- Decision
- allowed, 30 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: H Smith
- Authority
- Cotswold (South West)
- Appeal reference
- 6009635
- Application reference
- 25/03109/LBC
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Listed building consent for a plant room, outdoor dip pool/jacuzzi, shower and sauna in the garden of a Grade II hotel (appeal B; planning appeal A 6009631 dismissed on flood risk)
- Site context
- listed building setting, flood zone 3
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6
- Development plan policies
- Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 EN1, EN2, EN4, EN10, EN14, EN15
- Main issues
- setting and significance of Grade II Stratton House Hotel
Summary
Listed building consent for small spa buildings and a dip pool in the garden of the Grade II Stratton House Hotel was allowed. The low, subordinate structures would sit beside the existing spa extension and away from the principal garden elevation. The linked planning appeal (6009631) was dismissed on flood risk, and the inspector warned that a flood-safe redesign could need a new consent.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "I have had regard to the revised Framework in reaching my decision." (DL ¶7). No consultation recorded.
- Heritage: NO HARM. "In terms of scale and height, the proposed buildings would remain subordinate to the listed building." (DL ¶35). Set back from the garden wall, "they would not result in harm to the historic fabric of the wall" (DL ¶38). "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).
- Flood caveat. For the planning appeal, "I cannot be certain that the proposal in relation to flood risk would not result in unacceptable harm to the setting of the listed building" (DL ¶20). "If changes are required to ensure flood safety, then a further application for listed building consent or amendment may be required." (DL ¶42).
What made the difference
The spa structures were low, clustered with the modern spa extension and screened by planting. The heritage case succeeded while the planning case failed on an incomplete flood risk assessment.
Transferable points
- Listed building consent and planning permission can diverge in one letter: heritage acceptable on the drawings, but planning dismissed on flood risk because a flood-safe redesign could change the heritage effects (DL ¶20, ¶41-42).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE6 | pass | low, timber-clad flat-roofed buildings set away from the garden elevation beside the spa extension; freestanding from the curtilage-listed garden wall; significance and setting preserved; no HE code cited (DL 35-41) | |
| F7 | fail | appeal A only - FRA lacks ground levels, finished floor levels and modelled flood level; site in Flood Zones 2 and 3a (DL 11-22) |
Key facts
- Joint letter; planning appeal A (6009631, other batch) dismissed on flood risk and drainage (F7, F8), LBC allowed (DL 1-2, 22, 47-48)
- Inspector noted flood-resilience redesign (raised floor levels) could change heights and need a fresh LBC (DL 20, 42)
- Costs applications by the Council against the appellant decided separately (DL 3)
- Framework switch noted without consultation (DL 7)
Related decisions
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.