Appeal 6000893

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for the award of costs has been made by [name] against Stroud District Council. This is the subject of a separate decision notice.

Four separate unilateral undertakings with reference to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 were provided with the appeal. These cover matters relating to (i) the proposed development being constructed and occupied as a self-build dwelling, (ii) the completion of a permissive path agreement (hereafter referred to as the permissive path UU), (iii) the payment of a Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation mitigation contribution, and (iv) the payment of a Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Area mitigation contribution.

I have raised queries with the appellants’ representatives and the Council over the effectiveness of the planning obligations set out in the undertakings, not least because none of the original documents were dated. As a consequence, dated and completed undertakings have been submitted. I have taken these into account in my assessment of the appeal.

The examination of a new local plan to replace the existing Stroud District Local Plan 2015 (the LP) has commenced. However, I am advised the examining Inspectors have recommended the emerging plan to be withdrawn and so there is significant doubt the replacement policies will be adopted in the format provided to me. Therefore, I attach very limited weight to the unadopted policies.

The main issues are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including whether it would conserve or enhance the natural, scenic and landscape beauty of the Cotswolds National Landscape (formerly known as Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and hereafter referred to as the NL). Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 includes a requirement to seek to further the statutory purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes. The appeal site lies within the NL and so I have had regard to this duty (the section 245 duty) in my assessment of the appeal.

The appeal site includes part of a wider field and a stretch of [name], a private road that leads from [site address] along the edge of the field to a cluster of residences. The land within the field falls down in height from its boundary with [site address] towards the appeal site and into a valley to the south. A public footpath runs across the field and above the site between [name] and [site address] . This path provides clear views of the plot as well as Nympsfield village and the wider landscape.

The appeal site and the field are rural in appearance due to the lack of buildings and their agricultural use. The nearby residences indicate the close proximity of the built-up extent of the village. However, when walking along [name] there is a distinct difference between the countryside on one side of the road and the settlement on the other. The openness of the appeal site and the field make an important contribution to this distinction and to the intrinsic qualities of the countryside surrounding the village. Also, the views across the site from [name], the nearby dwellings and the public footpath of open undulating fields add to the scenic and natural qualities of the NL.

The introduction of the proposed house, garage, gravel drive and garden would clearly change the appearance of the site from part of an open field to a residential property. Also, the development would introduce parking and activities typical of a dwelling as well as associated domestic paraphernalia and lighting. A condition could be imposed on any planning permission that effectively removes permitted development rights. However, this would not restrict residential activities and the provision of associated structures and features that would not constitute development. The rear part of the site would retain a countryside feel as it would be planted as a wildflower meadow and an orchard, with a belt of new native woodland along the rear boundary. Even so, the development would significantly change the appearance and nature of the part of the site nearest to [name].

New trees and native hedges along the garden boundaries would partially screen the development. Also, the dwelling would be constructed into the slope of the land and so it would appear as a single storey building when viewed from the direction of the public footpath. Even so, the appellants’ own landscape and visual impact assessment acknowledges the development would be seen from [name], as well as from the public right of way across the field. Also, the opposite elevation of the dwelling would be 2 storeys high and it would be seen from windows and gardens within the nearby cluster of dwellings as well as from private land below the level of the field. The appellants’ assessment also identifies potential viewpoints of the development from public rights of way and a restricted byway to the south of the site. Consequently, the proposal would have a noticeable visual effect from various viewpoints.

From where it is seen, the development would be perceived as an encroachment of new buildings onto undeveloped agricultural land. It would reduce the openness of the site and it would obstruct and spoil views of the rural landscape from the nearby public footpath and from [name] driveway and residences. From some vantage points, the proposed house would be seen alongside the existing cluster of dwellings at the end of [name]. However, it would be a single house on the other side of the private road to the existing dwellings. Therefore, it would be perceived as a unusual extension of the settlement into the surrounding rural landscape. For these reasons, the scheme would undermine the site’s contribution to the intrinsic beauty of the countryside and the natural and scenic beauty of the NL.

The design for the proposed house has been inspired by a traditional Cotswold barn and farmstead. Its fairly simple form, the sensitive external materials and the limited number of openings on the north west and both side elevations would suggest an agricultural influence. In these respects, the dwelling would reflect the local context of a rural Cotswold village. Also, the house would not appear out of scale to its context as it would be set into the land slope and within a generous garden. However, the acceptability of the proposal in these regards would not address nor override the identified detrimental effects on the openness and rural feel to the appeal site and to the natural and scenic qualities of the wider area.

The south east elevation of the house would appear more domestic as it would include large window areas with patio style doors leading out onto terraces. This elevation would not be visible from the nearby footpath nor from the private drive. However, it would be seen from the residences at 4 and 5 [name] as well as from the private land within the valley below the site. From these points, the large areas of fenestration and any interior lighting seen through the windows would appear unusual when seen against the backdrop of the wider field.

Currently, a boundary fence provides a hard edge to the dwellings at the end of [name]. The proposed planting within the development would provide a softer edge to the village and it would increase the extent of vegetation on the site. However, the most significant element of the planting would be towards the rear of the site away from [name]. Therefore, the proposed house and garage would spoil the visual appreciation of the proposed wildflower meadow, orchard and tree belt. As such, any benefits of the planting to the natural qualities of the area would not overcome the adverse effects of the built elements of the proposal.

