Appeal 6001647

The appeal is dismissed.

A legal agreement has been submitted which seeks to secure the proposal as a self-build development and secure a financial contribution with respect to the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation (SAC). This is discussed below.

The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area including whether the proposal would conserve and enhance the natural beauty and special qualities of the Cotswold National Landscape.

The appeal property sits back from the highway in a large plot, with a substantial lawned garden area to the side. The siting of the dwelling at the edge of the built settlement means that the land immediately neighbouring to the south is open undeveloped space and woodland. Whilst there is a mature hedgerow on the boundary, there are clear views across both the appeal site and countryside. The large appeal site and its spacious open character appears more closely related with this surrounding rural countryside rather than the more tightly arranged layout of properties in the immediate vicinity, befitting its location as an area of transition between the built development in the settlement and the surrounding countryside.

The submitted evidence, including confirmation from the Cotswolds National Landscape Board, shows that the boundary of the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL) runs through the appeal site, and the location of the proposed dwelling would sit within it. The special qualities of the CNL include (but are not limited to) its limestone geology, elevated arable landscapes, river valleys, dry stone walls and ancient woodland1. The attractive landscape of the adjacent open land and the appeal site display some of these characteristics and therefore contribute positively in some way to the wider scenic beauty of the CNL.

The proposed dwelling would introduce significant and incongruous built form into this open space, harming its spacious natural character and diminishing the contribution that this part of the appeal site makes to the rural character and appearance of the area. Landscaping would not obscure the dwelling from every view and would not mitigate for its visual impact and effect upon the surrounding character.

The development would therefore harm the established character an appearance of the area and would neither conserve nor enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the CNL. It would conflict with Policies ES7 and HC1 of the Stroud District Local Plan (2015) (LP) which collectively seek to ensure that development on the edge of settlement sites would not appear as an intrusion into the countryside, and that development within National Landscape is sympathetic to, and complements, landscape character.

The appeal site lies within the 12.6 km core catchment zone of the [name], and in accordance with LP Policy ES6, appropriate mitigation would need to be secured for such development, to maintain the ecological integrity of the sites.

The appellant has indicated willingness to make a financial contribution toward what is considered to be appropriate mitigation, and a legal agreement to this effect has been submitted. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I am not pursuing this matter further because it could not lead me to a different decision.

The entrance to the site is located within the Woodmancote Conservation Area (CA). I observed that the character and appearance and therefore the special interest and significance of the CA are in part derived from the quality of the traditional and historic housing stock that is located largely along the A4135 road. The proposed dwelling, given its siting back from the highway, would not impact upon these qualities, and would be seen in views from and towards the CA in the context of nearby dwellings of mixed character and appearance. There would therefore be no harm to the character and appearance of the CA.

The submitted evidence refers to the presence of [name] listed buildings within the vicinity of the site, Woodmancote Farmhouse2, Farm Building to West of Woodmancote Farmhouse3 and 72 Woodmancote4. The special interest and significance of these assets largely stem from their historic and architectural interest and group value. Their setting has evidently evolved over time to include the surrounding mixed built form and contributes little to the significance of these assets. Given the position and nature of the proposed development and works, the settings of these designated heritage assets would be preserved and their significance would not be harmed. It is noteworthy that the Council have not raised any objection in this respect. 1 As set out in the Cotswolds National Landscape Management Plan 2023 – 2025 2 [name]: 1220933 3 [name]: 1220934 4 [name]: 1220935

It is set out that the proposal is required as the existing dwelling is no longer suitable for the appellants health needs. The Equalities Act 2010 sets out the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. This involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not. Amongst other things, for the purposes of the Act protected characteristics includes health/disability.

I have given the appellant’s personal circumstances very careful consideration and due regard. Whilst the development offers some benefits to the appellant there is no compelling evidence that this particular development in this location is required to meet the appellant needs, and that there is no prospect of the existing dwelling or a previous permission for a dwelling elsewhere in the garden5 being modified to be suitable, notwithstanding any other nearby property. As such, in this instance, this benefit carries little weight.

The proposal would result in 1 additional unit of accommodation which would contribute to the Government’s broader objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. Given the location of the site, it has good access to services and facilities. The development would make efficient use of the site, as supported by the Framework. The proposal would also result in a short-term economic benefits arising from the construction process. Economic and social benefits are also likely to arise from the occupation of the new dwellings. However, given the quantum of development in this case, each of these benefits would be modest.

The Framework supports small sites to come forward for self-build and custom-build housing. The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016) states that an authority must give development permission for the carrying out of self-build and custom housebuilding on enough serviced plots of land to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding in the authority's area in respect of each base period.

There is some dispute as to whether the Council is meeting its statutory duty, however, given the quantum of development in this instance, even if there is a deficit as put forward by the appellant, I give this matter modest weight in favour of the proposal.

It is common ground that the Council is not able to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Paragraph 11d of the Framework is applicable due to the Council’s housing supply position. It sets out that permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed.

In this light, Footnote 7 of paragraph 11 of the Framework specifically refers to land designated as National Landscape. The policies in the Framework that seek to preserve and enhance National Landscapes provide clear reasons for refusing the development. The Framework does not therefore indicate in favour of the scheme. 5 Application reference S.21/2400/FUL

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty set out under the Equality Act 2010. The harm caused by the appeal development outweighs its benefits in terms of eliminating discrimination against persons with the protected characteristics of disability, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons and fostering good relations between them and others.

The identified harm means the proposal would not accord with the development plan policies when read as a whole. The benefits and other considerations are of insufficient weight to justify granting planning permission contrary to the