The peace and natural beauty surrounding King Charles III’s family residence at Highgrove House in the Cotswolds face potential disruption amid plans to construct 135 new homes on adjacent green fields. Developer Miller Homes is considering building on land between Bath Road and Longfurlong Lane, located just yards from the rural retreat.
Local residents and conservation groups have expressed strong opposition, emphasizing the importance of these fields as wildflower meadows within the Cotswold National Landscape and a vital heritage corridor on Tetbury’s southern outskirts. The privately owned land has been consistently excluded from development proposals in the town’s Local Plan.
Peter Martin, former district councillor and chairman of the Longfurlong Greenfields Association, called the move “entirely cynical,” highlighting that the land sits outside development boundaries and contravenes numerous planning policies designed to protect the community and environment. Despite this, Miller Homes has conducted extensive surveys assessing traffic, wildlife, trees, landscape, and archaeology while engaging with local officials.
Cotswold District Councillor Laura Hall-Wilson condemned the proposal as an example of “concreting over” cherished countryside and criticized arbitrary government housing targets driving unsuitable rural developments. She emphasized the need for developers like Miller Homes to complete existing projects, such as the Highfields development, before pursuing new sites.
Residents also raise concerns about local infrastructure strains. Tetbury has experienced significant growth in recent years, with over a thousand new homes added, leading to parking difficulties, excessive wait times for medical appointments, and environmental issues including sewage discharge harming local waterways.
Research by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) reveals a pattern of developers securing planning permissions but delaying construction, often to inflate land values. The think tank advocates for legal reforms imposing strict timelines for building after permissions are granted to tackle housing shortages effectively.
Critics, including Chris Giles from the Local Government Association, argue that government housing policies lack nuance and fail to account for local communities’ needs for jobs, schools, and transport. Giles stresses that developments should prioritize housing accessible to young people, low-income families, and the elderly near key amenities—criteria not met by the proposed Tetbury site.
Security concerns have also been voiced due to the proximity of the development to the Royal household’s close protection zone, patrolled by armed officers under Section 128 of the Serious Organised Crime & Police Act 2005.
Peter Martin warns that approving this development would mark a dangerous shift in planning policies, undermining conservation and community safeguards for short-term political and economic gains. He asserts this is not a simple NIMBY issue but a fundamental protection of rural landscapes from exploitation.
Miller Homes maintains it has held “positive” discussions with local councillors and plans to provide more details and community engagement soon.
Attempts to obtain comments from the King, Highgrove representatives, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have been made.