- Decision
- approved, 9 September 2026
- Decided by
- Council planning committee: Cotswold DC Planning and Licensing Committee (8-0, 1 abstention)
- Authority
- Cotswold (South West)
- Application reference
- 25/03800/FUL
- Procedure
- committee
- Development
- Aldi food store, Costa drive-thru, car parking and highway works on part of an allocated employment site
- Site context
- inside settlement, national landscape
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4(2)(a)(i), N4(2), TC3, TC4, E2, E4
- Development plan policies
- Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 S11, EC2, EC3, EC8, EN4, EN5, INF4, INF5
- Main issues
- loss of allocated employment land; sequential test; National Landscape major development; highways
Summary
An Aldi and a Costa drive-thru on part of an allocated employment site inside Bourton-on-the-Water, in the Cotswolds National Landscape. Officers accepted the scheme was a departure from the allocation. They reasoned through S4(2)(a)(i): released allocations are a potential adverse effect, but here the safeguarding was "no longer appropriate". They also found the scheme was not "major development" for N4 and that it passed the TC3 sequential test. The committee permitted it 8-0 with one abstention.
Issues and findings
- Allocation, S4(2)(a)(i): no substantial adverse impact. "criterion 2 a i indicates that the impact of development on an allocation of land for a particular use in a development plan has the potential to represent an adverse effect which could substantially outweigh the benefits … it is considered that the safeguarding of this part of the allocated site is no longer appropriate in this particular instance given the nature of the proposed use … the scheme would not have a substantial adverse impact in relation to the allocation or safeguarding of land for employment purposes" (Report ¶10.22).
- National Landscape, N4(2): not major. Following fn59: "it would not result in a significant encroachment of development into the open countryside or appear as a distinct, separate development unconnected to the village … the proposal would not constitute major development in the CNL for the purposes of Policy N4" (¶10.108).
- Sequential test, TC3. "criterion 3 of NPPF Policy TC3 does not explicitly include a requirement for disaggregation to be taken into account", citing the government's August 2026 consultation response (¶10.43). No sequentially preferable sites (¶10.45).
- Accessibility, TR3/TC3. "the site is located over 1 km from the village centre … However … it is also possible for pedestrians to access the site via a network of illuminated footways … the development would not be reliant solely on customers using motor vehicles" (¶10.45).
Planning balance
This was an s38(6) departure balance within the S4(1) framing (approve unless benefits substantially outweighed). Significant weight went to employment and the rural economy and to retail choice. Against that stood conflict with S11 and EC2. Allocated employment land would stay above the allocated quantum, and a retail PD fallback existed. "It is considered that there are significant material considerations that justify a departure from the Local Plan" (¶11.1).
What made the difference
Consented floorspace elsewhere on the estate already exceeds the allocation, so releasing this plot does not undermine the allocation's purpose. Officers used that to turn the S4(2)(a)(i) "allocation" adverse effect into a non-issue. Without the surplus and the PD fallback, S4(2)(a)(i) would have been a strong refusal route.
Transferable points
- S4(2)(a)(i) is applied as a real test. Loss of allocated land is an adverse effect unless "there is no reasonable prospect of an application coming forward for the allocated use, or there is evidence that the safeguarding is no longer appropriate" (¶10.21 to 10.22).
- DMPO-major is not N4-major. Officers carry out a separate fn59 assessment of nature, scale, setting and effect on statutory purposes (¶10.106 to 10.108).
- The 2026 TC3 removed the disaggregation wording. Officers cite the government response to the consultation as the reason (¶10.43).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S4(2)(a)(i) | pass | no "substantial adverse impact" on the employment allocation, because extant consents exceed the allocation, a PD fallback to retail exists and the scheme generates comparable jobs; "the safeguarding of this part of the allocated site is no longer appropriate in this particular instance" | |
| N4(2) | not-engaged | not "major development" for N4 purposes (fn59), despite being DMPO-major, because it adjoins the village and the industrial estate on an allocated site | |
| TC3 | pass | sequential test passed; officers cite the Aug 2026 government response that disaggregation wording was removed from TC3 | |
| TC4 | pass | no significant adverse impact on Bourton centre; retains leakage | |
| TR3 | pass | over 1 km from the village centre, but lit footways, flat routes and nearby bus stops; not reliant solely on the car | |
| E2 | benefit | significant | employment and rural economy benefits "significant material consideration" |
| Local Plan S11 / EC2 | conflict | departure from the employment allocation |
Key facts
- Allocated employment site (S11) within the development boundary of Bourton-on-the-Water, in the Cotswolds National Landscape
- Consented employment floorspace elsewhere on the estate still exceeds the allocation if this site is released
- Fallback of industrial units changing to retail under permitted development
- Over 1 km from the village centre; bus stops nearby; proposed zebra crossing and A429 signals
- Tesco made a late objection; the parish objected only to the drive-thru
- Permitted 8-0 with 1 abstention as a departure
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.