Appeal 3370887

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a detached garage and garden storage shed at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name].25/0741/HHOLD and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 2853 L.01, 2853 P.01 and 2853 P.02.

Within 3 months of the date of this decision, ecological enhancements in the form of bird and bat boxes shall be provided in accordance with the recommendations as set out in the [name], November 2024. These enhancements shall then be maintained and replaced when required so the enhancements remain for the lifetime of the development.

The description of development in the header above is taken from the application form. It is different to that provided on the appeal form and the Council’s decision notice but it appropriately describes the appeal development. In my decision I have omitted the word “regularise” as this is not an act of development.

On my visit, I saw a garage and shed on the appeal site, apparently in accordance with the details as shown on the submitted plans. Therefore, my assessment is based on the appeal development having been completed.

The main issues are (i) whether the development has an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property, and (ii) whether it would preserve the setting of the nearby listed building, [name] (the LB). In my assessment I have paid special regard to the desirability of preserving the LB, its features of special architectural or historic interest and its setting.

[site address] is 2 storeys high with a single storey rear extension. A driveway from the road runs past the house and along the side boundary of the adjoining churchyard. A garden lies behind the dwelling and extends to the side along the churchyard’s rear boundary. The garage subject of this appeal is behind the house and towards the rear boundary of the site. The shed is towards the other side of the back garden.

The garage has a pitched roof with a fairly high ridgeline but it has low eaves. It is significantly shorter than the main part of [site address] and it has a smaller footprint. The garage appears subservient to the dwelling as it is lower and smaller and towards the back of the site. The shed also does not visually compete with the house as it is lower and smaller than the garage.

The Council is concerned over the cumulative effect of both buildings when seen with the rear extension to the residence. However, the garage and shed are set within a sizeable garden area and they are positioned away from the house and each other. A significant area of lawn remains, despite the garage, the shed and the rear extension. Moreover, the garage and shed have the appearance of typical domestic outbuildings that is appropriate within the residential garden setting.

Therefore, I conclude the development has an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property. In these regards, it accords with part 2 of policy HC8 of the Stroud District Local Plan 2015 (the LP). This looks to ensure outbuildings are in keeping with the character of the original dwelling. Effect on the LB and its setting.

The LB is a small church from 1855. It is of simple form, although with decorative elements. Its significance derives from its age, its attractive ecclesiastical architectural style as well as its role as a community facility within a rural village. The principal elevation of the church is most clearly appreciated from the gated entrance and front part of the churchyard. The side and rear elevations are seen from the driveway and garden to [site address] .

The LB is only seen from a short stretch of the highway as it is towards the rear of the churchyard and a marked change in levels restricts visibility. The garage and shed are not seen in these public views of the church. However, they are visible to either side of the LB once at the front gate to the churchyard and when walking along the path from the gate to the church door. The LB is also clearly visible with the garage and the shed in views from [site address] ’s garden. In these regards the appeal development affects the setting of the church.

When viewed from the front part of the churchyard, the garage is seen set back and to the side of the church. Also, it is significantly lower than the LB and it is partially screened by a tree. As such, the garage is not prominent in the main views of the church and it does not meaningfully detract from its principal elevation. The shed is nearer to the churchyard boundary but it is also much lower than the church and from the front it is seen against the backdrop of larger agricultural buildings on the land behind. Therefore, the garage and the shed do not draw the eye away from the church’s front elevation but instead they are seen as part of the existing built context around the churchyard.

The outbuildings occupy garden land from where previously there would have been views of the sides and rear of the LB. However, they are positioned towards the edges of the appeal site and they do not obstruct the most significant and direct sight of the church from the large lawn area or from the driveway leading to [site address] . Most of the garden remains open and so the appeal development avoids any detrimental sense of enclosure to the church.

Therefore, whilst the garage and the shed are seen with the LB, they cause no harm to its setting or to the qualities that contribute positively to the church’s significance. As such, I conclude the development preserves the setting of the LB. In these regards, it accords with LP policy ES10 and the aim to ensure development protects the significance and setting of heritage assets.

The submissions indicate the location of listed buildings other than the church within the village. However, the garage and shed are not seen within the same context as these buildings and so they do not affect their settings nor their significance.

The appeal site lies within the Cotswold National Landscape (the NL). Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (the section 245 duty) includes a requirement to seek to further the statutory purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes. The appeal development is within the built up part of Tresham village with buildings on all sides of [site address] ’s garden. As such, the garage and shed have a very localised visual effect and they do not harm the scenic or natural qualities of the wider landscape. Therefore, I find no conflict with the section 245 duty.

In line with the Council’s suggestion, I have imposed for clarity purposes a condition that requires the development to be completed in accordance with the approved plans. Also, the Council has suggested a condition that requires the provision and retention of bird and bat boxes. This is needed to safeguard birds and protected species and for ecological enhancement reasons.

For the reasons given above, I conclude the appeal should be allowed.