Appeal 6000653

The appeal is dismissed.

The name of the appeal property as given on the planning application form is spelt differently to that provided on the submitted plans. In the header, I have used the same spelling as that on the name plate I saw on the front of the house.

The description of development above is from the application form. I am advised the Council agreed with the appellant that the application should be assessed on the basis of a different description of “conversion of an outbuilding to a dwelling”. The public consultation on the planning application refers to this amended description. I have followed the Council’s approach and based my assessment on this description. No injustice would be caused to any party in taking this approach.

On my visit I saw an outbuilding on the appeal site. This appeared to accord with the details on the submitted proposed plans and elevations drawing, although tiles had not been added to its roof as indicated. The application form states the works and change of use has been completed and so I have treated the appeal as seeking retrospective planning permission.

I have been provided with drawings that indicate vehicular parking and turning spaces to serve the appeal development and [site address] . These were not with the Council when it determined the planning application but there has been an opportunity to comment on the plans through the appeal process. The details shown do not fundamentally alter the appeal scheme and so no injustice would be caused to any party by considering these plans.

Natural England (NE) as the relevant statutory nature conservation body has been consulted in light of the Council’s concerns over the effect of the development on the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Area (SESAC/SPA) and the Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (CBSAC). Hereafter, these areas altogether are referred to as the habitat sites. I have had regard to NE’s submissions and the parties’ responses in my

The main issues are (i) the effect of the development on the integrity of the habitat sites, (ii) its effect on highway safety, (iii) its effect on the character and appearance of the area, and (iv) whether the development provides a satisfactory private garden for occupants.

The submissions refer to a planning permission granted by the Council on 8 April 2024 for the erection of a garden room on the appeal site. This permitted development is similar in external appearance to the existing building but with differences in fenestration. It seems likely the permitted garden room would be provided as an alternative in the event of this appeal being dismissed. As such, the permitted scheme provides a realistic fallback position that warrants consideration with this appeal. Effect on habitat sites.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the appeal site lies within the defined catchment area for the SESAC/SPA. The areas are designated due to their estuaries, sandbanks and sandflats, reefs and saltmarsh habitats. They are also important for supporting large populations of wintering birds of various species. The Council’s strategy document relevant to the areas1 refers to a marked decline in some key bird species. It also recognises that disturbance caused by recreational activities is a potential factor in this decline and that new residences within the catchment area will further exacerbate recreational pressures. The appeal scheme is for a single new dwelling. Nevertheless, on adopting a precautionary approach, I find it likely that the recreation activities of residents of the dwelling would have a significant effect on the qualifying features of the SESAC/SPA, either on its own or in combination with other projects.

Also, the appeal site is in the zone of influence of the CBSAC. This habitat site contains beech forests and semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland. The submitted strategy for the area2 highlights how recreation causes damage to vegetation and soils. It sets out a suite of mitigation measures to address the harm such as strategic access management and monitoring and providing suitable alternative natural green spaces elsewhere. Again, I find no reason to disagree with the Council’s contention that the appeal development on its own or in combination with other schemes would have a significant effect on the qualifying features of the CBSAC through increased recreation.

For the above reasons, I cannot rule out that the appeal development may undermine the integrity of the habitat sites and their conservation objectives. I am a competent authority and so under the terms of the Conservation of Habitats and 1 Stroud District Council Strategy for Avoidance of [name] on the [name], SPA and Ramsar Site, December 2017. 2 [name] Strategy, dated 11 May 2022. Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Regulations) I am required to undertake an appropriate assessment.

Both of the mitigation strategy documents for the habitat sites refer to the potential for financial contributions to be made so that residential development within the relevant catchment areas avoids harm. Such contributions would go towards identified projects that offset or otherwise address detrimental effects of recreation on the habitat sites.

The appellant accepts the need to make a financial contribution towards mitigation measures. It is suggested that payment could be secured through the imposition of a planning condition and suggested wording for such a condition has been provided. NE raise no objection to the use of a planning condition as suggested. However, this approach is not endorsed by the mitigation strategy documents, which instead advise contributions will be collected through planning obligations as set out in agreements or undertakings pursuant to section 106 of the Act. The Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) states that a positively worded condition that requires an applicant to enter into a planning obligation is unlikely to pass the test of enforceability3. Moreover, the PPG states that no payment of money can be positively required when granting planning permission4. A negatively worded condition that prohibits development being carried out until a payment is made or another action is carried out may be appropriate in some situations. However, in this case the development has been largely completed and so such a condition would be unreasonable. Furthermore, a planning condition worded as suggested by the appellant would not ensure any payment to the Council is used towards measures that seek to safeguard the integrity of the habitat sites.

