A bid to build 50 homes in a village near Bishop’s Cleeve has been rejected for a second time.
The proposed estate in Gotherington was previously dismissed by Tewkesbury Borough Council’s planning committee in 2017, and then thrown out by an inspector at appeal in 2018.
The authority’s planning committee refused planning permission this morning as the development would have “disproportionate effect on the village in terms of cumulative impact on the development and also the social wellbeing of the community.”
A council report said the re-submitted application was “more or less the same” as the one which the Planning Inspector refused two years ago, but faced approval as the borough council can’t demonstrate how it will meet a housing target.
The applicant, JJ Gallagher Limited, wanted to build the 50 homes and open space in Gotherington on land off Ashmead Drive.
An agent of the developer said during the meeting that amendments to the application “had been made” such as proposing to turn private agricultural land into a site for a multi-use games area and multi-purpose community area.
The borough council received 159 objections from local residents, and Gloucestershire County Council’s education department and Gotherington Parish Council also objected.
Proposing the application be refused, Councillor Mel Gore (C, Isbourne) also said she was concerned about the loss of countryside between Gotherington and Bishop’s Cleeve.
She said in the meeting: “I believe this development would harm the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the threat of erosion of the gap is a significant issue.
“Something which is echoed by the many local representations by the community who fear a coalescence and loss of community identity within Gotherington.
“To allow this particular application would decrease the already eroded gap between Gotherington and Bishop’s Cleeve, contrary to the NPPF and our own policies.
“The original application was also refused based on cumulative effect on developments within the village, which is on a scale disproportionate to the existing settlement. Again, I see no change in this reason for refusal.”
The agent of the developer said: “We had considered the social cohesion concerns raised by the inspector and addressed our amendments in the proposal as well as the financial contributions which would arise.”