Appeal 6000860

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the application form as this sufficiently describes the development.

The appellant submitted two, unsigned, legal agreements which relate to the payment of financial contributions towards mitigating the effect of the development on the Rodborough Common Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the [name]. I will return to these in my reasoning.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (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, including the effect on the Cotswold National Landscape; • the effect of the proposed development on biodiversity; and • the effect of the proposal on the [name] and the [name].

The appeal site comprises the side garden to the host dwelling, [site address] . At the time of my visit, it was mainly laid to lawn, with paths, a pond, and pergola and was enclosed with a hedge and wall. [address] is a cul-de-sac of semi-detached dormer bungalows which have consistency in the design and appearance, only varied by alterations and extensions. Contrary to the appellant’s assertion, the properties on [address] are read as a group and have a clear design characteristic, a defined architectural style, and a well-defined building line.

I acknowledge that there are two detached houses between the properties on [address] and those on The Frith, and that [address] is made up of detached dormer bungalows. Nevertheless, the character of [address] is of semi-detached properties with similar design details and similar layouts. It is read separately from the properties on [address] and in the wider area.

As a detached dwelling, which would not sit in line with the other properties on [address], the proposal would be out of keeping with the layout and context of the street. It would be read as part of the street scene and group with the others on [address] but be visually different due to its position within the plot and it being detached. The proposal would, therefore, be an incongruous addition to the street scene, even though the design details and materials reflect the other properties. It would not be an appropriate infill development as it would not be compatible with the character of the part of the settlement in which it would be located and neither would it integrate well with the properties on [address].

The appeal site is in an area where there are different house sizes, designs, and types, but these are on different streets, or set back, and the appeal proposal would not be read in the same context as the detached houses. That the proposal would reflect other detached houses across the district would not weigh in favour of the development. It would, therefore, not be acceptable in terms of the streetscape.

Furthermore, by facing [address] and repeating the design features of that street, but by having its access and parking area off a different road, the appeal proposal would conflict with the layout and parking arrangements of [address], even though I saw that there are other driveways off the same road.

The appellant has provided detail of the plot sizes for each of the properties on [address] and the appeal site is a similar size, if not larger, than some of the other plots. Moreover, the host dwelling would retain a comparable sized plot. Nevertheless, even though the appeal plot size would not be out of keeping with the plot sizes for the other properties on the street it is restricted due to its shape. Furthermore, the position of the proposed dwelling would not be in keeping with the position of the other properties on the street and, therefore, the new dwelling would appear cramped and contrived.

The appeal site also lies within the Cotswold National Landscape (the NL). In determining this appeal, I am required to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the NL.

In so far as it is relevant to the appeal, I consider the character of the landscape is, in part, derived from the open countryside around the village and the green spaces that extend into the village, including [name]. The appeal site is on the edge of residential development. Although it is garden and has a wide green verge to the roadside, it is not a green space extending from the NL and is enclosed by a hedge. The appeal site currently does not cause harm nor contribute significantly to the character of the NL.

For these reasons, the proposal would not have a greater effect on the NL than the existing dwellings and would, therefore, conserve the special qualities and natural beauty of it. The Council did not raise any concerns with regard to this matter and I have no reason to disagree.

Nevertheless, for the above reasons, the appeal proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area contrary to the requirements of Policies HC1, ES12 and CP14 of the Stroud District Local Plan (the LP). Collectively, these policies seek to ensure that new housing within defined settlements is of a scale, density, layout and design that is compatible with the character of the part of the settlement in which it would be located, that the density is as high as is acceptable in terms of streetscape, that the design is high quality, protects, conserves and enhances the built and natural environment, is respectful of the surroundings, including the built environment, integrates with the surroundings, and is sensitive to its context.

The appeal proposal would lead to a net loss of biodiversity habitat from the removal of a section of hedge and landscaped garden and I have no evidence that the appellant has agreed to provide [name], as is required by the Environment Act 2021.

Both main parties have assessed the proposal as a self-build dwelling and the appellant has confirmed that they are willing to enter into a legal agreement to secure this so that the development would be exempt from BNG. However, I only have two unsigned legal agreements before me and neither of these secure the property as a self-build dwelling.

For these reasons, I cannot be certain that the appeal proposal would be exempt from BNG and it would, therefore, adversely affect biodiversity contrary to Policy ES6 of the LP which, amongst other matters, seeks to require all new development to conserve and enhance the natural environment. For the same reasons, the proposal would fail to comply with the requirements of the Environment Act 2021.

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.

Both main parties have considered the application as a self-build dwelling and the appellant contends that the Council has a significant shortfall in the supply of such developments. The Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (the 2015 Act) requires local planning authorities to establish and publicise a local register of custom-builders who wish to acquire suitable land to build their own home. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 sets out that local planning authorities have a duty to grant planning permission in respect of enough serviced plots of land to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding in the authority’s area arising in each base period. Authorities must have regard to the Register when carrying out their planning functions, including making decisions on planning applications.

Nevertheless, there is no mechanism within the appeal submission to secure the scheme as a self-build dwelling, such as a legal agreement. Although as a self-build dwelling it would accord with the Framework through providing housing for different groups in the community, without an appropriate means to secure the development as self-build, I am only able to give this matter limited weight in the

The main parties agree that the Council is not able to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Paragraph 11d) of the Framework therefore applies. In this case, from the evidence before me, there are no specific policies in the Framework relevant to footnote 7 which indicate that development should be restricted.

Policies HC1, ES12 and CP14 of the LP are the most relevant in considering the proposal and are generally in accordance with the Framework in seeking the creation of high quality places, good design, ensuring that development is visually attractive as a result of its layout, and ensuring that it is sympathetic to the surrounding built environment. Even though the appeal site lies within the settlement boundary and, therefore, the principle of development is acceptable, the proposal would conflict with the design policies in the LP. Consequently, the proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole and I have given the conflict with the local policies significant weight in this appeal.

The development would provide one additional dwelling which would have design features and materials that relate to the other properties on [address]. It also uses a garden which is currently larger than others in the same street. However, contrary to the appellant’s assertion the appeal site did not appear to be surplus garden area as it provides a grassed and landscaped area different to the hard surfaced area to the rear of the host dwelling.

The proposal would also accord with the Framework which seek to boost the supply of housing and also provide economic benefits both during and post construction. However, although I afford significant weight to the provision of new housing, as only one dwelling is proposed this benefit is limited when weighing the merits of the scheme. I therefore afford significant weight to the limited benefit the development would make to addressing the housing shortfall.

On the other side of the balance, the proposal would result in environmental harm from the effect on the character and appearance of the area. This harm is significant and afforded significant weight. It would, therefore, significantly, and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits that would arise from the development. As a result, the presumption in favour does not apply.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.