Appeal 6000680

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] and [name], the appellant, against South Hams District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The appellant argues that, on the basis of the only reasonable use to restore the building is the conversion to a dwelling, the issue of ‘sustainable location’ is not a key material consideration in this decision. Nevertheless, the Council’s reasons for refusal include whether the site is in a suitable location for the proposed development. As this is a matter in dispute, it is a main issue of this appeal.

The main issues are whether the proposal would: • preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the non-designated heritage assets, and the surrounding area; • be suitably located, having particular regard to planning policies which seek to control new housing in the countryside; • be acceptable with regard to maintaining a mix of house sizes within the area; and • minimises the use of natural resources and contribution towards carbon reduction.

The appeal site is located outside the settlement of Dartmouth, within the South Devon National Landscape, and the [name], an area defined in The Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014-2034 (2019) (Local Plan).

The site forms part of [site address] , a traditional farmstead with buildings on both sides of [site address] . The collection of buildings are within the open countryside which can be seen in long-reaching views from across the valley. The appeal site itself comprises a stone barn, linhay, milking parlour and open storage barn. The buildings are set organically around a yard, with an orchard on the southern part of the site.

Although non-designated heritage assets, the stone barn, together with the linhay, form an important part of the locally distinctive traditional farmstead grouping of [site address] close to Dartmouth. The stone barn, constructed around the early to mid-19th century, is unique example of a traditional [name] owing to its mixed use and combination of barn types. Part of the barn reflects a Shippon barn, typically used for livestock and storage, while other elements are characteristic of a [name], allowing level access to the upper floor for storage. As such, the barns build heritage quality and historic association with its agricultural setting within the National Landscape define its significance.

Traditional farm buildings, such as the stone barn, make a significant contribution to the interest and character of the countryside, and are an integral part of an ancient landscape. The Council’s Barn Guide: [address] Buildings: [name] and Re-use ([name]) identifies that farmsteads can be used to chart the areas settlement pattern and agricultural development. The barn and farmstead grouping is a rare surviving example of such development near to Dartmouth, contributing to the group significance of the site, as well as making a positive contribution to their wider landscape setting.

The milking parlour and open storage barn are later additions to the site. Although they reflect the agricultural use of the non-designated heritage assets and the evolving nature of agriculture over time, they have a mismatched scale compared to the barn, taking a large proportion of the site. Overall, the milking parlour and open storage barn make a neutral contribution to the setting of the non-designated

The proposal would remove the milking parlour and open storage barn, and link the stone barn and linhay together, forming a four bedroom dwelling. A garage would also be constructed as part of the proposals.

The windows and doors on the barn, which have been altered incrementally over time, reflect the changing uses of the barn, adding to the historic association with its agricultural setting. Their arrangement appears to be organic, with their sizes reflecting their likely function, an important part of the character and appearance of the stone barn. Some openings have been boarded over, such as the original level access on the west elevation, while others appear to be newer additions, such as the roof lights on the northern and southern roof slopes.

The appellant argues that there would be a net decrease in the number of openings. [name] acknowledge that this would be achieved through the reduction in the number of rooflights, a number of openings would be inserted, and the size and shape of others fundamentally changed. The eastern elevation would have two new windows inserted at ground floor level. While they are modest in size, they detract from the functional aesthetic of the barn. I acknowledge the need for adequate natural light in habitable rooms, however, given that one of the windows would serve an en-suite, and the other would be a secondary window in a bedroom, I have not been provided with substantive evidence to justify the harm arising as a result of the addition of the windows.

The southern elevation would have two new openings at first floor level, and a window and door at ground floor level would be lost owing to the linked element connecting the linhay. The size of other openings on the southern elevation would also be altered, losing the original organic arrangement, harming the significance of the stone barn.

Part of the stone southern elevation is missing and has been infilled with blockwork. This element would be finished with Corten cladding panels. Although these materials would reflect corrugated sheeting which is used in farm buildings, as detailed in the Council’s Barn Guide, a large vertical panel of Corten cladding on the southern elevation of the barn would be an incongruous and overly modern addition which would disrupt the stone elevation. The appellant contents that the use of Corten would reflect the materiality of the rusted corrugated steel roof on the linhay. However, the exiting corrugated steel roof would be replaced with profile metal sheeting, thereby removing the link between the texture and colour of the two elements. As such, the introduction of Corten cladding panels would detract from the appearance of the barn and would be at odds with the character of the wider farmstead.

