Appeal 6001225

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.

The property at [site address] has separate official list entries that relate to; the [name] and Chapel to the South-West of Rodborough Fort1 (the curtain wall and chapel); Rodborough Fort2 (the fort), and [name] to [name] of Rodborough Fort3 (the northeast curtain wall). All are [name] listed. Consequently, in reaching my decisions, I have exercised my statutory duties under sections 66(1) - for Appeal A, and 16(2) - for Appeal B, of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 – as amended (the Act).

The appeals relate to the same site and the same proposed scheme. Unless stated otherwise, and despite the differences in the planning permission and listed building consent regimes, both appeals are dealt with together to avoid unnecessary repetition. 1 Official list entry number: 1090704 2 Official list entry number: 1305531 3 Official list entry number: 1305537 Appeal Decision 6001225 and 6001228

From the submitted plans, it is not clear how all the steps would be supported, and some plans suggest a link/connection between the platform and the part of the curtain wall and chapel listed building. However, the appellant claims that the platform would be freestanding, with no direct physical intervention into the fabric of a listed building. Nevertheless, and even if the require listed building consent, I must determine the appeals that are before me, which include appeal B.

The Council is satisfied that the scheme would not cause harm to any significant historic fabric of the curtain wall and chapel listed building, and I have no reason to find otherwise. However, had appeal B been otherwise acceptable, it would have been necessary to impose a condition requiring details of any fixings, joints or interventions into this listed building to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such a condition would have been needed to ensure that the scheme would not harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset as a result of any interventions into it.

In reaching these decisions, I have had regard to the publicly accessible Cotswolds National Landscape Management Plan 2025-2030.

The main issue is whether the scheme would preserve the settings of the [name] listed buildings – the fort and/or the curtain wall and chapel.

Located in a highly elevated position within [name], the listed buildings at [site address] collectively form a prominent feature within the local landscape. The evidence indicates that an early fort structure was constructed on the site circa mid-late 18th century, but that this was much altered and extended in the mid-late 19th century. An effect of which was to give it the form and appearance of a larger ‘mock’ castle. Consequently, the resultant fort, which is now a tall-castellated structure, and the similarly castellated but lower curtain walls – which include the curtain wall and chapel, have a collective group value that adds to their significance. Moreover, the widespread use of rubble and dressed stone walling, the turrets, and the decorated tracery within many of the windows of these buildings – and which include the large chancel window in the chapel, also contribute to their architectural and historic interest.

The Fort and the curtain wall and chapel listed buildings are each within the immediate setting of each other, as is the northeast curtain wall and the gardens and courtyards between them. The close proximity of these listed buildings, together with the similarities in their external materials and distinctive detailing, adds to their overall grandeur and interest.

The spaces between these buildings, which include the largely enclosed courtyard/garden between the fort and the main gateway in the chapel and curtain wall, form part of the immediate setting of these listed buildings. From this courtyard/garden space, the uninterrupted and close historic relationship between the enclosed private chapel and the fort can be readily appreciated. The clear primacy of the historic and uncluttered main entrance route between the large Appeal Decision 6001225 and 6001228 gateway within the curtain wall chapel listed building and the principal historic entrance to the Fort can be clearly understood.

From many locations within their much wider landscape setting - including [name], and within and around Stroud, the listed buildings at [site address] appear as an elevated skyline level structure and a prominent historic local landmark.

For these reasons, the fort and the curtain wall and chapel listed buildings have both architectural and historic interest which contribute their heritage merit, as well as significance that derives from their group value and settings.

The scheme would be visually prominent from the land inside the curtain walls to the southwest of [site address] . Moreover, due to its height, materials and size, and its proximity to the curtain wall and chapel, the structure would obscure parts of this heritage asset, including a section of castellated wall and the large chancel window of the chapel - both distinctive features that contribute to the significance of the listed building. Such works and development would make it harder to appreciate these key features.

The raised platform structure and steps would be erected adjacent to a curtain wall, and together, they would not project further out into the courtyard/garden than the side of the chapel. However, their height, bulkiness and somewhat pastiche design would draw attention when approaching the fort through the large gateway in the curtain wall and chapel building. As this approach would have formed the principal historic formal access to the fort, the appeal scheme would reduce the authenticity of how this otherwise uncluttered courtyard/garden entrance would be experienced. For the same reasons, it would also harmfully alter the appreciation of the fort’s significance, and diminish the collective value of the fort and the curtain wall and chapel heritage assets.

