Appeal 6004274

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance 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’) 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 technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

I have taken the site address from the decision notice, as it more accurately describes the site.

The appeal is accompanied by an agreement made under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 which relates to mitigation for the Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation. I have taken this into account in my decision.

The application form also includes reference to a proposed [address] metres of non-residential use. Nevertheless, the application was determined on the basis of a single dwelling only, and given the information before me in this appeal I am satisfied that my determining the appeal on the basis of a single dwelling would not prejudice interested parties.

Whilst not a matter set out in the reasons for refusal, the Council’s Officer Report identified that the Council considers the proposal to be located, in policy terms, outside of the settlement of Chedworth. Interested parties have also made representations on this matter. I have therefore included this matter within the main issue below.

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, with particular regard to: • whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Chedworth Conservation Area; • the effect of the proposal on the landscape and scenic beauty of the Cotswolds National Landscape; and • whether the proposal is suitably located having regard to the relevant development plan policies concerning residential development.

The appeal site is within the Chedworth Conservation Area (the ‘Conservation Area’). The statutory duty set out in section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. Insofar as relevant to the appeal, the Conservation Area draws its significance from, amongst other matters, the relationship between buildings and open spaces.

The site is largely undeveloped, and forms part of a larger parcel of land. There are extensive areas of undeveloped land to the rear. The site forms part of a gap between a small number of dwellings located to the north of the road. Some nearby existing development is of modern appearance when compared to other parts of the Conservation Area. The proposal would entail the erection of a single self-build dwelling.

Given the presence of nearby dwellings to either side of the parcel of land of which the appeal site forms a part, the appeal site appears as a gap of green and largely undeveloped land in this section of the Conservation Area. As it is largely undeveloped, the site also provides a linkage to the more extensive area of undeveloped land to the rear. The site therefore plays an important role in acting to break up existing development, and in providing an interlinkage with wider open spaces.

Given this, and although the site is not identified as an important view or area of landscape value on the Chedworth Conservation Area – [name], the site nevertheless contributes positively to the significance of the Conservation Area. That the site is relatively enclosed by hedgerow and partly screened by a timber garage on the wider land parcel does not diminish this contribution. Equally, whilst there may be some more modern development nearby, some of which may not contribute positively to the significance of the Conservation Area, if anything this further underscores the role of the site in providing a verdant buffer to nearby development.

The introduction of a new dwelling at the appeal site would erode its role as a green buffer, and undermine the link to the undeveloped land to the rear. Whilst the appellant makes reference to a modest, low impact design that could come forward at technical details consent stage, regardless of scale or design the introduction of a new dwelling would undermine the relationship between buildings and open space, and by doing so would harm the significance of the Conservation Area as a result.

I acknowledge that the remaining parcel of land would not be developed, however this does not diminish the harm identified. Equally, whilst suggestion is made that the removal of the garage on the wider land parcel, the opening up of the hedgerow, and orchard planting, could be considered as part of technical details consent stage, this would not overcome the harm to the Conservation Area.

Given the extent of the development relative to the Conservation Area as a whole, I find the harm to the Conservation Area would be ‘less than substantial’, and located at the lower end of the spectrum. I shall return to matters of public benefits subsequently in my decision.

Given the above, the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal would conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies EN2, EN10 and EN11 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 (2018) (the ‘Local Plan’) insofar as these policies require development proposals to respect the character and appearance of the locality, and sustain and preserve the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The site lies within the Cotswolds National Landscape (the ‘National Landscape’). Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended) places a duty on relevant authorities to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty (now national landscapes). Within the National Landscape, the appeal site lies within the High Wold Dip-Slope Valley, and within the Middle Coln Valley character area, which insofar as relevant to the appeal is characterised by a rural settled character amidst a wider pastoral setting, with the valley in which the village is located having a settled character with cottages spreading along and up the valley sides.

The appeal site is located to the north of the road, between existing built development. Whilst there are a small number of dwellings on this side of the road, the prevailing pattern of nearby development is to the south, and typically on higher ground. To the rear of the appeal site are a number of parcels of agricultural land, and there is a nearby network of public rights of way (‘PROWs’). At my site visit, I observed that despite the enclosed nature of the site there was nevertheless some intervisibility between the site itself and views from the highway and PROWs in proximity to the site.

The proposal would result in an additional dwelling to the north of the road, in a section of the village where development is largely concentrated on the other side of the road. I acknowledge that the extent of boundary planting may have changed since a previous decision at the site, and this planting may offer a degree of screening. However, regardless of design and landscaping proposals at technical details consent stage, a new dwelling would nevertheless introduce urbanising features to the site, particularly when viewed from the road and through glimpsed views through the hedgerow from the PROWs and from the landscape beyond.

Taken together these factors would, when coupled with my reasoning above as to the role of the site in acting as a buffer between built development and providing an interlinkage to the wider areas of open space, act to erode the pastoral setting that largely characterises the landscape to the north of the road, and undermine the prevailing pattern of development in this part of the village.

Given this, and whilst I acknowledge that other inspectors elsewhere1 have found proposals for residential development can come forward without harm to the National Landscape, in these particular circumstances, through its specific location and largely undeveloped nature the appeal site contributes positively to the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Landscape. This would be harmed by the introduction of a residential dwelling and its associated urbanising features. Whilst the site may have historically been an orchard, the planting of an orchard on the wider land parcel not forming part of this appeal would not mitigate this harm.

Whilst the decision notice references the Cotswolds National Landscape Management Plan 2023-2025, a copy of this document is not before me, and this has not therefore been determinative to my decision. I have been provided with details from the Cotswolds National Landscape Management Plan 2025-2030 (the ‘Management Plan’) which has been endorsed by the Council. The proposal would conflict with the Management Plan insofar as the guidelines before me seek for development proposals to be delivered in a way that is compatible with and seeks to further the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the National Landscape.

Given the above, the proposal would harm the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Landscape. The proposal would therefore conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies EN1, EN2, EN4 and EN5 of the Local Plan, insofar as these require development proposals to conserve the natural environment, respect the character and appearance of the locality, and take account of landscape character, including that of the National Landscape.

Policy DS4 of the Local Plan identifies that new-build open market housing will not be permitted outside of [name], unless it meets a specific exception. On the evidence before me, the village of Chedworth is a [name] and does not have a settlement boundary defined within the Local Plan.

The site is a largely undeveloped parcel of land. There is existing residential development in proximity to the appeal site. The site is a moderate distance from the approximate core of the village, which includes a number of facilities.

Given the site’s largely undeveloped nature, it does not form part of the established pattern of existing built development within the village. Whilst there is built development in proximity to the appeal site, and the site is relatively accessible to nearby facilities and may be near a bus route, given both its undeveloped nature and relative distance from the core of the village the site does not form an established part of the settlement and therefore lies outside of the Non-Principal 1 APP/C1625/W/23/3329704, APP/B1605/W/22/3301770 Settlement of Chedworth. In addition, the proposal does not constitute a specific exception to Policy DS4 set out within the Local Plan.

[name] acknowledge the Council may have taken a different view as part of a previous pre-application, and development proposals with some similarity elsewhere have been found to be within a [name], pre-application advice cannot pre-empt outcomes on a future planning application, and that other proposals elsewhere were found to be within a settlement, has not led me to an alternative conclusion on this issue.

Given this, the proposal would not be suitably located having regard to the relevant development plan policies concerning residential development. The proposal would conflict with Policy DS4 of the Local Plan, which identifies that new-build open market housing will not be permitted outside [name] unless in accordance with other policies expressly dealing with residential development in such locations.

I am aware that the site is proximate to the [name] listed buildings ‘[address] and Studio’, ‘[address]’, and ‘[address]’. Mindful of the statutory duty set out in section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving their setting. These buildings draw their significance primarily from their architectural features and detailing. Insofar as the rural and verdant surroundings of the area contribute to the setting of these listed buildings, given intervening distance and the presence of other nearby built form, I am satisfied that a proposal could come forward at technical details consent stage that would preserve the significance of these listed buildings. I note the Council raised no concerns in this regard either.

