Case Reference: 3354249

Appeal Decision
Hearing held on 5-6 February 2025
Site visit made on 6 February 2025
by K Stephens BSc (Hons) MTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 24 March 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/C1625/W/24/3354249
[APPELLANT], Old Town, Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire GL12 7DW
• 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.24/0567/FUL.
• The development proposed is Conversion of a former schoolhouse to deliver two dwellings and
conversion of office/storage building to deliver two dwellings, and the development of 11 dwellings
along with landscaping, drainage and other associated works.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. Prior to the Hearing both parties had made an application for costs against each
other. However, at the Hearing both parties agreed not to pursue their respective
applications.
3. During the course of the appeal a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the
Framework) was published in December 2024 and replaces the previous version
published in December 2023. During the Hearing both parties were able to bring
my attention to any relevant revised policies.
4. The proposal relates to a listed building within a conservation area. In considering
whether to grant planning permission I have statutory duties to have special regard
to the desirability of preserving a [listed] building or its setting or any features of
special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, and to pay special
attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance
of a conservation area under sections 66(1) and 72(1) respectively of the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).
5. An associated listed building consent (LBC) application1 has also been submitted to
the Council for works to the Grade II listed building (building C on the proposed
plans). At the Hearing I heard that the LBC decision is still pending but that the
proposed internal and external works gave the Council no cause for concern. For
the avoidance of doubt, the scope of this decision relates only to the s78 appeal
and does not include consideration of the proposed internal works to the Grade II
listed building.
1 Local Planning Authority ref: S.24/0568/LBC
6. Following clarification at the Hearing, it was confirmed that reference to aluminium
replacement windows on the listed building was an error and that they would be
timber. The Council would be satisfied with a condition requiring timber window
sections, should the appeal be allowed. It was agreed that the window section
drawing2 was redundant and could be excluded from the suite of plans.
7. It was confirmed that the examination for the emerging Stroud District Local Plan
(the emerging local plan) had now resumed. Policies DHC1 and HC1 have not yet
been heard, whereas Policies DCP1, CP2 and DHC6 have been although the
Council was not aware of any objections or feedback. The Council gives the
emerging policies no weight, whereas the appellant gives them medium weight. In
light of the stage of preparation of the plan, I give the policies limited weight.
8. Before the Hearing draft planning obligations3 were submitted. A section 106
planning obligation (the s106) addresses Biodiversity Net Gain and the Unilateral
Undertaking (the UU) addresses the affordable housing provision. At the Hearing
the main parties confirmed their satisfaction with the terms of both legal
agreements. A date for the submission of the signed and dated planning obligations
was agreed. These have now been submitted.
Main Issues
9. The Council originally refused the application for 14 reasons. However, as part of
their appeal the appellant submitted additional information to address some of the
refusal reasons. The Council confirmed in their Statement of Case that the
additional information had overcome refusal reasons 8 (Archaeology), 9 (Ecology
and protected species) and 10 (Drainage). Therefore, these no longer form reasons
for refusal. Refusal reason 14 replicates the public benefit balance that should be
undertaken when there is harm to a designated heritage asset, as set out in the
Framework. The Council agreed this does not need to form a specific reason for
refusal.
10. Shortly before the Hearing, the appellant submitted a Statement of Common
Ground in collaboration with Gloucestershire County Council as the Local Highway
Authority to address the access and parking reasons for refusal. The Council has
confirmed this now overcomes refusal reasons 11 and 13 relating to access and
parking.
11. Refusal reason 7 relates to the non-submission of a legal agreement to secure
affordable housing. The signed and dated UU would secure the provision of 30%
policy-compliant affordable housing and thus overcomes this objection.
12. I see no reason to disagree with any of the above conclusions. In that context the
number of refusal reasons has been reduced and the main issues in this appeal are
now:
a) Whether the proposal would comply with local and national policies that seek to
protect identified employment sites;
b) Whether the proposal (in particular new Block A) would preserve the setting of
the Grade II listed building known as ‘The Cottages’4 and other nearby listed
2 Drawing P4001 Rev PO2
3 Pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
4 National Heritage List for England: list entry number 1373889
buildings; the effect of the proposal on the significance of the non-designated
heritage asset (the former Sunday School building) and; whether the proposal
would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Wotton-under-
Edge Conservation Area;
c) The effect of the proposal on the Cotswold National Landscape; and
d) Whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future
occupiers of building B with regard to light, privacy and outlook.
