Appeal 6000573

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission for erection of self-build dwelling at [site address] , Eastington [postcode] is refused.

An application for costs has been made by [name] and Edwin against Stroud District Council. This is the subject of a separate decision notice.

I have been provided with 3 dated and signed unilateral undertakings made pursuant to section 106 of the Act. These have been considered in my assessment of the appeal.

Mention is made in the submissions to an emerging local plan (eLP) that would replace the current Stroud District Local Plan adopted in 2015 (the LP). However, I am advised that the formal examination of the eLP has been paused and there is no firm indication as to whether the adoption process will resume. In such circumstances, I am uncertain whether the eLP policies will be adopted in the form provided to me and so they are attributed very little weight in my assessment.

The Council has made no decision on the planning application leading to this appeal. However, in light of the appeal submissions I consider the main issues are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Stroud Industrial Heritage Conservation Area (the CA).

The appeal site forms part of an open field with an access off [address]. The entrance to the site lies near to houses called [address] and The Hawthorns. A public footpath runs from the access point along the boundary of the site with a separate property called [name] between the footpath and the lane.

The site is near to the built up extent of Eastington. However, [address] contains no pavements nor street lights as it runs past the site. Instead, it is mainly flanked by trees, hedgerows and open fields. Therefore, the site and [address] and The Hawthorns appear as part of the countryside and beyond the built up extent of the village. I am advised the site previously contained a cottage and orchard, although these were removed prior to 1999. In any event, the existing open, grassed nature of the site contributes positively to the area’s sense of rurality. The area is not designated for its landscape or scenic quality but nonetheless it has an intrinsic beauty that reflects its countryside character.

The site is within the western leg of the CA, which is a large linear area centred upon river valleys. Part of the CA’s significance derives from the architectural, historic and cultural interest of older buildings and associated infrastructure within the valleys that illustrate the evolution of cloth and other industries. The appeal site lies at the top of a side of a valley, with the road leading down to a nearby cluster of old mills and other buildings at Millend, next to the [name]. These buildings have an obvious industrial heritage and architectural interest.

However, the CA also includes fields and wooded areas that help illustrate how the industries developed within and alongside scenic countryside and agricultural land. The appeal site is on the approach to the Millend cluster of buildings and its open, pastoral appearance contributes positively to their rural setting as well as highlighting the interesting historic contrast between industry and countryside. The removal of former orchard trees from the site has not diminished its positive contribution to the qualities and significance of the CA.

The proposed house would be positioned towards the lowest part of the site nearest to the field entrance. Hedgerow and trees along the road and the public footpath as it adjoins the appeal site would largely screen the development from these public vantage points. However, the dwelling would be seen from the road through the access. Also, it would be visible from [address] and The Hawthorns, although vegetation would prevent sight of the development from [name]. Moreover, there would be potential views of the dwelling when approaching the appeal site along the public footpath and before entering the stretch that is screened by vegetation (identified as viewpoint 4 within the appellant’s landscape and visual appraisal). Therefore, the proposal would have a noticeable albeit a fairly localised visual effect.

The development would lead to an obvious change to the site from an open field to a house with outbuildings in a residential garden. The dwelling would be seen with [address] and The Hawthorns but these properties are not perceived as forming part of a settlement. Therefore, the proposal would not follow an obvious pattern of development and it would be seen as an encroachment into open countryside rather than infilling on land between buildings. The fact that a cottage previously existed on the site would not overcome or address the visual effects of the proposal compared to the current situation.

Additional planting would be provided to help assimilate the development with the vegetated aspects of its surroundings. However, this would not entirely conceal the development and associated residential activity, particularly when viewed from the road through the access or from the neighbouring properties. In any event, any landscape measures would be seen within the context of the proposed residence and associated outbuildings. Therefore, the proposal would have a noticeable harmful effect on the rural qualities of the site and the locality.

The development would not be seen with the former industrial buildings of interest at the bottom of the valley. Nonetheless, it would adversely affect the countryside approach to Millend and so it would blur the contrast between industrial heritage and attractive rural context. The proposal would have a localised visual effect but the buildings, the domestic use and associated loss of openness would be appreciated by those travelling either along the road or the public footpath towards and from Millend. Therefore, the development would undermine the aspects of the site and its context that make a positive contribution to the qualities of the CA.

The Council contend the development would appear incongruous due to its form and design. However, the house would only be seen with the dwellings at [address] and The Hawthorns, which are themselves of different ages and styles. The proposed house would be similar to the neighbouring properties in terms of overall height and roof form, although it would include large single storey elements. The use of brick and timber cladding in the external elevations would be unusual but both are seen on buildings in the wider area. As such, the design and appearance of the proposed dwelling would not stand out as being unduly at odds with the locality. Acceptability in these regards would not address the harm to the intrinsic beauty of the countryside.

