Appeal 6007444

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would accord with the spatial strategy of the development plan for the distribution of housing; • the effect of the proposed development on the Cotswolds National Landscape (formerly Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or AONB) and the effect on the character and appearance of the area; and, • whether the proposed refuse collection strategy for the site is acceptable.

A conflict is said to be with Policies SP1 and SP2 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and [name] (the [name]) (2017). These set the overall strategy for the distribution of development in the plan area, taking into account the availability of local services, as well as landscape and environmental considerations. Teddington is not named within any of the settlement tiers identified, and is therefore classified as a rural area, where Policy SD10 applies for residential developments.

Policy SD10 of the [name] identifies that residential development will be permitted on allocated sites, and sets out criteria where development might be permitted on sites that are not allocated. The appeal site is not allocated for residential development, and the proposed development does not accord with any of the stated criteria.

Teddington is outside any defined settlement area, as identified in the Tewkesbury Borough Plan (the Borough Plan) (2022). Policy RES3 of the Plan sets out the criteria where new housing will be considered acceptable outside settlement areas. The proposed development does not fall within any of the given criteria, with the possible exception of very small scale development at rural settlements, which must be in accordance with Policy RES4.

Policy RES4 of the Borough Plan, in turn, states that new housing will be acceptable in principle in a number of given circumstances, including where it does not have an adverse cumulative impact on the settlement having regard to other developments permitted during the plan period; it complements the form of the settlement and is well related to existing buildings within the settlement; and the site of the proposed development does not make a significant contribution to the character and setting of the settlement in its undeveloped state.

The appeal site comprises part of an open field, used as pasture, to the south of Teddington. Immediately to the north of the site is a stable block, with agricultural buildings beyond. On the other three sides are open fields, which have a similar rural, agrarian character to the appeal site. At this point [site address] is a gravelled track, which adds to the rural appearance of the area. The agricultural buildings to the north act as a transition between the settlement of Teddington and the open countryside, of which the appeal site forms a part. Those buildings, and the stables to the north of the appeal site form a clear visual boundary at this point between the built up area and the open countryside.

The development proposal consists of a 11⁄2 storey dwelling, with lowered eaves and the upper floor built into the volume of the roof. It would have a relatively simple form which, along with the palette of materials, is intended to respond to the appearance of agricultural buildings. The house would be contained within a rectilinear curtilage, bounded by new hedgerows, jutting into the field in which it sits. It is proposed to plant a further hedge line, with trees, beyond the enclosed curtilage, and construct a small carport and store next to the stable to the north of the proposed dwelling.

The appearance of the proposed dwelling is intended to respond to the agricultural buildings around it. However, the house and the site as a whole would nonetheless have a domestic character, which would be at odds with the open landscape character of the setting of Teddington. Its conspicuousness would be reinforced by the artificial rectilinearity of its defined curtilage; the harsh appearance of which would not be lessened by the supplementary planting in the field beyond.

The likely addition of domestic paraphernalia around the dwelling would also increase its residential appearance. The suggested removal of permitted development rights by condition, relating to domestic outbuildings in the curtilage of the development would not overcome the issue of the inherent character of the development.

The proposed development would not therefore relate well to the buildings in the settlement, nor the transitional agricultural buildings on the settlement edge. The cumulative impact of the change of use of the site to residential along with the residential development at [address], which I observed under construction at my site visit, would erode the landscape setting of Teddington.

My attention has been drawn to two planning approvals for residential development on [site address] , to the south of the appeal site, and a further approval to the north, as comparable permissions. The former developments were for the conversion of existing buildings on those sites, and therefore engaged development plan policies in a different manner to the appeal proposals. Similarly the latter development was for the replacement of existing buildings on the site and is not directly comparable to the proposed development before me. For these reasons, I attach limited weight to these examples as comparators with regards to the location of development.

For these reasons, the proposed development would not accord with the spatial strategy of the development plan for the distribution of housing. It therefore conflicts with Policies SP1, SP2 and SD10 of the [name], and Policies RES3 and RES4 of the Borough Plan, the aims of which are set out above.

Although adjacent to agricultural and equestrian structures, the defining character of the appeal site and its surroundings is predominantly that of an open, rural landscape, which in turn contributes to the setting of the village of Teddington. Its openness, character and field pattern also contribute to the intrinsic beauty and landscape character of the Cotswolds National Landscape.

The Cotswolds AONB Management Plan identifies components which contribute to the significance of the Area. These include the importance of the setting of villages as a vital element of the character of the Cotswolds and the distinctive small and medium sized fields of the countryside.

Policy SD4 of the [name] sets out that new development should respond positively to, and respect, the character of the site and its surroundings and enhance local distinctiveness. This is reiterated in Policy RES5 of the Borough Plan which requires that housing development at an edge of a settlement respects the form of the settlement and its landscape setting, and does not appear as an unacceptable intrusion into the countryside.

Policy SD6 of the [name] states that development should seek to protect landscape character for its own intrinsic beauty, and have regard to local distinctiveness and landscape character.

Additionally, Policy SD7 of the [name] sets out that all development proposals in the Cotswolds National Landscape, will be required to conserve and, where appropriate, enhance its landscape, scenic beauty, and other special qualities, in line with policies set out in the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan.