Reasons
13. The appeal site comprises land adjacent to the appellant’s existing industrial site
and building off Old Town in the centre of Wotton-under-Edge. It is accessed off
Old Town via an existing private drive that leads to areas of parking on rough
ground. Pedestrians can cross the site and enter Long Street through an alleyway
between buildings. The site is irregular in shape and widens out from the narrow
access. The parties agree that the site is brownfield land, or previously developed
land (PDL) as it is defined in the Framework glossary.
14. The site also includes two buildings. The former Sunday School building (shown as
building B on the proposed plans) is a non-listed building that the parties have
treated as a non-designated heritage asset, and so shall I. This building and the
listed Cottages (shown as building C on the proposed plans) would both be
converted into two residential units each. Adjacent to the former Sunday School
building is an area of lawn enclosed by walling – this would be the site of a
proposed new building (Block A) of contemporary design for 11 flats.
15. The remainder of the site would provide access and a landscaped car parking area
for residents of the proposed residential units, and parking spaces for a number of
existing residents of other nearby properties who have an on-going right to park on
the site. A bicycle shed would also be erected for use by future residents of the
scheme. A pedestrian route through the site from Old Town to Long Street would
be retained.
a) Employment land
16. The Cottages and a small area of land to their rear form part of the wider existing
[APPELLANT] site and buildings, which is identified as a key employment site EK37
(Renishaw Old Town) in Policy EI1 of the Stroud District Local Plan November
2015 (the Local Plan). The Cottages form part of office/business/storage space
associated with the Renishaw Old Town site and hence their inclusion in the
protected employment allocation. However, they are no longer in use by the
appellant.
17. The policy states that the identified sites will be retained for B Class uses and that
redevelopment for alternative uses or changes of use from employment use will not
be permitted. The proposal to convert The Cottages into 2 residential dwellings
would therefore see the loss of protected employment land and hence would be
contrary to Local Plan Policy EI1.
b) Heritage Matters
Special interest and significance of the heritage assets
18. The Grade II listed Cottages date from the 19th century. The building is of squared
rubble stone with a slate roof. It is a single block, although there is evidence it was
once longer, and two storeys to eaves with rooms and dormers in the attic5 with a
central gable and flanking Cotswold gables. From the evidence and my
observations, the special interest and significance of the listed building, insofar as it
relates to this appeal, are largely derived from its historic interest as an example of
vernacular 19th century domestic architecture and as a rare surviving building in an
area much cleared and altered in the 20th century. Its age, simple form, character,
legibility as a row of dwellings, and traditional construction materials make
important contributions in these regards.
19. The special interest and significance of a heritage asset can also be derived in part
from its setting, which the Framework Glossary defines as the surroundings in
which a heritage asset is experienced. There was consensus between the parties
that the surroundings have much changed and been degraded over time.
Submitted map regressions show The Cottages were built set back from Old Town.
Whilst they backed onto the rear of burgage plots on Long Street, they were
historically associated with a parcel of open pastureland immediately to their front
and which extended to Old Town, as shown on the Tithe Map extract of 1842. This
land is no longer open or agricultural in character, having been occupied by the
industrial building (built years ago for a different business) and which almost
entirely obscures any views of The Cottages from Old Town.
20. The existing route of the private access drive from Old Town reflects the historic
approach to The Cottages, which is clearly shown on the map extracts, and which
remains today. It provides views of The Cottages as one progresses along it and
contributes to the setting and understanding of their significance. To the south of
The Cottages, what were once garden areas are now areas of ad hoc car parking
on rough ground. Any garden area to the west of The Cottages is now occupied by
a large early 20th century industrial building. Nonetheless, I find the open nature of
this immediate setting affords an appreciation of The Cottages and where evidence
of their phased development is visible.
21. From the evidence before me and my observations, I concur with the parties that
the part of the site intended for Block A forms part of the wider setting of The
Cottages but contributes little to the special interest and significance of the listed
building.
22. The former Sunday School building is a non-designated heritage asset. Dating
from the late 19th century, it is built of rubble stone with some brick quoins and
segmental window arches and comprises a two storey building with a single storey
annexe on its western end. Map regression shows it as a building set some
distance behind the former Congregational Chapel on Old Town. Built on glebe
land, it was however most likely to have served the congregation of the Parish
Church of St Mary’s a little further away than the Chapel. Its significance, insofar
as it relates to this appeal, is largely derived from its historic interests as an
example of vernacular 19th century architecture for a community building as part
5 The listing description refers to 3 storeys.
of the social evolution of Wotton, with the building’s age and surviving historic
fabric making contributions in these regards.
