Appeal 6000788

The appeal is dismissed.

A new local plan is emerging, however I have been provided with limited evidence that the policies referred to are likely to be adopted in their current form. Consequently, for the purposes of this appeal I attach limited weight to the emerging policy.

Planning permission has been granted for the retention of an outbuilding for use as a residential annexe1. This was subject to a condition which specifies that the annexe should be occupied in association with Oakridge, or purposes ancillary thereto and should not be occupied as an independent unit of accommodation.

The appellant now seeks to vary this condition for a temporary period of one year to allow the independent occupation of the annexe. The application form indicates that the use has already started and commenced in February 2025. 1 17/01092/HOU

The main issue is whether the appeal site is a suitable location for an independent dwelling having regard to the policies of the development plan.

The appeal site is located outside of any recognised settlement and therefore, for the purposes of the local plan, is in the open countryside. Policy MTRA 4 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 – [name] ([name] 2013) (LP) states that in the countryside only certain types of development will be permitted, including that which has an operational need for a countryside location, the reuse of rural buildings for certain uses, the expansion of established businesses and low key tourist accommodation.

The appellant contends that the proposal would constitute the re-use of a well-screened rural building and as such would accord with the development plan. However, Policy MTRA 4 states that rural buildings may be reused for employment, tourist accommodation, community use or affordable housing (to meet demonstrable local housing needs). The use of the appeal building as an independent residential property does not fall within any of these exceptions. As the use of the appeal building as an independent dwelling would conflict with the

The appeal building is occupied by a family, who were named on the application form. I am told that the site is located near to their places of employment and education. However, I am not aware that there are any regular public transport options available nearby. Furthermore, the appeal site is located on a busy road with no pavements or street lighting in the vicinity and as such is not conducive to walking or cycling. As such it is realistic to assume that the majority of journeys, even if they are relatively short, would be carried out by a private car. As such the appeal site has poor access to services and facilities.

Paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) seeks to ensure that Planning decisions avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one or more of certain circumstances apply. These include where they would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting. I recognise that circumstances have changed since the annex was originally built and is no longer required for occupation by a relative of those occupying the main dwelling. However, there is limited evidence before me that the building was disused or redundant prior to its occupation. Furthermore, the proposal does not include any works which would enhance the setting of the building. Moreover, notwithstanding its location in the countryside, the appeal site is located near to other dwellings and land uses and as such is not isolated in the terms of the Framework.

The appellant has suggested that temporary consent be granted for a period of a year. The building has already been occupied for in excess of a year and as such the use would occur for a considerable period of time. The temporary time period would not lessen the conflict with the local plan and it is not clear whether the circumstances in respect of the occupiers or the building will have changed at the end of the temporary period. As such I do not consider that allowing the appeal on a temporary or personal basis is justified in this instance.

I therefore conclude that the appeal site is not a suitable location for an independent dwelling having regard to the policies of the development plan. It would therefore conflict with Policy MTRA4 of the LP which seeks to control development in the countryside.

I recognise that the failure of this appeal could affect the living arrangements for the current occupants of the building, including children. I have had due regard to Articles 1 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), Article 3 of the [name] on the Rights of the Child and the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under the Equality Act 2010. Age is a relevant protected characteristic to which the PSED applies. These rights are engaged in reaching my decision. However, they are qualified rights, and interference may be justified where in the public interest. The concept of proportionality is key.

The appeal site is in a location which does not benefit from good access to services and facilities, therefore, to allow the appeal would not be in the best interests of the child, nor would it eliminate discrimination or promote equality of opportunity. I have had regard to the development plan policies and the Framework, which aim to locate dwellings in accessible locations in the public interest.

I have given consideration as to whether allowing the appeal on a temporary, or personal basis as suggested would mitigate the harm identified. However, the protection of the public interest cannot be achieved by means that are less interfering with the human rights of the occupiers of the appeal building.

I conclude that the development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the Framework. There are no material considerations, that outweigh the harm identified.

Furthermore, I have had due regard to the HRA 1998, the Rights of the Child and the PSED set out under s149 of the Equality Act 2010. However, I conclude that it is proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal.