named road that leads northwards from Windy Corner to meet the A4135 and another near Bagpath Court.
Notwithstanding this analysis and the proposed passing places, the County Council's Highway Officer objects to the proposal on two grounds. The first of these is related to the
remoteness of the development from amenities and the second refers to the sub-standard and unsuitable nature of the roads that serve the site. The applicants have met with the Highway
Officer on several occasions but discussions on this matter have also reached an impasse.
|
|
Back to top
|
Archaeology
A field evaluation has been carried out and no significant archaeological deposits have been found. No further archaeological investigation or recording is recommended.
Conservation
No comments have been received from English Nature. The Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust consider that having read the appraisal submitted with the application, the ecological constraints
appear to have been identified and taken into account. In the event that permission is granted, the Trust would wish to see the Management Plan implemented via a Section 106 legal
agreement.
No objections have been received on the basis of alleged harm to Conygre Wood (an Ancient Woodland).
Foul and Surface Water Disposal
Bristol Water have expressed concern about the adequacy of the water distribution system to cope with further development and the effect that construction traffic would have on Scrubbetts Lane
and the services beneath it, but no objections have been raised by the Environment Agency.
Rights of way
To the north of the site (at Brock Hill House) there is a public bridleway and this leads westwards crossing the northern part of the site. Views into the site would be possible
here. From the end of the metalled section of Scrubbetts Lane, a public highway leads southwards towards Boxwell, where it joins the Monarch's Way.
In addition to these rights of way, an application has been made to Gloucestershire County Council for the adoption of a path across the site (in fact through the proposed house). This
application is likely to take some time to consider and it is not recommended that the determination of the dwelling proposal be delayed pending the outcome.
Other matters
Some objectors have referred to the question of departure from the Development Plan. As this report has outlined, the proposal is not in conformity with policies within the Cotswold
District Local Plan or the Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review, which seek to limit residential development in isolated locations to those essential to the needs of agriculture or
forestry. With this in mind, if Members are minded to permit the proposal, it will first have to be advertised as a departure. Any comments arising there from will have to be taken into
account.
Another related issue, Officers are aware that the Government Office for the South West has been invited to call-in the application for their own determination by several objectors, but no
formal communication has yet been received from them.
Finally, the planning supporting statement includes a draft Deed of Undertaking at Appendix F. In the event that members are minded to grant permission for the proposal, it is
recommended that the Agreement be entered into (subject to any modification deemed necessary).
Summary
The primary objective of Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty designation is conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape, notwithstanding the guidance provided within paragraph 3.21 of
PPG7 which relates to the exceptional cases. Such an exception in this instance needs to demonstrate that it would significantly enhance the character and appearance of its immediate
setting and wider surroundings. Whilst Officers consider that the design of the house is of the highest quality, the erection of a new house at this location would not enhance the natural
beauty of the area but would be a freestanding, permanent addition that would be adversely intrusive to both its immediate setting and the wider landscape.
In addition, it is considered that the proposal is unacceptable because it is remote from amenities and the roads that serve the site are sub-standard and unsuitable to cater for the
development.
|
|
Back to top
|
Officer Recommendation: REFUSE
CONDITIONS / REASONS FOR REFUSAL
1 The application site is located within the 'Incised' Visual Character Zone of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty as described by the Countryside Commission.
The introduction of residential development into the landscape without exceptional justitication would be countrary to well-established national, strategic and local planning policies.
Having regard to the provisions of paragraph 3.21 of PPG7, the Local Planning Authority finds that the landscape design and visual impact of the proposal would not significantly enhance
its immediate setting or the wider surroundings. The proposal would, rather, be harmful to the character and appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and would fail to
preserve or enhance its natural landscape beauty. The proposal is therefore contrary to the statutory provisions of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, guidance within PPG7,
Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review Policy NHE4 and Cotswold District Local Plan Policies 2 and 19.
2 The application site is situated in open countryside away from any established settlement. Residential development in such locations is subject to constraint in accordance with
national, strategic and local plan policies unless an exceptional justificaton is provided. In this instance, justification has been based on guidance in paragraph 3.21 of PPG7. In
view of the alleged harm cited in reason 1, the exceptional justification is not satisfactorily proven and therefore the application does not accord with the provisions of national,
strategic and local planning policies in such locations. The proposal is therefore contrary to the guidance provided by PPG1, PPG3 and PPG7, RPG10, Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second
Review Policies S1, S4, S6, H6 and NHE1, and Cotswold District Local Plan Policy 2.
3 The site is located within the open countryside remote from amenities and is not served by adequate footpaths, cycleways, or public transport facilities and the development would be
likely therefore to increase reliance on the private car contrary to central and local government planning policy and the requirements of the County Council's Local Transport Plan.
4 The roads serving the site are sub-standard and unsuitable to cater for the propsoed development by reason of theor restricted width, poor alignment, lack of footways and lack of
passing bays.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Back to menu
|