23. A 1763 map of the Berkeley Castle Estate6 shows an open area of land (that
includes land intended for Block A) extending from Old Town and running south
along the access track. It appears as kitchen garden subdivided with paths. The 1st
edition Ordnance Survey map of 1881 shows the Sunday School building and a
path along the side of the Chapel off Old Town leading towards it. There appears
to be two demarcated areas immediately to the front (north) and side (west) of the
Sunday School building. The 2nd edition (1902) and 3rd edition (1920) map extracts
show the same path appearing more definitively demarcated and the
aforementioned spaces more defined around the Sunday School.
24. The 1881 map shows the land intended for Block A as an open area, but with
fewer paths than on the 1763 map, with some annotation of trees. The same
parcel of land continues to be shown open, but without the paths, on both the 1902
and 1920 map extracts. This indicates that the parcel of land, with the access track
running alongside it, has been open land for a considerable period of time.
25. On site one can see the alignment of the path that once led from the Sunday
School, alongside the Chapel onto Old Town, but this now stops at the boundary
wall that now forms the garden of what is now a dwelling converted from the
Chapel. Some of the open land to the north has also been incorporated as garden
and garage for the converted Chapel and there is a modern public toilet block on
the corner by the site access.
26. However, the remainder of the land to the west of the Sunday School building (for
Block A) remains open and laid to grass with some trees. The western and
southern enclosing boundary walls, although modern, follow the approximate line
of those shown on the early maps.
27. From the submitted evidence and what I heard and saw during the Hearing, I am
inclined to the view that the land intended for Block A did not form part of the
original intended grounds or play area for the Sunday School, and that any
benefits the Sunday School may have enjoyed from use of the open surrounding
land beyond its own more constrained curtilage would likely have been a result of
happenstance. There would appear to be no historic or functional relationship
between the land and the Sunday School, apart from some geographical proximity
and there is no visible resemblance of the historic kitchen garden which once
existed.
28. The former Sunday School building was not designed or orientated to be viewed
from the open land to the west. However, this land nonetheless provides a simple
landscaped and tranquil space that forms the immediate setting in which the
former Sunday School building is experienced and its heritage merit appreciated,
even if the space is gated and not publicly accessible any longer. The land
earmarked for proposed Block A thus positively contributes to the significance of
the non-designated heritage asset.
29. The appeal site is located within the Wotton-under-Edge Conservation Area (the
WuECA). Wotton-under-Edge is an historic market town. The settlement of Wotton
was first focussed on Old Town, the medieval St Mary’s Church and the Manor
6 The parties viewed this map at the Hearing on Dr Turnock’s laptop as it is unable to be reproduced for copyright reasons.
House to the northern edge of the town and the appeal site. As Wotton prospered
from the wool trade and cloth industries, the town grew. However, as the Berkeley
family retained control of areas around the Manor and church, the town expanded
southwards into the ‘new town’, with new streets built on an early grid-iron pattern
with a higher density of built form with properties fronting the streets and burgage
plots to their rear. The large areas for the existing Renishaw building and the open
land to the west of the Sunday School building still remain. The properties fronting
Long Street and Church Street broadly enclose the appeal site, with some burgage
plots adjoing the appeal site’s southern boundary. The change between the more
open areas to the north and the more densely designed new town to the south is
legible today.
30. The Conservation Area Statement shows the appeal site lies within Sub area 1,
which is described as urban, centring around the planned town of the medieval
ages with higher density and the grid-iron street pattern of properties and burgage
plots. However, Sub area 2 is the earlier settlement centred on the church and the
Manor and, due in part to the single landownerships, the pattern and density of
buildings here is more irregular than is found in the town centre and there is a
greater sense of openness, which is afforded by a variety of public and private
spaces. The aforementioned map extracts reveal this, showing the open space in
front of the listed Cottages and the former kitchen garden land to the side of the
Chapel and Sunday School. Despite its location within Sub area 1, the parcel of
open land intended for Block A is more redolent of the openness described in Sub
area 2.
31. From the evidence before me and what I saw during my site visit, I consider the
character and appearance of the WuECA, and thus its special interest and
significance, are in part derived from the architectural richness and variety of its
surviving historic buildings, many of which are listed, and street patterns and the
relationship of its buildings and spaces that reflect the economic and social
development of the town and the marked change between the relationship of
buildings and spaces of the old and new town.
32. The listed Cottages and former Sunday School building are integral components
of the historic fabric of the town and conservation area. Thus they positively
contribute to its character and appearance as a whole and thereby to its
significance.
33. The parcel of land intended for Block A is currently open and undeveloped, and
has historically been so. Its open character and appearance are also important
components of the conservation area, reflecting former patterns of landownership
as part of the manorial lands of Old Town and the Church, and the later expansion
of Wotton southwards to the ‘new’ town’ and its burgage plots. Hence, I find the
land intended for Block A positively contributes to the open character and
appearance of the conservation area as a whole in reflecting Wotton’s evolution,
and hence to its significance as a heritage asset.
