Appeal 6000751

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for ‘re-build of outbuilding, conversion of barn & adjoining out-building to a residential annex and erection of bat barn’ at [site address] , [site address] , Gloucestershire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name].25/0473/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Stroud District Council. This application is the subject to a separate Decision.

An amended description was agreed between the parties prior to the validation of the planning application, and I have used it in the banner heading above. I have omitted the word retrospective, as it is not a description of development.

The appellant has submitted plans showing an alternative internal arrangement to the residential annexe and a labelled block plan. These do not involve a substantial difference or fundamental change, and the Council has been given the opportunity to comment on them. I am satisfied that taking them into account would not cause procedural unfairness to anyone involved in the appeal. As such, I have considered these plans in making my decision.

The appellant has also submitted an updated [name] which includes a revised mitigation strategy that replaces the proposed detached bat barn with provision within an existing adjacent structure. The appellant has stated that it was not their intention to change the proposal subject to this appeal. The omission of the detached barn and alternative provision represents a substantial difference, and I am mindful that it is not the purpose of the appeal process to evolve a scheme. I have therefore not considered the revised mitigation strategy for bats in making my decision.

The proposed residential annexe consists of 2 structures, and I observed that the L-shaped building appears to have been rebuilt with concrete blockwork, insulation and external stone dressing to the walls as well as a new tiled roof. The roof to the adjoining rectangular-shaped building had been removed and I could see some new blockwork and external stone dressing to its walls. These works appeared to accord with the plans before me. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis that work has commenced but is not yet complete.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would constitute a residential annexe or a separate residential unit; and • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL).

The existing appeal structures form part of a complex of buildings within an enclosed courtyard setting. The focus of the complex is the 2.5-storey farmhouse that faces the driveway off [address] and is adjacent to the gated entrance to the courtyard. Except for a converted 2-storey barn that appeared to be occupied and is in the ownership of the appellant, the other buildings are single storey.

The proposed residential annexe would provide accommodation in the form of a generous L-shaped kitchen, living and dining area as well as 2 bedrooms. It appears it could provide the facilities for independent day-to-day living. Nevertheless, it is a matter of fact and degree whether a separate planning unit from the main dwelling would result, requiring a judgement to be made in each case.

From the development description, it is clear that the application has been made on the basis of a residential annexe. The submitted supporting information expands upon this and identifies that it is for an elderly relative of the appellant. The proposed arrangement would enable a level of independence though it is recognised that it could accommodate potential care needs. Therefore, there would be a familial relationship between the occupier of the residential annexe and the farmhouse resulting in likely regular comings and goings between the two buildings. Moreover, the residential annexe would use the same driveway, and any parking requirement would be unallocated and within the courtyard, as well as share the private garden to the front and side of the farmhouse and its utilities. It would not have its own dedicated outdoor amenity space. Consequently, the residential annexe would be neither remote nor isolated from the farmhouse and there would be clear physical and functional connections between the two.

Although the Council has concerns over the distance between the buildings, I found it to be a short and convenient distance across a gravelled courtyard with no intervening physical barriers.

Whilst the proposal would exceed the minimum gross internal floor area set out in the ‘Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard’ for a 2- bedroom dwelling, it would be noticeably smaller than the farmhouse.

A signed [name] (UU), made pursuant to Section 106 of the Act, has been submitted, which seeks to prevent the proposal from becoming a self-contained dwelling. However, an occupancy condition would secure the same outcome in accordance with paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that states planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a condition. Moreover, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) clarifies that even if it would be equally possible to overcome a planning objection via condition or obligation, a condition should be used1. Consequently, I have not considered the effectiveness of the UU.

Any planning permission runs with the land irrespective of the circumstances of the intended occupants. If it was not used as proposed, or if there was a material change of use in the future to create a separate dwelling, then planning permission would be required, with the development at risk of enforcement action if such permission was not granted. The Council would be able to consider the merits of any such application.

The proposed residential annexe would have patio doors and a single door that would not face the courtyard. I saw that these would open onto informal areas of hardstanding and rubble surrounding the buildings that did not appear to form part of any private amenity space. The land to the north of the courtyard was enclosed by wire fencing and contained a single storey building that was being used to house rabbits. The appeal scheme before me does not include a proposal for these areas to be used as private amenity space associated with the residential annexe. Whether these areas can be lawfully used for residential purposes is not within my remit in the context of an appeal under section 78 of the Act and it is not a determinative factor in this case.

