Appeal 6002240

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues relevant to this appeal are: • The effect of the proposal on the Avening Conservation Area (CA); and • Whether sufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the [name] (BNG) objective can be met and discharged.

The CA incorporates the two historic cores of Avening and includes elements of the surrounding landscape that contribute to the village’s setting. Its importance is closely linked to its positioning within a valley, shaped by the river that flows through it. This watercourse enabled early industrial activity, which has left a lasting influence on the area’s character. While the [address] has a distinctly active and urban character, areas beyond it are more rural in character. Development within the village is irregular and responds to the valley’s topography, with buildings arranged along the contours. Vegetation, open land and green spaces are often more prominent than built form, and roads are typically bound by stone walls, hedges and banks, as identified in the [name].

In this context, the appeal site forms part of a site identified as having landscape value and as important green open space (the Designated site) on the [name]. Its significance lies in its open and undeveloped character, which contributes to the rural qualities at the edge of the CA and to wider views across the valley. The site is enclosed by a dry-stone wall and timber fencing and allows views up the valley towards grassland and mature trees. While there are materials associated with nearby construction works, there it is not evident that these will remain, and importantly this material is not permanent built form and thus the site continues to read as part of an open area.

The appellant contends that the character of [address] has evolved since the Avening Conservation Area Statement was published in 2000 and that the site should be viewed in the context of surrounding development, with limited wider visibility. I acknowledge that change has occurred. However, having regard to the [name], the evidence before me and my site inspection, I find that the site remains part of a visually appreciable area of open land.

Owing to its proximity to [address], the appeal site is clearly visible from this vantage point. The land rises from [address] towards the site and continues across the valley beyond, resulting in the site forming part of a visually prominent area. This location represents the transitional edge of the village, where built development becomes more sporadic and open land plays a defining role in the character of the area. When viewed from Sunground, on the opposite side of the village and across the valley, the appeal site and the wider designated site are again perceived as a distinct parcel of land leading to the top of the valley, bounded by residential development on either side but itself remaining largely free of built form, aside from temporary material storage associated with ongoing construction. Whilst there are dwellings in front of the appeal site, these do not fully screen views of the site from Sunground, in part due to the steep gradient of the valley.

Based on my observations and the evidence before me, I consider that the site forms part of a broader expanse of open land which is appreciable both from [address] and in wider views across the valley. Whilst visibility may vary depending on viewpoint, the contribution of the site to the character of the area is not solely dependent on uninterrupted views, but also on the perception of openness within this part of the CA.

The proposal is for a single-storey dwelling that would be modest in scale with a simple, linear design, located towards the rear of the site. It would have a shared access and garage with [site address] , and the garden would wrap around it. It would be built from natural stone with timber cladding and an artificial stone tiled roof. The materials and the retention of the walls would be consistent with other development nearby.

Notwithstanding these positive aspects, the proposal would introduce new built form into a site whose contribution to the CA is derived from its openness and undeveloped character. Although the site is of a considerable size and the proposed dwelling would be modest in scale, with a substantial garden retained around the building, the development would nonetheless introduce new built form into the designated site. While there are the remains of a building on site, this amounts to low level walls that are very limited in scale, and the proposed dwelling would have a significantly greater impact on the openness of the area in comparison. There are dwellings around the appeal site and when viewed from Sunground the proposed dwelling would be seen alongside them, however, the appeal site forms part of the designated site that’s role is a break in built form at the edge of the village. The development on the site would erode the site’s role as a break in built form at the edge of the village and it would introduce built form into an area where openness and an undeveloped character are key features that positively contribute to the character and appearance of the CA, as well as to the wider valley views.

The site is bound by timber fencing, and the appellant suggests that the site could be enclosed through planting or other boundary treatments, which could reduce its openness in any event. Whilst such works may be possible, they would not have the same effect as a building. Boundary treatments typically retain a degree of visual permeability and do not introduce the same degree of permanence, massing and domestic activity associated with a dwelling.

