Case Reference: 3348792

Appeal Decisions
Site visit made on 11 February 2025
by Mr S Rennie BSc (Hons), BA (Hons), MA, MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 14 April 2025
Ref: APP/C1625/W/24/3353573
Land at, Old Bristol Road, Nailsworth, Stroud, GL6 0LJ
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of
Stroud District Council.
• The application Ref is S. 24/1172/FUL.
• The development proposed is Construction of 4 no. dwellings.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. This appeal has been considered alongside another appeal for four dwellings at
the same address/site, reference APP/C1625/W/24/3348792. However, there are
clear and substantial differences between the proposals and also differences with
the reasons for refusal from the Council. As such, the other appeal is the subject to
a separate decision letter.
3. Within the Council’s Statement it makes clear that with the submission of post-
decision information the Council are not defending reasons for refusal relating to
the potential effects on Rodborough Common Special Area of Conservation (SAC)
and the Cotswold Beechwoods SAC.
Main Issues
4. The main issues are as follows:
• The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area,
and also on heritage assets in the locality of the site.
• The effect of the proposed development on the amenities of neighbours to
the site.
• Whether the development would contribute a sufficient level of biodiversity
net gain.
Reasons
Character and Appearance – Heritage Assets
5. The section of the Old Bristol Road that the site is within is of an urban
appearance, though the site is on the edge of Nailsworth with the far side of Bath
Road to the rear of the site being undeveloped countryside. However, the site itself
appears part of a residential area and not as part of a transitional character
between urban and rural areas. The rear gardens to the Old Bristol Road houses
adjacent to the site do contribute to the verdant quality of the area, but the site
itself does not have such a quality, being that it is largely clear of vegetation and
most recently used as a form of workshop or storage yard. As such, the proposed
development would not discernibly erode the sense of transition between the open
countryside and the existing settlement.
6. The proposed houses would be located close to the boundary with Bath Road.
Furthermore, the elevation facing Bath Road would be the front elevation for these
houses. Whilst not fronting immediately onto Bath Road, the layout is such that the
proposed housing would be read as part of the Bath Road street scene, similar to
the terrace of houses (Wycliffe Terrace) nearby. The proposed houses would not
be back-land development, even though the vehicular access would be off the Old
Bristol Road.
7. The design of the proposed houses which would be seen as two storey from Bath
Road and three storey from the rear (facing Old Bristol Road). Whilst the height
and position of the houses are not out of keeping with some of the other houses in
the vicinity, the elevations are not considered appropriate. For example, the side
elevations of plots 1 and 4 have a multitude of windows and door openings with
some different sizes and one being a dormer. There are also three separate
gables for these side elevations. This leads to a proposed elevation which appears
confused and without coherence in its visual appearance. The elevations would
appear generally at odds with the other prominent dwelling elevations in the area.
8. The height of the eaves above the windows at upper ground floor, such as those
on the rear elevations, appears excessive and results in elevations appearing to
be poorly proportioned.
9. The proposed design for these houses would be visible from public view points,
such as on the approach into Nailsworth. As such, the design would be harmful to
the character and appearance of the area.
10. It is agreed that the site is of little aesthetic value currently, but due to the lack of
many buildings on site it is not prominent, especially due to the wall along Bath
Road. Furthermore, the lack of a quality design for the proposed dwellings should
not be accepted due to the state of the site currently.
11. The site is situated within the Nailsworth Conservation Area. The development
would be of a poor standard of design which would adversely affect the historic
character and appearance of this area, which I consider contributes to the
significance of the Conservation Area. As such, the proposal would result in less
than substantial harm to the Conservation Area.
12. I have found that the proposed development would harm the significance of the
Conservation Area. Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that any less than
substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
The proposal would contribute towards the housing supply for the town and
district, but only with four additional dwellings. It would also provide a use for a
current derelict site of negative visual impact. Considering all the public benefits
combined, they would not outweigh the harm to the heritage assets.
13. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy ES10 of the Stroud District Local Plan
which requires that any harm or loss to heritage assets would require clear and
convincing justification to the relevant decision-maker as to why the heritage
interest should be overridden. No such clear and convincing reasons are given in
this case.
14. Due to the separation distances involved, the harm due to the design of the
proposed houses’ elevations would not adversely affect the setting of any nearby
listed buildings.
15. Furthermore, for these reasons the proposal would not accord with Local Plan
policy HC1, ES12 and policy CP14. These policies require that small-scale
housing need within defined settlements are well designed and compatible with the
character, appearance and amenity of the part of the settlement; be respectful of
the built environment, and integrate with their surroundings, amongst other things.
