Appeal 6003632

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second ‘technical details consent’ (TDC) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent TDC application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The address above has been taken from the council’s decision notice because it is more accurate than that set out on the application form. I have added the postcode to the address for clarity and removed the location from the description of development set out in the banner because this is duplicated unnecessarily.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development. In doing so, having particular regard to the development strategy for the area, whether or not the proposed development would conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL), preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Tetbury Conservation Area (TCA), preserve the setting of the [name] listed [name] and the effect of the development on a non-designated heritage asset.

The development plan identifies Tetbury as a principal settlement within the district and confirms the towns suitability as a location for housing growth. Policies DS2 and DS4 of the Cotswold District Local Plan (2011 – 2031) (the Local Plan) direct new development to locations within defined settlement boundaries and restrict development outside such boundaries unless it meets other specified policy objectives. The appeal site lies adjacent but outside of the settlement boundary for Tetbury and is therefore within the countryside for planning policy purposes.

The proposed development would not meet any of the policy objectives within the development plan or the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (NPPF) for enabling residential development at this location.

The appeal site comprises a pastoral field which uniquely functions as part of the transition from town to countryside at the edge of the Cutwell area of Tetbury. The narrow, unmarked lanes and the visibly open nature of the site and surroundings define its semi-rural character. It is positioned southwest of the town, beyond a designated important open space, Cutwell Valley, which contains a tributary to the [name]. Strategic mature trees are located to field boundaries and within the public realm, reinforcing the green and rural character. As the only farmland visible in near views, the appeal site provides an important reference to the countryside that lies beyond the built form of the settlement.

The ground level of the appeal site is elevated to a degree that the ground itself is visible behind and above the stand-alone residential property of No 3 Cutwell and is supported by retaining walls to the garden in the foreground. Cutwell and [name] are positioned at an elevated ground level to the south of the site and due to the combination of form, siting and landscaping, have limited visibility. The council identifies No 3 Cutwell as a non-designated heritage asset due to its age, traditional construction, architectural design and prominent siting. It sits at road level to the front of the appeal site. Properties to the north form part of the historic town core.

Access to the appeal site is provided by a short stretch of a private, no through single lane track which leads to [address] further along the valley. The track is also part of a Public Right of Way network extending into the surrounding countryside and the council note that it is well used.

The site is within the CNL which is a protected landscape. Section 245 of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 seeks to further the conservation and enhancement of such areas, and the NPPF advises that great weight should be given to this duty as the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.

In addition, the appeal site is located within the TCA whereby Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas, and is also within proximity of the [name] listed [name] where Section 66 (1) of the same Act requires special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting. The significance of the TCA is derived from the architectural and historic interest of its collective buildings and the use as a historic market town within a rural setting.

The site sits within Landscape Character Area 11A [name] which features a consistent pattern of well managed mixed arable and pastoral landscape. Fields are typically enclosed by both stone walls and hedgerows incorporating hedgerow trees and the site reflects this. The CNL Landscape Strategy states that the legibility of settlement edges and the retention of undeveloped land around towns and villages are identified as key components of local character and scenic quality. As such, this landscape is particularly vulnerable to incremental edge-of-settlement development, including back land or infill proposals that erode openness and lead to gradual suburbanisation.

Within this landscape context, the TCA specifically includes not only the compact historic core and key buildings within Tetbury, but also important elements of the setting of the town and gateway into the countryside. The appeal site is one of the open areas specifically included within the TCA which fulfils this purpose, confirming its positive contribution to the significance of the designation.

Due to its topography, and contrary to the appellant’s position regarding the built enclosure of Cutwell, the site is not visibly enclosed or significantly screened by built form. As the only elevated parcel of land that has not been developed in this location, the appeal site’s contribution to openness, character, and the rural transition is highly significant.

[name] observed on my site visit, the development of the appeal site for a maximum of two residential dwellings would follow a similar built form as that demonstrated by Nos 18, 20 Cutwell (also referenced as [address]) and the adjacent Overbrook, where No [address] level, and both [address] and Overbrook are on significantly elevated land behind and above. No 18 Cutwell is also identified by the council as a non-designated heritage asset. This side of the highway demonstrates the urbanising effect of additional dwellings at the higher level.

[name], which crosses the [name] tributary at a ford, is within physical and visual proximity of the appeal site. The NPPF confirms that the setting of a heritage asset comprises the surroundings in which the asset is experienced and the appeal site therefore forms part of the setting of the listed structure. The significance of the bridge lies in its age and built form, as well as representing the historic southern access point to the medieval market town. The crossing area and its green corridor is a key point at which the boundary of the town meets the open countryside. As such, there is architectural and historic significance resulting from both the structure and its setting.

The development would be highly visible from The Cutwell area of the historic town, as well as being prominent from Public Footpaths 15 (particularly where the footpath emerges into the green corridor at the crossing point to the stream), [address] long distance route as it descends the hillside. It would also be visible in longer range views from [name] where it would interrupt the rural aesthetic.

The visual impact could be moderated to a degree by a suitable landscaping scheme as part of a TDC, which over time, would strengthen existing tree cover and screen the development whilst trees are in leaf. However, the proposed dwellings would remain highly visible during the winter months. I am also mindful that additional planting would not overcome the loss of the field and the positive contribution its openness currently makes to the locality.

Given the uniqueness of this piece of land within its context, the development of the site in principle would result in the loss of openness and replace it with residential use, albeit at a low density. The transitionary rural character of the setting would be lost. The use of this land for residential purposes would therefore have a significant urbanising effect on this part of Cutwell to the detriment of the landscape, character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposed development would fail to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the CNL with harm to the landscape as a result. Whilst the harm would be localised and limited, I attach considerable weight and importance to it in line with the NPPF requirement.