The Council identify that the detailed design of the dwelling and the materials proposed would be appropriate in the wider context. Taking into account the varied scale, design and siting of houses locally but with a consistent use of materials, the design of the dwelling in isolation would be in keeping with the character of other buildings nearby in the CA. Furthermore, the scheme would retain the boundary wall around the site which would preserve a feature that contributes towards the significance of the CA. However, this does not overcome the fundamental concern arising from the introduction of built form within an area where openness is a key characteristic contributing to the significance of the CA. Whilst single storey in scale and modest in size with much of the appeal site retained as garden land, the dwelling would fundamentally alter the character of the site and erode the openness of it. Consequently, the proposal would fail to preserve features that positively contribute towards the significance of the CA as a whole.

Reference is made in the appeal statement to the replacement of a garage on site but based on what I saw and the information before me, this garage has already been replaced by a new garage which is intended to be shared between [site address] and the appeal property. As such, the benefits of demolishing the previous garage to the character and appearance of the CA have already been secured.

A previous appeal for a single dwelling on the site found that the development of the site would harm the openness of the site and the contribution this makes to the significance of the CA. While the current proposal is smaller and positioned closer to the rear boundary, and would therefore be less prominent, it would nonetheless result in the erosion of the site’s open character and cause harm to the significance of the CA. Consequently, whilst the scheme before me would have a less harmful effect than the dismissed scheme, it would still cause harm to a

Towards the rear of [site address] is a large dwelling currently under construction at [address], which was recently granted planning permission by the Council. While this development is located further upslope within the valley and to the rear of the appeal site, it sits behind existing residential properties rather than within the designated site. By contrast, the appeal site forms part of an uninterrupted area of open space extending towards the upper slopes of the valley. Furthermore, based on the planning history for that site there were substantial buildings previously on the land and that the approved dwelling largely replaced these former structures. The demolished buildings had already enclosed that section of the valley, and the newly approved dwelling has been constructed in broadly the same location, effectively maintaining the established degree of containment and visual impact associated with the previous development.

In contrast, the appeal site lies within the designated site and remains predominantly open, aside from the residual remains of a former building. Consequently, there are clear and substantive differences between the approved scheme to the rear and the proposal currently under consideration, particularly in terms of their respective impacts on openness and the character of this edge of village location.

A further dwelling has been approved by the Council at [address], located within the designated site but positioned further down the valley in a less visually prominent location than the appeal site in wider valley views, even when taking into account the proposed access track and removal of the occupancy condition. Although the approved dwelling and associated gabion wall would be visible from a nearby public right of way, the scheme comprises a single-storey, part-subterranean building, situated with existing dwellings behind it, which serves to limit its visual impact.

In light of its siting, visibility, and design, there are substantive differences between that scheme and the proposal before me. While the appeal proposal would result in a lower site coverage than the [address] development, this does not alter my overall assessment of the differing contribution each site makes to the character and appearance of the CA. Accordingly, I am satisfied that there are clear and cogent reasons for reaching a different conclusion in this case.

Similarly, the garage with living accommodation above approved at [address] was located outside of the designated site and is an outbuilding associated with a larger dwelling, whereas the proposal before me is for a standalone dwelling. Again, there are substantive differences between that development and the one before me.

I recognise that previous decisions may be material considerations and that consistency in decision-making is an important principle and that like cases are decided in a like manner. However, each proposal must be determined on its individual merits, having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations. The weight to be given to other decisions depends on the degree of similarity in the relevant planning circumstances. In this instance, I have considered the extent to which the developments relied upon by the appellant are comparable to the appeal proposal, including matters such as siting, visibility, relationship to identified open space, scale and overall contribution to the character and appearance of the CA.

