Appeal 6000752

The appeal is dismissed.

The application was made in outline with all matters reserved and I have determined the appeal on this basis. I have had regard to the indicative site layout plan and indicative floorplans and elevations but only as far as they are an indication of the layout, scale, and appearance of the proposal.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the application form with the second sentence deleted as it is not required to describe the development. This is different to the Council’s decision notice. However, the appellant has confirmed that the change in the description was not agreed and that the application was for outline planning permission with all matters reserved. I have, therefore, used the original description.

After the decision notice was issued the Brimscombe and Thrupp Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan (the NDP) was made. I have been provided with a copy of the made version, dated March 2023. Although not referred to in the Council’s reasons for refusal the NDP has been included in their statement of case and the appellant has been provided with an opportunity to comment on the relevant policies. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I have therefore considered the Neighbourhood Plan alongside the other parts of the Development Plan in making my decision.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on reforms to the Framework. Whilst changes to the structure and wording are proposed, these could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to whether the proposal would be overbearing to [site address] and [address]; • the effect of the proposed development on biodiversity; and • the effect of the proposal on the Rodborough Common Special Area of Conservation and the Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (the SACs).

The appeal site comprises garden land to the side of the host dwelling, [site address] . It is steeply sloping from [address] up to [name] where vehicular access is provided to the host dwelling, and neighbouring properties. The site narrows near to [address] as most of the frontage serves as vehicular access to [address] (no 76).

The host dwelling is one of a pair of semi-detached houses within an area where there are three pairs of houses and a detached dwelling (no 76) set on elevated positions above the road, with large gaps separating the pairs and the appeal site separating the host dwelling from no 76. The gaps between the properties immediately around the appeal site form a positive part of the character of the area and the existing use of the appeal site, even if I were to agree it was underutilised garden land, is not harmful to the gap or the character. No 76 is a more recent build which has respected the spacing of the dwellings in this area.

[address] is one of the main routes into Stroud and the houses along the road are grouped in clusters of differing house sizes and types. The houses immediately either side of the appeal site are different to the other groups of properties along [address] and form a separate character area.

The houses at the rear, on [name] are not read in the same context as the houses either side of the appeal site. Although properties on [name] may sit on smaller plots the immediate context for the appeal site is of houses within large plots, where the gaps between contribute positively to the character of the area and the rhythm of the street.

Although elevations, floorplans and a site layout were submitted during the consideration of the planning application these were for indicative purposes only. Nevertheless, based on the size and shape of the site and the description of development, I am not convinced that the site could accommodate a new dwelling, and associated access and hard surfacing, in a form and layout which would respect the existing character and built form of the houses around the site.

The appeal site lies within the defined settlement boundary where Policies CP1, CP3 and HC1 of the Stroud District Local Plan (the LP) supports the principle of new housing, subject to compliance with the other policies. However, a new dwelling on the appeal site would not be in keeping with the prevailing character of the existing houses set within large plots and would erode the positive effect the gaps between the dwellings have on the character. For these reasons, a dwelling on the appeal site would appear cramped and overdeveloped and would detract from the impression of space around the existing dwellings. The site would not be a logical infill plot, even though it is a gap within an otherwise built up frontage.

The appellant has referred to several planning permissions approved by the Council1 which they contend are comparable development to the appeal before me. Although the appellant has provided reference numbers and summaries of each development, I do not have the full details and I cannot be certain that the site context is the same. I visited the property at Woodlands and saw that this house is in front of its host dwelling but next to another property and, therefore, respects the street scene and building line of that context, even though it is in a visible position. The site at [address] is constrained and sloping and is also a gap between existing houses. However, the gap, in that scheme, is not part of the character of the area. The other permissions granted by the Council are not determinative and do not justify the approval of the appeal site.

The appeal at Oldends2 is materially different to the scheme before me in that the decision notes that the site was large and its contribution to the character of the area was limited. The appeal at Long Acre3 was considered to not be out of character with its context either. The appeal at Windsoredge Lane4 was an expansion to the edge of the settlement and, therefore, not an infill plot. Furthermore, all three of those appeals relate to Permission in Principle rather than outline permissions and are, therefore, materially different in that regard.

The appeal at Fort View5 was within an area with a variety of building plot layouts and close knit character and, consequently, a different character area. The site at Kerrs Hill6 is a sloping site in an area with detached dwellings in large plots, nevertheless, that scheme was determined to integrate with the built development and would have continued the large properties in large plots character of the area.