34. In its reason for refusal the Council mentioned that other listed buildings would
be affected but mentioned none specifically. At my request the Council listed a
substantial number of listed buildings in the vicinity of the appeal site along Old
Town, Church Street and Long Street that would be affected. However, at the
Hearing the Council considered that whilst many of these buildings were visible
from the site, only Nos. 13, 15, 17 and 19 Long Street would be affected as their
rear burgage plots backed onto the appeal site.
35. Whilst the individual listed buildings have their own specific historic and
architectural interest, I saw that their significance is also derived in part from their
group value as part of the overall townscape and surviving historic fabric of
buildings and street pattern of Wotton, reflecting its growth over time. In the
context of this appeal, the setting of the various buildings is primarily associated
with their visibility as part of the commercial street setting and wider street scape.
The appeal site affords views of the backs of these properties and some of the
burgage plots associated with them, revealing a jumble of buildings, roofscapes
and spaces. The existing open aspect of the appeal site thus allows an
appreciation of these buildings as part of the wider townscape.
Effect of the proposal on the heritage assets
36. It is common ground between the main parties that the proposed works for the
refurbishment and restoration of the listed Cottages and the former Sunday School
building are not contentious and would not affect the significance of each building.
Based on the submitted evidence and my observations I have no reason to find
otherwise.
37. The proposed upgrading, resurfacing and landscaping of the parking areas in the
southern part of the site would bring about an overall visual and physical
improvement to the immediate setting of the listed Cottages and the space around
them. This would allow a greater appreciation of the building’s heritage merit and
enhance its presence as a rare survival of an historic building in a currently
degraded part of Wotton.
38. The proposed resurfacing and landscaping of the car parking areas would not
encroach on the already degraded burgage plots to the rear of some of the
properties fronting Long Street. Indeed the works would improve the surroundings
in which the listed buildings on Long Street would be experienced, and thus
preserve their settings.
39. The proposed refurbishment of the listed Cottages and former Sunday School
building would bring two historic buildings, which are an integral part of the
WuECA, back into active use and hence enhance the fabric and heritage merit of
the conservation area as a whole. The proposed resurfacing and landscaping
works would also visually and physically improve the site. As the site is an integral
part of the conservation area, it follows that these improvements would also
enhance the character and appearance of the WuECA as a whole. The upgrading
works would also improve the pedestrian experience for those walking through the
site between Long Street and Old Town as well as improve the outlook for local
residents whose properties look out over the site.
40. However, the Council’s concern rests principally with proposed Block A. It would
occupy open land beside the former Sunday School that is important to its
significance. Despite no strong evidenced historical or functional relationship
between the space and the former Sunday School building, there would
nonetheless be a loss of land that has historically lain open and undeveloped for
over 200 years and from which the former Sunday School building is best
appreciated and its legibility as part of Wotton’s community understood. Hence the
erection of Block A would erode the setting, and hence significance, of this non-
designated heritage asset.
41. Furthermore, the height to the roof ridge of the tallest part of the Block A would be
about 16m tall and would be sited about 10.5m distance away7 from the nearest
part of the Sunday School building. The ‘L’ shaped form of Block A would also
mean the single storey limb to the north of the building would be in very close
proximity to the former Sunday School building. Hence, the height of Block A
coupled with its proximity would crowd and dominate the former Sunday School
building and compete with it. This would further diminish the setting of the former
Sunday School building and harm its significance.
42. With regards impact on the WuECA the physical presence of Block A would
reduce the openness of a site, which has historically been open, harmfully eroding
the contribution the appeal site makes to the character and appearance of the
WuECA as a whole.
43. Block A would take up most of the parcel of land, built close to the boundaries,
including with the garden of the converted Chapel, and the access track, leaving
little space for the building with effectively only a path around the outer edges.
With its tall blocky form and its relatively small area of communal outdoor space
sandwiched between it and the former Sunday School building, the proposal would
appear contrived and shoehorned into the site. This would create a cramped form
of development that would amount to over development of the parcel of land.
Block A and the parking areas read as discrete components on different parts of
the wider appeal site such that they do not combine as a cohesive related whole.
Hence, I do not share the view put forward by the appellant that Block A is not over
development when seen as part of the total area of the appeal site.
44. The design of the building has sought to take references from the variety of
building types, sizes, heights and forms in Wotton, and is intended as a
contemporary reflection that would also use traditional materials in a modern way.
