Barn Redevelopment in Cotswold National Landscape Refused

An Inspector has dismissed an appeal against the decision of Cotswold District Council to refuse an application for “change of use and conversion of agricultural buildings into 5 dwellings, one with an annex plus associated landscaping” in Andoversford, within the Cotswolds National Landscape.

Back in April 2022, Richard Buxton Solicitors were instructed to oppose an earlier, near identical scheme when it was before the Council and submitted an objection on the basis of adverse landscape and visual impacts, transport and highway safety issues, and lack of allocation for housing at the application site in the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031. Supporting expert reports were submitted from Bruce Bamber, Railton (transport) and Peter Radmall (landscape). The scheme was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant and a revised application submitted, seeking to address shortcomings identified by the Council with the previous application.

In December 2023, Richard Buxton Solicitors submitted a further objection to the revised scheme on the basis that it failed to address the Landscape Officer’s reasons to recommend refusal of the withdrawn scheme – for example, rather than pursue a different scale of development, the applicant had instead sought to repackage the original scheme with a similar quantum of development – and the Landscape Officer had raised very strong objection to the revised scheme and recommended refusal.

The Council refused the application on the basis that (1) the proposed development would result in creation of residential development in an isolated location in the countryside of conflict with paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”), (2) harm to the Cotswolds National Landscape (previously AONB), (3) conflict with the Council’s Local Plan policy H2 relating to provision of affordable housing, (4) harm to integrity of the Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (“SAC”), (5) risk of conflict between vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists, (6) conflict with the Council’s waste strategy, and (7) poor overall design.

The applicant appealed against the refusal, which was dealt with by way of written representations. Richard Buxton made submissions to the appeal, reiterating the concerns previously set out and with the support of a supplemental representation by Peter Radmall.

Specifically, Mr Radmall was critical of the appellant’s proposed Landscape Enhancement Strategy, and attention to the attempt to mitigate the visual harm of the development by reinforcing the screen planting around the site which, although he accepted would achieve some screening when the vegetation was established, would not mitigate the landscape harm and suburbanising effect caused by the change of use and introduction of residential development onto an agricultural site in a National Landscape. The Inspector agreed this at para 30 of the Appeal Decision:

The proposed planting would emphasise the newly formed gardens around the barns creating defined private gardens. These additions would draw inappropriate attention to the domestic nature of the site, would not retain their agricultural aesthetic and would emphasise their proposed residential character. This feature, and the insensitive design found with the proposed conversions, would not enhance the setting or established character of the agricultural structures. Accordingly, overall, the enhancement works would be insufficient to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 84 of the Framework concerning isolated homes in the countryside.

The Inspector dismissed the appeal on the basis that the number of dwellings would make little difference to the overall supply of housing, the development would provide only limited economic benefits, and give rise to substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area, and highway safety and waste management concerns.