Planners have crashed out of a plan for four new homes at a former car repair shop due to concerns over the environmental impact of the scheme.

The homes bid in the picturesque Cotswold town of Painswick was proposed at the former site of JW Goddard's Garage, the town's auto repairs business which traded in the town for more than a century until it shuttered earlier this year.

Back in April, owner Robert Goddard revealed he was planning to retire and the business would close its doors by Easter.

Mr Goddard told residents through The Painswick Beacon that he would continue to offer a private hire taxi service "for the time being" – and he thanked loyal customers who had supported the garage across five generations of Goddard family management.

Following the decision, Mr Goddard instructed Joe Seymour of Cheltenham-based McLoughlin Planning to determine whether planners would back permission in principle for a maximum of four new homes on the site, which measures 0.055 hectares, or some 550 sqm. 

The move would have required a change of use from B2 General Industrial to C3 for domestic homes.

Gemma Davis, SDC Planning Officer, said the bid for permission in principle was defined in the National Planning Policy Framework as a form of planning consent, "which establishes that a site is suitable for a specified amount of housing led development in principle".

But her report ruled: "The site falls within the catchment for the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation and Cotswolds Beechwoods SAC and therefore the development would be classed as 'habitats development'.

She added that as the competent authority, SDC had determined that, without appropriate mitigation being able to be secured, the development "could result in negative effects to the protected site through increased recreational pressure to which cannot be mitigated as habitats development under this application type".

Four reactions from local residents also detailed concerns over the future of a stone barn on the site and whether it could be listed as a designated heritage asset, while parking and road safety questions were raised, along with a request that any housing design would be "respectful of surroundings".

Further documents also show that a Section 106 agreement was agreed for the proposal, which details how the developer would hand over £2,692 "for expenditure on environmental and ecological mitigation".

● It is not known whether the applicant will appeal against the ruling.