Appeal 6001492

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of field shelter to self-catered holiday let at [site address] , Blockley [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00951/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

I note that it is the intention of Blockley Parish Council to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan for Blockley but based on the information before me, this is at a very early stage, and a draft Neighbourhood Plan is not before me. Consequently, there are no policies within it to consider.

The appeal site is located in the Blockley Conservation Area and Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) requires me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

The appeal site is located near to the [name] listed [address] and Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) requires me to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interests which they possess.

The main issues relevant to this appeal are: • The effect of the proposal on the character or appearance of the Blockley Conservation Area (CA) and the [name] listed [address] • The effect of the proposal on the Cotswold National Landscape; and • The effect of the proposal on highway safety.

The Blockley Conservation Area (CA) encompasses the majority of the village, which lies within the Cotswolds National Landscape. It is characterised by tightly arranged terraces and substantial buildings such as [name] and [name], predominantly constructed in Cotswold limestone with slate roofs. Areas of open space provide relief within this otherwise dense core of the village.

The Blockley Conservation Area Statement (BCAS) identifies the upper [address] leading to [name], including the appeal site, as a distinct character area.

This part of the CA is less intensely developed, except near the junction with [address]. Here, buildings sit back from the road, and a meadow creates a notable break between the core of the village and the wider countryside. The BCAS highlights the ford at the bottom of [address] as a particularly special feature, forming part of the picturesque setting of the listed buildings at 1–[address] and a significant footpath that runs alongside it and another located a short distance away. These listed buildings are a group of terrace dwellings built from Cotswold limestone with slate roof, similar to much of the development in Blockley. The consistent architectural features of these buildings and the materials used contribute towards the significance of the heritage asset. The frontages of these buildings face out towards the meadowland and hillside outside of the core of the village and the nearby ford. The appeal building, whilst located on a higher ground level, does sit within the setting of the heritage asset and thus contributes towards it.

The BCAS also identifies areas of landscape value, important open spaces and significant verges; the appeal site falls within one such area, although it is not within the two specifically protected open spaces at Park Road and [address].

Positive contributors to the significance of the CA include the compact historic core, the more sporadic rural development beyond it, and the open areas that frame and articulate the settlement edge, including the setting of [name] and its ford.

The appeal building sits within the meadow east of the village spine, near the ford with its significant footpath and another that runs along [address] towards the appeal building. The building is covered in timber cladding with limited openings, other than a large central gated opening. The materials and design of the building give it an agricultural character and appearance. It modest in scale and well screened by landform and existing buildings from the core of the village. The building is bound by timber fencing which physically and visually separates it from the wider meadowland and this area of land is consequently more enclosed than the neighbouring meadowland. The buildings scale and position maintain the clear break between the main village and the countryside beyond it and preserves the setting of the ford and its contribution to the nearby listed buildings as well as the setting of the two significant footpaths. Accordingly, the existing situation preserves the character and appearance of the CA and the setting of the listed buildings.

The proposal is for the conversion of the existing building to a holiday let. While the proposal would replace the existing timber cladding and infill where necessary this would generally be consistent with the existing timber cladding on the building. However, the introduction of new openings, including large glazed doors, skylights, and a repositioned entrance, together with a seating and parking area, would introduce domestic features. These would have a domesticating effect on the agricultural character of the building and its immediate surroundings. However, as this relates to a holiday let many of the trappings of a typical dwelling such as garages, sheds and greenhouses would not be present. Accordingly, any domestic influence would be modest in extent and would remain subordinate to the prevailing rural character.

The hillside outside the core of the village, where the appeal building is located, contains sporadically sited dwellings typically set within generously sized plots. A domestic building within this open land is therefore not uncharacteristic of the area. The additional built form associated with the proposal would be modest, comprising only a small area of permeable hardstanding gravel for the parking area, domestic paraphernalia around the bark mulch seating area and services to the building. Whilst lighting from the building may be visible from the village core and elsewhere in the CA, it would be perceived within the context of dispersed hillside development already present in this part of the village’s wider setting and would be limited given that it relates to a single building.

This would all be situated within the timber fenced off area and thus the proposed domestication would be limited to an area that is already visually disconnected from the wider meadowland. Although the fencing may be a relatively recent addition, it nonetheless forms part of the established character of the site and contributes to the way the area is currently experienced. The open meadow between the appeal building and the village would continue to provide a clear and legible visual break between the built form and the surrounding countryside. The limited extent of the proposed alterations ensures that, when approaching or viewing the village, the scheme would not appear out of character with the prevailing pattern of development, and the landscape value of the open space would be preserved.

From the significant footpaths, the appeal site is read in conjunction with other sporadically located buildings on the hillside. For the reasons given, the proposal would not materially alter how the transitional qualities of this edge-of-settlement landscape are experienced. As a result, the experiential qualities of the footpaths, and the contribution they make to the significance of the CA, would be preserved. While the scheme would introduce a degree of domestication, it would not fundamentally erode the contribution that the appeal site and the wider meadowland make to the significance of the CA as a whole and the tranquillity of the wider edge of settlement location.

