Appeal 6000561

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use of stables to dwelling and creation of garden at [site address] , Road from [site address] to [name], [site address] , Devon [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 1555/25/FUL, and the plans submitted with it (Location Plan, Proposed Site Plan [name], Proposed Floor Plan 710/03 [name] and [name] 710/04 [name]).

I have considered the appeal on the basis that permission is sought retrospectively for the change of use of a stable to a dwelling. The application form indicates the development commenced in October 2015, and from my site visit and the planning history, it is evident the property has been in residential use for several years. Therefore, like the Council, I have assessed the proposal on the basis that the development has already taken place, using the plans before the Council at the time of the application.

A signed [name] (the UU) dated 6th December 2025 was provided by the appellant and copied to the Council. The UU is for financial obligations in relation to the [name] and Estuaries European Marine Site.

The main issues in this appeal are: • Whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development with reference to the spatial strategy and the development plan; • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and; • the effect of the development on the integrity of European, nationally, and internationally protected sites.

The appeal proposal relates to the change of use of a building which was formerly a stable. Although there is other development, including housing, nearby the site is outside of any settlement.

Policy SPT1 is a strategic policy of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (JLP) which relates to delivering sustainable growth in the area relating to economic, social, and environmental principles. Policy SPT2 supports communities which have, amongst other things, reasonable access to a mix of services for daily needs and be well served by public transport, walking and cycling opportunities.

Growth is prioritised through a hierarchy of sustainable settlements and Policy TTV1 of the JLP stipulates that in small villages, hamlets and the countryside development will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated to support the principles of sustainable development and sustainable communities (policies SPT1 and SPT2) including the provisions of policy TTV26 of the JLP.

Policy TTV26 seeks to protect the countryside and avoid isolated development. The policy is consistent with the fundamental aims of Paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in that it seeks to avoid the development of isolated dwellings in the countryside, albeit it will permit them in exceptional circumstances. Although the building is not isolated in terms of proximity to other buildings, it is remote from the nearest settlement as well as services and amenities. Therefore, it does not represent a sustainable solution to new homes in rural areas as defined in the background text to the policy.

As the site is isolated in the context of Policy TTV26 the development would need to comply with one of the exceptions set out in this policy. Whilst criterion iii. allows for the reuse of a building there is no evidence before me to demonstrate that the stable building was redundant or disused before the change of use occurred. In respect of the second part of the policy these are either not applicable or I find no conflict.

The site is located on a road without pavements or street lighting, and combined with the distance to services, this would make walking impractical for occupants. While there is a bus stop within walking distance, the route involves a busy road and the available services are limited. Considering these factors, it is likely that occupants would be reliant on a car. Although an electric vehicle could be an option, it would not be reasonable to require occupants to own one.

Overall, I conclude that the location of the dwelling is unsuitable as it is isolated from everyday services and facilities in terms of distance and accessibility constraints. Residents are therefore likely to be dependent on the use of private vehicles. In this respect, the development is contrary to Policies SPT1, SPT2, TTV1, TTV26, DEV29 and DEV32 of the JLP.

The building is situated adjacent to a main road. Although it is not within a defined settlement, there are other buildings and businesses in the vicinity. The surrounding area also contains residential properties, which are generally detached and set within large plots. The nearest dwelling is the adjoining property, a single-storey house.

I have not been provided with details of the building originally approved on the site. However, the application is for a conversion and the Council have not identified any changes to the size of the building. I acknowledge that to accommodate the residential use there would have been some alterations which include changes to the doors and windows.

As a house the building has a simple and unremarkable appearance. The form and materials are largely as they would have been as a stable although features such as the hanging tiles appear to be additions.

The building is not prominently visible beyond the site, and its single-storey design aligns with other residential properties in the area. As there is no consistent architectural form or style among surrounding buildings, the structure does not appear incongruous within its setting.

I acknowledge that converting the building to a residential use introduces domestic paraphernalia; however, its previous use as a stable would also have involved equestrian equipment and associated activities around the site. Therefore, I do not consider that the change to domestic use significantly alters the visual impact. While equestrian uses can be compatible with rural locations, the presence of other nearby dwellings means that a residential use does not appear out of character in this instance.

The site falls within the Landscape Character Area Type 5A [name] within the Landscape Character Assessment for [name] and [name] (LCA). This is described as being generally open and expansive with little built development. The LCA advises that the sparsely settled character should be controlled. The change of use whilst introducing a residential use to the site does not introduce activity to an area which was free from development and I do not find that overall, there is harm to the character of the area in this respect.

