Success in Cotswold AONB Planning Appeal

Local residents’ group ‘Charlton Kings Friends’ (CKF) instructed Richard Buxton Solicitors to represent them as a Rule 6 Party, in opposition to a planning appeal for 69 dwellings and associated development at Land off Oakhurst Rise, Charlton Kings, Cheltenham. Their opposition was predominantly on grounds of heritage, ecology and harm to trees. Permission for the development was refused primarily on grounds of heritage harm.

The outline planning application for residential development of up to 69 dwellings including access, layout and scale, with other matters reserved was made in 2018, following refusal of a previous scheme on the site in 2017.

The site is located in Charlton Kings, which is a contiguous village adjoining Cheltenham with historic settlement dating to the Iron Age. Much of it lies within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). There are three designated Conservation Areas, and it has a rich historic fabric with a number of listed heritage assets nearby the site. Most relevant are Ashley Manor, a Grade II* villa, and Charlton Manor, a Grade II listed Victorian house in Gothic style. The site lies on elevated ground roughly 100-150 metres outside the AONB boundary and forms part of the setting of both Ashley Manor and Charlton Manor. The site is also host to a number of ancient/veteran trees, and significant vertebrate and invertebrate populations.

The application had the support of the appointed planning officer for Cheltenham Borough Council (CBC). However, CBC planning committee members refused permission on 22 March 2019 for five reasons, in brief: 1) development was contrary to local plan policies, 2) loss of significant number of trees, including veteran trees and those with tree protection orders (TPOs), 3) significant impact on the setting of nearby listed buildings, 4) negative impact upon biodiversity across the site, including a large badger sett, and 5) negative visual impact. None of these harms were found to be outweighed by benefits from the development.

Following refusal, an appeal was made to the Planning Inspectorate. The appellant made a ‘Wheatcroft amendment’ for the appeal to be heard in terms of up to 68 dwellings on the site with a revised layout. This amendment was accepted, and the appeal heard on this basis. CBC proceeded to defend the appeal on three out of the five grounds that were the basis for refusal. Ground 4 on negative biodiversity impact and ground 5 on negative visual impact were not pursued by CBC.

Richard Buxton Solicitors successfully applied for Rule 6 party status for CKF, allowing them to participate as a full party in the appeal, in opposition to the development. CKF brought their opposition on grounds that: 1) the application failed to adequately address constraints and site-specific requirements set out in CBC emerging Local Plan policy HD4 (which related to respecting heritage assets affected by development at the Site); 2) loss of trees including veteran trees and those with TPOs; 3) impact to the setting on nearby listed buildings; 4) ecological impacts, notably a badger sett on Site; and 5) negative impacts to landscape character. CKF submitted that, specifically in terms of heritage harm, there were no clear and convincing justifications to allow this level of harm to heritage assets (NPPF (2019) para 194). CKF’s case was supported by experts in heritage assets and ecology, who gave evidence in support of CFK’s case.

There was also a strong presence by local residents in general at the appeal, who made convincing submissions on other concerns, such as highway access.

The Inspector found that the impact by way of less than substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets would alone outweigh benefits to housing supplied by the development. The Inspector also made comment that, even though the harms identified in relation to the loss of trees, harm to retained trees, potential loss of biodiversity, and less than ideal nature of the highway access to the appeal site, did not jointly or individually outweigh significant benefits to the supply of affordable market housing, they did further support the case for dismissal of the appeal.

Leon Glenister acted as Counsel for the Rule 6 Party, CKF.