Appeal 6000714

The appeal is dismissed.

On 22 November 2023, all designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) in England and Wales became ‘National Landscapes’. I have therefore referred to National Landscapes in my Decision.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area including the setting of the Cotswold National Landscape (CNL); and • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposal with regard to local and national policy.

The appeal site is located to the north of a road known as [site address] which runs between the A46 and the village of [site address] . It is rectangular in shape and adjacent to the appeal site are around four timber holiday lodges which are timber clad as well as a metal-clad commercial business building to the south.

Policy SWDP2(A) of the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 (the SWDP) outlines, amongst other things, that the development strategy and site allocations in the SWDP are based upon multiple principles. The appellant refers to SWDP2(A)(iii) which highlights one of the principles as to Safeguard and (wherever possible) enhance the open countryside.

The appeal site was once part of a disused railway. However, it remains to my mind, generally rural in character and contributes to the overall rural character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The proposed development would result in a two storey live/work unit and would have steel cladding as well as domestic glazing. The proposed fenestration would, to my mind, be relatively sympathetic to the rural character of the surrounding area due to their modest size. However, whilst I acknowledge the appellant refers to the intention of the appeal scheme would possibly support rural enterprise and therefore the materials would take it’s cue from such a use, to my mind, the proposed use of corrugated metal sheeting to the walls and roof would exacerbate the scale and massing of the appeal scheme and fail to assimilate with the overall rural character and appearance of the surrounding area. Consequently, in my planning judgement, the appeal scheme would not safeguard the open countryside and instead would result in an incongruous addition.

[name] acknowledge the presence of the commercial property adjacent to the site, which is clad in steel, I do not know its full circumstances. Nevertheless, each application is determined on its own merits, and its presence does not justify further development which I consider to be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Furthermore, the appeal site is located close to the boundary of the CNL. Paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) outlines that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes amongst other things. Furthermore, paragraph 189 of the Framework states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes amongst other things. Notably it highlights that development within its setting should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated area, which in this appeal is the CNL.

The Cotswolds National Landscape: area of outstanding natural beauty management plan 2025-2030 (the MP) outlines that one of the special features of the CNL are the views to and from it. Adjacent to the appeal site is a public right of way and therefore the appeal scheme would, in my planning judgement be relatively visible. Moreover, whilst there is a commercial two storey building near to the appeal site, it is located toward the boundary adjacent to the highway and consequently, in my planning judgement, is not sited in a dominant position when compared to the appeal site.

The appeal site is relatively prominent when viewed from the public right of way and thus the proposal would, to my mind, be viewed within the context of the single storey holiday accommodation located adjacent to the appeal site. Therefore, the scale and massing of a two-storey dwelling in conjunction with the corrugated metal sheeting to the walls and roof would result in an incongruous addition to the overall rural character of the surrounding area, despite the existing trees, hedgerows and fence. The Council has acknowledged an error in its report regarding the ridge height of the appeal scheme. However, it remains that the proposal would be two storey, thus I have determined the appeal accordingly.

This would be further exacerbated given that the appeal site currently remains generally open due to the single storey character of the structures on the site. Consequently, the introduction of the appeal scheme would, to my mind, result in a harmful linear development along the boundary of the wider site especially considering the adjacent two storey commercial development. Thus, in my planning judgement, it would unacceptably harm the views in and out of the CNL as well as the overall character and appearance of the surrounding area.

I acknowledge that the appellant states further screening could be approved by condition. However, to my mind, this would result in a more enclosed character to the appeal scheme and would not overcome the harm I have identified regarding the views in and out of the CNL.

Additionally, a condition regarding materials would not, to my mind, overcome the harm I have identified given the significant scale of the proposed building in what would become a harmful linear development along the boundary of the wider site.

I do not have the full circumstances of previous applications regarding the drainage company building nor the holiday accommodation. Therefore, I cannot be certain that they are wholly comparable to the appeal scheme before me. Nevertheless, each application is determined on its own merits and thus the presence of existing buildings does not justify a proposal which I have found to be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area including the CNL.

In conclusion, given all of the above, the appeal scheme would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area as well as unacceptable harm to the setting of the CNL. It would therefore conflict with Policies, SWDP2(A)(iii), SWDP 21, SWDP23 and SWDP25 of the SWDP insofar as they seek to ensure that developments safeguard the open countryside, integrate effectively with its surroundings including landscape setting, and not result in harm to the setting of the CNL. It would therefore also fail to accord with the aims of the MP.

The appeal site is designated as open countryside for planning purposes in the the SWDP. The SWDP strictly controls development in the open countryside and Policy SWDP2(c) outlines the types of development that would be supported. Notably, the policy provides support for development if it is permitted by other policies within the SWDP as outlined in footnote 3. One of the aforementioned policies is Policy SWDP8(g) which establishes specific support for live/work units subject to certain criterion.

The Council contends that the proposal does not comply with Policy SWDP8(g)(i) which requires that the residential use is ancillary with floor space split at least 60% employment and no more than 40% residential.