I am referred to other appeal decisions1 where Inspectors have allowed development either within the NL or the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. However, these appeals relate to different developments on other sites away from Nympsfield. These other schemes are not so similar to the current proposal to set irresistible precedents to be followed in the assessment of this appeal.

I understand the proposal is an amended scheme that seeks to overcome initial concerns raised by the Council. Nevertheless, it does not follow that these 1 Appeal reference number APP/C1625/W/23/3329704 ([name] of [address], Nailsworth, Gloucestershire [postcode] ) and appeal reference number APP/Q3115/W/20/3265861 ([name], [name], Oxfordshire [postcode] ). revisions would lead to an acceptable scheme. Also, it is claimed that any development at Nympsfield would impact on the qualities of the NL. Even if this is accepted, this claim does not justify the detrimental effects of the scheme.

The development would affect only a small part of the entire NL and it would have a fairly localised visual impact. Even so, for the reasons given I conclude it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and that it would not conserve nor enhance the NL’s natural, scenic and landscape beauty. In these respects, it would not accord with the LP delivery policies ES7 and ES12 as well as LP core policy CP14. Amongst other things, these prioritise the protection and enhancement of the NL’s landscape qualities and require development to be sensitive and respectful of its surroundings and context. Also, for the above reasons I find that allowing the development would not fulfil the section 245 duty. Considerations in support of the proposal and planning balance.

The development would not accord with the LP policies when read as a whole. It follows to consider whether other factors justify allowing the appeal. The appellants have strong links to Nympsfield and so I appreciate their desire to build a new dwelling for themselves on the appeal site. The personal benefits to the appellants attract limited weight in support of the scheme.

The proposed planting scheme would increase the range of vegetation on the site and so lead to a marked enhancement to its biodiversity value. The development would also include features such as solar panels and sustainable drainage measures that would help meet the challenge of climate change. The house would be near enough to the village to allow residents to walk to and from local facilities. The range of services within Nympsfield is fairly limited but the proposal would provide an opportunity for at least some of the occupants’ trips to be made by sustainable modes of travel. Given the scale of the proposal, the environmental benefits attract moderate weight in my assessment.

The development would generate construction employment and residents would support the vitality and viability of the services within the village. The economic benefits would be limited as only a single dwelling is proposed.

The permissive path UU identifies a strip of land forming part of the wider field but away from the appeal site and along [site address] . The planning obligation requires a “permissive path agreement” for this land to be completed for the purposes of defining a suitable pedestrian route between [name] and a point opposite playing fields on [site address] . The appellants’ submissions indicate that the playing field committee has been looking to install a safe access to the playing fields as visitors currently have to walk along a stretch of road without pavements.

The UU fails to defined what is meant by the term “permissive path agreement”. Whilst there is mention of an opportunity to create a footpath along the edge of the wider field within the appellants’ design and access statement, this is not reflected as an explicit requirement within the planning obligation. In light of this uncertainty, I attach limited weight to any benefits associated with the permissive path UU.

The proposal would be a self-build dwelling as secured under the terms of the relevant unilateral undertaking. Small, self-build housing plots are supported under sub-paragraph 73(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Moreover, there is no information to show there are sufficient plots with planning permission to meet the demand as shown on the Council’s self and custom build housing register. As such, it would appear the Council is not meeting its duties under the [name] and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015. The proposal would make a modest contribution towards addressing the undersupply of self-build plots but this attracts significant weight given this failure of duty.

Moreover, the evidence indicates that as of January 2025 the Council could only demonstrate a 3.24 years’ supply of housing land against housing requirements. This is below the minimum 5 years supply target as set out in the Framework. The proposal would add to the housing stock, although a single dwelling would make a limited contribution towards addressing the shortfall.

Overall, there would be a number of benefits to the development that together weigh significantly in support of allowing the appeal. However, the Framework explains that National Landscapes have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. Also, it dictates that great weight should be afforded to the protection of their qualities. Moreover, to allow the appeal would be contrary to the section 245 duty. As such, I find the benefits of the proposal are significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the detrimental effects when having regard to the policies of the Framework when read as a whole.

The insufficient supply of deliverable housing sites means the circumstances at footnote 8 of the Framework exist and so paragraph 11 of the Framework is engaged. However, the application of the Framework’s policies that seek to protect National Landscapes provide a strong reason for refusing the proposed development. Accordingly, a situation exists as described at sub-paragraph 11d(i) and so the presumption in favour of sustainable development as laid out in the Framework is not applicable. It follows that I find insufficient grounds to allow the appeal contrary to the policies of the development plan.

The Council has raised concerns over the impact of the proposal on the integrity of the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Area as well as the Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (the habitat sites). The appellants have contested this contention on the grounds that they already live in the core catchment zones associated with the habitat sites. However, they have also provided undertakings that require contributions towards mitigation measures to address the harm as identified by the Council. I need not consider the effects of the development on the habitat sites any further as I have found the appeal should be dismissed for other reasons. My overall conclusion would not be affected in the event I found the development would have an acceptable effect on the habitat sites.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.