Appeal 6000723

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of existing facilities building to one bedroom holiday let and replacement of three yurts with one one-bedroom and one two-bedroom holiday let at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/22/04058/FUL, dated 31 August 2022, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

[name] 2025, the Government published proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework. However, as this document is a draft for consultation purposes, it carries little weight in the current appeal.

Although it appears that the parties agreed to change the description of development to include the months of operation, these can be outlined in a planning condition controlling the development. Therefore, I have taken the description of development in the heading above from the original application form.

The evidence before me indicates that two yurts have previously been erected seasonally at the site. The report to the planning Committee (the Report) for the proposal details that the conditions imposed by the Inspector for the appeals allowed in 20121 were discharged by the Authority in July 20132.

The Report adds “Therefore, it is considered that the use as a tourism site has been lawfully implemented. It was not a condition of the permission that all 5 yurts should be erected at one time.” I have little reason to dispute this. My decision is therefore based on the understanding that the site has an extant permission for five yurts restricted to a holiday use only between the months of April to October each year with incidental facilities. 1 [name]/Y9507/C/12/2170687 and APP/Y9507/A/12/2168351. 2 [name]/12/03049/DCOND

The main issues are:

the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the South Downs National Park (SDNP), and;

whether the proposed development would be consistent with policy which seeks to safeguard tourist accommodation.

The appeal site located within the SDNP, a nationally designated area which attracts the highest level of protection regarding its landscape and scenic beauty. Section 15, Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and National Landscapes which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues.

The South Downs Local Plan (2014-2033) (LP) seeks to protect the National Park’s (NP) special qualities, whilst meeting the needs of its communities. Development within the NP should seek to further its statutory purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area and promoting opportunities of the understanding and enjoyment of its special qualities by the public.

The appeal site is accessed via a gated entrance off [site address] , it is bounded to the east by the B3335, immediately to the south of Twyford. Residential properties and the farm access track are located to the north of the site. A public footpath runs adjacent to the site’s southern boundary from the B3335 and extends northward to [address] and [address].

The site is located in close proximity to a network of public footpaths and bridleways linking it to the wider National Park and the centre of Twyford which is within close walking distance. There are bus stops a short walk in either direction along the B3335.

At the time of my site visit the site comprised an area of hardstanding adjacent to the entrance gate, a timber boarded and slate roofed utility building with patio seating and barbeque area, a sheeted timber yurt base and a shingle boarded timber storage building. The areas of land immediately adjacent to the appeal site are given over to a pond, grass and the growing of vegetables. The utility building appeared to be being used to store the yurts and associated paraphernalia.

The lodges would be located away from the B3335, beyond the houses to the north, they would be screened from the road by these existing dwellings and the roadside hedgerow and trees. During my site visit I walked along the B3335 and the aforementioned footpaths, where I noted that due to the topography and natural landcover, the appeal site was not prominent in wider public views from these locations. Closer views were equally restricted by mature trees and natural growth affording only glimpses of the site.

The proposed lodges would be further screened from views by the existing hedge boundary which, subject to an appropriately worded condition, could be augmented by additional planting, particularly to the south of the site.

Despite the bespoke design of the individual buildings, I find the relatively modest scale and the use of materials to be sympathetic to the existing buildings both on site and in the wider context. As such, I find that the proposed buildings would be unobtrusive in the wider landscape.

Due to the subservient design and sympathetic use of materials, the proposed conversion of the utility building to a one-bedroom lodge would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the host building and the wider rural landscape setting.

Accordingly, having had regard to the valued attributes of the locally defined character area, the overall effect of the development on the wider landscape would consequently be neutral. I find that the proposed development would be compatible with the purposes of the National Park.

For the reasons above, I conclude on the first main issue that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the SDNP by introducing high quality tourist accommodation in a sustainable location. As such, there would be no conflict with Policy SD23 1. g) i, of the LP.

Policy SD23 2. of the LP outlines that ‘development proposals that would result in the loss of visitor accommodation, visitor attractions and recreation facilities will not be permitted’ and goes on the list criteria where such a loss may be accepted. The policy narrative at paragraph 6.61 adds that ‘any loss of visitor accommodation can be difficult to replace.’ There is no further explanation or substantive definition of loss, be that total or diminutive.

Accordingly, in these circumstances the appeal land would continue to be available for use as tourist accommodation and there is no proposed loss of that use or change of the use of the land. The only change would be how the tourism offer would be experienced.