Two buildings would be demolished on the site, creating an open appearance. However, the proposed garage would detract from the openness and would be a domestic addition which would be uncharacteristic of the traditional pattern of development of the farmstead. In addition, the linking of the stone barn and the linhay would further alter the pattern of development on the farmstead, detracting from the character of the area. I acknowledge the example provided by the appellant in this regard (Ref. 1045/24/FUL), however the proposal was outside of the National Landscape and Heritage Coast and is therefore not comparable.

The appeal site is within the South Devon National Landscape. Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty within National Landscapes. The special qualities of the National Landscape are described in the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2019 – 2024 as the inshore waters and wider marine component, which defines the unique natural beauty of the area. In addition, the main objectives detailed in the management plan are to conserve, protect and enhance the natural beauty of the coasts, including their heritage features of architectural, historical and archaeological interest. Given my findings above, the proposal would result in harm to the landscape and scenic beauty of the South Devon National Landscape, and would fail to conserve, protect or enhance it.

I am aware that matters of character and appearance can be down to planning judgement. The desirability of preserving non-designated heritage assets attracts considerable importance and weight. The proposal would amount to less than substantial harm. Benefits of the proposal have been put forward, including the removal of the surrounding buildings, works to the orchard, and the provision of a four-bed unit. The provision of the four-bedroom unit would be a private benefit, and does not weigh in favour with regards to the heritage balance. While the removal of the redundant buildings and orchard improvements make a small contribution to public benefits, in so far as the enjoyment of the wider area, their small positive contribution would not outweigh the harm I have found to the non-designated heritage assets and their setting.

In conclusion, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the non-designated heritage assets and surrounding area. It would therefore be contrary to Policies TTV26, DEV20, and DEV21 od the Local Plan and Policies TE2 and TE3 of the Dartmouth Neighbourhood Plan (2022) (Neighbourhood Plan), which, in summary, seek to ensure that the design is locally distinctive, reflecting the appearance and character of the area in which the development is to be located. They also seek to support innovative contemporary design solutions providing they do not have a detrimental effect on the local appearance and character of the area, as well as ensuring that regard is had to the pattern of local development, including the surrounding historic value, landscaping and character. Location

Policy TTV1 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014-2034 (2019) (Local Plan) applies owing to the sites rural location. It only permits new housing if it can be demonstrated to support the principles of sustainable development and sustainable communities. The Policy defines this as compliance with Policies SPT1, SPT2, TTV26 and TTV27.

Policy SPT1 identifies there are environmental, economic and social aims of sustainability. In terms of environmental sustainability, Policy SPT2 aims for development, which is well served by public transport, walking and cycling opportunities.

There is no dispute that the appeal site lies outside of a defined settlement boundary. The appeal site is accessed along [site address] , a single-track country lane. The lane meets the A379 at one end and leads into Dartmouth at the other end. I am aware that [site address] forms part of the [address], a circular walking route. [name] observed on my visit, while the distance from the site to the nearest settlement is not significant, access to the services and facilities contained therein is via an unlit highway, which, despite being on the [address], does not benefit from pedestrian footways. Similarly, there are no dedicated cycle paths on [site address] , nor have I received evidence of any public transport which would be accessible to the future occupants. Consequently, it could be said that access to and from the nearest services and facilities on foot or by bicycle would not be particularly safe for all and, in my view, it is likely that most journeys to and from the site would be by private motor vehicle.

Given the lack of opportunities for the use of public transport, walking or cycling, the occupiers of the proposed dwelling would need to use a private vehicle to access essential services. Policy SPT2 seeks to direct growth towards places with the appropriate level of facilities to meet the needs of the local community, therefore avoiding the need to travel in the first place. Although the use of a private vehicle to reach services and facilities may be common in rural areas, it is an indication that the proposed dwelling would not be optimally located to deliver the pattern of land use advocated by Policies SPT1 and SPT2.