I acknowledge that the appeal scheme would result in the removal of a shipping container and mobile home that have a use ancillary to the holiday lodges adjacent to the appeal site. Additionally, that information has been provided by the appellant regarding the possible use of the appeal scheme in relation to the camping and holiday accommodation business. However, Policy SWDP8(g) of the SWDP does not require an end user to be identified. Therefore, irrespective of whether the proposal would be used in relation to the existing holiday lodges adjacent to the site, the appeal scheme, in my planning judgement, has been designed to be flexible for any future occupier given the proposed layout.

Moreover, I note the Council does not consider that the appeal scheme would be genuinely intended for employment purposes as outlined in the supporting text of the policy. However, the supporting text of a policy does not have the force of the policy itself. [name] acknowledge that the plans refer to a work bench and an office area which would account for a small area of the approximate 153m 2 work area of the live/work unit, it remains that the appeal scheme would still provide space for a work element that meets the required 60/40 split.

It follows that regarding whether the live/work unit would be occupied for the majority of the working day is not determinative for this particular matter in this case, due to the lack of requirement for an end user.

Considering the above, in my planning judgement, given the absence of a requirement for an end user and based on the evidence before me, the appeal scheme would constitute a live/work unit genuinely intended for employment purposes. Thus, it would comply with Policy SWDP8(g)(i).

Furthermore, given I have identified that the proposal would comply with Policy SWDP8(g)(i), it would also not contain more than three bedrooms and the residential and workspaces would be entirely separate with separate entrances and toilet facilities. Consequently, I am satisfied that the appeal scheme would comply with the relevant criterion of Policy SWDP8(g).

Considering the sustainability of the appeal site, it is within the open countryside for planning purposes.

However, in the supporting text of Policy SWDP8(g) of the SWDP it outlines that live/work arrangements are dispersed throughout the rural areas of [name] and that they can provide sustainability benefits, particularly in the more rural parts of the area. Consequently, in my planning judgement, the proposal would help to diversify the local economy to create wider employment and therefore be less vulnerable to any international and national economic changes.

Furthermore, Policy SWDP4 of the SWDP seeks, amongst other things, to ensure that developments minimise demand for travel whilst also providing genuine sustainable travel choices. The nature of the proposed live/work unit could result in a decrease of daily trips in the area because it would offer the opportunity for individuals to work and live in the same building rather than commute. I also note that the Highways Authority in its comments on the application states that the private vehicle movements would likely be largely leisure based.

Additionally, the reasoned justification text of Policy SWDP4 notes that rural residents are more reliant upon the use of cars when compared to residents in urban areas of [name]. Moreover, there is a bus stop around 175 and 700 metres from the appeal site which offer a relatively regular service to Tewkesbury and Evesham. However, I do acknowledge that there are limited streetlights and footpaths along [site address] and therefore, future occupants of the appeal scheme could choose private motor vehicle over more sustainable methods of transport.

Considering all of the above, the appeal scheme would be within an acceptable distance of sustainable travel choices. Thus, in my planning judgement, larger settlements would be reasonably accessible and likely be for leisure purposes due to the character of a live/work unit as highlighted by the Highways Authority.

Consequently, the development would comply with SWDP4 regarding genuine sustainable travel choices but still have limited conflict with the policy regarding minimising demand for travel given its relatively isolated location.

Regarding appeal decisions at Land adjacent to [site address] and [site address] as well as a previously refused planning application, I do not have the full circumstances of these before me and therefore cannot be certain that they are wholly comparable. Nevertheless, each application is determined on its own merits and given the site-specific and policy context as well as the specific proposal before me they do not lead me to a different conclusion.

In conclusion, the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development. It would comply with Policies SWDP1, SWDP2 and SWDP8 of the SWDP insofar as they seek to facilitate sustainable development and provide support for employment development including in rural areas. Additionally, despite the small conflict with Policy SWDP4 insofar as it seeks to minimise travel demand, the proposal still complies with the SWDP as a whole.

The Council has stated that they are able to demonstrate a housing land supply of 1.10 years. This is below the housing land supply the Council is expected to deliver in line with the Framework. Whilst SWDP8 refers to live/work units and the criterion which need to be met to benefit from support, this does not necessarily preclude them from contributing to the housing land supply figure. Consequently, the proposal would provide one dwelling and boost the housing stock in circumstances where there is a shortfall.

However, footnote 7 of paragraph 11(d) of the Framework includes policies in the Framework that relate to National Landscapes amongst other things. I have identified above that the appeal scheme would harm the CNL through development within its setting. It follows therefore, that it provides a strong reason for refusing or restricting development and accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development as outlined in paragraph 11(d) is not engaged.

Due to the modest scale of the proposal, there would be limited economic benefits as a result regarding construction jobs and supporting of local services by future occupants. Additionally, the appellant proposes a landscape planting scheme which would boost biodiversity.

Thus, taking all of the above into consideration, there are not material considerations of such weight or significance to justify a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.