Appeal 6001782

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. 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 two stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second stage (‘technical details consent’) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these two 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 technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (SWDPR) was adopted following the submission of the appeal and this has superseded the South Worcestershire Development Plan. The main parties were given the opportunity to comment and where these have been received, they have been taken into account.

The main issues of relevance to the appeal are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area including the setting of the [name] listed [address]; and the effect of the proposal on the setting of the Cotswolds National Landscape (NL).

The proposal is for permission in principle and whilst landscaping plans have been submitted there is limited detail concerning the layout of the houses. The appellant mentions that the dwellings would be built following the line of development on [site address] but set back from the houses fronting it but the layout would not necessarily be determined as part of this appeal. Based on the information before me the access would likely be taken from [site address] using the existing access to [site address] House and would pass through what is currently the garden for that dwelling. This first stage identifies that there could be up to five dwellings on the appeal site.

Although the wider parcel of land within which the appeal site sits is described as domestic land, it does not uniformly exhibit a domestic appearance. The garden associated with [site address] House is enclosed by hedges and other boundary treatments that both visually and physically separate it from the wider parcel. This enclosed section does present as garden land; however, the remainder of the site, and most of the appeal site, appears as open grassland interspersed with occasional trees. The field forming the appeal site reads as agricultural land and adjoins other open fields. Combined with the mature landscaping and hedgerows along the boundary and within the wider area, this contributes to the area’s rural character and appearance.

Beckford is a dispersed settlement, with much of its development concentrated along [address] and extending along adjoining roads. Buildings are typically set within generous plots and exhibit considerable variation in design. The appeal site lies some distance from the village core. Nearby development generally follows a linear pattern fronting the highway. While some outbuildings are located to the rear of neighbouring dwellings, these are subordinate in scale and appearance and are visually distinct from the principal buildings.

The Grade II listed [address] lies close to the appeal site and is set back from [site address] behind extensive gardens enclosed by stone walls, substantial trees and hedging. Several smaller buildings are located within its grounds. This arrangement is visually and physically separate from other nearby housing and is not typical of development along [site address] .

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 a 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 National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting.

[address] is a [name] listed former farmhouse constructed in the 17th century from coursed and dressed limestone rubble with ashlar dressings and a stone tiled roof. It is located to the north of the appeal site and is set back from [site address] behind landscaped grounds bound by stone walls. The building has been altered over time and has been divided into five dwellings. Around the building lies its gardens and open fields, including the appeal site, which provide a visual link to its historic use as a farmhouse and its visibility in this landscape also highlights its importance to the area, albeit this has been eroded given the change in use and the subdivision of the building, however, the gardens and open fields contribute to its significance. Consequently, the significance/special interest of the listed building comes from its architecture and historic function.

The appellant’s submission identifies the changes that have occurred within the appeal site and the surroundings over the years, and I acknowledge that there has been a degree of change to the setting of [address] since the 17th century, including the demolition and erection of various buildings in the surrounding area and the construction and removal of a nearby railway.

The submitted Heritage Statement identifies that the appeal site may have been part of the [address]’s original lands but that the appeal site has changed ownership several times and the historic relationship between the listed building and the appeal site is no longer readily perceptible. However, the Heritage Statement does acknowledge that the appeal site makes a very minor contribution to the significance of the [address] as part of its wider rural setting, through views rather than historical association.

While there are trees and vegetation as well as boundary fencing and domestic paraphernalia between the appeal site and the listed building, it is visible from parts of the listed building. Furthermore, as the appeal site and the nearby listed building are visible from the Public Right of Way (PRoW) that passes through the wider field, there is an interconnected visual relationship between the appeal site and the listed building that is enjoyed from the public domain.

[name] acknowledge that the evidential record does not conclusively demonstrate continuous or unified ownership of the appeal site with the [address] over its full history, I do not consider that such proof is required in order for land to contribute to the setting or significance of a listed building. The contribution that setting makes to significance is not confined to demonstrable historic ownership or functional association, but extends to how the asset is experienced and understood within its surroundings, including visually, spatially and historically.

In this case, the [address] is a former farmhouse whose significance derives not only from its architectural fabric but also from its historic role within a rural landscape. The open land around it, including the appeal site, forms part of that wider rural context and remains legible as such in the experience of the place. Even where historic ownership is uncertain or may have changed over time, the physical and visual relationship between the [address] and surrounding open land can nonetheless reinforce an appreciation of its historic agricultural origins.

I have had regard to the appellant’s submission that any historic association between the [address] and the appeal site is no longer readily perceptible, and that the primary contribution of the site is limited and visual. I agree that the site’s contribution arises principally through its role within the wider rural setting rather than through direct historical association. However, I do not accept that the absence of definitive documentary evidence of ownership or use severs its contribution to significance. The setting of a heritage asset is defined by the surroundings in which it is experienced, not solely by land ownership boundaries or documented functional unity.