The appeal building occupies a higher ground level than the listed buildings at 1–[address] and the associated ford, although the landform falls steeply towards these heritage assets, resulting in some intervisibility between them. The setting of the listed buildings and the ford is characterised by the juxtaposition of the denser village core and the more open landscape beyond, punctuated by sporadically located buildings on the hillside. The appeal building already forms part of this established setting. While the proposal would introduce alterations that would give the building a more domestic appearance, its overall scale would remain broadly unchanged and the meadowland to its front would be retained. Residential buildings within this broader setting are not unusual, and the converted building would not materially alter the way the listed buildings or the ford are experienced within the wider landscape. The setting of the ford, with dense development on one side and scattered hillside buildings on the other, would remain largely unaltered. Consequently, the setting of the listed buildings at 1–[address], including the picturesque ford identified in the BCAS, would not be harmed.

Having given great weight to the conservation of the CA and the listed buildings and their settings, I conclude that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA as a whole and the setting of the nearby listed buildings. Accordingly, the scheme would comply with Policies EN10 and EN11 of the Cotswold District Local Plan (LP). These expect development, amongst other matters, to preserve and where appropriate enhance the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The appeal site is located within the Cotswold National Landscape (CNL). The Cotswold National Landscape Character Assessment describes the different character types. Based on the evidence before me, the appeal site is within [name] 15: [name] and Character Area 15B: Vale of [name]. A key feature of this character types includes the transitional landscape between the large fields and exposed nature of the [name] and [name] and the more sheltered and verdant, intimate landscape of the [name].

The appeal site lies outside the built-up area of Blockley, where the character transitions from the more urbanised village to the open fields with sporadically located buildings. The surrounding open land contributes positively to the rural character of this landscape. The proposal would involve the reuse of the existing building, with new built form limited to a modest area of additional permeable hardstanding, the bark mulch seating area and services to the building occupying only a small portion of the wider field. There is existing boundary vegetation, comprising trees and shrubs and the timber fencing around the appeal building.

When viewed within the wider landscape, the proposed alterations would introduce a degree of domesticity; however, given the transitional character of the area, where a mix of uses and isolated buildings already occurs, a single, discreet domestic building in this location would not appear incongruous. The trees and shrubs around the site positively contribute towards the rural character of the site and wider area. The scheme would involve the conversion of an existing building and the trees and shrubs in and around the site would generally be retained. As such, the positive contribution these make towards the character of the area would not be lost by the proposal. Activity associated with the use, including the comings and goings of occupants, would be limited in scale and, in the context of surrounding countryside where similar movements occur, would not fundamentally alter the way the appeal site and the wider meadow is experienced within the CNL.

The proposed residential use would result in an increase in noise, lighting, and domestic paraphernalia around the site. Nevertheless, owing to the modest scale of the building and its relatively well-screened position, these effects would be contained, localised, and limited. While lighting may make the building more visible, particularly in the evenings, as noted above, the presence and sounds of residential activity within scattered buildings are characteristic of this transitional landscape. Furthermore, the reuse of this building would not result in development sprawl; the openness of the wider field would be retained, maintaining visual separation between the appeal building and the settlement of Blockley. Consequently, the character of the appeal site would generally be consistent with the rural character in this edge of village location and would conserve the tranquillity, special qualities and natural beauty of the CNL.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposal would conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the CNL. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Policies EN4 and EN5 of the LP, which expect development proposals, amongst other matters, to not have a significant detrimental impact on the natural and historic landscape (including the tranquillity of the countryside) of Cotswold District or neighbouring areas.

The appeal building is accessed via a restricted byway. The appellant states that they benefit from a right of access over this route and I have no evidence before me to dispute this. I also note that several existing dwellings already take access from the byway and thus vehicular movements do likely occur on the byway. As such, future occupants of the holiday let would be able to access the site without needing to traverse the ford across [name] via Blockley itself. Whilst the ford itself may not necessarily be used on a regular basis, it could be used regardless of the outcome of this appeal.

Although the byway is narrow and only partly surfaced, it currently provides access to several properties, and based on the evidence before me agricultural vehicles associated with the appeal site also make use of it. In addition, as illustrated on the Council’s plans, a public right of way runs along part of the byway, meaning that it is available for use by members of the public. The byway therefore accommodates a range of different users. As the proposal concerns a single holiday-let, any increase in vehicle movements would likely be very limited. Access to the site itself would continue to be taken from the existing gated entrance, which is reached via a ramp from the byway.

While the access ramp to the site is unfenced, the evidence before me indicates that it has been used for a considerable period of time, and there is no record before me of any accidents associated with either the ramp or the byway. Although the site is not level, there is nothing to indicate that the gradient would be so steep as to render the proposed access and parking arrangements unsafe. No substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that either the byway or the proposed access arrangement would be unsafe or unsuitable for domestic use, particularly given that other buildings, including dwellings, also take access from the same byway.

As the proposal relates only to a single holiday let, any potential interactions between its occupiers and other byway users would likely occur infrequently. Such interactions could arise regardless of the outcome of the appeal, and it has not been shown that the use of the building as a holiday let would substantially increase traffic along the byway to the point where it would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Based on the submitted material and my observations on site, I am satisfied that the proposal would not give rise to an unacceptable impact on highway safety and that a safe and suitable means of access for all users would be provided.