My decision is consistent with that of the Inspector at [address], Middle Chedworth2, insofar as this concluded that the introduction of a dwelling at a site which contributed to the character and appearance of the area would result in harm to the Conservation Area and National Landscape.

[name] have been directed to an appeal at [address], Broadwas3, on the evidence before me the site considered at this appeal did not play the same role in breaking up built development or providing a link to the wider landscape. As such, this has not led me to an alternative conclusion on this appeal.

My attention has also been drawn to an appeal at Land adjacent to [address], Lower Lane4, however this related to a proposal for a greater number of dwellings in the setting of a number of designated heritage assets, and both the harm and public benefits identified in that appeal are not directly comparable to the appeal before me. I have also had regard to the decision of the Inspector at Land at [address], 14 Main Road5, in relation to the weight afforded to the provision of dwellings in the context of certain land supply positions. 2 APP/F1610/W/22/3308446 3 APP/J1860/W/24/3354156 4 6000605 5 APP/R1038/W/24/3356078

Whilst the appellant has directed my attention to other grants of planning permission elsewhere, these are a significant distance from the appeal site and not directly comparable. As such, these grants of permission elsewhere have not led me to an alternative conclusion at this appeal.

I acknowledge that the Council has provided certain positive comments previously at pre-application stage or on other applications, and the application was recommended for approval at committee. However, pre-application discussions are informal and not binding on any future decision the Council may make once a proposal has been subject to the formal planning process. The Council has maintained an objection at appeal stage and therefore this matter does not lead me away from my conclusions on this appeal.

I also acknowledge that some interested parties commented in support of the proposal, however this does not justify a proposal I have found to be harmful.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, which on the evidence before me stands at 1.8 years. This is a substantial shortfall. The proposal would result in the creation of a self-build dwelling, and given the shortfall in the supply of homes I afford this matter significant positive weight.

The proposal would also result in economic benefits arising during the construction and occupation stage, could include landscaping and tree planting, could provide biodiversity enhancements, could result in the existing garage on the wider land parcel being removed, and future occupants could positively contribute to local village life and services. Given the scale of development these other associated benefits would be limited.

I have found the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the Conservation Area, at the lower end of the spectrum. Under such circumstances, Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. [name] afford the provision of a self-build dwelling significant positive weight, and other matters limited positive weight, I give great weight to the harm to the Conservation Area, and the public benefits arising from the proposal are insufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified.

The proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, and would not conserve or enhance the natural beauty of the National Landscape. Given my reasoning above, alongside the conflict with Policies EN1, EN2, EN4, EN5, EN10 and EN11 of the Local Plan, I give both of these matters great weight in my determination of the appeal. The proposal would also not be suitably located, and would conflict with Policy DS4 of the Local Plan, however given its relative proximity to other development in the village I afford this matter limited weight in the overall balance. In addition, given my conclusions above, there would be a conflict with the development plan as a whole.

As the Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply, Paragraph 11d of the Framework sets out that, in such circumstances, that permission should be granted unless, as set out in Paragraph 11di, the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance, including National Landscapes and designated heritage assets, provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

I have found that the public benefits of the proposal would be insufficient to outweigh the harm to the Conservation Area, and the proposal would fail to conserve or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Landscape. Given this, the policies of the Framework provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed, and this matter is a material consideration weighing significantly against the proposal.

As such, the provisions of Paragraph 11di are engaged and the benefits I have identified that would arise from the proposal would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm.

The appeal site also lies within the zone of influence of the Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (the ‘SAC’). The qualifying features of the SAC relate to Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests and semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates. It has been established that residential development within the zone of influence would likely result in harm to the qualifying features of the protected area through additional recreational disturbance. The proposal would create a net gain of dwellings and in combination with other developments permitted in the area there would be a likely significant effect on the SAC.

A Section 111 Agreement has been submitted which seeks to address any harm to the integrity of this protected site through a financial contribution towards mitigation measures. However, as I am minded to dismiss the appeal, there is no need to consider the effects of the development on the protected site further.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan and material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.