Neighbour Amenity
16. The Appellant submitted plans to the Council prior to the determination of the
planning application. However, the Council determined the application based on
the original plans. The amended plans have also been submitted with this appeal
and it is my view that considering these revised proposals would not prejudice any
interested party. The aim of these amended plans appears to be to reduce
potential impacts to neighbour amenities through lesser overlooking impacts.
17. The rear elevations of the proposed houses would face towards the rear of the
dwellings that front Old Bristol Road. This includes Nos 7 and 8 and Somerset
Villa, all on Old Bristol Road. It is also important to acknowledge that the dwellings
as proposed would be at a higher level than these neighbouring houses. There
would be first floor windows serving habitable rooms in the proposed houses which
would have views towards these neighbours, including towards windows in the
rear elevations of these neighbouring houses and private amenity space.
However, the dwellings as proposed are positioned close to Bath Road which
increases the separation distance between proposed and existing windows to a
degree which would minimise overlooking impact to a suitable degree.
18. The original plans had first floor terraces to the side and rear elevations, though
these have been omitted with the amended plans, which helps to minimise
neighbour amenity impacts.
19. There would be windows at first and second floor with views over the gardens to
the side of the plots, however these views would mainly be to the rear portion of
these gardens (away from typically more sensitive amenity areas for occupants
nearer the houses) where there already appears to be some level of overlooking.
20. As such, the proposals accord with policies CP14 and ES3 of the adopted Stroud
District Local Plan, which require that there should be no unacceptable adverse
effect on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, and that there should be no
unacceptable level of loss of privacy or an overbearing effect, amongst other
things.
Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)
21. This appeal has been submitted with the BNG assessment which the Appellant
states demonstrates that the mandatory requirements can be met for this scheme,
subject to a biodiversity management plan being submitted (via condition).
22. The Council have reviewed the BNG information submitted but stated the
following:
23. Post-intervention habitat plans have not been provided that demonstrates habitats
(as accounted for the in the metric) to be situated outside of private gardens.
Furthermore, detailed methodologies for enhancement of onsite habitats have not
been provided, and there is no evidence that target condition of habitats is
attainable or feasible alongside the proposed development.
24. From my inspection of the submitted details relating to BNG, there is insufficient
detail. It is not clear whether the proposal to create mixed scrub at the site is
achievable with the housing also proposed. It is unclear where the proposed
habitats would be delivered.
25. There remains significant doubt over whether BNG could be delivered to meet the
minimum requirement, to meet the requirements set out in the Environment Act
2021 Schedule 14, Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
26. Further to this, a revised Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment was submitted (dated
December 2024) with the final comments from the Appellant. This does provide
further detail, with it stating that the statutory 10% Biodiversity Net Gain cannot be
achieved on site, with some offsite provision being proposed. This is suggested to
be done by purchasing biodiversity credits. It is not clear how the off-site provision
would be secured or whether the purchasing of credits would be sufficient.
However, being submitted at the late stage in the appeal process there has not
been the opportunity for the Council to respond.
Rodborough Common SAC and the Cotswold Beechwoods SAC
27. The proposed dwellings would come into a zone where it could affect the
Rodborough Common SAC and the Cotswold Beechwoods SAC. The Appellant
has submitted a Unilateral Undertaking to address this issue. If I was to allow the
appeal then I would require more information on this matter prior to undertaking an
Appropriate Assessment. However, as the appeal is being dismissed, I have not
pursued this matter further.
Planning Balance
28. The proposed houses would contribute towards housing supply for the town and
district, on what appears to be previously developed land within the settlement
boundary and in an accessible location. The development would be an efficient
use of this land. There would also be other social and economic benefits through
the development of houses at this site, which has been redundant for some time,
and also future occupants supporting local businesses.
29. In this case, the proposals would be harmful to the character of the area and would
have less than substantial harm to the Conservation Area significance. A sufficient
level of BNG has also not been demonstrated as being deliverable. This combined
level of harm is significant. Furthermore, the proposed development is contrary to
the aforementioned LP policies.
30. The Appellant states that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land
supply. However, I find that the adverse impacts of the proposed development
would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed
against the policies in the Framework when taken as a whole, especially when
factoring in the heritage harm identified.
Conclusion
31. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.
Mr S Rennie
INSPECTOR


Appeal Decisions
Site visit made on 11 February 2025
by Mr S Rennie BSc (Hons), BA (Hons), MA, MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 14 April 2025
Ref: APP/C1625/W/24/3348792
Land At Old Bristol Road, Nailsworth, STROUD, GL6 0LJ
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of
Stroud District Council.
• The application Ref is S.24/0120/FUL.