The building would be cranked very slightly along the main western elevation
along the track and at this point would step down to two storey. At this junction
there would be a parapet between the two roofs, but this is not repeated at either
end of the building such that it would be an isolated feature creating an unresolved
and uncomfortable roof form. Despite the nominal cranked elevation, this does
little to break up the bulk and length of the building into a successful terrace. The
two storey element would have windows about the same size, if not larger, than
the 2½ storey element and vertically the upper floor windows compete with the
lower ones. Hence the detailing does not respond to usual fenestration language,
and the smaller part of the building would be top heavy and out of scale.
45. Consequently, the building reads as a combination of parts put together, rather
than as a cohesive whole, and the two parts of the building either side of the crank
would sit awkwardly against each other. Even though there are buildings of
different heights in the vicinity of the site, including tall buildings such as the Old
Mill opposite the site entrance and Old Town House adjacent to the Sunday
School, they are read as separate buildings in their own right but share a similar
traditional architectural language. Here Block A would bear little resemblance in
form and scale to surrounding buildings or to the grain of buildings in the historic
7 These distances were measured off the plans at the Hearing as there were no annotated measurements
market town, nor does it successfully address the Renishaw industrial building
opposite. Even if views of Block A would be limited from outside the site, this does
not mean the development is not capable of causing harm. The development
would still be seen by those living there and by those walking through the site.
46. Whilst I have no reason to believe Block A would not be of a high quality build I
find, through a combination of factors that include scale, bulk, form, massing and
design, that Block A would be too big for its plot and of an unsuitable design such
that it would be an incongruous addition to the townscape. There is no reason why
contemporary designed buildings cannot fit in with more traditional surroundings.
However, this particular building fails to do so here. It would thus fail to preserve or
enhance the character or appearance of the WuECA as whole, and therefore
would harm the significance of this designated heritage asset.
47. To conclude on heritage matters, I find proposed Block A would cause harm to the
significance of the conservation area as a whole, and to the significance of the
former Sunday School building, a non-designated heritage asset. The proposal
would thus fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the relevant provisions of
the Framework. It would also conflict with Local Plan Policies HC1, ES10, CP8 and
CP14. Collectively these seek, amongst other things, to protect, conserve or
enhance the district’s historic environment, including the heritage significance of its
market towns that includes Wotton-under-Edge. The policies also seek to ensure
that the scale, layout and design of small scale housing in settlements is well-
designed and compatible and appropriate to the site and the character and
appearance of that part of the settlement.
48. Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that when considering the impact of
development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight
should be given to the asset’s conservation. With reference to paragraphs 214 and
215, in finding harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the
magnitude of that harm should be assessed. Given the nature and extent of the
proposed development and in line with the Framework, I find the harm to the
significance of the conservation area would be ‘less than substantial’. Less than
substantial harm does not equate to less than substantial planning objections, but
any harm carries considerable importance and weight. It is held in settled caselaw
that the Framework’s division of harm into categories of ‘substantial’ or ‘less than
substantial’ is adequate to carry out the weighted balancing exercise to determine
whether a proposal is acceptable.
49. Where development will lead to less than substantial harm, paragraph 215 of the
Framework requires the harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the
proposal. I shall undertake this as part of the Heritage and Planning Balance later
in the decision. Where development affects a non-designated heritage asset, a
balanced judgment is required having regard to the scale of any harm and the
significance of the heritage asset.
c) Cotswold National Landscape
50. The appeal site lies within the Cotswolds National Landscape (formerly the
Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty), which is a nationally protected
landscape. The statutory purposes of National Landscapes are to preserve and
enhance their natural beauty. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 amends
the duty on relevant authorities in respect of their functions to now “seek to further”
the statutory purposes of Protected Landscapes. Framework paragraph 189 states
that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing their landscape and
scenic beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these
issues.
51. Local Plan Policy ES7 states that priority will be given to the conservation and
enhancement of the natural beauty of the landscape whilst taking account of the
biodiversity interest and historic and cultural heritage. It goes on to say that
development will only be permitted if the location, materials, scale and use are
sympathetic and complement the landscape character, and natural features that
contribute to the landscape character and setting of developments are retained
and managed appropriately in the future. It further states that proposals within [the
AONB] will be expected to have regard to it and any Cotswolds Conservation
Board Management Plans and any other relevant documents and assessments.
52. The Cotswolds Conservation Board were consulted on the application and advised
that in addition to Local Plan and Framework conflict, the proposal would conflict
with guidance in its policies of the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan and
Landscape Strategy and Guidelines by reason of its scale, massing and design
and so would harm the character and appearance of the WuECA and fail to
conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Cotswolds National Landscape.