Accordingly, I conclude on the second main issue, that the proposal would be consistent with policy which seeks to safeguard tourist accommodation. As such, there would be no conflict with Policy SD 23 2. a) as a marketing campaign is only required where there would be a proposed loss of tourist accommodation which forms part and parcel of a proposed change of use of the land submission.

I have read the comments submitted by the interested parties and carried out my site inspection with these in mind.

With particular regard to the Parish Council’s comments and the Twyford Neighbourhood Plan (TNP) I note the reference to SB1, SB2, ST, LHE1, LHE2, LHE3, DE1. I have outlined above why the proposal accords with the policies stated within the reason for refusal.

The site lies outside of the development boundary as delineated on Map 2 of the TNP(SB1). However, it is my understanding from the evidence I have seen that the appeal site is lawful. Policy SB2 of the TNP seeks to control development outside of the settlement boundary and provides criteria including TNP Policy ST1, which supports tourism development that is compliant with LP Policy SD23. Moreover, TNP Policy SB2 (d) supports the appropriate re-use of a previously developed site.

LHE1 would not apply, the purpose of this policy is to prevent the coalescence of Twyford and [name]. I have been directed to the ‘[address]’ appeal3 where the Inspector outlined that ‘the introduction of new structures on the site would not, diminish the gap between the two settlements.’ My observations of the approach from [name] to Twyford lead me to the same conclusion.

The proposal would be screened from wider views by enhancing existing boundary planting, and other development in the immediate vicinity of the site. Additionally, the design and use of materials respect the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, I consider the proposal to be compliant with the requirements of TNP policy LHE2 and DE1, which seek to protect the landscape and ensure appropriate design, respectively. Finally, the site does not lie within the Twyford Conservation Area nor within the legible context of the setting of a Listed Building, therefore LHE3 would not apply.

The investigation of an alleged breach of planning controls would be for the relevant enforcing Authority to pursue. The use of planning conditions restricting occupation and use of the buildings for holiday purposes only will be imposed. Any breach of condition could be subject to an enforcement investigation and if expedient to do so, formal action by that Authority.

Finally, in terms of foul/grey water and nutrient neutrality, I have been provided with correspondence between the company instructed to conduct a nutrient mitigation assessment, and the SDNP. This outlines that the proposal would be ‘like-for-like with no requirement for nutrient mitigation.’ On the basis of the evidence before me, two yurts could accommodate up to 16 individuals, whereas the proposed accommodation offer, appears to be limited to 12 occupants. As such, I have no evidence that would lead me to conclude otherwise.

I have had regard to the list of suggested conditions provided by the Authority. Where necessary, I have amended their wording to ensure they meet the relevant tests for conditions set out in the Framework.

In addition to the statutory time limit for implementation, a condition setting out the approved plans is necessary to provide certainty. It is necessary to restrict the use of the proposed accommodation to holiday purposes only, and to require the details of the occupiers to be maintained, and restrict the site to seasonal holiday use, and to prevent permanent and/or separate occupation of the site that would conflict with adopted planning policy relating to development in the countryside and potentially lead to unanticipated impacts.

To maintain control of the site a condition is required in regard to the extent of tourist accommodation, and to protect nearby trees. Additionally, to ensure a 3 Appeal Ref: APP/Y9507/W/25/3361034 satisfactory appearance, it is necessary to agree external materials, and to protect the pond and local watercourse a condition requiring submission and adherence to a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is necessary.

A condition is necessary to ensure adequate parking at the site and details of on-site cycle storage for visitors is required to promote sustainable modes of transport. Finally, to safeguard protected species a [name] and [name] (BMES) is necessary, along with a condition in the interests of preventing light pollution, and that an appropriate scheme of landscaping, foul and surface water drainage strategy are submitted, approved and implemented.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, including the Framework, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawing numbers: • Proposed Block Plan detailing landscaping. Received 19 January 2023 • Site Location Plan. Received 30 August 2022 • Elevations and [name], [address]. Received 30 August 2022 • Elevations and [name], Lodge 2. Received 30 August 2022 • Elevations and [name], Utility building. Received 30 August 2022

The development hereby permitted shall be used for holiday accommodation only and shall be used for no other purpose (including any other purpose within Class C3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987, or any Order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification).

