Appeal 6001333

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 above mentioned planning permission, granted in 2023, appears to have been part implemented. The condition in dispute refers to the approved plans. The fresh plans effectively proposed as part of the appeal relate to enclosing the pool completely. The main issue in regard to which is its effect on the character and appearance of the area with specific regard to a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA) and the Cotswold National Landscape (CNL).

[site address] is a NDHA. It’s a detached and imposing three storey dwelling in Cotswold stone. It is of substantial scale and a sizable yet contained land take within an expansive, spacious and undeveloped plot. It is reflective of a farmhouse style despite its scale and exudes a traditional agrarian character through evenly spaced window openings, matching glazing styles, stone surrounds and cills and gable chimneys. There is a high-quality aesthetic to its simplicity and presentation to its surrounding wide-open spaces which themselves reflect the prevailing open rurality of the local landscape.

The building and its plot are exposed in a number of areas to the surrounding countryside which is part of the CNL due in part to its relatively prominent hillside location. The sub area within which the appeal site is located is characterised by a noticeably intact series of distinctive hills and sparsely developed areas. There are evidently a number of pressures in the rural landscape of the CNL. Including visual intrusions such as lit elements to areas of dark landscape and potential glint from buildings. As well as a proliferation of suburban building styles/materials and development that will intrude negatively into the landscape. Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) sets out that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in these areas.

The appeal proposal would have a substantial land take and be an elongated narrow building projecting away from the host’s principal elevation. Whilst clearly subservient in its height, it would be very obvious within the plot, remaining close to the dwelling and thus unacceptably detracting from its dominance as the primary building. It would be in a similar stone to the dwelling, but the use of a metal sheet roof and significant areas of glazing in both the walls and roof would be jarringly modern against the traditional simplicity of the farmhouse, unacceptably impinging on its quality as a NDHA.

The previously approved outbuilding, whilst also forward of the principal elevation of [site address] , was clearly subservient in both height and land take than the appeal scheme. Notwithstanding the previous historical uses with buildings forward of [site address] , the evidence of this is limited and they do not appear to have been in the same position as this proposal. Moreover, they were clearly farm buildings appropriate for the prevailing agrarian context. Despite the use of some similar materials, the appeal scheme is strikingly more residential.

The take up of land would unacceptably reduce the spacious qualities of the expansive undeveloped nature of the plot and how it relates positively and characterfully with the open rurality of the CNL. Having cleared some of the surrounding greenery, the scale and sprawl of the building would be strikingly obvious in a number of surrounding views within and without the plot, owing to the degree of elevation it has in the immediate landscape topography. This and the potential light spillage from the expansive glazing to both the sides and roof would be a negative intrusion into what is otherwise a prevailing and natural darkness to the CNL during nighttime hours. Existing trees and hedges, as well as what appears to be from the evidence an intention to plant more as part of the original scheme mentioned above, would go some way to reducing its effects, but not so much that it would be acceptable.

Taking all of the above together, the appeal scheme would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, which would extend to an unacceptable erosion of the traditional and simple agrarian qualities of [site address] as a NDHA. It would fail to either conserve or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the CNL, failing by association to further the purposes of the protected landscape. As such, there would be conflict with Policies EN1, EN2, EN4 and EN12 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2018. These policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would not comply with the development plan. As such, there is insufficient justification to allow a variation to the aforementioned condition which, as a result of my recommendation to dismiss the appeal, should remain as approved.

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