• The development proposed is for the construction of 4 no. dwellings.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. This appeal has been considered alongside another appeal for four dwellings at
the same address/site, reference APP/C1625/W/24/3353573. However, there are
clear and substantial differences between the proposals and also differences with
the reasons for refusal from the Council. As such, the other appeal is the subject to
a seperate decision letter.
3. Within the Council’s Statement it makes clear that with the submission of post-
decision information the Council are not defending reasons for refusal 4 and 5,
relating to the potential effects on Rodborough Common SAC and the Cotswold
Beechwoods SAC, and also tree protection measures.
Main Issues
4. The main issues are considered as follows:
• The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area,
and also on heritage assets in the locality of the site.
• The effect of the proposed development on the amenities of neighbours to
the site.
Reasons
Character and Appearance
5. The proposal is for two pairs of semi-detached houses, with the vehicular access
off Old Bristol Road. The design of the proposed dwellings are of a simple
appearance, with lean-to porch to the front and single dormer to the rear. The
dwellings would not be prominent within the street scene of either Old Bristol Road
(B4058) or to Bath Road (A46) to the rear, though their design is of a sufficient
standard.
6. The section of the Old Bristol Road that the site is within is of an urban
appearance, though the site is on the edge of Nailsworth with the far side of Bath
Road to the rear of the site being undeveloped countryside. However, the site itself
appears part of a residential area and not as part of a transitional character
between urban and rural. The rear gardens to the Old Bristol Road houses
adjacent to the site do contribute to the verdant quality of the area, but the site
itself does not have such a quality, being that it is largely clear of vegetation and
most recently used as a form of workshop or storage yard. As such, the proposed
development would not discernibly erode the sense of transition between the open
countryside and the existing settlement.
7. The predominant characteristic of dwellings fronting Old Bristol Road is that they
are positioned close to the street, with larger rear gardens. However, this would
not be the case for the proposed dwellings, which would have their access and
front elevations fronting Old Bristol Road, though would be well set back from the
highway edge. The dwellings would be set back from Bath Road and at a lower
level, and so would clearly back onto this street.
8. There is a run of terraced properties near the site that fronts onto Bath Road
(Wycliffe Terrace) but these dwellings front onto Bath Road and are clearly part of
the Bath Road street scene. This would not be the case with the proposed houses,
which would back onto this street.
9. Essentially, the proposed dwellings would be seen as an inappropriate form of
backland development off Old Bristol Road, with the proposed curtilages extending
behind existing Old Bristol Road properties such as at No 8. Furthermore, although
closer to Bath Road the proposed dwellings do not front this road, such as those at
Wycliffe Terrace. The proposed development does not respond well to either street
scene, and would appear as an uncharacteristic anomaly within their setting. The
proposal would be at odds with the long-established residential street pattern
around the site.
10. It is accepted that the site has no positive visual qualities, but the lack of
development at the site means it is not prominent. Furthermore, though there
could be benefits with developing this site for housing this should be done with a
suitable and appropriate design and layout.
11. For these reasons the proposal would not accord with criterion 1 of Local Plan
policy HC1 and policy CP14. These policies require that small-scale housing within
defined settlements are of a scale, density, layout and design that is compatible
with the character, appearance and amenity of the part of the settlement it is
proposed to be located; be respectful of the built environment, and integrate with
their surroundings, amongst other things.
Heritage Matters
12. The site is situated within the Nailsworth Conservation Area. Furthermore, the
nearby neighbouring properties of Northfields (No 6 Old Bristol Road), 1 to 5 Old
Bristol Road, and The Maltings, are grade II listed buildings. Where Listed
buildings or their settings, are affected by development proposals, Section 66(1) of
the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act requires the decision-
maker to have special regard to desirability of preserving the building or its setting
or any features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses.
13. The pattern of development is long established considering the age of many of the
houses that are near the site. The proposed development, for the reasons set out
in the section above, would be an anomaly due to its layout and orientation within
the street scene. The development would be at odds with the pattern of
development of the locality, which I consider contributes to the significance of the
Conservation Area. As such, the proposal would result in less than substantial
harm to the Conservation Area.
14. The proposed dwellings would be particularly close and prominent within the
setting of Northfield (No 6 Old Bristol Road), which is a listed building. The
backland type development as proposed would be a harmful addition within the
setting of this listed building. The incongruous positioning and orientation of the
proposed dwellings would not conserve the setting of this listed building, which I
consider derives part of its significance from the historic layout of its setting. This
harm would also be less than substantial.
15. However, following my site visit and a consideration of the setting of the other
listed buildings in the area it is considered that the proposed development would
not adversely affect the setting of these other heritage assets.