For the above reasons, I conclude the development would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings. In these regards, it would not accord with LP policy CP14. Amongst other things, this looks to ensure development is respectful of its surroundings. The Council’s objections also refer to LP policy HC1. However, this is not relevant as it relates specifically to residential development within settlement development limits and the appeal site lies outside the defined boundary for Eastington.

Also, I conclude the development would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Given its scale and localised visual impact, the proposal would cause only a minor level of harm to the significance of the CA. With reference to terms used in section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I consider the proposal would cause a less than substantial level of harm. In light of paragraph 215 of the Framework, it follows to weigh the harm caused against the public benefits of the proposal. Public benefits and heritage balance.

The Framework places a requirement on the Council to annually identify housing sites that would provide a minimum of 5 years’ worth of new housing. I am advised that as of January 2025 the Council could only demonstrate 3.24 years’ worth of supply and so there is a significant shortfall. There is a public benefit to the proposal in terms of its contribution towards housing land supply. However, I attach only moderate weight to the provision of a single new dwelling.

One of the unilateral undertakings would ensure the development is provided and occupied as a self-build dwelling. As such, the proposal is supported by the provisions of paragraph 73(b) of the Framework, which states that local planning authorities should seek opportunities to support small sites coming forward for self-build housing. Moreover, the Council has not sought to dispute the appellants’ claim that there is insufficient plots with planning permission for self-build housing to meet the demand as shown on the Council’s self and custom build housing register. Therefore, the Council is failing to meet its duties under the [name] and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015. In such circumstances, I attach significant weight to the contribution of the proposal in addressing the undersupply of plots, even though only a single dwelling is proposed.

The development would address the appellants’ desire to live in the local area so as to maintain social connections. However, this would be a private rather than a public benefit. Also, the proposal could lead to the appellants leaving their current accommodation for someone else to occupy. However, this would not boost the overall supply of housing. As such, these factors attract limited weight in my heritage balance assessment.

The development would include measures to ensure it is carbon neutral and so meet the challenge of climate change. Also, it would lead to construction employment and residents of the house would be near enough to services and facilities within Eastington to support the local economy and rural community. The development would also be close to bus stops that would provide public transport links to larger settlements. Landscaping and other measures associated with the proposal would lead to an enhancement to the biodiversity value of the site. Given the scale of the development, these factors together attract modest weight as public benefits.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that great weight should be given to the conservation of an asset, irrespective as to whether the potential harm to its significance amounts to substantial or less than substantial harm. With this in mind, I find the public benefits of the proposal would be of insufficient weight to provide clear and convincing justification for the identified harm to the character, appearance and significance of the CA. In these regards, I conclude the development would not accord with LP policy ES10 and policy EP4 of the Eastington Neighbourhood Plan 2016 (the NP). Amongst other things, these look for the historic environment to be preserved or enhanced and they resist harmful development unless there is clear justification. Other factors and planning balance.

The development would not accord with the development plan policies when read as a whole. It follows to consider whether any other factors in addition to the public benefits of the proposal justify granting planning permission contrary to the

The appellants claim that LP and NP policies are out of date. However, the most important policies for the determination of the appeal are LP policy ES10 and NP policy EP4. These are generally consistent with the policies of the Framework that seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. Therefore, the identified non-compliance with these policies attracts significant weight.

In any event, the insufficient supply of housing land means that a situation exists as set out under footnote 8 of the Framework. Therefore, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged. However, the application of the Framework’s policies that protect designated heritage assets such as conservation areas provides a strong reason for refusing the proposal. It follows that the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out under paragraph 11(d) does not apply.

I am referred to other appeal decisions where Inspectors have granted planning permission contrary to development plan policies. None of these relate to the appeal site and the range of effects and factors considered with these other appeals are different to those relevant to the current proposal. As such, the other appeal decisions fail to influence my conclusion.

The development would meet the appellants’ accommodation requirements and I can understand their desire to construct their own property. However, this factor fails to justify the identified harm to the CA and the intrinsic beauty of the countryside, even when considered alongside the public benefits of the proposal.

The Council has raised concerns over the impact of the proposal on the integrity of the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation, Special Protection Area and Ramsar site as well as the Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (the habitat sites). Both main parties contend that concerns in these respects could be addressed through the provision of payments towards mitigation strategies aimed at addressing the impacts of recreation on the habitat sites. The appellants have provided unilateral undertakings that provide for such financial contributions to be made. I have concerns over the effectiveness of these undertakings as they are conditional on the Council granting planning permission for the development proposed under the application leading to this appeal. The Council is no longer in a position to grant such a permission as this appeal has been lodged. However, I need not consider the effects of the development on the habitat sites any further as I have found the appeal should be dismissed for other reasons. My overall conclusion would not be affected in the event I found the development would have an acceptable effect on the habitat sites.

For the above reasons, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.