Appeal 6001130

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to the setting of the [site address] Conservation Area (CA) and the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL)

The appeal site is a link detached dwelling which is part of a small estate on the outer edge of [site address] , a rural village arranged primarily around a three way road junction. Despite their limited age, the buildings are arranged close together and facing into a traditional agrarian style courtyard. They are a mix of single and two storeys, finished in matching stone and roof tiles. Dormers are not uncommon but are limited in their number and as such very recessive as a design feature, in keeping with the modest qualities and quaint, simple and plain rural aesthetic of the development as a whole.

The estate is outside but abutting the edge of the CA which includes the entirety of the village core, how it extends to the south and some open fields to the north. The homogeneity of the village in the use of stone and traditional building styles is well preserved amongst defined open spaces and verdant verges and stone walls. It is evident that building design, material, form and features are important to the identity of the settlement as a Cotswold village and its containment/sense of place in the wider landscape. The CNL is a substantial area of wide open and undeveloped space, punctuated by contained and low-lying settlements primarily across Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire. There are parcelled agricultural field patterns surrounded by hedges and dry-stone walls.

The proposed dormers to the rear elevation of the building would be highly visible when entering [site address] due to the exposed sting of the estate on the edge of the village. The introduction of three additional dormers of a mismatched size would detract from the plain and unaltered consistency of the surrounding buildings. Their coherent roof scape specifically. Moreover, they would unacceptably differ from the prevailing simplicity and sparing use of dormers which is a key feature of the CA’s architectural significance. The appeal proposal would result in a cluttered roofscape dominating the rear elevation and detracting from the wider uniform and consistent built form.

The first storey front extension would be of a similar form and construction to the existing frontwards pitched roof element. Whilst the [name] advises that integral garages should be avoided, there is already a form of integration by virtue of the link between the neighbouring property. The uplift in roofline would not harmfully erode the subservient relationship given the modest height and existing step down of the neighbouring building.

The estate has clearly been designed in terms of its overall aesthetic, inward facing configuration and presentation of simple clustered agrarian form to respect what is a visually sensitive edge of settlement position. The rear elevation of the building is clearly seen on the edge of the settlement. The distinctly rural agrarian feel of sporadic built form in the CNL clearly translates to these newer dwellings. The clutter to the roofscape specifically would alter the dwelling to be viewed as more suburban and therefore an unacceptably awkward departure. Resultantly, it would not conserve or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the CNL.

Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area, for buildings or land therein. Given the location of the appeal site, this statutory duty would not apply. However, the Framework places emphasis on great weight being given to an asset’s conservation and, by virtue of the above assessment, there would be some harm to the setting of the CA. Due to the scale of the proposed development, the harm would be to the lower end of less than substantial. This should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposal would secure an improved long term family home, along with enabling viable use of the building. However, I have not been provided with any evidence to suggest that the proposal relies on securing the future use of the building seeing as it would remain as a residential dwelling. Therefore, I only give limited weight to this public benefit. [name] understand that local materials and workmanship would be employed this would only be a modest benefit of the scheme and arguably expected. There also may be some economic benefits during the construction phase. Overall, the public benefits provided would be limited and it is sufficiently clear, given the above, that they would not outweigh the great weight given to the conservation of the CA.

With the above in mind, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area, the CA and the CNL. As such, there would be conflict with Policies EN1, EN2, EN4, EN5, EN10 and EN11 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2018, Policy SSNP8 of the Stow on the Wold & The Swells Neighbourhood Plan 2024 and the Framework. Together, these seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and conserve the historic environment, amongst other things.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would not comply with the development plan, and I have been given no other compelling reason, taking into account other material considerations advanced, to deviate therefrom. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.