Therefore, without a planning obligation secured through an agreement or undertaking under section 106 of the Act, there is a significant level of uncertainty that appropriate mitigation would be provided to address the harmful effects of the development on the integrity of the habitat sites. As such, I conclude the development has and would continue to adversely affect the integrity of the habitat sites. In these regards it would not accord with policy ES6 of the Stroud District Local Plan adopted 2015 (the LP). Amongst other things, this seeks to ensure development protects such sites and contributes to appropriate mitigation and management measures. Highway safety.

The appeal development lies on land to the rear of the house called [site address] . There is a vehicular access to the side of the dwelling that leads to a driveway that runs past the back garden area to the new dwelling. The aforementioned parking and turning area drawings show 2 spaces for cars associated with [site address] and an extra 2 spaces in front of the outbuilding subject of this appeal. The Council has raised queries over the accuracy of these plans. However, from observations on my site visit I am satisfied there is sufficient space for at least [address] alongside [site address] and for [address] by the outbuilding. 3 Planning Practice Guidance, Use of planning conditions, Paragraph: 010 [name]: 21a-[phone] Revision date: 23 07 2019 4 Planning Practice Guidance, Use of planning conditions, Paragraph: 005 [name]: 21a-005-20190723, revision date 23 07 2019.

There is sufficient space within the garden area to [site address] for vehicles to park and turn around. However, from the drawings and my observations I consider there is insufficient space outside the new dwelling for a vehicle to turn around if stationed in the annotated parking bay 1 whilst another vehicle is parked in the bay numbered 2. Therefore, parking associated with the appeal development could lead to cars reversing out of the access onto the road.

Also, visibility of the road to either side of the access is curtailed by boundary features to the front of [site address] and the neighbouring property. As such, there is potential for drivers to pull out unknowingly in front of on-coming vehicles or pedestrians, even when moving forwards. Visibility would be even more restricted when reversing out of the access. The appellant has not sought to dispute the Council’s claims that visibility at the access is substandard.

At the same time, a single new dwelling is likely to lead to only a minor increase in vehicular traffic coming to and from the site. Also, the access leads out onto a road that serves a fairly limited number of properties within Arlingham and in the surrounding countryside. My visit can only provide a snapshot in time but I saw very little traffic passing [site address] and I envisage that this is typical of the general situation. There is a speed limit of [address] and the traffic I saw was travelling slowly as it entered the village. These factors all indicate that the limited number of vehicular movements associated with the new dwelling would not meaningfully prejudice highway safety, despite the identified shortcomings with the parking and visibility at the access.

For the above reasons, I conclude the development has an acceptable effect on highway safety. In these regards, it accords with part 5 of LP policy ES3. Amongst other things, this resists development that causes an unacceptable level of detriment to highway safety. The Council also refers to core policy CP13 of the LP but this relates to major development schemes and so it is not relevant to the determination of this appeal. Character and appearance of the area.

Arlingham is a small rural village with residences of various ages and styles. Like other nearby houses, [site address] and the neighbouring properties face onto the road. However, there is a mixed development pattern in the village with some houses set back from the main roads in small cul de sacs. Also, a dwelling called [address] Cottage adjoins the appeal development and faces onto a public footpath that runs along the side of the appeal site rather onto the street.

The outbuilding subject of this appeal is behind [site address] and at the far end of the appeal site so it is not prominent in views from the road. However, it is seen over the side boundary wall that adjoins the public footpath and from neighbouring properties. As such, the building has a noticeable but localised visual impact.

The conversion works subject of this appeal result in only minor changes to the external appearance of the building compared to the development allowed under the aforementioned fallback position. The main visual difference as a result of the development is the subdivision of the plot so the new dwelling and its garden are fenced off from [site address] . This subdivision is not readily appreciated from the road nor the footpath to the side due to the screening effect of [site address] and the side boundary wall. However, it is noticeable from adjoining properties and to a limited extent from the road through the access.