The appeal at Timber Ridge7 is materially different to the appeal before me as that development would have a plot that was comparable in size to those around it but was also in an area where the pattern of development was irregular. Furthermore, the appeal at Grange Cottage8 is materially different as it was for a replacement dwelling in an area where there were no dwellings nearby. Therefore, although the new dwelling was larger it was considered to be acceptable in terms of character.

Other appeals referred to by the appellant relating to extending dwellings, the construction of a shed, erection of a timber wedding facility, stationing of a temporary marquee, erection of a replacement dwelling, erection of garages, a car port, subdivision of an existing dwelling, installation of replacement windows and 1 S.19/0699/FUL, S.19/1127/FUL, S.01/535, S.20/2046/FUL, S.22/1541/FUL, & S.23/0573/PIP. 2 APP/C1625/W/20/3250810 3 APP/D0840/W/22/3303580 4 APP/C1625/W/23/3329704 5 APP/C1625/W/16/3151294 6 APP/G1630/W/22/3308688 7 APP/P0240/W/17/3185864 8 APP/C1625/W/24/3347823 other alterations to listed buildings, conversion of a barn, conversion of a garage, erection of a roof terrace, erection of an agricultural building, and provision of a dropped kerb are not for the same forms of development as the appeal and are, therefore, sufficiently different so as to not be material.

For the above reasons, the appeal proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would, therefore, be contrary to the requirements of Policies HC1(1) and CP14(5) of the LP which collectively support small-scale housing within defined settlements subject to the proposed housing being of a scale, density, layout and design that is compatible with the character, appearance and amenity of the part of the settlement in which it would be located and which protects, conserves and enhances the built environment and is respectful of the surroundings.

For the same reasons, the proposal would fail to comply with Policy LRD1 of the NDP which, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that developments respond positively and distinctively to their scale, nature, and location. In particular, development proposals should be designed in a way which takes account of their surroundings in their built form, amongst other matters.

The appeal site lies between two existing dwellings which both have windows facing over the site. I have no compelling evidence that these windows do not serve habitable rooms. Given the shape of the plot and the need to provide vehicular access and parking off [name] cannot be certain that the proposed dwelling would not be positioned between the existing dwellings.

Even if the proposed dwelling would be positioned more than five metres away from the existing dwelling windows, so as to not adversely affect daylight entering those rooms, and even though a new dwelling on the appeal site would reduce the overlooking between the existing properties, the construction of a dwelling on the site would result in the outlook from the existing windows being the side elevations of the proposed dwelling. I also cannot be certain that the design and position of the development could be carried out so as to not adversely affect the neighbouring properties either side. For these reasons, the proposed development, albeit at outline stage, would be visually overbearing to the outlook from the existing windows in the side elevations of both neighbouring properties.

I have no compelling evidence that any of the other properties in Brimscombe and along [address], which the appellant refers to as sitting relatively close to each other, have habitable room windows in the side elevations and where new development was proposed next to the window. I have also considered the four planning permissions referred to by the appellant in regard to living conditions but I do not have sufficient evidence that any of these permissions include new dwellings sited next to existing habitable room windows.

The appeal at The Vatch9 has been referred to by the appellant in relation to living conditions and design refinements. However, the decision letter provided does not consider these matters and is, consequently, not material to the appeal before me. The appeal at Farm Lodge10 related to the provision of decking which required 9 APP/C1625/D/21/3275085 10 APP/C1625/D/24/3339093 additional screening by condition to mitigate the harm from overlooking. It is materially different to the appeal before me. As too is the appeal at Springhill11 for a single storey extension. Although the appeal at 2 The Cottage12 did consider the extent of existing overlooking as part of accepting the proposal for a terrace this is different to the appeal proposal which would not cause overlooking but has the potential to be overbearing.

For the above reasons, I cannot be certain that the proposed development would not have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to having an overbearing effect on [site address] and [address] contrary to the requirements of Policy ES3 of the LP which, amongst other matters, resists development which would likely lead to, or result in, unacceptable levels of an overbearing effect.

Biodiversity net gain (BNG) is required under a statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by the Environment Act 2021). Under the statutory framework, subject to some exceptions, every planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the biodiversity gain objective, for development to deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat, is met.

The requirement for BNG, or whether it is exempt, applies at the outline planning application stage as this would be the planning consent for the site, if it were to be granted. Although the layout and landscaping details are reserved matters it is still necessary to understand the implications for existing onsite habitat and to understand the pre-development biodiversity value.

The application form advises that the appellant considers that the development would not be subject to the BNG condition as it would fall under the de minimis exemption. The reasoning includes that the location of the new dwelling is currently occupied by a large patio area and swimming pool and, therefore, provides no biodiversity opportunities. The appellant also contends that the development would comprise less than [address] metres of habitat.