53. I have already found proposed Block A would harm the conservation area.
However, the National Landscape is primarily a landscape designation and in this
case washes over Wotton and other settlements. Wotton falls within Landscape
Character Type 3B (Stinchcombe and North Nibley), which is characterised by
rolling hills and valleys. Wotton sits at a valley mouth above the vale that stretches
across to the River Severn. As the Conservation Area Statement explains,
Wotton’s name describes it as being “under the edge” of the Cotswolds Hills. This
was clearly evident as I walked around Wotton and saw the Cotswolds Hills were a
backdrop to the town, for example when progressing north along Bear Street and
Church Street.
54. From the viewpoint on Wotton Hill that overlooks the town I saw how Wotton
nestled in the landscape, with expansive views out towards the River Severn. The
large rectangular monolithic block of the existing Renishaw building was
conspicuous by its excessive scale and massing, in contrast to the prevailing
tighter and smaller grain of the surrounding town. The appeal site was just about
discernible and the proposal would not be significantly visible as to interfere with
the expansive views. I saw that the proposal would not affect the overall shape
and form of Wotton, would not see Wotton expand beyond its current form, and
would not read as a disruptive element in the wider landscape.
55. From the evidence before me and my observations on site, I am satisfied that the
landscape and scenic beauty of the Cotswolds National Landscape would not be
adversely affected, but would be conserved. Accordingly, the proposal would not
conflict with Local Plan Policy ES7 or the Framework.
d) Living Conditions of future occupiers
56. The parties have confirmed that there is a typographical error in refusal reason 12
and that it is building B (the former Sunday School) that would be affected, not
building C.
57. Local Plan Policy ES3 is a general policy that seeks to maintain quality of life and
apply a number of environmental criteria such that development that would result
in unacceptable levels of certain amenity factors, such as noise, loss of daylight or
sunlight, loss of privacy or would have an overbearing effect, will not be granted.
Privacy
58. The Council’s Residential Design Guide8 provides standards regarding the
distance between buildings and windows to ensure privacy for the occupiers.
Where dwellings with clear windows face each other there should be a minimum
distance of 25 metres.
59. Clear windows of proposed Block A would face directly towards clear windows in
building B. As already stated, it was confirmed at the Hearing that the closest part
of Block A would be about 10.5m away from building B and its ground floor
bedroom window. This is less than half the recommended separation distance and
hence would contravene the Design guidance.
60. The offending windows in Block A would serve the three storey, fully glazed,
communal stairwell and a lobby landing. The use of the stairwell would be
intermittent and views out would be more fleeting as residents and visitors
ascend/descend the stairs. However, taking account of the height of Block A and
that it would sit on ground some 600mm9 higher than building B, there would be a
significant perception of being overlooked.
61. Views towards the bedroom window of building B from kitchen/living rooms and
bedroom windows in Block A located either side of the stairwell would be more
oblique, and over a slightly larger distance would not cause undue loss of privacy.
However, the kitchen/living room of the single storey ground floor flat of Block A
would be in very close proximity to the second window of the bedroom of building
B. This proximity would reduce the effect of any oblique views. As such the
bedroom of the ground floor flat in building B would be overlooked from several
directions.
62. The appellant was willing to obscure glaze the windows to the stairwell. This would
remove the potential for overlooking and could be conditioned if I were minded to
allow the appeal. However, this indicates to me the issue is symptomatic of an
inappropriate design.
63. In addition, block A has been designed to enclose a communal outside private
amenity for use by residents of the 11 flats in Block A and those in the two
dwellings in building B. This space would also be the pedestrian access route for
residents/visitors of the two residential units in building B to access their front
doors. Occupiers of the two-storey unit in building B would pass in front of both
bedroom windows, which have low cills that would afford easy views in.
Furthermore, those using the communal outside space would be able to look in.
Thus privacy to future occupiers of the ground floor flat in building B would not be
preserved.
64. I acknowledge that all future residents would be moving into a pre-designed
situation aware of what looks onto what. Nor is it uncommon for dwellings,
particularly in urban areas, to have pavements passing directly adjacent to
8 Residential Design Guide – Supplementary Planning Guidance November 2000
9 Confirmed by Mr Wint (Architect) following the Hearing at my request.
habitable rooms. However, this is not justification for creating poor living conditions
and just because a room has a second window does not obviate privacy
considerations for the main affected window. Furthermore, residents should not
need to put blinds or other privacy screens up at windows to preserve their privacy
to overcome design shortcomings because buildings are built too close and with
windows facing. Nor is it generally acceptable to obscure windows in habitable
rooms even if they are secondary windows, as this would reduce outlook for
occupiers of these rooms and in this case both windows are large openings. I
therefore find that the proposed Block A would not provide acceptable levels of
privacy for the future occupiers of building B they could reasonably expect to
enjoy.
