Appeal 6003244

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the conversion of the storage barn to provide a one-bedroom annexe for domestic staff together with domestic storage, at [site address] , The Devil’s Elbow, Minchinhampton, Gloucestershire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name].25/1673/HHOLD, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

For clarity I have simplified the description of development within the decision.

The appeal submission included an arboricultural report. This does not physically alter the proposed development but rather seeks to clarify elements of that proposed in direct response to the Council’s reason for refusal. This has therefore been considered.

The Council has referred to Stroud District Local Plan (LP) Policy HC7 in its Decision Notice. This was not submitted so the online version has been reviewed.

The main issues are whether the proposed development would constitute a new dwelling in the countryside, and the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area with specific regard to trees.

[site address] is a residential dwelling and the main wing of a larger manor house which has otherwise been subdivided. It is situated at the end of a long drive but is also accessible via a secondary gate which shares an access drive with the other dwellings that make up the original manor building complex. Due to the orientation and subdivision [site address] ’s vehicle parking is directly in front of the house with the garden spreading out beyond. To one side of the formal garden is a stable and a metal clad storage barn. Beyond the garden is a series of paddocks and a ménage.

The proposal relates to the storage barn which is open along one elevation and built into the slope with a chicken shed at a lower level. It would convert the barn by installing a mezzanine, to provide an enclosed storage shed with accommodation above and to the side including a living room and kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom. The whole building would be reclad in vertical timber cladding, a new metal roofing, and a stepped access to the rear of the building. It would be accessible via the existing driveway and parking area and be for the use of domestic staff to support the appellant’s father.

LP Policy HC7 specifically relates to annexes for dependents and carers, though in the supporting paragraph 4.51 the use of an annex by domestic staff is referenced as well, so is applicable in this situation. Amongst other things it allows for the conversion of existing outbuildings where it is not possible to attach the outbuilding to the main house. It must be closely related to the main dwelling and have shared parking. Further it is noted that in supporting paragraph 4.55 existing detached buildings within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse can be used as annexes.

During the site visit, it is clear there is a visual link between the 2 buildings, and they are physically close when taking account of the size of the host dwelling and its grounds. The access to the barn requires travelling across the area immediately to the front of the host dwelling which would significantly impact the privacy of the occupants. Therefore, the barn is well related to the host dwelling both physically and visually and not easily severable, so would be appropriate as an annex.

LP Policy HC7 also has a requirement to ensure there is a functional need for an annex by virtue of clear justification. The appellant stated that the proposal would be for domestic staff during the application process. However, has expanded on this to confirm the staff would be specifically to assist with the appellant’s disabled father who is due to move in with them and would require 24-hour assistance. On the face of it this would demonstrate a functional need for staff accommodation and there is nothing before me to conclude otherwise.

Further the description of development is consistent with the proposed annex use of the converted barn and so aligns with section 75(2) of the Town and Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Accordingly planning permission would be required for the converted barn to constitute a separate dwellinghouse, and to ensure the barn remained an annex a condition could be imposed.

It is noted that my findings broadly align with those of the inspector in appeal APP/C1625/W/21/3266664, which bears some similarities to the case before me.

Accordingly, the proposal would constitute an annex to the host dwelling, and that annex would comply with LP Policy HC7. It is therefore not necessary to consider the proposal against LP Policy CP15 which generally protects against the creation of new dwellings in the countryside.

The appeal site and surrounding area is characterised by its woodland setting, with [site address] having many trees within its grounds. The wooded nature of the area is important to its character and appearance. The appeal site and its surroundings are within the Industrial Heritage Conservation Area (CA) therefore these trees are protected as part of that designation.

There only tree immediately adjacent to the barn is a modest apple tree to one side of the chicken shed. However, within the wider vicinity and on the opposite side of the stables there are a number of large mature specimens.

The submitted arboricultural report does not consider the proposal to pose any risk to the health and longevity of the trees nearby but does recommend a condition to ensure they are properly protected during construction. My observations on site would align with these findings, therefore, the proposal is unlikely to cause unacceptable harm to the health and longevity of the nearby trees.

Consequently, the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area with specific regard to trees. It would therefore comply with LP Policy ES8 insofar as it would support development that would not result in the unacceptable loss or damage of protected trees.

The Council has not found harm in relation to asbestos removal, residential amenity, highways and ecology and there is nothing before me to conclude otherwise.

Despite the agreed position of the main parties, I am required to pay special regard to sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. This is because [site address] is part of a [name] listed building (the LB), and the appeal site lies within the CA.

The LBs significance lies principally in its architectural quality as a good example of an 18th [name] manor whilst the importance of the CA lies in the industrial heritage of the area including the built and natural form within it. The proposal would reclad the existing barn with timber and would not overly domesticate it. Therefore, it would retain the subservient relationship with the LB thus not harm its setting and not diminish its significance, and the improvement in its appearance would also enhance the character and appearance of the CA.

The appeal site is also in the Cotswolds National Landscape (NL). NLs are designated for the purposes of conserving and enhancing natural beauty. Section 245 ([name]) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 places a duty upon me to further these purposes in this decision. The Council has not objected to the proposal in this regard and due to the small scale, design, and siting of the proposal I am satisfied it would not adversely affect the special qualities of the NL.

That the Council considers the proposal liable for the [name] is noted. This does not alter the planning merits of this case and can be dealt with separately.

The main parties have suggested conditions which I have considered against the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and Planning Practice Guidance. As a result, I have amended them for consistency and clarity.

In addition to the standard time limit condition (1), I have imposed conditions requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans (2) and specifying the use of the annex (3) as this provides certainty.

The proposal is in a visually sensitive area, so conditions have been imposed to protect the existing trees during construction (4) and that material details are agreed with the Council (5). This is to ensure the proposal integrates well within its setting and does not harm its woodland character. As condition 4 requires existing trees to be protected, it is necessary for this to be a pre-commencement condition, and the appellant has agreed to this. Finally in the interest of biodiversity, condition 6 has been imposed. However, there is enough detail within the [name] Assessment1 to ensure enforceability without requiring additional details and the wording of 6 has been amended to reflect this.

For the reasons given above the appeal scheme would comply 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, allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: Location Plan PP-14302246v1; AE-[phone]; AE- 04(900607)004; AE-05(900607)006; and AE-[phone].

The annex shall be occupied only as ancillary accommodation in connection with the main dwelling known as [site address] and shall not be used, let, sold, or otherwise occupied as a separate unit.

No development shall take place until an [name] has been submitted to the local planning authority for consideration and approved in writing, and the measures to protect trees within that approved statement have been implemented. The development shall then be undertaken in accordance with that statement.

No external works shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved samples.

Prior to occupation the biodiversity enhancements recommended in paragraphs 4.16 and 4.17 of the submitted Preliminary Ecology Assessment (Cotswolds Environmental dated August 2024, document number CE001322) shall be implemented and thereafter maintained. END OF SCHEDULE 1 Written by Cotswolds Environmental dated August 2024, document number CE001322