Appeal 6000485

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the appeal site address and development description given in the appeal form in the banner above as it better describes the location and the nature of the proposal subject to this appeal.

The Council’s third reason for refusal refers to the absence of either a bespoke mitigation scheme or a financial contribution towards the Council’s scheme to mitigate any likely significant effect on the integrity of designated [name] as defined in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (Habitats Regulations). The appellant accepts a legal agreement is necessary to secure a financial contribution and confirms their willingness to enter into such an agreement. However, no finalised agreement is before me. I shall return to this matter later in this decision.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the living conditions of the occupiers of properties on Bridge-Side, with particular reference to privacy; and • the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is located at the end of [address], a narrow access drive, that runs along the frontages to terraced housing. Land to the south of this drive appears to form private gardens to these houses and ground levels fall sharply. Many have retaining features to enable some of the area to be used for parking. Ground levels continue to fall to Bridge-Side, where further terraced housing is located with rear gardens backing on to [address].

The proposed 2-storey dwelling would be dug into the steep gradient of the site and would give the impression of a split-level property, with a single storey to [address] and appearing 2-storey from properties on Bridge-Side.

Its positioning would result in the open-plan living space, located to the first floor of the new dwelling, being at a height above that of the first floor level to the houses on Bridge-Side. This would create elevated views directly into the rear gardens and towards the rear elevations of properties on Bridge-Side, in particular nos. 13, 14 and 15, where there is minimal screening from existing vegetation and where boundary fencing is positioned at a much lower level than that of the proposed house. Due to the gradient of the land and the short distance between these buildings, I am not persuaded that new boundary landscaping would adequately mitigate the extent of the overlooking that would occur.

An existing relationship exists between the properties on [address] and Bridge-Side, but that interfacing distance is greater than that proposed here. Moreover, I saw that the presence of the driveway and parked vehicles on retaining features did provide a physical buffer between the rows of terraced housing and the significant difference in ground levels. The proposal would not have such a buffer, and the proposed house would be located close to the boundaries of properties on Bridge-Side.

For the above reasons, the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of properties on Bridge-Side, with particular reference to privacy. This is contrary to Policy ES3 of the Stroud District Local Plan (SDLP), that, amongst other things, resists development that would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy or an overbearing effect.

I observed that the area surrounding the appeal site consists of rows of terraced properties positioned close to the road they front, with gardens to the rear. [address] somewhat differs due to the arrangement described above. I also saw a distinctive historical building immediately adjacent to the site that appeared to form part of a group of outbuildings associated with commercial properties to the north on [address].

Due to the proposals’ positioning, subordinate scale and complementary architectural detailing to this historical building, it would have the appearance of being contained within the existing cluster of outbuildings rather than a stark outlier to the terraced properties on [address] and the prevailing pattern of development in the area.

Consequently, I conclude it would not have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. I have found no conflict with SDLP Policy HC1(1) that requires residential development to be of a scale, density, layout and design that is compatible with the character and appearance of the part of the settlement in which it would be located.

The appeal site falls within the Zone of Influence (ZI), or [name] area (CC), for the Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation ([name]), the [name] ([name]) and the Severn Estuary Special SAC/Special Protection Area ([name]/SPA). These are [name] as defined in the Habitats Regulations 2017.

The qualifying features of the [name] relate to both woodland and grassland habitats, Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests, and semi-natural dry grassland and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates, whilst the [name] is designated for its grassland habitat. The SES SAC/SPA hosts internationally important populations of several species of waterbirds. The conservation objectives of these are to ensure that the integrity of the sites is maintained or restored as appropriate and ensure that the sites contribute to achieving the Favourable Conservation Status of its [name] and Species. One of the pathways of impact currently affecting the SACs/SPA is noted to be recreational pressure from people visiting the sites.

Mitigation has been developed for each SAC/SPA. These include Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace and [name] and Monitoring mitigations. They seek to meet the conservation objectives by reducing recreational pressure and would be funded by proportionate financial contributions from new residential development that fall within the ZI or CC.

Whilst the appellant has indicated their willingness to enter into a legal agreement to secure financial contributions to mitigate any likely significant effect, there is no such mechanism before me. Nevertheless, as I have found the appeal scheme would be unacceptable for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to consider whether there would be any likely significant effects on the integrity of these [name] or undertake [name].

The appeal site is within The Industrial Heritage Conservation Area (IHCA). The IHCA is a linear conservation area that follows the valleys of the [name] and the [name] as well as various transport infrastructures. Its significance derives, in part from various mill complexes and also the infrastructure and context of Stroud’s industrial legacy including the social, economic and cultural history of the valleys.

The Council has raised no concerns on the effect of the proposal upon the character or appearance of the IHCA or any building that may be considered a non-designated heritage asset. From my own observations and in the absence of any contrary evidence before me, I have come to the same conclusion.

The Council’s officer report makes reference to a [name] listed building, located to the north of the appeal site. This building, identified as 23 and [address], dates from 1824 and is a former toll-house. Its significance rests primarily with its historical and architectural interest. Due to the distance, the absence of a visual link and the presence of buildings between, the appeal site does not form part of its setting.

The proposal would make a positive contribution in the delivery of a new energy efficient dwelling, that would make efficient use of land within walking distance of services, facilities and public transport. It is also claimed that there would be an enhancement to local biodiversity. Nevertheless, not all proposals within a defined settlement will be acceptable. Due to the limited scale of the proposal and thereby the limited scale of the benefits, I afford them moderate weight in the planning balance. In the absence of a mechanism to secure the dwelling as self-build, I am unable to give weight to this factor.

Whilst there were no objections from the Council’s technical consultees, including the Conservation Officer, compliance with the development plan in these respects is a neutral factor.

Reference has been made by the appellant to a previous planning application at [address]. However, these details are not before me and therefore I cannot draw any direct comparison with the appeal proposal. I have considered the appeal before me on its individual planning merits.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the National Planning Policy Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.