Planning appeal decision
35 Howmead, Berkeley, GL13 9AR
Planning appeal 3370587 at 35 Howmead, Berkeley, GL13 9AR (Stroud District Council) was allowed in part (a split decision) on 4 February 2026 by Inspector Moss J, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether or not the location of the development is acceptable, having regard to the relevant policies and guidance on the matter of its location.
Without planning permission, the material change of use of land from agricultural to residential and the erection of a garden room, the erection of a brick built raised bed and store, the laying of patio and the siting of raised planters and other domestic paraphernalia
- Authority
- Stroud District Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Change of use
- Inspector
- Moss J
- Postcode
- GL13 9AR
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether or not the location of the development is acceptable, having regard to the relevant policies and guidance on the matter of its location
- The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area
What decided it
The confined extent and already-domesticated character of the Appendix K Land meant the harm caused by the material change of use there was limited and outweighed the conflict with the development plan, whereas the same could not be said for the residential use of the remainder of the site.
For the Appendix K Land, the particular circumstances (limited harm from a small, already-domestic area of limited alternative use) outweighed the conflict with the development plan and justified granting permission; for the rest of the site, no material consideration outweighed the harm to the Council's development strategy and to rural character, so permission was refused and the notice upheld.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy CP3Policy CP15Policy CP14Policy ES7Policy ES12Core policy 1
- Judgments
- Murfitt v SSE & East Cambridgeshire DC [1980] JPL 598; Caldwell & Timberstore Ltd v SSLUHC & Buckinghamshire Council [2024] EWCA Civ 467; Kestrel Hydro v SSCLG & Spelthorne BC [2016] EWCA Civ 784
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 2026
- Notice varied and upheld19 June 20263369713Land of Ebley Road, Ebley, GL10 2LW
- Notice upheld18 June 2026336268152 Bridge Mead, Ebley, Stroud, GL5 4BP
- Notice varied and upheld4 February 2026337057123 Howmead, Berkeley, GL13 9AR
- Notice upheld4 February 2026337052611 Howmead, Berkeley, Gloucestershire, GL13 9AR
- Allowed29 August 2025333758010 Canons Court Mews, Bradley Green, Wotton-Under-Edge, GL12 7PN
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.
®