Planning appeal decision
Little Acre, Pound Lane, Hardwicke, Gloucestershire, GL2 4RJ
Planning appeal 3355545 at Little Acre, Pound Lane, Hardwicke, Gloucestershire, GL2 4RJ (Stroud District Council) was dismissed on 15 July 2025 by Inspector Redford R, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to relevant policies relating to the countryside.
the erection of a bungalow and outbuilding (C3 Use Class)
- Authority
- Stroud District Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Redford R
- Postcode
- GL2 4RJ
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to relevant policies relating to the countryside
- the effect of the proposal on the desirability of preserving the setting as it relates to the special interest of the nearby Grade I listed building, known as 'Church of St Nicholas'
- the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area including trees and hedgerows
- the effect of the proposal on 2 Special Areas of Conservation
- the effect of the proposal on protected species
What decided it
The heritage harm to the setting of the Grade I listed Church of St Nicholas, which the Inspector found would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal, combined with the unsuitability of the location and harm to character and appearance, provided a clear reason for refusal under Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework despite the Council's inability to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply.
The presumption in favour of sustainable development under Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework was displaced by the application of heritage protection policies, as the less than substantial harm to the setting of the Grade I listed building was not outweighed by the limited public benefits of providing a single dwelling, and the heritage harm was reinforced by conflicts with policies on location, character and appearance, and SAC protection.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- CP1CP2CP3CP15CP14ES6ES8ES10ES12GEN1GEN3HOU2ENV1ENV2ENV3
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 84Paragraph 212Paragraph 215
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision


More decisions in Stroud
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025
- Dismissed23 October 20266010245Bassett Court Farm, North Nibley, GL11 6DQ
- Allowed14 October 20266006756Land at Haines Green, Edge Road, Painswick, Gl5 6NE
- Allowed13 October 20266009483Land Northwest of Stonehouse, Grid Ref Easting: 379777. Grid Ref Northing: 207047, Stonehouse, Gl10 3WP
- Allowed5 October 20266007595Land at Epney, Framilode, Gloucester, GL27LL
- Dismissed29 September 20266005652Agricultural Barn, Upton Hill, Upton St Leonards, GL4 8DF
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®