Appeal 6001471

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site is within the Cotswolds National Landscape. As required by Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, special regard has been paid to seeking to further the statutory purposes of the National Landscape.

[name] and a barn at [address] are grade II listed buildings. As required by Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, special regard has been paid to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the scheme upon the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to its location within the Cotswolds National Landscape.

The appeal site comprises a stable block and associated paddock that is to the western side of the road through the village. Constructed of timber boarding, this single storey building is positioned near to the southern boundary of the site, beyond which are agricultural barns. Beyond the post-and-rail fence that delineates the western boundary of the site is a large field. The stables and paddock are set back from and above the road behind a sloping grass verge and a dry-stone wall.

The site is within the Cotswolds National Landscape (NL), and as identified in the Cotswolds Landscape Character Assessment (2016), a key feature of the NL is the local stone, which has not only shaped the landscape, but is prevalent as a building material. Many of the fields are defined by dry-stone walls and hedges, and the villages have both buildings and boundary walls made from the distinctive gold coloured limestone. The stone is an iconic and distinctive feature of the NL, creating a visual harmony between the built environment and the landscape.

Contributing to the unique scenic beauty of the NL are its villages. Kineton is one such village, and it comprises a mix of ages of mostly houses, many of which are to the eastern side of the road. The linear form of the village above the river on the lower valley slopes, along with the presence of expansive fields beyond the village, creates a scenic rural nature to the area, and one that has a remote, tranquil character and appearance where the landscape has ascendency. Even with the presence of the small clusters of twentieth century homes, there is a strong visual cohesion to the village. This derives from the repeated use of the local stone, including for the roofs, and also because many of the dwellings have simple, plain styles, small, well-spaced windows, and similar two storey heights. The presence of numerous dry stone wall boundaries complements the cohesive appearance of the village. Along the road the nature of the village is that visually no single house dominates.

The dwelling would be positioned near to the southern boundary of the site. Constructed of stone and slate with quoining, the house has been carefully designed to have the appearance of a converted agricultural building. It would have a simple, essentially linear form, with a single storey catslide lean-to upon the front elevation, along with a large, glazed opening and ventilation slits to replicate functional agricultural voids. There would be a small first floor window in the roadside elevation and another replica cart entrance facing out over the hillside. The appearance of these elevations and the use of the local stone would reflect the visual cohesion of the built form of the village.

Notwithstanding this, the building would appear overly large within its plot as it would be positioned close to three of its property boundaries. The immediacy of the juxtaposition to the side boundaries would give the house a cramped appearance, as well as resulting in an awkward proximity to the drystone wall that bounds the site. This proximity would appear contrived in a context where nearby buildings have rear or flank walls comprising part of the boundary enclosure. This, and the size of the house, along with its elevated positioning above the road, would make it appear conspicuously prominent.

The existing stables have a legibly functional rural appearance with a modest visual impact that contributes to the gradual transition of the countryside into the village. To the western side of the road the village has a dispersed pattern of development characterised by broad gaps where the fields abut the highway, and the position of the dwelling would maintain views through the site. However, the house would be at the edge of the village and despite the large size of the barns to the south, these are set down into the hillside. By contrast, the combination of the size and elevated position of the house would make it abruptly visible above the barns, rather than achieving the gentle transition from the countryside to the settlement edge as advised by the [name] (2018).

The house would form a focal point when approaching the village from the south, and such a prominence would erode the visual cohesion of the village that is part of the special qualities of the NL. This dominance would derive not just because of the size and elevated position of the house, but also because of the large windows in the south facing elevation, the size and number of which would catch the eye. Given that a characteristic of the local vernacular style is mostly small windows within sizeable areas of stone walls, the rear elevation of the property would be at odds with the built vernacular that characterises the NL. During the day the reflective nature of the glass would be evident, whilst at night when rooms would be lit, the glazing would intrude into the dark skies that are a feature of the NL. The trees to the south of the stables would provide a degree of concealment when in leaf, but landscaping cannot be relied upon to screen development for its lifetime.

For these reasons the scheme would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area and the NL, and the suggested conditions would not mitigate these harms. There would be conflict with Policies EN1, EN2 and EN4 of the Cotswold District Local Plan (2018) (LP) as these seek, amongst other things, that development respects the character and distinctive appearance of the locality and visual quality, including the setting of settlements.

[name] and a barn at [address] are grade II listed buildings. Both are constructed from mostly coursed squared and dressed limestone under limestone slate roofs. The age of these buildings, their simple two storey forms and style, and the use of the local stone, is part of their special historic and architectural interest. They are a legible part of the historic form and functioning of the village with its scatter of farmhouses and their associated farm buildings. This and the contribution they make to the village is an integral element of their settings, and these buildings also make a positive contribution to the NL because of their historic vernacular appearance. The dwelling would be on the opposite side of the road from these listed buildings, set apart from them by other buildings. Given this separation, and that the position of the dwelling would be perpendicular to the road so as to retain some of the openness of the site, the scheme would have a neutral impact upon the setting of the listed farmhouse and barn.

The appellant has raised concerns regarding the Council’s handling of the original application. It has been pointed out that the application followed pre-application negotiations, that there were no objections to the scheme from the Council’s case officer nor from several consultees, and that the principle of the development is acceptable. Notwithstanding this, planning authorities are not bound to accept the recommendations of their officers, and such concerns fall to be pursued by other means separate from the planning appeal process.

Local residents have raised a number of matters, including access concerns, construction disturbance, overlooking, biodiversity issues, the over-subscribed use of the public house, and the loss of a valued village asset. Pertaining to the loss of the stables, at the time of the site inspection they were being used for miscellaneous storage and for the housing of three ducks. As regards this concern and the other planning matters raised, following the findings on the main issue, there is no need to consider them further.

The Council has acknowledged that it cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply with an acute shortfall at 1.8 years. In such circumstances, the national Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that planning permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance, such as NLs, provide a strong reason for refusing the development.

The scheme would conflict with development plan policies that require proposals to respect the character and appearance of the area. The Framework requires due weight to be given to existing development plan policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. [name] EN1, EN2 and EN4 are broadly consistent with objectives within the Framework that require development to be sympathetic to local character. The conflict with these policies should therefore be given significant weight.

There would be benefits arising from the scheme, that include the important benefit of the provision of an additional high-quality dwelling and the moderate one of future occupiers enhancing local community vitality. The appellant has also pointed out that the principle of the development is acceptable, and that the dwelling would make an effective use of previously developed land, meeting an objective of the Framework. These benefits weigh in favour of the scheme.

Whilst a key aim of the Framework is to significantly boost the supply of housing, when read as a whole the Framework does not suggest this should happen at the expense of other considerations, particularly as great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of NLs. In this case the harm to the NL provides a strong reason for refusing the scheme, despite the aforementioned benefits. It follows that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

Given these findings, there are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Thus, for the reasons given above and having considered all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.