Appeal 6001811

The appeal is dismissed.

I have removed the word retrospective from the description of development above, as it does not describe development. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I saw on site that the hard-standing and a turnout paddock, 2 stables and muck heap are in place, however the two stable buildings are next to each other, which is not accordance with the proposed plans before me. I have considered the appeal on the basis that the development therefore has already partly taken place.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. The Council has not raised harm to the Green Belt as an issue, and having regard to the exception to inappropriate development contained with paragraph 154 b) and 154 h ii) of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’), and on the basis of the evidence before me, I have no reason to find differently in this regard.

Accordingly, the main issue for this case is the effect of the proposed development on the setting of a [name] (Battle of Lansdown).

The appeal site lies in close proximity to the site of the Battle of [address], one of 47 important battlefields1 identified on English Heritage’s Register of [name], which is intended to offer protection and promote better understanding of their significance. The wider [name] site designation however extends across a much larger area and incorporates the application site. 1 entry number 1000017

The battlefield is associated with the [name] of the mid 17th century and was fought on 5th July 1643 between the armies of [name] and the Royalist army under [name].

It appears there is still some uncertainty about exactly where, within the [name], some events took place. The appeal statement sets out that the appeal site is positioned well away from the key action areas and interpretable landforms associated with the battle. Nevertheless, Historic England guidance2 notes that events taking place beyond the area of engagement often had a dramatic influence on the outcome and significance of a battle. The appellant does not dispute the comments from the Battlefields Trust, which claims that the appeal site ‘(or at the very least its immediate surroundings) was part of the deployment (moving backward and forward) of Royalist forces, including an initial retreat under Parliamentarian attack.’

Moreover, whilst some alterations to the wider site have taken pace such as to field boundaries, the loss of historic trackways and incremental agricultural and equestrian activity3, as set out within the official list entry, the landscape of the time had much in common with today, making it possible to trace and appreciate the unfolding events of the battle. It retains its character and appearance as a largely undeveloped, open, rural landscape. Consequently, even if the appeal site is peripheral to the main events of the battle, and even though some limited changes have occurred in the meantime, an appreciation of this important battle is still possible, especially when looking from elevated land. The significance of this [name] therefore lies in its historic interest and importance to the civil war, topography, its landscape, and its archaeology.

The appeal site, without the existing development, would be part of the wider open undeveloped predominantly rural landscape. Whilst lacking archaeological battlefield features4, its rural and pastoral appearance maintained a coherence and discernible relationship with the historic interest and landscape of the wider battlefield. This helped support an understanding of historic character and as such, whilst modest, it contributed positively to the significance of [name].

The development has introduced a stable block and muck heap, along with hardstanding, which supports the long-standing equestrian function of the wider estate. Nevertheless, whilst I observed a horse gallop track on the opposite side of the road, it is some distance away from the main complex, and appears visually set apart as an isolated development, some distance from the nearest obvious built form.

The introduction of this scale of hardstanding, extending the full width of the field parcel, even if it is a standard equestrian all-weather surface, and built form in this location diminishes the previous pastoral verdant character. Whilst evidently equestrian in character and located at the edge of the field, the visible and legible relationship, historic connection and understanding between the appeal site and wider battlefield area is diminished.

[name] observed that these harmful effects are not readily visible from the public domain due to the existing vegetation, hedgerows and trees, it alters the 2 [name], 2017 3 Setting Impact Assessment, Context Planning April 2024 4 A Desk-Based Assessment prepared by [name] (December 2023) & [name] (June 2024) authenticity of how the asset is experienced and lessens the positive contribution that the battlefield’s immediate setting makes to its significance, as well as reducing the ability to appreciate that significance.

Limited details of the approvals on nearby [address] (PK14/1701/F and PK14/3566/RVC) including their exact location, are provided, which prevents direct comparison. However, the development description refers to a change of use of existing buildings and land, and engineering operations for the formation of gallops and erection of haybarn, with the later application relating to conditions. As such, they do not appear to be comparable to the proposal in front of me, and do not provide justification for harmful development in this location.

Given the fairly localised nature of the works relative to the wider designated site, I find the harm to the heritage asset to be at a low level of ‘less than substantial’.

There would be some economic benefits brought about through the investment into the rural area and the construction phase. Given the scale of the works, these benefits would each be small.

It is stated that the hardstanding allows safe turning and parking close to the access and improves day-to-day management of the site. The submitted evidence indicates that there have been no recorded highway safety incidents in this location in the past 24 years, and as such this benefit carries little weight in favour of the appeal. Even if the development is reversable, this does not justify the existing harm that I have found.

There is also no substantive evidence that the animal welfare benefit and equestrian management of the development, the ongoing stewardship of the rural landscape nor the possible provision of an information panel are dependent on this development in this isolated position. As such, these each carry modest weight. Similarly, the benefit to the family in terms of improved facilities also carries modest weight in favour of the proposal.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates that, when considering the impact on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. On balance, in giving considerable importance and weight to the harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset, I find that this would not be outweighed by the public benefits that the proposal would generate.

Consequently, the harm identified to the significance of the designated heritage asset has not been supported by clear and convincing justification. The works therefore would fail to satisfy the historic environment conservation and enhancement policies of the Framework. There is also conflict with Policies CS1 and CS9 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-2027 (2013) and Policies PSP1 and PSP17 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan Policies, Sites and Places Plan (2017), insofar as these require high quality design that takes into account existing features of landscape and ensure that heritage assets are conserved, respected and enhanced.

The application site is located within the Cotswolds National Landscape. It is set within a wider undeveloped and pastoral landscape that are characterised by isolated rural development, and the equestrian character of the development does not appear incongruous in this context.

The development therefore conserves and enhances the Cotswolds National Landscape.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. [name]