Appeal 6002627

The appeal is dismissed. Appeal B Ref: 6002627

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Cotswold District Council in relation to Appeal A and Appeal B. These applications are the subject of a separate Decision.

The appeal site is part of the larger [address] (the Farm) which includes a mix of uses including horse training stables and self-catering holiday accommodation. The appellant states the holiday accommodation can sleep up to 50 people and is often rented as a whole by large groups celebrating who use different internal and external spaces at the Farm. The Council states that some of these uses constitute unauthorised development. It is not for this decision to determine whether these uses are lawful.

The Council has referred to Cotswold District Local Plan (LP) Policy INF5, which in turn refers to the [name]. Although the appendix has not been submitted, the online version has been reviewed as part of this decision.

The appeal site is limited to a singular building that was most recently used for an antique furniture restoration business and storage.

The proposed development would convert 2 windows into doors and change the use of the appeal building into a wedding ceremony venue. It has bene specified the venue would be used for no more than 25 civil wedding ceremonies a year with each ceremony being 1 hour in length and undertaken between 9am and 5pm. The proposal does not include any additional parking, or the regularisation of other uses on the Farm.

The appeal building is a [name] listed barn known as ‘Barn, [address]’ (reference 1341142). Although there is no dispute in relation to the impact of the proposal on the appeal building as a heritage asset, sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) require I give special regard to the features of special architectural or historic interest of that heritage asset.

It is also noted that the listed building consent relevant to Appeal B was only refused on grounds relating to protected species. As the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 apply to any consent and not just planning permission, it is therefore necessary to consider this.

Therefore, the main issues are whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to relevant local policies relating to the countryside and employment; and the effect of the proposed development on protected species, highway safety, the character and appearance of the area with special regard to the Cotswolds National Landscape, and the listed building.

In accordance with the LP, the appeal site is beyond any defined settlement boundary and not within a non-principal settlement, therefore constitutes an open countryside location. The proposal would constitute a further diversification of the Farm and so LP Policy EC5 would apply. It would also constitute the reuse of a rural building which LP Policy EC6 seeks to control. Whilst LP Policy EC3 seeks control over all types of employment-generating uses.

LP Policy EC3, section 2 relates to small-scale employment development in the rural area and requires the compliance with part a) and part b) or c). As the proposal does not include residential development it would comply with section a). The appellant states that the proposal would not require additional staff so could not be considered to facilitate the retention or growth of a local employment opportunity, accordingly section 2c) would not apply.

From the evidence provided the holiday accommodation is a viable business, and that on occasion those bookings potentially relate to weddings that have taken place elsewhere. However, although the appellant states the proposal would be an added benefit to the existing self-catering accommodation business, the proposal is for a standalone wedding ceremony venue. In that context, no justified business case has been submitted, so the proposal would fail to comply with section 2b).

The appeal building is structurally sound and capable of being used for the proposal as identified in the 5th main issue, it is already not used for agricultural purposes so would not cause conflict with existing farming operations and is compatible with existing uses in close proximity to the site, such as the self-catering accommodation elsewhere on the Farm. Therefore, the proposal would comply with LP Policy EC6. It would also comply with LP Policy EC5, as it would reuse a currently under used building, and as set out in the 4th main issue, would not harm character and appearance.

Nevertheless, compliance with [name] EC5 and EC6 do not overcome the failure to comply with LP Policy EC3. The appeal site is therefore not a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to relevant local policies relating to the countryside and employment.

The appellant has submitted a [name] (PRA) which has confirmed the appeal building supports within its interior bat roosts for 3 types of bats. Bats are internationally protected species and so a precautionary approach should be had for any development which may adversely impact their habitats and resources.

The PRA has made assumptions in relation to the age and size of the roosts, including whether there are further crevice dwelling bats. Therefore, without emergence surveys to confirm the number of bats and their usage of the appeal building it cannot be concluded that the proposed mitigation measures within the PRA are proportionate.

Although it is noted that the Council has considered the appellant-imposed midnight limit to music, it is recognised this is related to the existing accommodation on the Farm and not the proposal which would limit use of the appeal building to between 9am and 5pm for ceremonies. Nevertheless, this does not negate the need to ensure the use of the appeal site by protected species is properly understood.

Therefore, it cannot be concluded what the proposal would not have a significant effect on bats and would not comply with LP Policy EN8. This, amongst other things, seeks to prevent development which is likely to have an adverse effect on internationally protected species, such as bats.

LP Policy INF4 seeks to ensure highway safety, which amongst other things requires development to provide safe and suitable access and avoid locations which would have undesirable impacts on the transport network which would likely remain severe following mitigation. Whilst LP Policy INF5 requires that non-residential vehicle parking is provided as necessary to manage the local road network, in accordance with the provisions of [name]. [name] does not provide a specific provision for wedding ceremony venues but does require leisure facilities to provide parking in line with the likely travel patterns of site users.

The rural location of the appeal site is along a narrow country lane with passing points, and with no obvious footpaths of public transport links to it. Therefore, access to the appeal site would be most commonly by private vehicle. With a maximum occupation of 120 people proposed this could mean a high number of vehicles travelling to and from the site and either seeking parking for the duration of the ceremony, or a drop off and pick up zone required for those not using their own car.

However, no parking provision or specific access arrangements are included in the proposal, and the appeal site does not incorporate any land beyond the appeal building which could be considered for parking or drop off zones.