Concerns regarding the maintenance of the byway are a private civil matter between the parties with rights of access over it and fall outside the scope of this appeal.

Therefore, the proposal development would not harm highway safety and would generally accord with Policy INF4 of the LP. This expects developments, amongst other matters, to provide safe and suitable access.

[name] note that there are a number of holiday lets already in the village and the impact this may have on the sustainability of the community, the Council did not refuse the application on this basis. Additionally, this scheme would not result in the loss of an existing dwelling. Policy EC11 of the LP supports the provision of tourist accommodation that reuses buildings like the appeal property and as such, the development plan supports such schemes. It is not necessary for buildings to be redundant to be considered for conversion and the policy allows agricultural buildings to be converted. Furthermore, as this relates to the conversion of a building supported by Policy EC11, it is not evident that any permission would set a precedent for further development elsewhere. Other schemes would have to be consistent with this policy and others within the development plan. Each case must be determined on its own merits, and the site-specific circumstances are material in this instance.

The scheme seeks permission to use the appeal building as a self-catered holiday let and it is under these circumstances that I have considered the appeal. If there is an intention to use the building for other purposes, then a separate planning application would have to be sought to do so.

Given that holiday lets are typically used for a short period the occupiers are less likely to be reliant on local infrastructure than a permanently occupied dwelling. Furthermore, it is not evident that local infrastructure would be unable to cope with the additional demand that may occur from a single holiday let.

The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) identified that there were no protected species present, and the site was of low wildlife interest and that none of the designated sites that were identified in the ecological data search would be impacted by the proposed development. While there may be amphibians and fish species living in or around [name] in light of my conclusions above regarding highway safety and given that appeal building is located at a significantly higher ground level than the Brook, it has not been substantively evidenced that the proposed use of the appeal building as a holiday let would cause substantial harm to species in and around the Brook. The Council found no reason to dispute the conclusions of the PEA and there is no substantive technical evidence before me that would lead me to do so either.

While the scheme may not necessarily comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) with regard to isolated homes in the countryside, the Framework is a material consideration, and unless the material considerations indicate otherwise, the proposal should be determined in accordance with the development plan. As mentioned above, the scheme would be consistent with relevant development plan policies.

The appeal building is located a considerable distance from nearby dwellings. While the occupiers may be able to look towards nearby dwellings, given how far away they would be, the overlooking that would occur would not result in a significant loss of privacy for nearby occupiers.

The submitted plans show that access to the larger field next to the appeal building would be retained with a width appropriate for a large vehicle and machinery.

The development would involve the conversion of an existing building and therefore is exempt from the [name] requirement as it is development of less than [address] metres of additional new build.

Further to the statutory commencement condition a condition requiring the development is carried out in accordance with the permitted plans is necessary in the interests of certainty. Furthermore, conditions requiring the materials used are similar to those used in the existing building, that the external timber cladding is left to weather and that no additional door or window openings are inserted are necessary in the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the CA.

A condition requiring approval of a full surface water drainage scheme is necessary to ensure flooding is not exacerbated in the locality. It is necessary for this to be pre-commencement to ensure works are not undertaken that may affect the deliverability of the surface water drainage scheme. I have revised the wording suggested by the [name] to remove reference to matters such as BRE365 which may be subject to change. There is scope within the condition as written to ensure such matters can still be considered.

Conditions requiring the development is carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the PEA is necessary in the interests of minimising the impact of the development on nearby species.

[name] is located nearby, the PEA does not identify that the site is part of an ecological corridor, nor have I been directed to technical evidence that the site forms part of one. Taking into consideration to conclusions of the PEA, it has not been demonstrated that a condition requiring approval of an external lighting scheme is necessary for this reason, nor did the PEA identify that external lighting would need to be controlled. Accordingly, I have not included this

Whilst not suggested by the Council a condition requiring the building is only used as holiday accommodation and not as a sole or main place of residence is necessary to ensure the development aligns with policy justification set out in Policy EC11 of the LP for granting permission.

The proposed development would comply with the development plan, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 3176-001 [name]; 3176-013 [name]; and 3176-014 [name].

The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall be similar to those used in the existing building.

No development shall take place until a full surface water drainage scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted and retained as such for the lifetime of the development.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations contained within sections 4.2 to 4.4 of the [name], prepared by [name], dated 12 March 2025. All the recommendations shall be implemented in full according to the specified timescales and retained as such thereafter.

The development shall be occupied as holiday accommodation only and shall not be occupied as a sole or main place of residence or by any persons exceeding a period of 31 days in any calendar year. An up-to-date register shall be kept and be made available for inspection by the local planning authority upon request. The register shall contain details of the names of all of the occupiers of the accommodation, their main home addresses and their date of arrival and departure from the accommodation.

No additional door or window openings, including rooflights, shall be inserted in the building other than those shown on drawing no. 3176-014 [name].

The external timber cladding shall be left to weather and silver naturally.