However, the appeal before me is for outline planning permission with the layout and scale both reserved for later approval. As an outline it is not possible to be certain that the development of the site would not affect its biodiversity value, especially as the red edge of the application site includes areas of grass and other plants, albeit overgrown, which may provide biodiversity habitat.

As there is no completed biodiversity metric to understand the pre-development value of the habitat on site, I cannot be certain that the proposal would comply with the de minimis exemption and BNG would, therefore, be required. Furthermore, the appellant’s statement of case now accepts that the development would be subject to the BNG condition but has not provided the pre-development value calculations. Therefore, insufficient information has been provided. 11 APP/C1625/D/21/3279218 12 APP/C1625/D/20/3244745

The appeals at The Coach House13 and Cloverlea Barn14 are materially different to the appeal before me as the baseline ecological conditions of both sites were understood and the conditions imposed secured the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted details.

For the above reasons, I cannot be certain that the appeal proposal would not adversely affect biodiversity and would, therefore, be contrary to Policy ES6 of the LP which, amongst other matters, requires all new development to conserve and enhance the natural environment and all protected or priority habitats and species.

The appeal site lies within the core catchment zone for the [name] and the [name] and the effect of the development on both SACs was included as a reason for refusal. From the evidence before me the appeal scheme would result in a net increase in residential accommodation which could result in adverse effects upon the integrity of the SACs through increased recreational use.

As the competent decision-making authority, if I had been minded to allow the appeal, I would need to examine these matters further and undertake an Appropriate Assessment of the implications of the appeal scheme upon the SACs. However, as I am dismissing the appeal on other main issues, the outcome of an assessment would have no bearing on the overall outcome of the appeal. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to consider this matter further.

Moreover, while I note the appellant’s willingness to submit a legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards mitigation, no such agreement has been provided. The appeal before me is, therefore, materially different to the appeals referred to by the appellant15 where legal agreements were secured.

The appeal building lies outside of but next to the Stroud Industrial Heritage Conservation Area (the CA). The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) provides at section 72(1) that with respect to any buildings, or other land, in a conservation area special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. As far as it is relevant to the appeal, I consider that the significance of this part of the CA is mainly derived from the association of the buildings and the area with its industrial heritage, especially the cloth-making industry.

The appeal site forms part of the setting of the CA and the housing along [address] contributes positively to the setting of the CA as a whole and thereby to its significance as a designated heritage asset. Nevertheless, the site is within an area where existing housing already affects the setting of the CA. [name] find that the appeal proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area as a whole, bearing in mind the outline nature of the application and the presence of other housing, the character and appearance of the CA would be preserved and the significance the setting has would be unharmed. I note that the Council raised no objection in this regard either. 13 APP/C1625/D/24/3342690 14 APP/C1625/W/23/3334418 15 APP/C1625/W/19/3243085, APP/C1625/W/24/3346466, APP/C1625/W/24/3343654 & APP/C1625/W/21/3270634 Nevertheless, this lack of harm weighs neutrally and would not amount to a consideration in support of the appeal or alter my conclusions on the main issues.

I note that a [name] form has been submitted to indicate that the development would be a self-build dwelling. However, I have no means to secure this, such as a completed legal agreement. Therefore, unlike the appeal at [address], I give full weight to the policies in the LP.

The appellant contends that a large building could be erected on the appeal site under permitted development regulations and has provided a diagram indicating the type of building. However, the appeal before me is not for permitted development and I have no compelling evidence that the indicated building would be permitted development or that the appellant would be likely to construct such a building. I, therefore, consider that this is not a reasonable fallback position.

That there are no reasons for refusal relating to highway safety matters, the proposed parking arrangements, or flood risk, notwithstanding the concerns raised by interested parties, are neutral matters that would not outweigh the harm I have identified. That the proposed dwelling would be energy efficient and sustainably constructed is a benefit but would also not outweigh the harm.

The appellant has also referred to the conduct of the Council during the application, informal advice obtained prior to the application being made, and that they are willing to work with the Council to design a scheme that would be acceptable. The conduct of the Council during the application is not material to the main issues and there is no requirement for the Council to approve a development that it has given pre-application advice on. Moreover, although the LP and Framework support dialog between Councils and applicants, the Council is not duty bound to negotiate on a planning application.

With reference to the costs decision at The Old Office16 this related to the interpretation of the General Permitted Development Order and is, therefore, not material to the consideration of this appeal.

For the reasons given above I have found that the proposal would be contrary to the development plan as a whole, including the Brimscombe and Thrupp Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan. There are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which would indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.