The appellant has relied on the existing parking facilities at the Farm, which includes that of the holiday accommodation, and temporary areas around the Farm buildings including a paddock1. However, with no mechanism before me to secure these spaces for the wedding ceremony venue when in use this parking cannot be guaranteed. As such there is no certainty that an appropriate level of parking could be provided.

Without appropriate levels of parking or alternative access arrangements there is a high potential that visitors would use inappropriate locations, such as along the lane, which could hinder the free flow of traffic or impede highway safety.

It is recognised that travel to and from the appeal site would be limited to before and after the ceremonies so within a relatively short window and to only 25 occasions in the year. Therefore, were adequate parking or access arrangements secured there is potential a traffic management plan could be implemented to ensure additional vehicles cause minimal disturbance to traffic flow for this reasonably short period of time.

It is noted that the appellant considers the proposal to reduce additional travel between split venue weddings when the reception is held at the Farm and the ceremony elsewhere, but this does not overcome the identified lack of parking. Equally although the appellant considers most guests would share lifts, this cannot be guaranteed and so the maximum potential parking requirements and vehicle movements need to be considered.

Therefore, for these reasons it can only be concluded that the proposal could have a significantly harmful effect on highway safety, so fail to comply with [name] INF4 and INF5.

[address] although a complex of buildings and uses which are positioned on both sides of the road is a compact and well-defined grouping. It sits within a natural dip in the land surrounded by large open fields which sweep up and away from it. Although from the wider area, including the [address] to the south, only the edges of the Farm’s building complex can be seen, with the appeal building well screened at its centre.

The whole area is within the Cotswolds National Landscape (NL), specifically Area 8F, the Upper Dikler Valley within the High Wold Valley. This area is characterised by open pastoral farmland extending between wooded slopes, and along valley bottoms, together with pockets of arable land with occasional farmsteads and isolated buildings. The appeal building as part of the Farm and its setting is highly indicative of this. 1 Annotated drawing 3162-002 and plan submitted with final comments

National landscapes are designated for the purposes of conserving and enhancing natural beauty. Section 245 ([name]) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LR Act) places a duty upon me to further these purposes in this decision.

As the proposal would only physically alter 2 windows into doors, it is not considered the proposal would alter the overall appearance of the appeal building to such an extent to affect how the Farm would appear in the wider countryside. Further due to the orientation of the appeal building any light spill from internal lights would be into the central yard of the Farm as existing. No additional external lighting is proposed and is unlikely to be required due to the limited hours of use. Nevertheless, a condition can be used to ensure this remains under the control of the Council. Therefore, it is found the proposal would not harm the appearance of the area or the NL or its dark skies.

However, the character can be affected by more than the visual impact of development, and as identified by the [name] and Guidelines the tranquillity of the NL is important. The proposal would limit the use of the appeal building to 25 1-hour events a year, and the associated preparation of the building and cleaning after, but each event could bring up to 120 people to the site which would create noise and therefore impact tranquillity.

As the wedding ceremony would be undertaken within the appeal building and without any parking forming part of the proposal, the main source of noise would be from participants being dropped off and picked up from the site. However, this would be limited to a short period of time during the day for a limited number of days throughout the year, so would be considered short term and without permanent impact on a site which is surrounded by uses which involve a reasonably high level of activity, such as holiday accommodation and the stables.

Therefore, in this instance, it is found that the proposed change of use would not have such an impact as to cause harm to the tranquillity or natural beauty of the NL and therefore retain it and the local areas rural character and appearance. The proposal would therefore comply with the LR Act duty and [name] EN4 and EN5 insofar that they seek development to not have a significant detrimental impact on the natural landscape and conserve the natural beauty and special qualities of the NL.

The building is significant due to it being a good example of a vernacular stone open fronted store from the late 18th or early / middle 19th century which was enclosed and altered in the 20th century.

The proposed change of use would not alter or impact on the physical structure of the appeal building but it is also proposed to re-open 2 historic pedestrian doors which in the past were converted to windows. The Council’s Conservation Officer does not consider this to amount to any loss of historic fabric and a marginal restoration of the historic plan form. There is nothing before me to conclude otherwise and these findings align with my observations on site.

Therefore, the proposal would better reveal the architectural interest of the appeal building and so enhance its significance as a heritage asset. The proposal would therefore comply with the Act, and Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) LP Policy EN10 which place great weight on the conservation of heritage assets.

The appellant asserts that the proposal is ancillary to the existing holiday accommodation business and that being able to obtain a registry license would enhance the provisions of that business. However, there is no mechanism before me which would secure the proposed ancillary use of the proposal and nothing substantial which shows the registry license is imperative to the viability of the existing holiday accommodation business.

That no harm has been identified in relation to residential amenity is noted. However, a lack of harm, by definition, cannot weigh for or against the proposal.

The appellant also considers that the Council have not acted positively and proactively in dealing with the application. Although unfortunate this does not impact the planning merits of the case.

I have found the proposed development would enhance a heritage asset and would not harm the character and appearance of the local area with regard to the NL. However, these matters do not outweigh the significant harm found in relation to highway safety and protected species, or the lack of compliance with LP spatial policies.

Consequently, when read as a whole, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations worthy of sufficient weight, which would indicate a decision otherwise. Both Appeal A and Appeal B are, therefore, dismissed.