TTV26 concerns development in the countryside. Part (1) of the policy applies to isolated development. The appeal site is located within a cluster of other dwellings and therefore is not considered isolated. Part (2) applies ‘where appropriate’. Given that the policy deals with development in the countryside, Part (2) of Policy TTV26 applies in this instance. Point (2)(iv) is of particular relevance in the consideration of whether the site is a suitable location for the proposed development. Point (2)(iv) provides that development proposals should where appropriate respond to proven agricultural, forestry and other occupational need that requires a countryside location. I have not been provided with any evidence that there is a proven occupational need for a dwelling in this location. In any case, I have not been provided with a suitable mechanism (in the form of a legal agreement or similar) to limit the occupancy of the dwelling.

Point (2)(ii) of Policy TTV26 states that development proposals should, where appropriate re-use traditional buildings that are structurally sound enough for renovation without significant enhancement or alteration. During my site visit I was able to view the condition of the barns, and I have been provided with a [name] by RYALL Structural Engineers Limited. The report concludes that the building is in poor condition and recommends measure such as the re-build of the first floor, strengthening roof trusses, and rebuilding collapsed sections of wall. The report indicates that following the recommended repairs, the building would be fit for conversion.

I have been provided with plans that detail the proposed demolition and re-build that would be required to facilitate the proposed development. I am also conscious of the extent of alterations required to join the stone barn and linhay. Notwithstanding my findings above, the evidence indicates that the buildings would require significant enhancement to be capable of conversion. In this regard, the proposal is contrary to Policy TTV26.

Policy TTV1 identifies that compliance with Policy TTV27 is also required to demonstrate support of the principles of sustainable development and sustainable communities. However, the Council did not include Policy TTV27 in their reasons for refusal. Given that it deals with affordable housing in rural areas, and that the development proposed is for an open market dwelling, it is of limited relevance to this appeal.

The appellant has drawn my attention to the aims of Policy DEV21 (5), which is also not referred to in the Councils reasons for refusal. However, the requirement of one policy does not take precedence over another, and the policies within the development plan are read as a whole.

The appellant has identified a strategic expansion at [address] in justification for the location of the appeal proposal. However, I have not been provided with any further details, and therefore bears little weight in my

Notwithstanding the above, I have already determined that the proposal would conflict with Policies SPT1, SPT2, TTV1, and TTV26 of the Local Plan. I therefore conclude that the site would not be a suitable location for the proposed dwelling with regard to reliance on a private vehicle. The proposal would also be contrary to Policy GE12 of the Neighbourhood Plan, which identifies that development proposals outside the settlement boundary will be treated as development within the open countryside.

JLP Policy DEV24 sets out that development which would have a detrimental effect on the undeveloped and unspoilt character, appearance or tranquillity of the [name] will not be permitted except under exceptional circumstances. Being as I have concluded above that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the stone barn, and the surrounding area, and would fail to conserve, protect or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the South Devon National Landscape, the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the undeveloped and unspoilt character and appearance of the [name]. As such, any development proposed must demonstrate that it requires a coastal location and cannot reasonably be located outside the designation.

Development plan policies often pull in different directions. I acknowledge the appellants argument about the non-designated heritage asset having a fixed location. However, I am aware that the appeal site forms part of an agricultural unit and was most recently used for agricultural purposes. In this case, no convincing evidence has been provided that residential use is the only possible option for the appeal site. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that the residential accommodation would be required to fulfil an agricultural, occupational or local need.

It is argued that a local occupancy condition could be imposed, an example of which is outlined in the example at [address] (Ref. 3268/24/FUL). While this would ensure that the proposal is secured for local use, it has not been demonstrated that there is a local need for a dwelling in this location. In any case, I have considered the appellants concern that a restriction on occupancy, either through a legal agreement, or to a lesser extent a condition, would negatively impact the number of prospective purchasers and market value of the proposed dwelling.

In an application at [address] (Ref. 0604/25/FUL), a non-designated heritage asset, it was argued that the non-designated heritage asset had a fixed location. However, the development at [address] differed from the appeal proposal in so far as two dwellings already existed on the site, in comparison to the appeal site which comprises buildings that have been used for agricultural purposes. As such, it bears little weight in the determination of the appeal before me.

