Appeal 6001956

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council considers the appeal should have been dealt with under the householder development process. Due to the appellant not owning all the appeal site and the use of the property as a holiday let, I am satisfied that a valid appeal has been made. It is not for this decision to make a determination on the processes previous applications and appeals were dealt under.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the special scientific interest of the Cotswold Water Park Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached holiday lodge, its grounds located on the edge of Lake 161, and a section of lake edge. Although the holiday lodge and its semi-detached pair do not have direct access onto the lake, numerous properties in the vicinity do.

The proposal is to construct a fixed pontoon/deck accessible from the existing deck of the holiday lodge. It would be built into the bank of the lake and extend over it to provide access to the water. It would be nearly as wide as the appeal site, with new reed planting at each side. The lake and its bank are part of the SSSI.

An SSSI is a nationally important site that has been designated under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) by Natural England for its special interest by reason of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features. The appellant’s [name] (PEA) confirms that the SSSI’s special interest is linked to its capability to support a large assemblage of 1 As identified on drawing 725/400/B water birds, a diverse assemblage of breeding lowland open water birds on the open water, and the lakes margins and scrub as well as various aquatic plants.

The Cotswold District Local Plan (LP) Policy EN9 states that development that is likely to have an adverse effect upon the special features of nationally designated nature conservation sites and / or the national networks of SSSIs, will not be permitted unless the benefits of the development clearly outweigh that impact. Whilst LP Policy SP5 which deals with development in the Cotswold Water Park, amongst other things, requires the protection and enhancement of biodiversity. [name] EN1 and EN8 support these requirements.

It is recognised the PEA is some years old. But it confirms that the lake bank within the appeal site includes a narrow grass strip, common reed, some other fauna species and a large area of soil, rocks and plastic netting which has been exposed by erosion. This aligns with my observations on site.

Paragraph 4.2 of the PEA says that the proposal would result in the permanent loss of marginal vegetation around the lake but concludes that this would be negligible. Nevertheless, as the marginal vegetation is part of the special interest of the SSSI it is important any adverse impact, no matter how small, is negated or offset.

The PEA, in paragraph 4.8, goes on to state that there is no opportunity to offset this loss of marginal vegetation within the appeal site but provisionally states a financial contribution could be made to the Cotswold Lakes Trust to enhance such flora elsewhere within the SSSI. However, the level of contribution has not been quantified and no mechanism to secure such an obligation has been submitted.

It is recognised that sufficient measures to ensure the potential pollutants from the construction and maintenance of the proposal could be avoided and these could be secured by condition2, but this would not negate the harm identified.

Accordingly, it can only be concluded that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the flora of the SSSI, which cannot be adequately mitigated.

The appellant considers that the installation of the proposal could prevent further erosion of the lake’s bank. This maybe the case, however it has not been shown how the proposed dock/pontoon, which would require permanent alteration of the bank construction and extend over it to the water, would have a lesser impact on marginal vegetation than the existing erosion. As a benefit of the proposal, and in conjunction with the proposed reed planting, and the gains the proposal would have for the private enjoyment and business model of the appellant, this would attract only limited weight. And in my mind, it cannot be concluded that these benefits of would clearly outweigh the harm identified.

The proposal would, therefore, fail to protect the special scientific interest of the SSSI and would not comply with [name] SP5, EN1, EN8 and EN9.

No harm has been found in relation to flooding, safety and security, and character and appearance. However, a lack of harm, by definition, cannot weigh for or against a proposal. 2 PEA paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6

Concerns have been raised relating to neighbours’ living conditions, the cutting of existing reeds, and the use of the deck/pontoon for swimming. The appeal is being dismissed for other reasons, so these matters have not been pursued further.

That the majority of properties in the vicinity of the appeal site have pontoons, that the appeal property was bought without one, and that the managing agent assured the applicant one could be installed, does not affect the planning merits of the case. This is also the case with concerns relating to precedent and the requirements of management company agreements on leaseholders.

For the reasons given above the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no sufficiently weighted material considerations, including the Framework, which would indicate a decision otherwise. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.