Light/overshadowing
65. The appellant has provided a daylight assessment to assess the impact of Block A
on light levels, using the summer and winter solstice. Looking at the existing
situation the west elevation of building B and the open space outside it are in full
sunlight at noon and at 4pm in the summer. In the winter there would be sunlight at
noon, but not after 4pm.
66. With proposed Block A in situ, the end of building B would only get sunlight at
noon in the summer. At all other times the end of the building B and its only
bedroom would be in shade. The communal outside space would also be in shade
from 4pm onwards in the summer, with partial shade at noon both in the summer
and winter. All other windows in building B would be in shade anyway because all
its other windows face north. But for a main habitable room to be in shade as well
as the outside space would compound poor levels of light for occupiers of building
B. I therefore find the presence of Block A would significantly alter levels of natural
daylight and sunlight and adversely affect the living conditions of future occupiers
of building B to an unacceptable degree.
Overbearing
67. Policy ES3 defines overbearing as a term used to describe “the impact of a
development or building on its surroundings, particularly a neighbouring property,
in terms of its scale, massing and general dominating effect”.
68. Proposed Block A would be sited on ground level some 660mm higher than
building B. The difference in ground levels coupled with the bulk, massing and
height of the Block A (about 16m), the close proximity of the buildings to each
other, and its enveloping courtyard design would result in Block A having a
domineering and overbearing effect on occupiers of building B and also users of
the communal courtyard. This would result in the creation of an oppressive living
environment that would harm their living conditions
69. To conclude on living conditions, I find that proposed Block A would create loss of
privacy and sunlight and would have an overbearing effect on future occupiers of
building B, particularly the ground floor flat. In coming to this conclusion I am
mindful of the Framework’s increased emphasis on the effective use of land for
housing, achieving appropriate densities and the need to take a flexible approach
in applying policies or guidance relating to daylight and sunlight. If light was the
only amenity factor affected, then maybe a flexible approach could be applied.
However, there would be harm to a number of amenity factors in combination and
as a result I find the cumulative effect would result in Block A causing
unacceptable levels of amenity for the future occupiers of building B, such that
their living conditions would be harmed. Accordingly, the proposal (Block A) would
be contrary to Local Plan Policy ES3, whose aims are outlined above.
Heritage and Planning Balance
70. Block A would harm the significance of both the Wotton-under-Edge Conservation
Area and a non-designated heritage asset. Whilst there would be ‘less than
substantial harm’ to the designated heritage asset, I afford considerable
importance and great weight to the harm. The design and siting of Block A would
also create unacceptable levels of amenity that would harm the living conditions of
future occupiers. These are serious planning objections.
71. As there is less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset,
Framework paragraph 215 requires me to assess whether the harm would be
outweighed by public benefits.
72. Public benefits, as described in the national Planning Policy Guidance, can be
anything that delivers economic, social or environmental objectives. Benefits do not
have to be visible or publicly accessible and can include, for example, works to a
listed private dwelling that secure its future as a designated heritage asset.
73. Public benefits would accrue from restoring two heritage assets and bringing them
back into active use, including returning the listed Cottages to its historic residential
use. There would also be benefits to the WuECA and the heritage assets on Long
Street from the resurfacing and landscaping works to the car park areas at the
southern end of the site. These would attract great weight for conserving heritage
assets.
74. There would be some modest short-term economic benefits during the construction
and refurbishment phases, and longer-term spending by future occupiers, at least
some of which would be spent in the local area.
75. There would be social benefits from the provision of housing units, 30% of which
would be policy-compliant affordable housing secured by a planning obligation. The
Council can only demonstrate it has a 4.33 year supply of deliverable housing land,
so the provision of 15 houses would go some way to meeting that need and attracts
significant weight. The appellant intends the housing for Renishaw employees to
ensure they can live and work close by. However there is no mechanism to secure
the housing in this way, so I must treat it as market housing.
76. The scheme would deliver moderate environmental benefits in the form of new
shrub and tree planting with a biodiversity net gain equating to about 10% for
habitat areas and about 326% for linear hedgerow habitats. The submitted S106
would secure the submission of a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan and
the agreement of the works to be undertaken. The site is also located in a
sustainable town centre location that has the potential to reduce car journeys and
reduce carbon emissions.