The appellant has advanced the argument that, in the case of an application at [address] (Ref. 3601/24/FUL), a principal residency condition was imposed which the Council found, on balance with other matters, satisfied the requirements of Policy DEV24 and development within the [name]. However, for the reasons given above, it is not demonstrated that the appeal proposal, even as a principal residence, requires a coastal location.

Accordingly, the proposal would not be in accordance with Policy DEV24 of the Local Plan.

Policy DEV8 of the JLP requires, in part, that developments provide a mix of housing sizes. It is identified that across the plan area there is a growing need for smaller households. Despite this, the proposal would provide an additional four-bedroom unit.

The appellant has provided evidence of the current housing mix for the postcode area, which suggests that there is only one existing dwelling which has four or more bedrooms. The proposal would alter the mix of two-, three-, and four or more-bedroom dwellings owing to the low total number of properties in the postcode area. That being said, I am not convinced that a lack of four-bedroom dwellings equates to a demonstrable need for dwellings of that size, particularly within an area with so few properties.

I acknowledge that this method has been used by the Council previously in the determination of a planning application at [address] (Ref. 3330/24/FUL). However, the [name] for [address] is clear that, although one unit of accommodation with four beds would not make a significant negative impact to the housing mix of the local area, the Council weighed this against evidence regarding the previous use of the building as a business. This example provided differs from the appeal before me in so far as the existing use of the building and the relative number of dwellings within the postcode area.

An appeal determined at [name] (Ref. 3320867) has been provided as an example, whereby the Inspector concluded that, although Policy DEV8 requires a mix of housing sizes, it does not preclude the provision of other types of housing. [name] agree with my colleagues’ conclusions, Policy DEV8 is clear that the housing mix should meet the needs of the area, to broaden choice and meet specialist needs for existing and future residents. The appeal before me has not identified that the proposal would be meeting housing needs of the area, therefore the example at [name] is not comparable with the appeal before me and bears little weight on my conclusions.

Accordingly, on the strength of the evidence submitted, the proposal would not maintain a mix of house sizes within the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DEV8 of the Local Plan.

M5 of the Climate Emergency Planning Statement (2022) (CEPS) and Policy DEV32 of the JLP sets out the requirement to deliver low carbon development, and promotes making the best use of existing buildings, through retrofitting, as an alternative to demolition. While the proposal would make use of the stone barn and linhay, other buildings on site would be demolished, and a garage would be constructed.

The DEV32 [name] and the [name] have been submitted by the appellant. However, I have not been provided with any detailed calculations, such as a Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) which is required by the [name], therefore I cannot be sure that the proposal would deliver low carbon development.

The appellant has indicated that water butts, triple glazing and electric vehicle charging points would be utilised, and the plans show that solar panels and an air source heat pump would be installed. While these are benefits of the proposal which go some way to meeting the requirements of Policy DEV32, given the overall extent of demolition of existing buildings on site, together with the construction of the garage, without calculations, I have no compelling evidence that the proposal would meet the aims of Policy DEV32.

The appellant has drawn my attention to an appeal decision relating to 16 and [address] (Ref. 3334457), where the Inspector considered that further details could be secured through a condition. However, in the absence of more detailed evidence, it appears that the appeal at [address] differs from the appeal before me in so far as the extent of demolition which was required.

A condition has been suggested by the appellant requiring a building conversion strategy to be submitted to the Council. While a condition would go some way to meet the goals of Policy DEV32, given the extent of demolition and construction, I cannot be sure that the proposal would deliver low carbon development. As such, a condition in this instance would not be sufficient to ensure compliance.

In conclusion, the proposal would not minimise the use of natural resources and contribute towards a carbon reduction. As such, it would conflict with the aims of Policy DEV32 of the Local Plan.

The appellant submits that the proposal comprises sustainable development when considered against the guidance in the Framework. However, paragraph 11 d i) of the Framework specifies that permission should be granted, unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas of particular importance, including areas in National Landscapes, provide clear reason for refusing the development proposed. In this instance, there are clear reasons for refusing the proposed development and accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply and does not weigh in favour of the proposal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.