Policy LAN2 of the Borough Plan states that all development must, through sensitive design, siting, and landscaping, be appropriate to, and integrated into, their existing landscape setting.

Although it would be seen in the context of nearby agricultural buildings, the proposed development would nonetheless result in the erosion of the natural landscape character of the National Landscape through the intrusion of development of a residential character into the open fields and wider countryside. This would be not just through its built form and domestication of the site, but also through the artificial rectilinearity of its proposed immediate curtilage and its lack of relationship with the surrounding open landscape and locally distinctive, characteristic field patterns.

The residential character of the proposed development would also erode the predominant and defining character of the countryside, which forms the setting of the village of Teddington.

As set out in the Landscape and [name], the harm to the intrinsic beauty of the National Landscape may be localised in nature. However, it does not diminish the harm nor the great weight that paragraph 189, of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) (2024), advises should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes.

For these reasons, the proposed development would fail to conserve the qualities and intrinsic beauty and landscape character of the Cotswolds National Landscape, and harm the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of the village. It would, therefore, conflict with Policies SD4, SD6 and SD7 of the [name], and Policies RES5 and LAN2 of the Borough Plan, the aims of which are set out above.

It would also be contrary to guidance in the Framework, and policies set out in the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan, which seek to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the National Landscape.

[site address] is a no-through road, which is narrow and tarmacked for only a short distance from its junction with the road through Teddington. This surface gives way to a gravelled track some distance to the north of the appeal site.

The Council’s Waste Services Team advises that the access to the appeal site is not suitable to withstand the weight or dimensions of a refuse collection vehicle, and that the vehicle would not be able to turn around at the appeal site. Furthermore they do not consider that the proposed refuse strategy is acceptable, as this proposes waste from the appeal site being transported by the occupant to a roadside pick-up point, on [site address] , closer to the village.

The appellant does not dispute the level of accessibility to the appeal site by a refuse collection vehicle. However, they draw attention to two planning approvals for residential properties, around 250m and 350m further south respectively than the appeal site, along the unmade [site address] .

I have not been provided with details of the refuse strategies for these two sites. However at my site visit I observed that, given the nature of [site address] at this point and beyond, it is highly unlikely that they could be accessed by a refuse collection vehicle. It is therefore reasonable to assume that it has been accepted that refuse from those sites would be transported by the occupants to a refuse collection point closer to Teddington. The appeal site is closer to a possible refuse collection point, so transportation of waste by future occupants of the appeal site to this point would be less onerous than for the two sites further along the Lane.

Furthermore, evidence has been presented to indicate that, in response to a previous comparable application at the appeal site, the advice from the [name] was that refuse from the appeal site could be presented at an existing refuse collection point at Cherry Tree; which is towards the end of the tarmacked section of [site address] .

Given the appeal site is nearer to the existing refuse collection point at Cherry Tree than the two residential sites further south on [site address] , and the previous advice from the [name], I find that the proposed refuse collection strategy for the site is acceptable.

Policy INF2 of the [name] is cited on the Decision Notice, relating to this reason for refusal. However, INF2 concerns flood risk management and does not appear to be relevant to this issue. It has not been determinative to the appeal.

Reference has been made to other residential development permitted in and around Teddington, although I have not been provided with specific details. In any case, each planning proposal is assessed on its own merits, and I have come to a decision based on the circumstances of the case.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply at odds with Paragraph 78 of the Framework. Consequently, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged; whereby permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations.

There is conflict with the development plan, with regards to harm to the Council’s spatial strategy for the distribution of housing. Additionally, the proposed development would fail to conserve the intrinsic beauty and landscape character of the Cotswolds National Landscape, which attracts great weight in accordance with the Framework. It would also result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and the rural setting of Teddington.

The latest housing land supply figure for the Council is 3.14 years, which falls below the five-year target. The construction of one dwelling would make a small, but meaningful, contribution towards the Council’s housing supply and there is nothing to suggest that the proposal could not be delivered quickly. In view of the significant shortfall in the housing land supply figure, I attach significant weight to this benefit.

There would also be modest economic and social benefits associated with the construction and occupation of the dwelling, such as through new residents using local services. It is also intended to provide accommodation for a local family. I attach modest weight to these benefits.

Section 2A of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 indicates that an authority must give development permission for the carrying out of self-build and custom housebuilding on enough serviced plots of land to meet demand in the authority’s area. Evidence has been presented that there is a small deficit of self-build plots when considering demand, and the provision of one self-build dwelling would make a small contribution towards meeting the demand. I also attach modest weight to these benefits.

The appeal site is not in a conservation area, and the proposed development does not impact on any designated heritage assets. The development would be otherwise acceptable in respect of other matters, such as archaeology, ecology and drainage; nor would it result in the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land or result in unacceptable impacts on the highway network. These, however, are neutral matters in the planning balance.

Overall, the proposed development would not conserve the landscape character of the Cotswolds National Landscape which, on its own, provides a strong reason for refusal. In addition, the harm the development would have by way of undermining the plan led approach to the distribution of development, and the harm to the character and appearance of the area, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the modest benefits of the development when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole.

For the reasons given above and having regard to other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.