From where it is visible, the new dwelling is seen next to the side elevation of [address] Cottage. As such, it does not appear to be in an unusual position even though it is behind [site address] . It is a small, single storey dwelling with timber panelling walls and on a relatively constrained plot. Therefore, it is at odds with the predominant 2 storey high houses constructed of brick within the village. However, there is no strong uniformity in the style, form or layout of local buildings and the appeal development is not prominent. Indeed, its lower height and subservient appearance is appropriate given its position behind [site address] . Also, the new dwelling is similar in appearance to the development allowed under the fallback position. With these factors in mind, I consider the appeal development is compatible with the character of the area, notwithstanding the unsympathetic aspects of its design compared to other nearby dwellings.

Concerns have been raised over the appearance of the fencing that sub-divides the plot. However, this is not prominent within the street scene and fences are seen elsewhere in the locality. As such, it has a satisfactory visual effect.

For these reasons, I conclude the development causes no harm to the character and appearance of the area. In these regards, it accords with LP policy HC1 and the requirement that new housing is compatible with its context. Private garden.

The Council’s Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Guidance November 2000 (the SPG) highlights the importance of occupiers of dwellings having at least 20m2 of totally private garden space. The submitted plans indicate land to the side and front of the new dwelling to be provided as lawn and patio. These are annotated as being larger than 20m2 in total and so in accordance with the SPG requirement. The Council raises concern over the accuracy of the plans but on my site visit I saw a reasonable outdoor space adjoining the dwelling that could be used as garden rather than parking. This space is overlooked to a limited degree from adjoining residences but it still has an acceptable level of privacy.

The Council is concerned the amount of garden area to serve the dwelling is insufficient to allow the future erection of extensions or incidental outbuildings as allowed for under permitted development rights. However, I am taken to no policy or guidance that requires gardens to be of a size that allows such further development. Therefore, the Council’s criticisms in these respects fails to affect my view on this issue.

Accordingly, I conclude the development is served by satisfactory private garden space. In these respects, it accords with LP policy HC1. Other issues and planning balance.

The site falls within Arlingham Conservation Area (the CA), which includes most of the village. The significance of the CA seems to derive from the historic and architectural interest of the older properties, which includes listed buildings. Also, the fairly tight-knit development pattern and stretches of roads without pavement provide an attractive rural village environment. I have already found the development has an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. Similarly, I find the new dwelling has no meaningful effect on the character and appearance of the CA or on the qualities of the street scene that contribute positively to its significance. Also, the development is not readily visible alongside any listed buildings and so it causes no harm to their setting or significance.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 years’ supply of housing land as required under the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). As such, a situation as described in footnote 8 of the Framework exists and so paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged. However, I have already found the development would adversely affect the integrity of the habitat sites. In light of the provisions at paragraph 195, the policies of the Framework that protect areas of particular importance provide a strong reason for refusing permission. The circumstances at sub-paragraph 11(d)(i) exist and so the presumption in favour of granting planning permission as set out under paragraph 11(d) of the Framework does not apply.

The development adds to the housing stock through the efficient reuse of an existing building. It is also within a location where residents are able to support the vitality of a rural community. The dwelling also generates Council Tax revenue. These are benefits that add support for allowing the appeal but they attract just moderate weight as only a single residence has been created.

The dwelling has provided accommodation for a family member of the appellant with the rent received contributing towards the refurbishment of [site address] . Therefore, the development has been beneficial to the appellant and their family. These personal benefits attract modest weight towards allowing the appeal.

A decision to dismiss this appeal may deprive the occupants of the appeal development of their home. This would be an interference of their right to respect for their home as laid out under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. However, this is a qualified right and interference may be justified where in the public interest. In this case, I am unable to rule out the potential for the development to adversely affect the habitat sites. As such, the aforementioned Regulations prevent me from granting planning permission unless there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest. Such reasons do not exist and so I find that an interference with the occupants’ human rights is proportionate and in the public interest, particularly in response to the legitimate aim to protect the integrity of the habitat sites. The protection of that interest cannot be achieved by a means that is less interfering with the residents’ rights.

The development is acceptable when considered against the second, third and fourth main issues. However, the harm identified under the first main issue means it does not accord with LP policies when considered as a whole. Other considerations are of insufficient weight to justify allowing the appeal contrary to

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