A DECISION as to whether developers can build on Cirencester’s popular Humpty Dumps will soon be made as an inquiry was closed yesterday.

The three-day inquiry was made after London-based Baylight Properties appealed the rejection of their application to build up to 69 homes on the site near Berry Hill Crescent.

The application for the designated Special Landscape Area (SLA) was rejected last November by Cotswold District Council (CDC).

Leading the last day of the inquiry, inspector Jonathan Cook heard the closing statements of the appellant, represented by Anthony Crean QC, and CDC representative George Mackenzie.

Mr Mackenzie said: “Taken cumulatively, the landscape and visual harm in this case would be major/severe.

“The site has unusual and distinctive landform and makes an important contribution to the character of the surrounding valley area. It is treasured by the community and well-used for recreation.”

He added that according to a 2001 White Report, the area was considered to be of comparable value to the neighbouring AONB landscape.

Mr Crean however said: “Pointing to landscape harm provides no basis for rejecting a housing scheme or the policy would become circular and self-defeating.

“The question is whether the council can point to some particular or exceptional harm which takes this case beyond the ordinary, and whether that harm exceeds the threshold in the National Planning Policy Framework.

“The reality is that the appeal site will sit harmoniously in its location and will provide a softer well-designed urban edge to this part of Cirencester. Domestic architecture is an inherent feature of the landscape and defines its character.”

‘An inevitable concomitant of meeting housing needs’

On the benefits of the development, Mr Crean said: “It is inevitable that the character of the site itself will change. This effect is an inevitable concomitant of meeting housing needs.

“The failure of the Village Green application indicates that the land is private and the public can be excluded from the land at will, subject to the use of the public footpath.

“The grant of consent, on the other hand, will secure public rights to use the land in perpetuity.”

Mr Mackenzie however said that the promise on public access was an “illusory benefit of little if any weight” and that there was no reason to think that access to the site would change if permission was not granted.

On housing supply, Mr Mackenzie said: “The council can demonstrate a 7.5 year supply of housing land.

“The scheme’s economic benefits are all low-level benefits that do not attract significant weight.”

‘An unconstrained site suitable for development’

Mr Crean also suggested that in a “heavily constrained district” the site would be seen as one of the most suitable sites for development.

He said: “The appeal site is free of any of the constraints of heritage, flooding, AONB and agricultural land quality, which are nationally recognised.

“Mayor of Cirencester Mark Harris suggested other sites could come forward through the local plan process to address housing needs outside the SLA. However, none of the sites mentioned have consent, none have allocation and all are the subject of objections.”

CDC representative Mr Mackenzie, however, indicated that there were “trajectories for many areas such as Fairford, Lechlade and Down Ampney”.

He added: “I still find the argument that the proposal would reduce pressure on the AONB hard to follow.

“The logical position is that if permission were not granted, that would incentivise developers to look down one level rather than up one level (to the AONB).”

‘The harm would outweigh its benefits’

Finishing his statement, Mr Mackenzie said: “With the exception of affordable housing, the appeal scheme will not generate any significant benefits.

“Its adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits.”

Mr Crean concluded: “The cumulative benefits of the appeal scheme are obvious and substantial. The harm is limited.

“If this decision were simply to be made by balancing harm against benefit, then benefit would clearly prevail.

“That, however, is not the way the balance must be struck. The harm must go much further than simply outweighing the benefit.