Moreover, the experience of the [address] from its vicinity, including from publicly accessible routes, continues to be informed by the presence of open land beyond its immediate curtilage. The appeal site forms part of a broader tract of undeveloped land which, when experienced in combination with the landscaping and surrounding fields, allows the listed building to be appreciated as a historically rural farmhouse rather than as an isolated dwelling. This experiential relationship is not dependent on certainty as to historic title, but on the physical and perceptual contribution the land continues to make.

Accordingly, even allowing for the degree of historic change and the erosion of former agricultural use, I find that the appeal site makes a meaningful contribution to the setting of the [address] by reinforcing its rural context.

As noted earlier, most of the appeal site beyond [site address] House’s garden retains a rural character and is visually and physically separated from the development that fronts onto [site address] . Although the built form around the listed building extends a similar depth from [site address] as the appeal proposal would, it is visually distinct from the immediate pattern of linear development.

While the development could be built as a row of houses similar to that on [site address] this would be to the rear of those houses and would not front the road as is typical of the linear frontage development in this location. Moreover, as the proposed buildings would be new dwellings rather than ancillary outbuildings, they would appear visually distinct from the occasional rear outbuildings found behind some nearby properties.

While there may have been houses within the garden of [site address] House, these appear to have now been demolished and thus no longer form part of the character of the area.

There is the development set back from the linear built form on the opposite side of [site address] , however, this appears to relate to a group of previous farm buildings that have been converted. The appellant refers to this as the [address] development which would support this supposition. The arrangement of the buildings generally reflects this. The appeal site extends further back from [site address] than this development and thus development could extend much further from the road than this visually coherent group.

The appeal scheme, positioned to the rear of existing dwellings, would therefore appear at odds with the surrounding linear grain. The construction of up to five dwellings, together with associated infrastructure, would suburbanise much of the site, fundamentally altering its rural character. The proposed landscaping and hedge planting would enhance a positive feature of the wider area. While the proposed landscaping may provide some screening, particularly from the listed building, the development would remain visible, even once established, and thus the suburbanising effect of it would still be appreciable. Although the site is partly screened from within the village and from much of [site address] , there would still be views between existing houses and from the access leading to the proposed dwellings. Furthermore, the development would be clearly visible to users of the PRoW that runs from [site address] towards [address].

The defining characteristic of development along [site address] is not merely its residential use, but its continuous linear frontage directly addressing the highway. Development on the appeal site would be physically separated from that frontage by existing rear gardens and would introduce a second, visually disconnected layer of built form. This spatial discontinuity would be at odds with the established grain of development.

Although the scheme would represent a modest addition to the village and the tree and hedgerow planting would create a vegetated edge around the appeal site, it would nonetheless appear as an incongruous addition that would appear at odds with the linear frontage development and would adversely affect the rural character and appearance of most of the site and its surroundings. Moreover, the proposed development would harm the setting of the [address] by suburbanising land that currently reads as part of that wider rural setting. This would result in harm to the setting and therefore to the significance of the listed building.

Therefore, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area as well as the setting and therefore significance of the [name] listed [address]. Taking into consideration the above matters, I find that the proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the heritage asset but given that this relates to a parcel of land within the buildings wider rural setting and in light of the modest scale of the proposal and the distance and vegetation between the listed building and appeal site, I consider this to be at the lower end of less than substantial harm. In reaching this conclusion, I have given special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building and its setting in accordance with section 66(1) of the Act. Even where harm is limited in degree, the statutory duty requires that such harm is afforded considerable importance and weight in the

Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. This is a matter I shall address later in the decision.

Reference has been made to an application that was approved by the Council for a scheme for five dwellings in Conderton which is within the (NL) as well as the setting of a nearby listed building. As discussed in the [name], R (Midcounties Co-Operation Limited) and [name] there should generally be consistency in decision making. However, each case must be determined on its own merits, and the site circumstances are particular for each case. Whilst the Conderton site was within the setting of a listed building, it is not evident that the application site was of comparable importance to the listed building’s setting as the appeal site. Similarly, based on the limited information I have regarding this application, that scheme involved the demolition of an existing house on the site whereas the appeal site is mostly undeveloped land. These are substantive differences between the two schemes.

That application site was in a different village, and it is not evident that the character of those villages is comparable or that the sites were comparable in regard to their relationship to existing development in the area. Just because development was found to be acceptable within another village in the NL and the setting of a listed building does not mean development would be in all similar circumstances. In this case, the appeal site’s relationship to existing development, the extent of open land affected, and the contribution of that land to the setting of a listed building are materially different, and these differences justify a different

For the reasons given above, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and would harm the setting of the [name] listed [address]. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with [name] 03, 09, 28, 31, 33 and 34 of the SWDPR. These expect development, amongst other matters, to conserve and enhance heritage assets and complement the character of the area.

The appeal site lies within the setting of the NL, and the Framework sets out that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The NL is located to the north, east and south of the appeal site but is separated by large areas of open land and development.

