- Decision
- dismissed, 19 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: B Phillips
- Authority
- Cotswold (South West)
- Appeal reference
- 6007188
- Application reference
- 25/02458/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Demolition of a much-altered mid-20th-century Arts and Crafts house (non-designated heritage asset) and outbuildings; replacement self-build dwelling, garage and outbuilding
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- national landscape, settlement edge, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- No Framework version cited
- Determinative policies
- HE7(3)
- Development plan policies
- Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 (2018) EN1, EN2, EN8, EN10, EN11, EN12, Cotswold Design Code
- Main issues
- NDHA loss; listed building setting; conservation area setting; design
Summary
Replacing a heavily altered mid-century Cotswold Arts and Crafts house (by AH Powell) with a self-build dwelling was refused, solely for the total loss of a non-designated heritage asset of low significance. Everything else passed: listed setting, conservation area, design, National Landscape and bats. The inspector ran the NDHA balanced judgement (HE7(2) and (3)). Self-build, sustainability and biodiversity each carried small weight.
Issues and findings
- Significance: LOW. "given the alterations to the property, the significance of Brook Close as a NDHA is low" (DL ¶9). It still survives in features such as the original door and drip moulds (DL ¶6).
- Harm: TOTAL LOSS. "the proposal would result in the total loss of the building and therefore its significance within the local context. This would clearly not sustain and enhance the significance of this heritage asset and would instead result in the greatest scale of loss and harm to significance" (DL ¶11).
- Benefits: SMALL. Sustainability and biodiversity gains, "given the scale of the development, the weight given to this benefit is small" (DL ¶12). Design "in being in keeping … is not demonstrated as being outstanding. There is no benefit" (DL ¶13). Self-build: "there is no information before me to suggest that the Council is failing in its statutory duty … I can only give this matter a small weight" (DL ¶14).
- Other heritage. The Little Tarlton listed group's setting was preserved (DL ¶24), and the site did not contribute to the conservation area's setting (DL ¶28-29).
Planning balance
The NDHA balanced judgement (HE7(2) and (3), paraphrased at DL ¶10): total loss of low significance against small benefits. "taking a balanced judgement, the benefits set out above do not outweigh the identified harm to the NDHA" (DL ¶41). The scheme conflicts with LP EN1, EN2 and EN12.
What made the difference
Total loss, even of a low-value asset, is "the greatest scale of loss". The appellant's benefits were individually small because it was a one-for-one replacement. Retention and extension, or evidence of an unmet self-build demand, might have changed the balance.
Transferable points
- Under HE7(3), total loss of even a low-significance NDHA can outweigh the small benefits of a replacement dwelling (DL ¶11, ¶41).
- Self-build carries small weight where the Council is not shown to be failing its statutory duty (DL ¶14).
- A replacement that is merely "in keeping" earns no design benefit. Only outstanding design would count (DL ¶13).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE7(3) | fail | total loss of a NDHA of low significance (AH Powell house, heavily altered) not outweighed by small benefits (DL 4-16, 41) | |
| HE6 | pass | setting of the Grade II Little Tarlton cottages (Ernest Barnsley) preserved (DL 17-24) | |
| HE9 | pass | site does not contribute to the significance of Rodmarton CA's setting (DL 25-29) | |
| DP3 | pass | replacement design in keeping, though 'not demonstrated as being outstanding' (DL 13, 30-34) | |
| N4 | pass | Cotswolds NL natural beauty conserved (DL 38-40) | |
| HO5 | benefit | limited | self-build secured by legal agreement but small weight: no evidence the Council is failing its self-build duty (DL 14) |
Key facts
- Original modest cottage by AH Powell (Cotswold Arts and Crafts); surviving door, rounded quoins, drip moulds and eaves line (DL 5-7)
- Appellant did not dispute the NDHA status (DL 9)
- Bat roosts (pipistrelle, serotine) could be mitigated by condition (DL 36-37)
- The letter paraphrases the NDHA policy without naming the Framework version
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.