Holiday occupancy: (i) the holiday accommodation units shall be occupied for holiday purposes only. (ii) the holiday accommodation units shall not be occupied as a person's sole or main place of residence. (iii) the owners shall maintain an up-to-date register of the names of all occupiers of the individual holiday accommodation units on the site, their arrival and departure dates and their main home addresses and shall make this information available at all reasonable times to the Local Planning Authority.

The holiday accommodation on the site may be occupied only between the months of April and October inclusive and shall not be occupied at any other time. The holiday accommodation on the site shall not be occupied other than for the purposes of short let holiday accommodation and shall not be used, let or sold for permanent residential accommodation.

The holiday accommodation hereby permitted shall be restricted to the following amounts of accommodation: - Conversion of existing facilities building to holiday let - 1 no: two bedroom holiday unit - 1 no: three bedroom holiday unit - retention of 2 No: yurt for ancillary use The remaining 3 no: yurts subject to appeal decision ref: APP/Y9507/A/12/2168351 shall be permanently removed from the site prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved.

Protective measures, including fencing and ground protection, in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and [name] ref: HBD2213IAMSRI written by [name] of [name] and submitted to the Local Planning Authority shall be installed prior to any demolition, construction or groundwork commencing on the site and retained for the duration of the construction period. Inspection of fencing The Arboricultural Officer shall be informed once protective measures have been installed so that the [name] (CEZ) can be inspected and deemed appropriate and in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment, [name], ref: HBD2213IAMSRI and Tree Protection Plan Ref: HB1. Telephone - Tree Officer. [phone]. Limit of Arboricultural work [name] works shall be carried out to trees other than those specified and in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and [name]: HBD2213IAMSRI. No deviation from agreed method statement Any deviation from works prescribed or methods agreed in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and [name]: HBD2213IAMSRI: shall be agreed in writing to the Local Planning Authority. [name] development, or site preparation prior to operations which has any effect on compacting, disturbing or altering the levels of the site, shall take place until a person suitably qualified in arboriculture, and approved as suitable by the Local Planning Authority, has been appointed to supervise construction activity occurring on the site. The Arboricultural supervisor will be responsible for the implementation of protective measures, special surfacing and all works deemed necessary by the approved Arboricultural method statement. Where ground measures are deemed necessary to protect root protection areas, the Arboricultural supervisor shall ensure that these are installed prior to any vehicle movement, earth moving or construction activity occurring on the site and that all such measures to protect trees are inspected by the Local Planning Authority Arboricultural Officer prior to commencement of development work. Pre-commencement meeting A pre-commencement meeting will be held on site before any of the site clearance and construction works begins. This will be attended by the site manager, the Arboricultural consultant and the Local Planning Authority Tree Officer.

No development shall be carried out above ground floor slab level until a schedule of external materials finishes and samples to be used on the development hereby approved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved schedule and samples.

A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. This will show how construction will avoid, minimise or mitigate effects on the [name] and nearby pond. This shall include storage of any equipment/machinery/materials/chemicals, dust suppression, chemical or fuel run-off from construction, waste disposal, noise/visual/vibrational impacts and lighting and shall also include a [name] for reptiles.

Before the development hereby approved is first brought into use, a minimum of 6 car parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter maintained and kept available.

Details of covered cycle storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details and retained on site.

A Biodiversity Mitigation and [name] (BMES) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. This shall be adhered to throughout all phases of the development and any compensation, mitigation and enhancement features shall be sited prior to the development coming into its intended use and retained thereafter. It shall adhere to the 'Outline enhancement measures' in paragraph 5.6 of [name] dated August 2022 written by Hampshire Ecological Services Ltd.

A scheme for the methods to be implemented to control the light intrusion from internal light sources and any external lighting of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development. The lighting scheme should be in accordance with Guidance Note 08/18 produced by the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of [name]. This information shall include a layout plan with beam orientation and a schedule of equipment in the design (luminaire type, mounting height, aiming angles and luminaire profiles). The scheme shall be installed, maintained and operated in accordance with the approved details unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to the variation.

A detailed scheme for landscaping, tree and/or shrub planting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The scheme shall specify species, density, planting, size and layout. The scheme approved shall be carried out in the first planting season following the occupation of the building or the completion of the development whichever is the sooner. If within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, any trees, shrubs or plants die, are removed or, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, become seriously damaged or defective, others of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, in the next planting season, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

Detailed proposals for the disposal of foul and surface water shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of the development hereby permitted. The approved details shall be fully implemented before development can begin. Percolation testing and infiltration testing is required for the drainage field and soakaway. End of Schedule