16. I have found that the proposed development would harm the significance of the
Conservation Area and the setting of the listed building. Paragraph 215 of the
Framework states that any less than substantial harm should be weighed against
the public benefits of the proposal. The proposal would contribute towards the
housing supply for the town and district, but only with four additional dwellings.
There would also be the use of the site, which currently has an abandoned
appearance with a negative visual impact. Considering all the public benefits
combined, they would not outweigh the harm to the heritage assets.
17. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy ES10 of the Stroud District Local Plan
which requires that any harm or loss to heritage assets would require clear and
convincing justification to the relevant decision-maker as to why the heritage
interest should be overridden. No such clear and convincing reasons are given in
this case.
Neighbour Amenity
18. The front elevation of the proposed houses would face towards the rear of the
dwellings that front Old Bristol Road. This includes Nos 7 and 8 and Somerset
Villa, all on Old Bristol Road. It is also important to acknowledge that the dwellings
as proposed would be at a higher level than these neighbouring houses. There
would be first floor windows serving habitable rooms in the proposed houses which
would have views towards these neighbours, including windows in the rear
elevations of these neighbouring houses and private amenity space.
19. For Somerset Villa, there is proposed to be retained some trees to the rear of this
property which could filter some views. Furthermore, the rear garden of Somerset
Villa is not a particularly private space, being open to the shared access for
example. It is considered that the overlooking impact of the development on this
dwelling would not be at an unacceptable level.
20. For No 8 Old Bristol Road, there is part of this house that projects towards its rear
boundary. This would have the effect of bringing the rear elevation closer to the
proposed houses. The Council states that the distance between the front elevation
of the proposed house at Plot 1 and the rear elevation of No. 8 Old Bristol Road,
fails to meet the 25m minimum distance prescribed within the Council’s Residential
Design Guide. From my site visit and from the plans before me I would consider
that the separation distance is not sufficient to avoid undue levels of privacy loss,
either to the windows in the rear elevation of No 8 or into its rear garden.
21. There is further distance between the rear of No 7 Old Bristol Road and the
proposed houses than with No 8. However, the proposed houses would allow an
elevated view into the rear garden of No 7, which would diminish the privacy levels
for this amenity space significantly from existing levels.
22. Currently there are no dwellings with views back towards Nos 7 and 8. There
would be some views from neighbouring properties to the sides of Nos 7 and 8
and into their rear gardens, but only at an angle or at a substantial distance.
Currently these rear gardens are relatively private. The introduction of proposed
dwellings, at the distances as shown on the proposed layout, would significantly
reduce the privacy levels for occupants at both No 7 and No 8 below existing
levels, due to the views from the proposed houses back towards these existing
properties.
23. This is exacerbated by the higher level of the proposed houses, which would give
the impression that they would be looking down onto the existing houses, with
views over fences or most vegetation for example.
24. The appellant has mentioned the use of obscure glazing, but this would not be
suitable for use with a habitable room.
25. It is agreed that in urban areas a degree of overlooking between properties can be
expected, but in this case the degree of overlooking would be to an unacceptable
level, even for an area such as this.
26. Due to the impacts to Nos 7 and 8 Old Bristol Road, the proposal is therefore
contrary to policies CP14 and ES3 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, which
require that there should be no unacceptable adverse effect on the amenities of
neighbouring properties, and that there should be no unacceptable level of loss of
privacy or an overbearing effect, amongst other things.
Rodborough Common SAC and the Cotswold Beechwoods SAC
27. The proposed dwellings would come into a zone where it could affect the
Rodborough Common SAC and the Cotswold Beechwoods SAC. The Appellant
has submitted a Unilateral Undertaking to address this issue. If I was to allow the
appeal then I would require more information on this matter prior to undertaking an
Appropriate Assessment. However, as the appeal is being dismissed, I have not
pursued this matter further.
Planning Balance
28. The proposed houses would contribute towards housing supply for the town and
district, on what appears to be previously developed land within the settlement
boundary and in an accessible location. The development would be an efficient
use of this land. There would also be other social and economic benefits through
the development of houses at this site, which has been redundant for some time,
and also future occupants supporting local businesses.
29. In this case, the proposals would be harmful to the character of the area and would
have less than substantial harm to heritage assets. The proposed dwellings would
also have an unacceptable level of overlooking into some neighbouring properties.
This combined level of harm is significant. Furthermore, the proposed
development is contrary to the aforementioned LP policies.
30. The Applicant states that the Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing land
supply. However, overall, I find that the adverse impacts of the proposed
development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when
assessed against the policies in the Framework when taken as a whole, especially
when factoring in the heritage harm identified.
Conclusion
31. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.
Mr S Rennie
INSPECTOR