Erection of 24 houses & 2 Business Units!

Here is the latest from planning: 17/03740/FUL | Erection of 24 residential dwellings, car parking and associated landscaping and the erection of 2 x B1 (Business) units with associated car parking and landscaping | Land Parcel At Upper Rissington Upper Rissington Gloucestershire GL54 2NP. Deadline for comments on 22nd February 2018.

Between Coop and School: 17_03740_FUL-PROPOSED_PLOT_2_ELEVATIONS___SECTION-1123498

Near Roundabout: 17_03740_FUL-PROPOSED_PLOT_1_ELEVATIONS___SECTION-1123493

Materials used in construction: 17_03740_FUL-MATERIALS_DISPERSION_PLAN-1148317

Business Plan Site Plan: 17_03740_FUL-B1_PROPOSED_SITE_PLAN-1123487

The Landscape Plan: 17_03740_FUL-LANDSCAPE_MASTERPLAN-1123563

The Arboricultural Statement: 17_03740_FUL-ARBORICULTURAL_METHOD_STATEMENT-1144591

Design and Access Statement: 17_03740_FUL-DESIGN_AND_ACCESS_STATEMENT_REV_A-1123583

Here is a link to the Original Business Unit Plan.

27 thoughts on “Erection of 24 houses & 2 Business Units!

  1. It’s as if they are making a demarcation line, that splits our village with the business units there.

    I thought also, the original design concept, was to keep business traffic at the west side of the village i.e. along Delfin Way.

    1. Exactly, it will be like a spine separating the North and South of the village. Business Unit – Shops – Business Unit – School.

      What a terrible plan. Suggest those who are available attend the Parish Council meeting and voice their concerns to the Ward and County Councillors.

      1. Perhaps that is their intention to split the old community from the new on the age old divide and rule principle. A complete natural barrier especially as they do not appear to be putting in the footpaths behind the village square across to Wellington. Those people living on Mitchell Way will not need a car to go to work!😆

  2. These two buildings look like imitations of the Officers Mess which are not in keeping with thje location they propose to build them in. There is already a traffic problem on the “unnaned” road beside the Co-op and adding acces for another 43 cars. The proposed plan does not even match the revised landscaping plan they submitted a few weeks ago! As the original planning permission was obtained on the basis of an appeal surely they have to confine themselves to the proposal that was the subject of the appeal; i.e. stay within the box and not go outside it!

  3. In an ideal world I agree with Vigilant but this is CDC sister to SODC and if you saw the BBC 2 programme last Wednesday you will understand that democratic process and plain logic no longer apply! Too many vested interests unfortunately but greed will overtake someone soon and they will make a mistake!

  4. i thought on the original plans, the grass land on Delphin way was supposed to be the site for Light Business Units, to provide local jobs for local people, but there was no interest.

  5. That is about right, like social housing, CDC are playing games with directives from central government. GCC need to build 66000 houses this year and this is one spot they feel they can squeeze in a load more with minimum resistance! No tale up for business and social housing as we are too remote and no one cares about the lack of basic infrastructure.

  6. What a crazy building to erect on Mitchell Way. Totally, out of keeping to a small Cotswold village. Planners – you should be ashamed of yourselves.

    This is the most interesting document on the planning portal – a must read: CLICK HERE.

  7. If you look at the 2 Business Units they look typical of residential Blocks, the developers are never really intending to build them for Business purposes…..They know there will be no interest, therefore it will be a simple change of use when built and there we have it, 2 blocks of apartments for them to sell.

    1. Lord – This worry was voiced at the Parish Council meeting last week to our Ward Councillor Mark M.C. and he said it would never happen, they would not get change of use approved – you can hear this on the recording of the PC meeting (hopefully, as I haven’t listened to it but I was at the meeting).

  8. You should never believe anything the ward councillor says at the URPC meetings as its all TI’s and the case has been proven on several occasions recently thanks to the recordings being made at every meeting!

    1. Jerry, suggested you need to replace those dark glasses yesterday! Better go make an appointment at Specsavers tomorrow! I was the 7th person to submit my objection in fact a long time before you! My surname is South in case you did not know😂😂😂 !

    2. As for those in the big houses on Blenheim and Wellington, they are not going to be affected so why would you expect them to comment? What is the oposite of NIMBY, not on my door step so not bothered? 😃😃😃

      1. Was referring to Mike an owner on Blenheim. They are effected as the Business Unit is very close to them. In fact it effects the whole of the village – OUR FUTURE.

  9. I like how Mr Hunt has marked two of the developers drawings in his letter, showing the missing trees at the south end of Delfin Way.

    I think a lot of people have picked up that the developers left this whole group of 75 beech trees and 1 fir tree off their drawings!

    1. Two more days to object including today.

      We believe if this application is accepted then the requirement within the S106 to complete all before the last house is occupied will be extended to these 24. Meaning the site will be a mess for another 2 years.

      I have no trust in CDC to support the community. They are mandarins and only appear to respect builders.

      There is a comment from Parish / Town Council – but its not ours – very confusing.

      Customer Details
      Name: Mrs Parish Clerk Crompton
      Address: 13 Mitchell Way Upper Rissington Cheltenham
      Comment Details
      Commenter Type: General Comments
      Stance: Customer made comments neither objecting to or supporting the Planning Application

      Comment Reasons:
      – Highway access and parking
      Comment:Providing the planning officers are satisfied that there would be no significant increase in traffic ( compared with the previous permitted application) the Council would have no objections

  10. The above comment is associated with Little Rissington Parish Council. Of course Little Rissington PC have no objection, as they don’t want any building work to take place in LR. Traffic must increase if there are 24 houses and employment takes place in the business units.

    The Upper Rissington Parish Council’s input is what we expected. Thank you.

    Click here to read.

  11. This is from a previous post – but the objection option is still open. This is a real good argument for refusing the application and its from the CDC themselves.

    17/03765/FUL | Erection of new attached dwelling | 4 Hawker Square Upper Rissington Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL54 2NT

    The above planning application was refused for a number of reasons, 17/03765/FUL

    This document explains the refusal. However, below is a highlight that all those objecting to the 24 houses and business units need to be aware of. 

    While a three bedroom dwelling on the site of this size would not be supported, a smaller unit (possibly a one bedroom maisonette) may be possible on the site in the future. This is because at present, Upper Rissington is not recognised as a principal settlement in the district owing to its poor level of services and facilities, however the emerging Local Plan (which should become adopted next year) will recognise the area as a principal settlement due to the large number of new homes planned at the Victory Fields development. Once Upper Rissington is a principal settlement and considered to be a more sustainable location for new homes, a new dwelling on the site may be looked upon more favourably.

    I intend to write my report to refuse the scheme week commencing 27th November and so please let me know no later than 27th if you would like to withdraw the scheme. It is also noteworthy that no fee will be required to resubmit the application within 12 months of the received date if you withdraw the application or within 12 months of the decision date if the application is refused.

Make a change, make a comment?