Appeal 6001502

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for erection of an agricultural workshop at [site address] , Lypiatt, Stroud [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name].25/0084/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 24-750 004, 24-750 003, 24-750 002 and 24-750 006.

From the evidence submitted, and from my site visit, the development has commenced. I have dealt with the appeal on a retrospective basis. However, this has no bearing on my assessment of the development before me.

As part of the appeal the appellant has submitted a Rural Planning Appraisal1. Although this is new information and represents a change to what was considered by the Council at the application stage, it was available to the Council at the appeal and they have provided comments on it. Consequently, having regard to the relevant caselaw, no party would be prejudiced if I were to take this information into account in my decision.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst changes to the structure and wording are proposed, these could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

The main issues are: • whether the building is essential to the maintenance or enhancement of sustainable farming in the district; and 1 [name] - Rural Planning Appraisal, dated November 2025 • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including the Cotswold National Landscape and the setting of heritage assets.

The appeal building and [address] lies outside of any of the defined settlement boundaries identified in the Stroud District Local Plan, adopted November 2015 (the LP). Policy CS15 of the LP seeks to protect the quality of the countryside and limits development outside of settlements except in certain circumstances. Subsection 1) of Policy CS15 allows for development that is essential to the maintenance or enhancement of a sustainable farming or forestry enterprise.

The appeal building forms part of an agricultural unit comprising farmland and vineyards. The farm is an established use and the vineyards had been planted by the time of my visit, although they are not yet producing grapes for wine. There are two other existing buildings within the appellant’s ownership, a small metal agricultural store building and a stone building. The metal building is used for storage and maintenance of large vehicles and large equipment due to its roller shutter door. At my visit, the stone building was in use for general storage but is not secure or weathertight. I am also aware of a permission for a new agricultural storage building, elsewhere on the farm.

The appellant intends to use the appeal building for a variety of uses, mainly associated with storage of equipment and a workshop for the recently planted vineyards. At the time of my visit there were small pieces of equipment stored in the building and I also saw that a forge had been installed.

Although other buildings within the farm could be used for tractor and equipment storage there are other uses proposed, including the propagation of vines, storage of medicines and chemicals, the forge, and staff welfare facilities that are not provided for within any of the existing buildings in the ownership of the farm. The floorplans submitted indicate a small WC/shower room. The other welfare facilities proposed would be capable of being provided in the appeal building, even though the floor plans do not indicate the location of these uses.

I acknowledge that the appeal is not supported by a business plan or full details of the number of staff employed by the farm, or whether these are part time, seasonal or full time staff. However, there is nothing within the wording of Policy CS15, or its supporting paragraphs, which suggest a business plan is required to justify an essential need for a new farm building. Nevertheless, the submitted Rural Planning Appraisal provides detailed information of the beef cattle and the vinicultural operations at the farm and indicates future growth plans. The document provides information on the business to justify a need for additional space, especially for propagation of crops and storage of chemicals. Moreover, even if the farm only had one employee it would be reasonable to expect welfare facilities to be available for that employee.

The appellant has clearly set out a number of different uses that they could use the building for but advise that it would predominately be used for the vinicultural use which has recently been established at the farm. I also have no compelling evidence that the farm is not sustainable and that the viniculture is not diversification to support the viability of the farm. The appeal building, therefore, enhances the existing farm.

Additional information has also been provided to confirm the works required to upgrade the stone barn. To provide for the proposed uses the work would be prohibitively expensive and I have no compelling evidence to disagree with the appellant’s costs on this matter. Alternative uses, such as the indicated hotel or restaurant use, would be profit earning uses that might justify the financial outlay of repairing and renovating the stone barn. That the appellant would consider profitable uses for this building is not evidence that it could be used for agricultural or vinicultural uses.

The recently approved agricultural storage building is some distance from the appeal building. It was approved under Part 6 of the General Permitted Development Order (as amended) as a new agricultural building for uses including the storage of animal feed and farm machinery. The appellant has also advised that it would be used for wintering animals, if necessary. It, therefore, has a different function to the appeal building which is mainly proposed to be used for viniculture uses.

The existing metal storage building is proposed to be used for viniculture storage, once the large farm machinery is moved to the new building. The existing smaller building is constrained by its position between the circus building, the stone building and the internal road and I have no compelling evidence that it would be possible to extend this building to provide sufficient space for all the functions the appeal building is proposed to serve.

I acknowledge that the appellant’s suggested uses for the appeal building have changed over time. However, this was as a result of changes in the farming practices at the site and also seeking to overcome the Council’s concerns relating to the need for the building.

While at the site visit, I also looked around the buildings being used by [name], which are off the same access and also known as [address]. There are historic links between the appellant and [name] and there would be business links if the wine and meat from the farm is to be sold in the circus restaurant. However, the main circus building, and other buildings used by the circus, are in separate ownership. That the circus is using agricultural buildings that it may not have consent to use is not for me to consider as part of this appeal.

Furthermore, although there are historic and business links, the circus is operated as a separate business within its own buildings. The main circus building provides clean office space, meeting rooms, and welfare facilities for its own staff, alongside performance space. It would not be appropriate to require the circus operators to allow their premises to be used by staff from a separate business on the farm.