The erosion to the openness of this site would undermine the key edge-of-settlement space as an important component of the TCA, resulting in a modest adverse impact to the significance of the overall conservation area. The ability to experience the significance of [name] would also be undermined along with an erosion of its physical setting albeit to a limited degree. In both cases, the harm that would be caused to the significance of the designated heritage assets would be less than substantial as categorised by the NPPF.

The NPPF states that great weight should be given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset, irrespective of whether the harm to its significance is less than substantial and at the limited end of the scale. Policy EN10 of the Local Plan is broadly consistent with this. The NPPF goes on to say that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset requires clear and convincing justification. Where the harm would be less than substantial, the NPPF states that the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposed development would offer social and economic benefits that are also public benefits, including employment during the construction phase and the support that future occupiers would likely give to nearby services and facilities. Benefits would also arise from the delivery of 2 dwellings at a time when there is an under delivery of housing in the area. The new homes would be likely to be delivered quickly, it being a small site and quantum of development.

The appellant presents that achievement of the [name] requirement would be a benefit however, I have no details before me as to how that might be achieved and this is a matter which would need to be complied with as part of a TDC therefore, as a benefit at this stage, it carries limited weight.

However, I am not persuaded that the delivery of 2 homes on this site necessitates the harmful degradation of this open space. Therefore, the harms that would be caused to the significance of the TCA and [name] lack clear and convincing justification. The public benefits, taken as a whole, would not outweigh the great weight that the conservation of designated heritage assets carries. The proposal would therefore fail to accord with the historic environment policies of the NPPF.

The NPPF advises that the effect on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account by way of a balanced judgement having regard to the scale of the effect and the significance of the heritage asset. The special architectural qualities of No 3 Cutwell, as a non-designated heritage asset, would be moderately harmed by its enclosure with built form above and to the rear, removing its standalone prominence.

Given the above, I conclude that the proposal would result in significant harm to the rural transitory nature of the locality and would fail to conserve or enhance the TCA and result in harm to the natural beauty of the CNL. Neither would it preserve the setting of the [name] listed [name]. Harm would also be caused to the significance of No 3 Cutwell. Accordingly, the scheme would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Acts, and conflict with Policies EN1, EN2, EN4, EN5, EN10, EN11 and EN12 of the Local Plan and Objectives 1 and 2 of the Tetbury and Tetbury Upton Neighbourhood Plan 2015 - 2030 (collectively the development plan). Taken together, these policies and objectives require that new development protects, and where possible enhances, the natural and historic environments, with reference to settings, landscape, design quality and distinctiveness.

The Council acknowledges the absence of a 5-year supply of new homes across the district and confirms that the housing delivery results over the previous three years are substantially below the housing requirement. The current housing supply equates to 1.8 years which indicates a pressing and urgent need for new dwellings, a matter which I give significant weight in favour of the proposal.

The suggestion of bespoke housing designed to be compliant with the [name] and the Neighbourhood Plan objectives, would not address the harm identified by the use of the appeal site for residential purposes.

The appellant presents an allowed appeal decision relating to permission in principle for 2 dwellings within the Great Somerford Conservation Area. The Inspector concluded that no harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the area, including the Conservation Area. I do not have the full circumstances of that conclusion in front of me and as such, the decision has not been material in my consideration of this appeal.

The appellant references that Cutwell Valley is protected as a local green space within the Neighbourhood Plan and notes that this designation does not include the appeal site. Given that the site is located outside of a settlement boundary and is therefore protected by open countryside policies, this fact does not support the principle of developing the site.

Reference is made by the appellant to a previous appeal decision in favour of development, located approximately 300 metres from the current appeal site. It states that the Inspector and Secretary of State both found harm to the CNL as a result of the loss of a field, but that the field in that case made little contribution to the overall character of the landscape due to it being surrounded on three sides by development. Two further residential development sites which have been granted planning consent despite being outside of the settlement boundary of Tetbury have also been referenced. I do not have the full details of any of these cases in front of me to establish to what degree they are or are not comparable. Submitted evidence confirms that none of the previous sites are within the TCA or are within the immediate vicinity of the historic town core so as to contribute towards its setting. In any case, each appeal must be considered on its own merits, and I have approached this appeal accordingly.

I acknowledge that the appeal site is located close to the services and facilities in the town and that typical daily services could be accessed by walking or cycling. National policy provides support for housing in locations that limit the need to travel and offer a genuine choice of travel modes, and this is recognised as a positive impact of moderate significance in favour of the scheme.

Third party representations identify concerns regarding vehicular access, ground instability, ecology, flood risk, refuse collection arrangements and impact on living conditions however, these would be matters for consideration at the TDC stage should permission in principle be granted.

The proposal would result in harm to the CNL, which would be localised and limited. It would also result in moderate harm to the significance of the TCA and to the listed building, [name], which whilst at the limited end of the less than substantial scale, carries great weight in each case. Harm to the significance of No 3 Cutwell as a non-designated heritage asset would also be caused to a moderate degree.

Overall, I have identified conflict with multiple policies of the development plan and given the range and importance of the matters raised, I consider that there is conflict with the development plan taken as a whole.

That the council cannot deliver a 5-year supply of housing land means that paragraph 11 d) of the NPPF is relevant. This sets out that permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the NPPF that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed; or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

In this case, the CNL and designated heritage assets are protected by policies in the NPPF, and the harm that would result to the CNL and each of the designated heritage assets provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. The presumption in favour of sustainable development given by paragraph 11 of the NPPF does not apply in this case.

For the reasons set out above, the site is not suitable for residential development with regard to its location, land use or amount of development. The proposed development conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the NPPF, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. As such, the appeal is dismissed.