Appeal 6004971

The appeal is dismissed.

In the interests of conciseness and clarity, I have used the description of development as provided on the Council’s decision notice and the appellant’s appeal form.

The main issues are: (i) whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area, and its effect on the scenic beauty of the Cotswolds National Landscape; and (ii) the effect of the proposed development on protected species.

The appeal site is located within the [site address] Conservation Area. From the evidence before me, and from what I saw when I visited the site, the significance of the Conservation Area, in so far as it is relevant to this appeal, is derived from the value of the development of the settlement over many years, and the architectural styles and tastes of the time. It has an aesthetic value due to the appearance of the buildings that comprise the Conservation Area. Indeed, the vast majority of buildings are stone built with modest fenestration and pitched roofs which provides the area with a highly traditional and historic character.

The appeal site comprises a stone built detached dwelling with a pitched tile roof. The proposed development would add additional mass to the existing dwelling, including a double gable to the front and rear elevations. However, while the dwellings in the immediate area do share many similarities, particularly in relation to materials, it was clear during my site visit that there are a range of sizes and styles present. As such, while the solid to void ratio of the dwelling would inevitably be altered, I do not find that the building would appear overly dominant, unusual or incongruous as a result of its overall mass, and the double gable would appear as a slightly eccentric or quirky feature rather than detracting from local character. The proposed garage, which would be of a modest size, would also appear as a natural addition.

However, the northern elevation of the building would contain a significant amount of glazing at both ground floor and first floor levels, including a Juliet balcony. There would also be triangular shaped glazing above which would serve the master bedroom. The vast extent of this glazing would be a highly modern feature which, given the largely traditional character of the surroundings, would clearly appear as being extremely incongruous and out of place, thereby resulting in obvious harm. Given the topography of the land the site is in a prominent location. Indeed, to the north, there are fairly extensive views of other parts of the settlement and the gently rolling countryside beyond. As such, the heavily glazed northern elevation would be seen from various vantage points, and therefore the identified harm would be readily apparent. This would particularly be the case during the hours of darkness when the internal illumination of the dwelling would make the harm even more conspicuous. A landscaping scheme to provide screening would not mitigate this harm to any meaningful degree.

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention is paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. In this instance, due to the limited scale of the development, the harm would be relatively localised. However, the appeal site is located within a prominent position within the Conservation Area, and so this localised harm would also be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as a whole. The proposal would have a negative effect on the significance of a designated heritage asset and would result in ‘less than substantial harm’. In these circumstances, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that this harm must be weighed against public benefits. Great weight must be given to a designated heritage asset's conservation and any harm to its significance requires clear and convincing justification.

In this instance, the development would not provide a net increase in housing numbers although there would likely be very limited economic benefits in relation to the construction work. While there may also be some social benefits in relation to the adaption of the home for elderly occupiers, the small-scale nature of the scheme means that any such benefits are also likely to be very limited. Any remaining benefits associated with a larger dwelling would be private in nature, including the provision of more living space for future occupants. I therefore conclude that the public benefits do not outweigh the less than substantial harm I have identified. The proposed development would therefore fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and would result in harm to its significance.

It is notable that the appeal site is also located within the Cotswolds National Landscape (the NL). Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty within NL’s. Furthermore, the [name] and Regeneration Act 2023 requires decision makers to actively seek to further the statutory purposes of NL’s.

In this instance, given the topography of the land and the subsequent prominence of the appeal site, the clear and obvious harm that I have identified in relation to the Conservation Area would undoubtedly extend to the scenic beauty of the NL.

As a result, I conclude that the proposed development would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and would result in harm to the scenic beauty of the NL. It would therefore conflict with Policies EN2, EN4, EN5, EN10 and EN11 of the Cotswold District Local Plan, August 2018 (the LP), the relevant aspects of which seek to ensure that new development is well designed and that it preserves character and appearance, including the scenic beauty of the NL and the significance of designated heritage assets.

The appellant has produced a [name] ([name], August and September 2025). The report provides details of surveys undertaken and states that bat droppings were found within the roof void, while several [name] bats were observed emerging from the dwelling during subsequent observations. As a result, the report recommends various mitigation measures, including the installation of a large multi-chamber bat box. It is also likely that the works would result in the loss of a roost, and therefore a licence from Natural England would be required.

I note that the Council has concerns about the report, particularly in relation to the permanence and location of the proposed bat box. It is clear that, as a result of the harm I have already identified in relation to the Conservation Area and NL, this is not a determinative matter within this appeal. However, I am satisfied that the appellant’s bat survey is robust and that any additional details with regards to the nature of the roost or proposed mitigation could be secured, either through the licencing process or through the imposition of suitably worded conditions.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not result in harm to protected species. As a result, it would conform with LP Policy EN8, which in part seeks to protect such species.

The appeal site is located near to various listed buildings. Their significance is derived from their attractive designs and historic appearance. However, these assets are generally appreciated from close range, and the dwelling that is the subject of this appeal is not seen within the same locational context. Therefore, while I have found harm in relation to the wider Conservation Area, I am satisfied that the setting of the listed buildings would not be harmed. I note that the Council does not appear to disagree with this position.

I acknowledge that neither the Parish Council nor neighbouring residents have objected to the proposal. However, this does not alter the harm that I have identified as the decision maker in this appeal.

I have found that the appeal proposal would cause harm in relation to the Conservation Area and NL. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole, notwithstanding that I have not found harm in relation to protected species.

The proposed works would provide some economic benefits during the construction phase and social benefits in relation to the adaption of the home for elderly occupiers. Some ecological enhancements could also be delivered. However, the small-scale nature of the scheme means that any such benefits are likely to be very limited. While the appellant has referred to elderly relatives utilising the dwelling, there are very few details in this regard, and it is not clear why such needs could not be provided for without the extensive proposed glazing. This factor is therefore not a determinative feature within this appeal. Any private benefits in relation to additional internal space attract very little weight.

Accordingly, I conclude that there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. The appeal is therefore dismissed.