Whilst the site is not within the NL, it is located near to the Teddington and Greet Vale Landscape Character Area (LCA) which forms part of the wider [name]. There are a number of key characteristics that are relevant to the appeal site, including the irregular undulating landscape with hedged fields and woodland cover and sparsely settled agrarian landscape with rural villages and scattered farms and dwellings.

The submitted Landscape and Visual Assessment (LVA) identified several viewpoints from within the NL where the appeal site could be seen. The development would result in the loss of part of an open field, and such hedged fields are a key characteristic of the LCA, however the scheme would result in development next to an existing village and involve the planting of hedges around it. Given the distances between the NL and the appeal site, it is generally viewed alongside the buildings fronting [site address] , and the development of this site would be viewed as part of the existing village in wider views from the NL. Furthermore, the proposed hedges around the site would create a hedged field beyond the site which is a key characteristic of this LCA. Whilst from a localised perspective the proposal would not relate well to the existing linear pattern of development when taking into consideration the limited points from which the appeal site could be seen from the NL and the distances involved, the development of this site would conserve the landscape and scenic beauty as well as the natural beauty of the setting of the NL.

Whilst this conclusion differs from that made by an Inspector who dismissed an earlier appeal on this site in 2024, there is new substantive evidence before me that was not before the Inspector in that case. In this instance, the LVA provides evidence to show the limited impact the scheme would have from a wider landscape perspective. Consequently, it is for these reasons that I have come to a different conclusion on this matter.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposal would conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the NL and would comply with [name] 03, 09, 28, 31, 33 and 34 of the SWDPR. These expect development, amongst other matters, to conserve and enhance the special qualities of the landscape.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

While acknowledging that the Council may not be able to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply in the future, it is well established that appeals must be determined on the basis of the policy framework and evidential position at the time the decision is made. Since the submission of the appeal, the Council has adopted the SWDPR and has demonstrated a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. As the Council can demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites and the relevant policies for the supply of housing are contained within a recently adopted development plan, those policies cannot be regarded as out-of-date for the purposes of footnote 8 to paragraph 11 of the Framework. Accordingly, the test set out in paragraph 11d) of the Framework is not applied in this instance.

The proposed development would deliver up to five dwellings and contribute towards affordable housing. The Council can demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply and has a recently adopted development plan. However, the 16 [name] supports the principle of development in different locations whilst highlighting that there is an acute and entrenched housing crisis and the contribution the scheme would make towards addressing this weighs positively in the balance. While the provision of up to five dwellings attracts positive weight, the quantum of that weight is necessarily informed by the wider housing context. In circumstances where the Council can demonstrate an adequate five-year supply and has a recently adopted development plan, the contribution of a small windfall site makes only a modest contribution to strategic housing objectives. I therefore attribute modest weight to this benefit.

There would be economic benefits during and after construction. The occupiers would also contribute towards the social aspect of the village. There would also be environmental benefits including the proposed hedgerow planting. Taking into consideration the modest scale of the proposal I attribute modest weight to the public benefits.

Great weight is given to the conservation of designated heritage assets, irrespective of the level of harm identified, and that weight must be demonstrably applied to the decision. In this case, the limited but nonetheless tangible erosion of the [address]’s rural setting is a harm which carries statutory significance under section 66(1) of the Act. The fact that the harm falls at the lower end of the less than substantial range informs the balance, but it does not render the harm negligible or reduce the legal weight that must be afforded to it.

I have therefore weighed the public benefits of the proposal, including the provision of up to five dwellings and associated economic, social and environmental benefits, against this specific and identified heritage harm. For the reasons already set out, I find that the benefits, while genuine, are limited in scale and do not outweigh the importance and weight I attach to the harm to the significance of the listed building arising from the change to its setting.

Consequently, the proposal would therefore not accord with [name] 09 and 33 which seeks to ensure that developments conserve and enhance the significance of heritage assets, including their setting.

[name] have found that the proposal would not harm the setting of the NL, it would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and this weighs against the proposal.

Given that the update to the Framework is still in draft and may be subject to changes only limited weight can be given to the policies within it. Policy S5 j)i) would support development which would address an unmet need where it would be well related to an existing settlement and for the reasons given above, this scheme would not be well related.

The need to weigh the public benefits against the harm to the significance of designated heritage assets set out in Policy HE6 is similar to that already set out in the current Framework and would not alter the above conclusions in this regard.

Taking into account the conclusions on the first main issue I have found conflicts with relevant development plan policies. There are various other development plan policies with which the proposal would comply such as those related to the NL. However, the objectives of the development plan must be read as a whole and the conflicts I have identified result in a conflict with the development plan when it is considered as a whole. No material considerations of sufficient weight have been identified that would justify a decision other than in accordance with the

Concerns with the Council’s handling of the pre-application and application process are outside of the remit of this appeal.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.