Appeal 6001661

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for the Construction of 1-4 Dwellings at [site address] , [site address] , Painswick [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application S.25/1410/PIP.

An application for costs against Stroud District Council is made by [name]. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

I have removed wording from the banner above which does not describe development.

The proposal is for permission in principle. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second, ‘technical details consent’ stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent TDC application if permission in principle is granted.

The Council’s refusal reason raises issue with the effect of the proposal on the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and [name].

The Council has subsequently confirmed that the site is not within the zone of influence of the [name] and this was referred to in error. As such, I will not consider this issue further.

A Unilateral undertaking has been submitted with the appeal. This relates to mitigation in relation to the [name]. This is discussed further below.

As such, the main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, with specific reference to the effects on the [name].

Certain types of development are excluded from the grant of permission in principle. A proposal that would constitute habitats development is one of the exclusions. The PPG explains that this means for sites where development is likely to have a significant effect on a qualifying European site or a European offshore marine site without any mitigating measures in place, the local planning authority should ensure an appropriate assessment (AA) has been undertaken before consideration of the grant of permission in principle.

PPG sets out that if the local planning authority is satisfied, after taking account of mitigation measures in the AA and concluding that the development will not adversely affect the integrity of the protected site (and so the proposal would not fall within the definition of habitats development), then, subject to compliance with other statutory requirements regarding the permission in principle process, the permission in principle can be granted 1.

PPG 2 also sets out that whilst planning obligations cannot be secured at the permission in principle stage, local planning authorities may agree planning obligations at the technical details consent stage (i.e. when planning permission is granted) where the statutory tests have been met. This approach is in line with the numerous appeal decisions referenced by the appellant.

The Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is a European designation recognised by the Habitats Regulations. The SAC consists of ancient beech woodland, some secondary woodland and a small area of unimproved grassland. Evidence in the [name] Strategy (RMS) indicates that public access is having an adverse effect on the habitat of the SAC owing to trampling, erosion, fire risk and contamination. Visitor surveys show people living within 15.4km of the SAC are more likely to visit it for recreational purposes. It follows that additional residential development within that zone would have occupants likely to increase adverse recreational pressure on the SAC.

The appeal site lies within 15.4km of the SAC. The RMS gives details of necessary mitigation for the effects of new development and its approach includes strategic access management and monitoring to make the SAC more resilient to increased recreation, as well as suitable alternative natural greenspace away from the SAC. It similarly establishes financial contributions from development to fund those measures. Based on the evidence before me, I have no reason to doubt that the 1 Paragraph 005 [name]: 58-005-20190315 2 Paragraph: 022 [name]: 58-[phone] measures set out for the SAC would be successful in mitigating the effects of the proposal.

Given the nature of the PIP process, as set out above, a legal agreement cannot be utilised at this stage to secure any necessary contributions. Nevertheless, a UU has been submitted which would secure the appropriate financial contribution. Natural England have been consulted as part of the appeal process and have not objected to the proposal subject to securing the financial contribution.

The submitted UU, based on a template provided by the Council, would ensure that the required financial contributions towards mitigation would be paid prior to the commencement of development, should TDC be granted. This would provide sufficient certainty that an adverse effect on integrity would be avoided.

I am satisfied that the proposal, either alone or in combination with other schemes, would therefore have no adverse effect on the integrity of the [name]. There is sufficient certainty that the adverse effect on the integrity of the habitats site and its qualifying features would be avoided, in accordance with the PPG. Consequently, when undertaking an appropriate assessment, I am satisfied that the development would not constitute habitats development and the scheme would accord with the PPG and requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, in addition to the protection of the [name] goals of Policy ES6 of the Stroud District Local Plan (2015).

The submitted evidence refers to the presence of [name] listed buildings within the vicinity of the site, including ‘[name] 3’, ‘Stoneleigh 4’ and ‘The Manse with Gatepiers 5’ on [address]. The special interest and significance of these assets largely stem from their historic and architectural interest, but are also derived, in part, from their domestic and village settings. Given the position and nature of the proposed development and works, including the existing car garage business form and use, 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.

The appeal site also lies within the Painswick Conservation Area (CA). I observed that the significance of the CA as a whole, in part derives from the rich and cohesive number of vernacular historic buildings that denote its evolution.

Given the largely modern nondescript and functional commercial character of the existing appeal building does not contribute positively to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole. As such, a sensitively designed residential scheme would not harm the character and appearance of the wider CA.

Given the lack of detail in this stage, consideration of the effect on matters such as the retention of existing stone elements, archaeology, drainage, highways impact and parking are for consideration at TDC stage. 3 [name]: 1152260 4 [name]: 1091030 5 [name]: 1152271

The special qualities of the Cotswolds National Landscape are set out in the Cotswolds National Landscape Management Plan (2025) (Management Plan). The appeal site does not directly contribute to any of the key attributes listed. Given this, the modest scale of the proposal and location of the proposal within the settlement surrounded by built form, in this case, the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Cotswold National Landscape would be conserved and unharmed.

The Council has suggested conditions, however PPG 6 indicates that it is not possible to impose conditions as the terms of any permission in principle must only include site location, type of development and amount.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.