Based on the available information, I am satisfied that the proposed development would constitute a residential annexe. It would comply with Policy HC7 of the Stroud District Local Plan (November 2015) (SDLP) which allows for the creation of an annexe where, amongst other things, there is clear justification, the resident of the annexe is clearly associated with the occupants of the principal dwelling, and it is not a separate self-contained dwelling.

Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended) requires that regard be had to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes. There is also a duty under Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of these areas. These purposes also include increasing the understanding and enjoyment by the public of the special qualities of the National Landscapes.

The Framework also requires great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of these areas. 1 PPG paragraph 21a-[phone]

[address] is set back, and at a lower level, from [address] with the farmhouse dominating the collection of vernacular buildings. The appeal building is not prominent from public vantage points, including the nearby public right of way.

Incorporating a limited number of new and enlarged existing openings, the proposal would not undermine the positive cohesive nature of these courtyard buildings. The proposed composite windows and doors would reflect others I saw within this close-knit group of buildings and would not appear overly domesticated in this context.

Therefore, I have found the design, detailing and fenestration of the proposed alterations are in keeping with the character and appearance of the courtyard as well as the site’s wider rural setting. The proposal would also not impinge on the wider views within the CNL, and no harm would result to its natural beauty. Therefore, I am satisfied that the proposed development would conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Landscape in line with paragraph 189 of the Framework.

In conclusion, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the CNL. I find no conflict with [name] CP14 and ES12. Together they support high quality development, which protects, conserves and enhances the built and natural environment, including the adaption of existing buildings that make a positive contribution to the character of the site and surroundings.

The Council’s Decision Notice refers to SDLP Policy HC8. However, as the proposals are for the rebuilding of an outbuilding and conversion of a barn to provide a residential annexe, this policy is not directly relevant as it relates to extensions to dwellings and the erection of outbuildings incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling.

The Appeal site falls within the [name] area of the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Area (SAC/SPA), which is a European Site as defined in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). The Council has confirmed that the development type does not require mitigation and the proposed development is not likely to have a significant effect on the SAC/SPA. There is nothing before me to indicate that I should reach a different conclusion on this matter.

I have had regard to the conditions put forward by the Council, and the appellant’s comments on these. I have amended the wording where necessary in the interests of clarity. I have also had regard to the tests in the Framework and the PPG.

No time limit condition has been attached as the development has begun, and I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans as this provides clarity.

As the description of the development does not specify that the proposed residential annexe would relate specifically to [address], a condition requiring that the building can be used as additional living space for this host dwelling is included to provide certainty.

On the basis that the development has commenced but is not completed, I have attached a condition requiring the external surfaces to the residential annexe to match the existing courtyard buildings and the timber cladding to the bat barn to be unstained to weather naturally. It is necessary in the interests of character and appearance.

A condition requiring the implementation of a mitigation strategy for bats is also necessary to preserve and enhance the biodiversity value of the site.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions set out below.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos. 543482-E-25-15 Location Plan, 543482-E-25-14 Block Plan, 543482-E-25-7 Proposed Site Plan, 543482-E-25-8 Proposed GF Plan (Focused), 543482-E-25-9 Proposed GF Plan (Focused), 543482-E-25-10 Proposed Roof Plan, 543482-E-25-11 [name], 543482-E-25-12 [name] and 543482-E-25-13 [name] & Elevations.

The residential annexe hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for the purpose of providing additional living space to the residential use of the dwelling known as [address].

The external materials of the residential annexe hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing courtyard buildings, and the bat barn shall be completed in unstained timber cladding to allow it to weather naturally.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations and mitigation measures contained within [name] (ATW Ecology Ltd 5399 V2) October 2023, [name] and [name] (ATW Ecology Ltd 5399 V2) March 2025, and Natural England Licence Mitigation Document issued 06/11/2024. The bat barn mitigation shall be carried out and provided at the appropriate times as set out in these documents and in accordance with drawing nos. 543482-E-25-13 and 543482-E-25-14. The bat barn shall then remain for that purpose thereafter. **END OF SCHEDULE**