Stratton House Hotel, Stratton, Cirencester (Appeal A - sauna and plant room)

Decision

dismissed, 30 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: H Smith

Authority

Cotswold (South West)

Appeal reference

6009631

Application reference

25/03108/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Erection of plant room, outdoor dip pool/jacuzzi, shower and sauna in the garden of a Grade II listed hotel (Appeal A planning; LBC Appeal B 6009635 allowed)

Site context

inside settlement, listed building setting, flood zone 2, flood zone 3

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

F7(2), F8, S4(2)(c), S4(1)

Development plan policies

Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 EN1, EN2, EN4, EN10, EN14, EN15

Main issues

setting of Grade II listed building; noise; flood risk

Summary

A sauna, plant room and dip pool in the garden of the Grade II Stratton House Hotel, in Flood Zones 2 and 3a. The inspector found no heritage harm and allowed the listed building consent (Appeal B), and found noise could be conditioned. But the flood risk assessment gave no levels, so safety was not shown under F7(2), and there was no drainage strategy under F8. F7 is a "should be refused" policy, so under S4(2)(c) the tourism benefits were substantially outweighed. Planning appeal dismissed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "I have had regard to the revised Framework in reaching my decision" (DL ¶7). No consultation recorded.
• Flood, F7/F8: FAIL. "the FRA does not identify the existing ground levels at the proposed development location above ordinance datum (AOD), the proposed finished floor levels for the buildings (AOD), or the Environment Agency’s modelled 1% AEP plus climate change flood level" (DL ¶13). "conditions would not be reasonable as any mitigation measures found necessary to reduce flood risk and incorporate sustainable drainage systems could lead to a substantial redesign of the scheme" (DL ¶19).
• Heritage: NO HARM. "the proposal in its current form would preserve the significance of the listed building, including in terms of how it is experienced in its setting" (DL ¶41).
• Noise: PASS with a rating-level condition (DL ¶26-28).
• S4(2)(c). "Policy F7 of the Framework states that where development is proposed in a location known to be at risk from any form of flooding now or in the future it should be refused unless it meets relevant criteria. I have found that not to be the case" (DL ¶44).

Planning balance

S4(1) with F7 as the S4(2)(c) trigger (DL ¶44). The hotel's economic, social and heritage investment benefits "would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶45). Plan-led conclusion for Appeal A (DL ¶47).

What made the difference

A flood evidence gap: no levels in the FRA. Because raising floor levels could change the buildings' height relative to the listed house, the gap could not be left to a condition. A levels-based FRA and drainage strategy could have allowed both appeals.

Transferable points

• F7(2) operates as a "should be refused" trigger through S4(2)(c) even for small leisure buildings (DL ¶44-45).
• An FRA without existing levels, finished floor levels and the design flood level cannot show lifetime safety (DL ¶13-14).
• Flood mitigation cannot be conditioned where it could force a redesign, especially where height affects a listed building's setting (DL ¶19-20).
• The same scheme can gain listed building consent while planning permission is refused on flood grounds (DL ¶41-42, ¶47-48).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Revised FRA (April 2026), acoustic assessment and business case accepted at appeal (DL 8)
• Sequential test (F5) not discussed
• LBC Appeal B (6009635) allowed in the same letter because the works preserve the listed building; a redesign for flood safety may need a new consent (DL 41-42, 48)
• Costs applications by the Council against the appellant are the subject of separate decisions (DL 3), not in the corpus
• New Framework applied without recorded consultation (DL 7)

Related decisions

• PINS-6009635

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.