Overall, given the evidence provided in the planning application and the additional Rural Planning Appraisal I find that the appeal building is essential to the enhancement of sustainable farming at the enterprise. For the above reasons, I find that the appeal building would comply with the exception in subsection 1) of Policy CS15 of the LP and do not find conflict with the policy.

The building has been constructed of blockwork with a sheet metal roof. The proposal includes cladding the exterior walls with timber weather boarding and increasing the size of one of the doorways to provide a double width door to accommodate equipment. The main part of the building is a simple rectangular form, single storey, structure with a pitched roof. However, a lean-to structure has been provided on two sides of the building which has large window openings along most of its two external sides.

The appeal building would have more of a domestic appearance than the existing steel framed metal clad agricultural buildings within the farm ownership. However, I also saw another timber building with a domestic scale window near to the appeal building and the large circus building is timber clad with numerous windows in the gable end facing towards the appeal site. Although the circus building is in separate ownership the appeal building would be read as part of [site address] , along with the circus building.

The presence of other timber clad buildings with domestic scale openings on the wider farm means that, although the design is unusual for an agricultural building, it would not be incongruous or out of keeping with its setting. From the evidence before me the domestic appearance of the building has been simplified and reduced from the previous proposal for an agricultural workers dwelling and the current appeal is not the same building.

Furthermore, the large windows in the wraparound, albeit domestic in appearance, also allow the building to have a high level of natural light which would be beneficial for propagation of vines and also for general working conditions and welfare of staff.

Having visited the site and from the evidence before me the stone building is a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) due to its age, traditional characteristics, and the contribution it makes to the agricultural character of the farm. Nevertheless, the stone building would remain the prominent feature of the cluster of buildings in this part of the farm. The appeal building, even with its domestic window forms, wraparound section, and timber cladding, would not detract from the historic character of the stone building and would be sympathetic to its setting, retaining the positive contribution the stone building makes to the agricultural character of the farm. The appeal building would not result in substantial harm or loss of the significance of the NDHA.

The appellant has also drawn my attention to the history of the appeal site in that it has previously contained a number of different buildings and storage uses. I also noted the existing small metal storage building that is within the setting of the stone building. Overall, the setting of the stone building has historically contained uses and structures and the appeal building reflects that history.

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (‘the Act’), requires the decision maker, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest. The designated heritage asset in this case is [name], a Grade II Listed building.

The setting in which [name] is currently experienced is contained. This contained setting, along with the distances between the appeal site and the listed building and the intervening landscaping, limit the opportunity for views of the appeal site and the listed building together. As such, the development would preserve the way the setting of the listed building is experienced and therefore preserve the significance of the listed building. Consequently, I find no harm to the setting of the designated heritage asset and that the appeal would preserve the setting of the listed building. In coming to this decision have had regard to the Act.

Policy ES7 of the LP gives priority to the conservation and enhancement of the natural and scenic beauty of the National Landscape (formerly the Area of Outstanding National Beauty). Section 245 of the [name] and Regeneration Act 2023 (the LURA) amended the duty in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 in relation to a National Landscape (NL) to require relevant authorities, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to or so as to affect land in a NL, to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of it.

The landscape within a NL is sensitive to change. However, the building is not prominent in the landscape and is part of a cluster of buildings on [address]. The development would be read alongside other buildings and structures within the farm complex and would, therefore, conserve the natural beauty of the NL.

For the above reasons, although the appeal building has a domestic appearance it is not out of keeping with other buildings across the farm and would, therefore, not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the Cotswold National Landscape and the setting of heritage assets. Consequently, I find that the development would comply with the requirements of Policies ES10, CP14(5), CP15(i) and ES12 of the LP which, collectively, require development to be of high quality and well designed, which protects, conserves and enhances the built and natural environment, is of an appropriate design and appearance, which is respectful of the surroundings, including the built environment and heritage, not have an adverse impact on heritage assets and their setting, and protect and enhance, where appropriate, the heritage significance and setting of locally identified heritage assets.

The site lies within the zone of influence for the Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation and the Rodborough Common Special Area of Conservation (the SACs). The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations) requires the decision maker to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) where there are likely significant effects from the development, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. This responsibility falls to me as the competent authority in the context of this appeal.

As an agricultural storage building the development would not likely increase recreational use of either of the SACs and, therefore, the development would not result in significant effects, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, to either of the SACs. I, therefore, do not need to consider this matter further or carry out an AA.

The Council has indicated the conditions that it considers would be appropriate. I have considered these in light of the Planning Practice Guidance. A condition specifying the approved plans is necessary as this provides certainty. However, a condition requiring the commencement of the development within 3 years is not necessary as the development has commenced.

The Parish Council requested conditions to ensure that the building is used as an agricultural building and not for residential purposes. The appeal before me is for an agricultural building and the approval would be for the development as described. Conversion to residential use would require planning permission or consideration under the General Permitted Development Order. There is, therefore, no need to impose a condition as it would not be relevant to the development and would not meet the tests for conditions.

For the reasons given above, and taking into account all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 1 above.