By Carmelo Garcia – Local Democracy Reporter
Plans for a councillor and her partner’s “forever home” in a picturesque Cotswold village have been rejected.
Councillors turned down Richard Scholes’ plans for a bungalow on a parcel of agricultural land to the south-east of The Walled Garden at Manor Court in Eastleach this month.
The proposals were referred to the planning committee on August 11 because his partner is councillor Helene Mansilla (LD, Lechlade, Kempsford and Fairford South).
The Cotswold District Council planning committee was told the new home would allow the couple to continue living and contributing to the community.
But officers recommended rejecting the scheme due to its location within the Cotswold National Landscape immediately next to Eastleach’s conservation area.
They also said the site is landlocked with no direct frontage onto a highway maintainable at public expense and there was insufficient information to demonstrate it is capable of being connected to the public highway.
Roderick Wordie, a neighbour, said he strongly supported the recommendation to refuse permission to “protect Eastleach”.
He said the site sits in open countryside on the “sensitive” rural edge of Eastleach within the Cotswold National Landscape and next to the village’s conservation area.
“A single building on this agricultural site will create a precedent for the domestication of agricultural land outside the village boundary, it would fail to enhance or protect the Cotswold natural landscape,” he said.
Mr Scholes’ planning agent told the meeting a flat nearby was his client’s main home and that of his partner Cllr Mansilla.
“The proposal will be their forever home allowing them to continue to live in and contribute to their community,” he said.
“A high quality, sustainable dwelling appropriate to its setting is intended.”
He said the pre-application talks last year, which were not mentioned in the report presented to councillors, were positive.
“It indicated that with an appropriate design and due to the lack of a five-year housing land supply planning permission could be granted,” he added.
He also said the site was not agricultural as it has a domestic use with a greenhouse, maintained lawn and established trees – features visible from aerial photography dating back 40 years.
He also told the meeting access to the site is available from the existing shared lane.
A statement was read out on behalf of Eastleach Parish Council, which objected to the scheme.
The council argued the development would encroach on the conservation area and would fail to enhance the character of the Cotswold National Landscape.
Conservative councillor David Fowles (Coln Valley) said he was surprised by the comments from the agent about the applicant and councillor’s plans to make it their “forever home”.
“I’ve been the ward member there for three years and I’ve never ever seen my colleague there at all,” he said.
“I’m very surprised that, if there was a desire to want to work with the village and the parish council, why there was no attempt to engage with the parish council to show them what the intentions were for this land. It seems very, very surprising.”
He said the site is in the national landscape and Manor Court and its setting is an important heritage asset and “could not overstate enough” how important the building is to the setting of Eastleach.
“I support the concerns raised by the parish council and the objector and I would strongly, strongly urge you to support the officer’s recommendation and send a clear message that this application will not receive planning in principle.”
After the conclusion of his speech, the legal officer said she did not feel Cllr Fowles should take part in the debate as he expressed support for refusal.
“I’m concerned you may not be approaching this matter with an open mind,” she said.
Cllr Fowles said he came into the room with an open mind but said he changed his mind after hearing the agent’s speech and he agreed to leave the room.
During the debate, councillors agreed that the area had an “agricultural feel” and the committee ultimately voted unanimously to reject the proposals in line with the officer’s recommendation.