77. The scheme would involve redevelopment of PDL, or brownfield land, for a small to
medium scale housing development within a settlement to which the Framework
gives substantial weight. However, it could be argued that the land on which the
new Block A would be erected is not brownfield land as the evidence shows it has
remained open and undeveloped for a couple of centuries. Even if I consider the
whole site to be brownfield and give substantial weight to its redevelopment, this
and the other weighty public benefits would not, either alone or cumulatively,
outweigh the harm that would be caused to the significance of heritage and non-
heritage assets, being mindful that the Framework advises that heritage assets are
an irreplaceable resource and that great weight should be given to their
conservation. This therefore reduces the weight I give to the development of PDL.
78. Similarly, in undertaking the balance under paragraph 216 of the Framework I am
firmly of the view that the benefits I outline above would not outweigh the harm I
have found to the significance of the former Sunday School, a non-designated
heritage asset.
79. There would be a loss of a small area of protected employment land contrary to
Local Plan Policy EI1, in that The Cottages would be converted to residential use. It
is clear that the purpose of the policy is to provide an adequate supply of
employment land to create economic prosperity and maintain economic growth,
and that protecting against the loss of existing employment land will help do this.
There is no dispute between the parties that there is an ample supply of
employment land throughout the district and it was acknowledged that the loss of
The Cottages would not jeopardise the district’s overall employment land supply
position.
80. From the evidence and my observations on site looking at the relationship of The
Cottages to the rest of the employment site EK37, their removal from the
designation would not render the rest of the employment site unusable in size,
shape, form or accessibility. Nor would the change of use of The Cottages result in
the loss of a substantial employment presence in the centre of Wotton, as the
remainder of the site would remain as a protected employment site. Indeed the
same protected employment designation is proposed in the emerging local plan
too. At the Hearing I heard how the appellant started the business in Wotton and is
a big employer in the area, including with a newer site nearby at New Mills, and has
no current intentions to sell the site.
81. The Council considers The Cottages could provide small start-up businesses in the
centre of Wotton. The appellant has not undertaken any marketing of The Cottages
for other Class B uses because they do not want to sell the site, but instead re-
purpose them for their own use namely, as accommodation for its staff. On the site
visit I saw that The cottages comprised a series of small rooms, as the building still
broadly retains its residential layout and a number of historic features. The type of
employment uses would be limited and constrained by the existing historic fabric of
the building and its layout, and any significant change would likely be resisted on
heritage grounds. I was not presented with any substantial evidence to suggest
there is a waiting list or significant demand for such small-scale business start-up
premises of this type in Wotton or the district, desirable as it may be.
82. I therefore conclude that the loss of a small area of protected employment land in
the form of The Cottages, and taking into account the peculiarities of the site, would
not result in a shortfall of employment land supply. In this instance, I am satisfied
the proposal would not undermine the Council’s strategy to generate prosperity and
economic growth for Wotton and the district.
83. I am mindful of the Framework’s requirement to make more efficient use of land
and that this may increase housing densities and that in doing so take a flexible
approach to guidance to daylight and sunlight. However, I have found there would
be harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of building B by reason of a
number of amenity matters, namely privacy, light and overbearing effect that would
have an enduring adverse effect.
84. Lack of harm to the Cotswolds National Landscape and the lack of harm from the
loss of a small area of employment land carry neutral weight in the planning
balance. Any CIL10 contributions cannot be regarded as a benefit as they are a
mechanism to off-set the impacts of new development on an area.
85. Framework paragraph 11d) is engaged due to the lack of a 5-year housing land
supply. However, in accordance with paragraph 11(d)(i) and footnote 7 the
application of policies relating to designated heritage assets in the Framework
provide a strong reason to refuse permission.
86. I have found the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. The
material considerations and public benefits I outline above are not sufficient to
outweigh this conflict.
Conclusion
87. For the reasons set out above, the appeal should be dismissed.
K Stephens
INSPECTOR
10 Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Gemma Davis Principal Planning Officer
Kate Russell Conservation Officer
Martin Evans One Legal for the Council
Gary Spencer One Legal for the Council
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Paul Fong Managing Director Morgan Elliot Planning Ltd
Claudia Jones Associate Director Morgan Elliot Planning Ltd
Dr Jonathan Turnock Heritage witness (Pegasus Group)
David Wint Architect (Roberts Limbrick Ltd)
Mike Glaze Highways witness (Rappor Consultants Ltd)
Nicholas Harman Landscape witness
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Martin Clarke Wootton Civic Society
Documents submitted at the Hearing
1. Policies from emerging Local Plan, as requested
2. Set of full scale plans, as requested
Documents submitted by agreement after the Hearing
1. Section 106 agreement signed and dated 19 February 2025.
2. Unilateral Undertaking signed and dated 19 February 2025 by the appellant.
3. Email confirmation of ground levels, as requested.