Historic photographs show the former presence of a lean-to structure in a similar location to the proposed works and development. However, unlike the appeal scheme, it had a very simple form and design detailing. Moreover, even if that structure was used in association with a tea room that operated from the property for a number of years, I cannot conclude that it made a meaningful contribution to either the historic or architectural interest of the buildings at [site address] , or that the reinstatement of a structure in this location would better reveal the significance of the listed buildings at the fort or the curtain wall and chapel.

Even if glazing with low reflectivity were used, the upper side of the raised platform closest to the historic wall would still be visible above the castellated parapets. In such views, the glass would appear as an incongruous addition in relation to the stone walls of the fort and the associated curtain walls. Furthermore, activity resulting from the ordinary use of the raised platform is likely to draw the attention of users of the nearby parts of [name]. This would harmfully erode the role of the faux defensive walls in providing privacy and would also reduce the external impassivity of both the fort and the curtain wall and chapel structures.

For these reasons, the works and development would not preserve, but instead erode the contribution that the immediate courtyard/garden settings make to the overall significance of both the fort and the curtain wall and chapel heritage assets. Appeal Decision 6001225 and 6001228 That being the case, the scheme subject of these appeals would cause harm to the overall significance of these listed buildings.

In line with paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I give great weight to the conservation of designated heritage assets.

Due to the location and extent of the scheme the harm that would be caused to the significance of the fort heritage asset, would be towards the lower end of the scale of less than substantial, but the harm that would be caused to the significance of the curtain wall and chapel heritage asset would be towards the middle of the scale of less than substantial. Nevertheless, these findings of harm carry considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework indicates that where a development will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

Even if the scheme would be reversible, this is at best a neutral consideration rather than a public benefit that would flow from it. Although the scheme would also enable the occupiers of the property to secure spectacular far-reaching views from the raised platform, this would be a private benefit rather than a public one, as set out in the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance4.

I have no reason to doubt that considerable financial investment has been undertaken at the property to ensure the house remains relevant for contemporary living. However, this benefit does not ‘flow from’ the appeal scheme, so cannot be included within this balance.

Economic benefits would arise during the implementation of the works and development. However, if the scheme was not undertaken, I do not anticipate the cessation of use of either the fort as a dwelling or the curtain wall and chapel for purposes incidental to the use of the fort, or that they would fail to be suitably maintained. Therefore, because of the modest scale of the scheme, the associated public benefits would be small, and very little weight is attributed to them. Overall, the public benefits would not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the significance of either the fort or the curtain wall and chapel listed buildings.

For the reasons given, the scheme would not preserve the settings of the [name] listed buildings - the fort or the curtain wall and chapel. Consequently, it would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the provisions in the Framework which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. It would also conflict with policies HC8 and ES10 and CP14 of the Local Plan5. Collectively and amongst other things, these require schemes to be in keeping with the scale and character of the original dwelling and the site’s wider setting and location. They also seek to ensure that proposals will conserve and where appropriate, enhance the significance of heritage assets, unless there is a clear and convincing justification for any harm or loss. 4 Paragraph:020 [name]: 18a-020-20190723 5 Stroud District Council – Stroud District Local Plan – adopted November 2015 Appeal Decision 6001225 and 6001228

The northeast curtain wall is located on the opposite side of the fort from the proposed structure subject of these appeals. The significance of this designated heritage asset stems mainly from its collective group value with the fort and the curtain wall and chapel listed buildings, which are within its setting. However, it also derives some significance from its historic and architectural interest as a crenellated wall with turrets and ashlar block detailing.

The proposed scheme would not be readily experienced together with the northeast curtain wall – from either within or outside of the property. This is partly because the proposed structure would be on the opposite side of the substantial fort building, and also due to the presence of intervening trees which are subject of a Tree Preservation Order. Consequently, the setting of the northeast curtain wall would be preserved, and the significance of this listed building would not be harmed by the implementation of the appeal schemes. However, this is a neutral consideration that does not weigh in favour of either appeal.

The evidence indicates that the site is within the zones of influence of the Rodborough Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the [name] and the [name]. However, there is no need to consider the implications of the proposed development on these protected sites, because the scheme is unacceptable for other reasons.

The site is also within the Cotswolds National Landscape, which is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or affecting land so designated, I have a duty to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB.

‘Big’ skies, open fields and wooded valleys, as well as relative tranquillity, picturesque villages and the unifying effect of the limestone geology, are all important features of this landscape designation. Given the modest scale of the proposed works and development, and because they would be undertaken inside the fort’s curtain walls, the schemes would have a neutral effect on the special qualities of the AONB, and they would conserve the natural beauty of this area.

The development subject of Appeal A would conflict with the development plan as a whole, and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. I therefore conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.

Moreover, for the reasons previously given, I also conclude that Appeal B should be dismissed.