Appeal 6004861

The appeal is dismissed.

Following the hearing and having reviewed the [name] of Stratford-on-Avon District: A Countryside Design Summary (hearing document ref GW3), the appellant has confirmed that he considers [site address] is within the Cotswold Fringe Character Area of the Cotswold National Landscape, although he could not definitely confirm that the appeal site itself is within this area. However, based on the evidence provided, I consider that both the appeal site and surrounding land lie within this character area of the National Landscape. Accordingly, I have determined the proposal on this basis.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is an appropriate location for the proposed development having regard to the local development strategy and proximity to local services and facilities; • whether there is an essential need for a permanent dwelling on the site in association with a forestry worker; • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including the surrounding landscape character; and, • the effect of the development on the setting of the [site address] Conservation Area.

Despite that there is some development, including housing and the [name] pumping station on the opposite side of [site address] , the appeal site is beyond existing built form on its respective side of the lane, with open fields wrapping around most of it. This includes a small field to one side, creating a degree of separation between the site and [address] and open, undulating grazing land to two further sides. Consequently, notwithstanding that the village sign and 30mph speed limit change are further along [site address] beyond the appeal site, and that there is other development nearby and the village has expanded over time, the appeal site is not within the settlement of [site address] . Therefore, spatially and visually the site is within the open countryside and the appeal dwelling would appear somewhat isolated in this location.

Policy CS.15 of the [name] (July 2016) (CS) sets out the hierarchy for the distribution of development within the District, based on a pattern of balanced dispersal in accordance with the distinctive character and function of the wide range of sustainable locations. This includes focusing development within or on the edge of urban areas, larger rural towns and identified new settlements, followed by smaller settlements, known as local service villages. Within and adjacent to all other settlements, such as [site address] , development is restricted to small-scale community-led schemes that meet an identified need.

No substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed dwelling would meet an identified local need, as set out in a Parish Plan, Neighbourhood Plan or other local evidence. However, I consider matters relating to a forestry worker’s need below.

In the countryside, outside any built-up area boundary and main rural centre, Policy AS.10 of the CS requires consideration against the principles of sustainable development. [site address] is not a local service village and has very limited facilities and services. While some local bus services pass through [site address] connecting to nearby settlements with services and facilities, these have not been demonstrated to be frequent or reliable. Furthermore, the nearest settlements containing services and facilities, such as shops, school, GP and a rail station, are some distance away, accessible via narrow country lanes, largely without lighting or dedicated pedestrian or cycle infrastructure.

Therefore, even though there is cycle parking at the Moreton-in-Marsh railway station and availability of rail services therefrom, walking and cycling would be unattractive to access the station and other local facilities and services, particularly at night or during inclement weather. As a result, future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would likely rely primarily on private motor vehicles, and the appeal site represents an unsustainable location.

Even though there may be some reduction in travel to and from the site if an agricultural worker lived there, for example, by providing onsite welfare facilities and reducing work related travel, there would still be trips associated with the occupiers’ accessing services and facilities, such as shops, pubs, schools, healthcare and leisure facilities. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would result in a meaningful reduction in traffic movement on the surrounding country lanes.

In view of the above, the appeal site would not be an appropriate location for the proposed development having regard to the local development strategy and proximity to local services and facilities. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with [name].15 and AS.10 of the CS, which, amongst other matters, require development to avoid unsustainable locations beyond main and rural settlements, where development does not meet an identified local need, avoid a level of increase in traffic on rural roads and make provision for sustainable forms of transport wherever appropriate and justified.

Part (i) of Policy AS.10 of the CS sets out that a permanent dwelling for occupation by a person engaged in an agricultural operation or other form of use that can only reasonably be carried out in the countryside, subject to a functional need being established. This aligns with part a) of paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which sets out that isolated homes in the countryside should, amongst other circumstances, demonstrate that there is an essential need for a rural worker, including those taking majority control of a farm business, to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside. Also, the National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) sets out relevant considerations for assessing the need for an isolated home in the countryside for an essential rural worker.

It is intended that the new dwelling would be a self-build property for the applicant and their partner to live in, who have backgrounds in agriculture and have been fully engaged in the woodland creation project at the appeal site since 2017. It is evident from the appellants’ submissions and my site observations that a number of trees have been planted on the wider piece of land as part of the woodland creation project. Although currently many of the trees are saplings or smaller trees and no income has shown to be generated by the business to date.

Having a dwelling on site would be more convenient for the appellant, in terms of more efficient operating practices for them and it would provide better access to welfare facilities, reducing their current trips to and from the site. Also, it is asserted that the proposal would provide for better management and maintenance of the trees and plants, including monitoring of pathogens and watering and better management of weeds, pest and bio security. Furthermore, at the hearing, the appellant set out that they tend to visit the site approximately 3 or 4 times a week and also drive past for security purposes at other times.