The LCA references traditional building styles and materials. The material palette used is acceptable however it does not reflect the local vernacular for a dwelling. The appearance of the dwelling has been dictated by its former use. Some of the details such as the fenestration and the flue may appear discordant. However, any harm in this regard is very limited in extent and not highly visible from outside of the site.

Overall, the change of use does not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. In this respect, the scheme complies with Policies DEV20 and DEV23 of the JLP. Collectively, these policies require, amongst other things, development to meet good standards of design and protect the quality of the environment and conserve and enhance landscape character.

The appeal site lies within the zone of influence of the Tamar European Marine Site (comprising the [name] and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the Tamar Estuaries Complex Special Protection Area (SPA)). Designated in recognition of their international importance for wildlife, the SAC and SPA include key marine habitats such as sandbanks, estuaries, shallow inlets and bays, reefs, and saltmarshes. These sheltered waters are home to the protected Allis shad migratory fish and other protected species. They also provide important feeding and roosting areas for little egret and avocets which are both protected birds. There is a need to conserve and restore the SAC and SPA and prevent deterioration or significant disturbance of its qualifying features to meet the Conservation Objectives of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations).

The special interest features of the SAC and SPA are vulnerable to threat due to recreational disturbance arising from housing growth. The development results in an additional dwelling and would therefore have a likely significant effect on the features for which the SAC and SPA are designated, either on its own or cumulatively with other similar development, without avoidance measures. As the competent authority, I am required to carry out an Appropriate Assessment pursuant to the Habitat Regulations. I have consulted Natural England accordingly.

The financial contribution towards mitigation has been secured through the UU. Whilst the UU does not bind the Council to spend the money in any particular way or deliver the mitigation, I am satisfied that as a public body, the contribution would be spent as intended thereby mitigating the harm that would arise.

The development can therefore proceed without harm to the integrity of the SAC and SPA, thus complying with the expectations of the Habitats Regulations and Policy DEV26 and DEL1 of the JLP which requires mitigation measures to be secured so that there would be no adverse effects on the integrity of European Nature Conservation Sites.

The site is referenced as being self-build. Given that the proposal is retrospective it is unclear how the proposal meets the definition of a self-build dwelling. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the appellant is registered on the self-build register and given the retrospective nature there would be no mechanism to secure a self-build in any event. As a result, I attach limited weight to this matter.

The appeal statement references that the appellant and their son would be made homeless if the appeal were dismissed. It is unclear whether the son is a child and limited information is provided. However, given that the appeal is being allowed it is not necessary to further consider this matter.

[name] did not find harm in relation to the second and third main issue, I have found that the location of the development is contrary to Policies SPT1, SPT2, TTV1, TTV26, DEV29 and DEV32 of the JLP, due to the isolated nature of the development and residents being likely to be dependent on the use of private vehicles. Hence, the appeal scheme would be contrary to the development plan as a whole.

The Council states that it has a 2.53 year supply of deliverable housing sites. In these circumstances paragraph 11d of the Framework is engaged. There is nothing before me to indicate that the policies in Footnote 7 of the Framework are relevant in this case. Therefore, the balance in paragraph 11dii is applicable. This states that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to specified key policies.

The Council accept that the house would positively address the housing imbalance in the area and would therefore be supported by Policy DEV8 of the JLP and paragraph 82 of the Framework.

Paragraph 110 of the Framework seeks to promote sustainable transport particularly for significant development. However, it recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas which should be taken into account in decision making. Also of consideration is the fact that the previous use of the building as a stable would have generated its own vehicle movements. Even if these cannot be quantified the difference between this and a residential use would be small. Therefore, overall car use associated with the site may not have changed to a significant degree which weighs in favour of the scheme.

The development provides an additional dwelling against a backdrop where there is a serious shortfall in housing supply. Furthermore, it reuses an existing building. There are also some consequent economic benefits associated with the development. Overall, the harm arising from the reliance upon the private car for a single dwelling, in this case, would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework. It follows that the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies and is an important material consideration which weighs in favour of allowing the scheme.

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development would conflict with the development plan but material considerations, including the Framework and the benefits arising from the development, justify making a decision other than in accordance with it.

The Council has not suggested any conditions as the development is retrospective and I do not find it necessary to impose any other conditions.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal is allowed.