The ‘jewel of the Cotswolds’, which featured in Bridget Jones’ Diary, is facing new rules that have divided locals
(Image: Emma Trimble / SWNS)
Some residents of the picturesque Cotswolds village, Snowshill, which famously featured in ‘Bridget Jones’s Diary’, have voiced their concerns over new stringent planning regulations. These rules would require them to seek council permission for even minor alterations such as installing a patio.
Snowshill, often dubbed the ‘jewel of the Cotswolds’, was showcased in the 2001 film with its lush greenery and a local house serving as the home of Bridget Jones‘s parents. However, this week, the village falls under an Article 4 Direction by Tewkesbury Borough Council, strict rules designed to protect its heritage.
This means almost any work or modifications to buildings must be approved by the council, including installing patios or changing the colour of an exterior wall. Other changes requiring approval include replacing exterior windows and doors, constructing porches, installing roof lights or altering roofing materials, creating or replacing hard surfaces in gardens.
Residents will also need approval to erect gates, fences, or walls, paint the exterior of buildings a new colour or install or alter antennae or solar panels, reports Gloucestershire Live. Some locals have expressed their worries that the new rules are too costly and restrictive, while others believe they have been implemented too late.
Rose, a resident in her 40s who moved to Snowshill four years ago with her family, opposes the plans, describing them as “too controlling”. “I did write an objection but it has gone through anyway,” she expressed. ”It is very prohibitive in terms of what you can do to your home.” She explained that when they purchased the property, it was derelict so they had to refurbish it to make it “habitable”.
“It has been a very painfully process. If now we want to do a fence it feels like we have already climbed a hill.” For Rose, the larger issue is the influx of tourists who “cross the line”. She said: “Tourism is changing the character of the village, not the house changes” she stated. “Preserving the village for tourists is not the best logic.”
Kim, a resident of 40 years, had mixed feelings about the regulations. She questioned the effectiveness of the plans, asking: “How are they going to regulate it? Unless somebody complains.”
She added: “If you have got young children and if something happens to your fence why do you have to go through planning when all you want is to keep your child and the people around you safe. You can’t change your front door, but what if it is damaged? It costs you more to put planning in on Article 4 than planning application.
“I can see that people want to keep it a Cotswolds village but you’ve got to have a balance, but I think people will do whatever they want to their houses.” Sheila Wilks, 85, and her husband Peter, 84, believe the plans are a step in the right direction, but lament that their village has already been ‘ruined’ by holiday lets.
Mrs Wilks said: “They have come too late. They have ruined the village. I have been here all my life 80 years and I just think people abused it.
“I hate change and I think we should preserve what we’ve got. Because we are in such a beautiful place people should keep it like this.”
Their quaint cottage was once the old village shop where Sheila, her mum and siblings were born. In 1965, they purchased the house and have never left since.
However, home renovations aren’t the only issue the couple faces – following films such as Bridget Jones, the couple said the landscape “has changed” and so they want to “preserve” the village.
Mr Wilks stated: “Most of the houses here are Airbnbs. It is disgusting. There are at least 12 Airbnbs in the village. We get about four mini buses a day. They do tend to block the roads occasionally.
“It was all working class people but now it doesn’t seem to be that way at all. It does break up communities.”
Paul, 66, and Sue Brereton, 66, who have resided in their cottage for eight years, agreed with the implementation of the regulations. Mr Brereton said: “It is a very good idea and we wished it had come five years ago. A lot of metal windows have been changed to plastic windows.”
The pair living in a listed property claimed the fresh rules prove “more restrictive” than the listing requirements themselves. Paul explained: “I can’t repaint the windows charcoal grey which I was planning to because I will need planning regulation which is quite expensive.”
Terry, 71, and Pauline Rolls, 71, relocated to their home four years ago. They insisted what matters most is preserving the village’s character.
Mr Rolls explained: “We don’t want the village wrecked with plastic windows. What we want is a little damage as possible. There are a few that have been damaged. People doing what they want to their home is not necessarily a good thing. It is all about keeping the character of the village.”
Mr Rolls joked about how the rules could prevent residents from painting their windows and doors pink. He explained: “We could end up with Disneyland. It is not a NIMBY reaction but we need to keep some originality in this country.”
He stressed it’s crucial to maintain these properties ‘the way they are’ for future generations.
Councillor Sarah Hands, lead member for planning and place making at the borough council, explained: “Snowshill is one of the jewels of our borough, and these powers will help to protect its heritage, while still allowing thoughtful and appropriate development.
“We’re grateful to everyone who took part in the consultation and helped shape this decision.” From Wednesday (October 1), applications will undergo the standard planning process, which includes advertisement and consultation, with standard fees applicable.
The decision to implement the Article 4 Direction was made at a Full Council meeting on July 29, 2025, following a period of consultation.