However, no particular existing or previous security issues have been evidenced. It has not been demonstrated why an onsite presence is necessary 24 hours a day to resolve or deal with any security or monitoring concerns. Also, it has not been demonstrated that such concerns would have a serious impact on the functional operation of the business, if they occurred. Furthermore, it has not been evidenced why or whether alternative security and plant and watering monitoring measures could be introduced, such as electronic and/or remotely monitored systems, to aid the operation of the business, without the need for a permanent on-site presence. Additionally, it would likely be possible to provide some welfare facilities at the site, within the existing building, to reduce existing trips related thereto, without the need for a dwelling.

There could be some treefall and flooding of the stream at the bottom of the wider site at times. Although, no examples of such difficulties and emergencies occurring since the appellant has owned the land have been provided. The appeal site is not in an area at high risk of flooding; the plot of land has sloping topography with the stream at the bottom of it; and it is unlikely that such events would occur on a frequent basis nor that these events would have a serious impact on the operation of the enterprise.

Furthermore, with the current forestry worker living some 15/20 minutes car travel distance from the appeal site, any tree falling onto the adjacent road could be resolved fairly quickly. Deliveries and other onsite operations requiring contractors could be coordinated so as to take place on the occasions when the appellant or any other forestry worker attends the site. Also, based on the evidence, it is likely that mains electricity could be provided to the site, including to the existing equipment store.

In view of the above, it has not been demonstrated that a forestry worker needs to be at the site permanently, including to prevent any serious risks to the business operations or, that there would be any emergencies that need to be dealt with quickly, to avoid serious effects on the enterprise. Therefore, an essential functional need for a permanent dwelling for occupation by a rural worker engaged in forestry has not been demonstrated in this instance.

The financial records show that no profit has been generated from the business, with a net loss of some £38,000 of investment over a 7-year period. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that there is an existing viable business which could support even one full-time forestry worker. Also, even though forestry businesses are typically medium to long term investments, the appellant admitted at the hearing that no financial or business planning has been undertaken for the enterprise, including for other potential future streams of income related to the business. Furthermore, the appellant advised at the hearing that the investment in the woodland creation project to date has been drawn down from the appellants’ own savings.

Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that the enterprise at the appeal site would become viable in the foreseeable future. Subsequently, in view of the lack of existing and projected profits, it is not clear how the forestry enterprise and proposed dwelling would support the rural economy.

While the functional need for a forestry workers dwelling at the appeal site has not been demonstrated in this instance, it has been asserted that there is a shortage of suitable housing nearby. However, no substantive evidence has been provided about suitable alternative accommodation investigated and discounted, or why the appellants’ existing living accommodation, which is not that far away in terms of travel time, is not suitable to meet their personal needs.

To conclude, the essential need for a permanent dwelling on the site in association with a forestry worker has not been demonstrated. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with Policy AS.10 of the CS and the Framework in such regard.

The appeal site is within the fringe downlands of the [name] character area of the Cotswold National Landscape. The character area is defined by rolling landform, open field patterns, areas of woodland on higher ground, and interspersed small, compact stone villages. The appeal site and the wider area surrounding it exhibit characteristics typical of this landscape, including sloping open rural land that leads towards and surrounds the compact stone settlement of [site address] .

While there is existing development, including a few dwellings, a farrier, and the [name] pumping station on the opposite side of [site address] , the appeal site side of the lane is comparatively less developed, with only a pair of semi-detached dwellings towards the road junction before the land gives way to open countryside. The proposed dwelling would be separated from [site address] cottages by an intervening small piece of grazing land. As a result, the appeal dwelling would appear isolated and would introduce urbanising built form into predominantly open land at the edge of the village. This would be discordant with the prevailing open character of the landscape and erode the existing rural, open character of this part of the village.

Even if the proposal would not affect any notable views identified in the Village Design Statement (2019), this document does not form part of the adopted development plan and therefore carries limited weight. Furthermore, as discussed at the hearing, the principal concerns relate to views into, rather than out of, the village. From my site observations and having regard to the elevated position of the proposal within the parcel of land and the surrounding topography, the new dwelling would appear overly prominent within the open landscape. This would be particularly evident along the lane when approaching from the Todenham direction and from public rights of way crossing the rising fields nearby. While existing vegetation may filter closer views, the development would remain conspicuous in wider views, appearing as an incongruous feature in its open rural setting.

The proposed dwelling is designed to resemble a barn, and the application site is tightly defined to limit the land used for domestic paraphernalia. However, even if some domestic development could be controlled by condition, the introduction of built form and domestication of the site would nevertheless harmfully erode its open, rural character. For these and other forementioned reasons, the proposal would harm the [name] landscape character area of the Cotswold National Landscape.

In view of the above, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the surrounding landscape character. Therefore, it would conflict with [name].5, CS.9, CS.12 and AS.10 of the CS, which amongst other matters, require development to respect and not harm the distinctive character and appearance of an area, including its landscape and the relationship this has with settlements.

The appeal site is outside, but in close proximity to the [site address] Conservation Area (the CA). The significance of the CA is derived in part from its collection of traditionally designed buildings, including a predominance of stone-built properties and its rural, open landscape setting. Consequently, the setting of the CA makes a positive contribution to its significance.

The proposed development would introduce additional built form, reducing the open rural character of land at this edge of the CA. The new dwelling would appear isolated and discordant with the pattern of development at this end of the village. Furthermore, due to the site’s topography and that of surrounding land, the dwelling would appear unduly prominent when approaching the village along [site address] from Todenham, as well as from wider viewpoints along nearby public footpaths. Therefore, despite that views from within the CA towards the appeal site are limited, the proposal would harm the setting and thus the significance of the CA.

Accordingly, as the proposal would have a harmful effect on the setting of the [site address] Conservation Area, it would conflict with Policy CS.8 of the CS, which seeks to protect and enhance the historic environment. It would also conflict with [name].5, CS.9 and CS.12 of the CS, which amongst other matters, require development to have regard to local distinctiveness, including the setting of a settlement and existing built form.

In the context of the Framework, the harm to the setting of the CA would be less than substantial, at the lower end of the scale, given the scale of the proposal. However, great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets, and this harm weighed against the public benefits of the scheme.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of land for housing, currently stated to be 2.21 years. However, as the proposal is for a single dwelling intended for a specified rural worker, I give this benefit limited weight. The development would generate some social and economic benefits during its construction and occupation but given its small scale and that the limited services and facilities within the village, I give these benefits limited weight. Although not fully detailed, the woodland creation scheme would likely provide some biodiversity benefits, including the reintroduction of declining tree species. However, this does not form part of the appeal proposal and, it is set out that the statutory biodiversity net gain requirements do not apply, due to the self-build exemption. Accordingly, I give limited weight to these potential benefits.

Also, while it is envisaged the new dwelling would be self-build, there is no mechanism in place to secure this, and the evidence does not show that the Council is failing to meet its requirements for the provision of self-build and custom build dwellings currently. Therefore, I give limited weight to this consideration.

Taking all matters into account, I find the public benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset, whether considered individually or cumulatively.

The actions of the Council, including its pre-application advice, do not affect my findings on the main issues. The evidence shows that the pre-application advice provided in 2023 was on a without prejudice basis and identified the need to demonstrate a proven functional requirement for a forestry worker’s dwelling, with reference to relevant local development plan policies. Furthermore, the Council’s countryside consultant confirmed that their assessment was based on a desk top review of the submitted information and that a site was not necessary to assess the functional need.

While the proposal is smaller than a previously refused scheme for a dwelling at the appeal site, Council ref 20/02303/FUL, which was reviewed by MADE and dismissed at appeal, I have determined the proposal on its own merits and found harm in relation to the main issues.

The site benefits from an existing vehicular access and off-road parking, which would serve the proposed dwelling. Also, there is a permitted equipment store on the wider site and access to public services, such as water, sewage, fibre optic broadband and electricity nearby. In the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, no highway safety issues, such as vehicular collision, would likely arise. Appropriate visibility splays could be achieved at the access and, the level of vehicular movement associated with a single dwelling would unlikely harm the operation of the local highway network. However, these matters and the appellants’ commitment to climate change measures, do not outweigh or alter my findings on

The woodland creation project and associated land management activities at the wider site have delivered and would continue to deliver some environmental benefits, including planting a variety of tree species, some declined in the UK, in providing a native woodland. The planting project has been informed by advice from Natural England and the Forestry Commission and, the scheme would contribute to carbon capture. Also, evidence has been provided of national guidance and strategies that support flood management, including ‘Living on the Edge’1 and [name] guidance, which the appellant seeks to follow. However, it is unclear why such land management practices and environmental enhancements could not be undertaken without the proposed dwelling. Consequently, I give limited positive weight to these considerations.

Furthermore, no substantive evidence has been provided regarding the extent of biodiversity enhancements that would be delivered. Although the appellant has indicated their willingness to enter into a legal agreement to secure the dwelling as a self-build and so, rely on the exemption from the statutory biodiversity net gain requirement, no mechanism has been submitted as part of the appeal to enable it to be secured. Additionally, it has not been shown that the Council is failing to meet demand for self-build and custom housebuilding in the current base period.

I have found harm in relation to the main issues, in regard to the location of the development, its effect on the character and appearance of the National Landscape and the setting of the [site address] CA. In addition, no functional need has been demonstrated for a forestry workers dwelling at the appeal site. As such, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole.

The Council cannot demonstrate a deliverable five-year supply of housing land. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 11d of the Framework, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. However, the heritage balance set out above, concludes that the public benefits of the scheme do not outweigh the less than substantial harm caused to the setting of the CA. Furthermore, given my findings that the proposal would cause harm to the National Landscape, this provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed, under paragraph 11d) i and so, 11d) ii does not apply in this instance.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. 1 Living on the [name] guide to your rights and responsibilities of riverside ownership, by the Environment Agency, 2014.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

GW1- [site address] Village Plan, dated March 1996

GW2- 1770 Map of [site address]

GW3- [name] of Stratford-on-Avon District: A Countryside Design Summary