For the reasons set out above, I find that there are material and determinative differences between the appeal proposal and those schemes. In particular, the appeal site forms part of a continuous and visually appreciable area of open land identified as making a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA. By contrast, the developments cited by the appellant do not occupy the same position within that continuous tract of open land or arise in materially similar circumstances, including in relation to their spatial context, visual prominence and degree of enclosure.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to their conservation. Given the modest scale of the proposal, I find the harm to be less than substantial and at the lower end of this spectrum in this instance but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. In these circumstances the Framework requires that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposal would deliver a single dwelling and the Council acknowledge that it can only demonstrate a 1.8 year housing land supply which is a significant undersupply and a single dwelling would contribute towards addressing this. Furthermore, small and medium-sized sites can be built out relatively quickly to address the identified shortfall. Additionally, there would be short-term and long-term economic benefits, and the occupiers of the dwelling would contribute towards the social fabric of the village. The dwelling would incorporate an electric car charging point and be thermally and energy efficient. In light of the conclusion of the second main issue the proposal would also provide a biodiversity net gain. Given that the scheme relates to a single dwelling the public benefits would be modest and would not outweigh the harm to the significance of the CA.

For the reasons given above, the proposed development would not preserve the character or appearance of the CA. Therefore, it would be contrary to Policies EN2, EN10 and EN11 of the Cotswold District Local Plan (LP). These seek, amongst other matters, to preserve and where appropriate enhance the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area in terms of siting, scale, form, proportion, design, materials and the retention of positive features.

Developments subject to the mandatory BNG are required to meet the minimum information requirements set out in Article 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. This includes information demonstrating the pre-development biodiversity value of the site and the completed metric calculation too. The Council identified discrepancies between the size of the appeal site identified in the Biodiversity Net Gain Plan (BGP) and the total area of habitats recorded within the baseline. Additionally, concern was raised that a baseline habitat shown in the BNG plan was not included in the metric. The appellant has not disputed or provided clarification on either matter.

However, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) sets out that the statutory BNG requirement has been principally designed as a post-permission matter. Compliance involves the discharge of the [name] (BGC) following the grant of planning permission to ensure the objective of at least 10% net gain will be met by a development proposal. The determination of the BGP under this condition is the mechanism to confirm whether the development would meet the biodiversity gain objective, and the development may not commence until the BGP is approved. Given this, the PPG is clear that it is generally inappropriate for decision makers to refuse a proposal on the grounds that the biodiversity net gain objective will not be met.

Whilst there are some discrepancies regarding the baseline value of the site, these are not significant enough for me to doubt that the mandatory 10% BNG could not be delivered through purchasing off-site credits as suggested by the appellant. Any relevant permission would be subject to the discharge of the statutory BGC which would require the achievement of a minimum 10% BNG.

I am therefore satisfied that the proposed development would make appropriate provision in respect of BNG.

The Council also refused permission due to potential effects on the Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC). In light of my overall decision on the appeal, there would be no pathways leading to adverse effects on the integrity of that site arising from my decision. Even if these can be mitigated by the submitted planning obligation, the resulting lack of harm would be a neutral matter in the planning balance and not alter the outcome of the appeal.

The appellant has identified concerns with the conduct of the Council in their handling of this case and others. Ultimately, I have had regard to the planning merits of the respective parties’ cases insofar as they relate to the main issues for consideration in this appeal.

The Council do not dispute that it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land, and at 1.8 years this represents a significant level of undersupply. However, as I have found that the development would lead to less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset and that the public benefits would not outweigh this harm, this constitutes a strong reason for refusing the development proposed and thus the provisions of paragraph 11d) i of the Framework indicates that permission should not be granted. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this case.

Whether policies of the emerging Framework would change the balance of considerations in this case, as a consultation document, it is of very limited weight and, therefore, does not alter the outcome of this appeal

The scheme would harm the character and appearance of the CA and as a result it would not comply with several development plan policies. While the scheme may accord with other policies in the development plan, 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 read as a whole. Overall, I find the benefits would not outweigh the harm I have identified and no material considerations, including the Framework, have been shown to carry sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

Even if considered under the emerging Framework the adverse impacts would substantially outweigh the benefits of the scheme which would indicate that the development should not be approved.

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