Appeal 6004872

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for residential development by way of a replacement two storey dwelling, up to 343sqm, following the removal of the existing dwelling and ancillary residential buildings at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01061/PIP.

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 development 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. Accompanying plans have been submitted which I have taken into account on an indicative basis only.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to whether or not the natural beauty of the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL) would be conserved and enhanced.

The appeal site lies within the CNL. The National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (NPPF) requires that great weight be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes. Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, as amended by Section 245 of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023, places a statutory duty on decision‐makers to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of such areas. This part of the CNL is distinctive due to its geological form of rolling hills and steep valleys, long countryside views and dispersed hamlets.

The site is located within the open countryside in a narrow tree belt that descends a steep hillside. The existing dwelling of 45sqm comprises a small timber, single storey structure with single bedroom and basic level of essential accommodation. Numerous outbuildings of varying sizes are positioned across the site. Due to the landform and existing mature vegetation, the site is effectively screened from surrounding farmland. Within the wider locality, sporadic residential properties comprise varied farmhouses and individual dwellings.

[name].10 and CS.20 of the Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy 2011 to 2031 (the [name]) make provision for residential development within the countryside in specified circumstances. Strategic objectives of these policies are maintaining and enhancing the rural character, reinforcing local character and distinctiveness and meeting the housing needs of the district.

Policy AS.10 (f) allows for a replacement dwelling subject to its scale and design not causing inappropriate harm to the character of the area or to neighbouring properties. Policy CS.20 section C. reinforces this approach, confirming that any replacement dwelling should be well sited in relation to the existing dwelling, not visually intrusive and not significantly larger than the dwelling it replaces. The accompanying notes affirm the council’s support for replacement dwellings, recognising the need to simultaneously protect the amenity of neighbouring residents and the character of the locality.

Both parties agree that the existing property is small and not considered suitable for retention, the indicative footprint of the replacement dwelling would be well sited in relation to the existing site / buildings and the replacement dwelling would not be visually intrusive. The site has a lawful residential use, is not subject to demolition or abandonment and the proposed development would be contained within the lawful curtilage of the existing dwelling.

Likewise, there is no dispute between the parties regarding either the proposed development being unsuitable in the context of the character of the locality or any identified harmful effect to other residential occupiers. The curtilage is sufficient to physically accommodate the proposed scale of development subject to appropriate design details that would be addressed as part of a technical details consent.

The scale specified in the description of development would reasonably be considered ‘significantly larger’ than the existing dwelling, even taking into account the proposed demolitions. The provisions of Policy CS.20, including the restriction on significantly larger replacement dwellings, seek to ensure the character of the locality is retained and any harmful effect upon neighbouring occupiers is prevented. Due to the location, landform and wooded nature of the site as well as the positioning of neighbouring occupiers at a distance, no planning harm to the character of the locality or neighbouring occupiers would arise from the potential scale of the development. Significant weight is given to achieving the strategic objectives of the two policies and the absence of harm.

The council concluded that the proposed development would not affect the wider landscape or character of the CNL. I concur with this conclusion, and the statutory duty is discharged.

For the reasons above, the proposed development would not cause material harm to the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to the CNL. Consequently, it would not conflict with Policy AS.10 of the [name] which allows for replacement dwellings that do not harm the character of the locality or the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. The proposed development would conflict with Policy CS.20 of the [name] in respect of its scale being significantly larger than the existing dwelling however, it would accord in all other respects and comply with the purposes and objectives of the development plan as a whole. It would not give rise to the harm which policies AS.10 and CS.20 seek to prevent. As such, the proposed development, when assessed against the development plan as a whole, raises no significant conflict that would be determinative in this case, and the site is suitable in principle for a replacement residential dwelling of up to 343 sqm.

The PPG makes it clear that it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of planning permission in principle, whose terms may only include the site location, the type and amount of development. As such, no conditions are attached to this decision.

For the reasons given above and having regard to the development plan as a whole, the appeal should be allowed.