Appeal 6000812

The appeal is dismissed.

The site is within the Mendip National Landscape (NL). Therefore, in considering this appeal I have applied the duty in section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW Act) as amended by section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA) to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty.

The main issues are:

the effect of the proposal, on the landscape character; and

whether the proposed dwelling would be in a suitable location having regard to relevant development plan policies; and

the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.

Policy NE2 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan update (the Local Plan update) seeks to protect the district’s distinctive landscapes, including Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), ridge lines, and settlement settings. It requires new development to respond positively to landscape character, conserve key features, and mitigate negative visual impacts.

Policy D2 of the Local Plan update promotes design that responds sensitively to local context, ensuring that new buildings respect the scale, form, character, and materials of their surroundings.

Policy RE6 of the Local Plan update and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) support, amongst other things, the re-use of redundant or disused buildings in isolated locations where conversion would enhance the setting of the building. Criteria 3 of RE6 requires that a proposal to enhance visual amenity and not harm ecological function. Criteria 5 of RE6 supports conversions where any enhancement to its immediate setting outweighs the harm arising from the isolated location. The policy applies to both traditional and modern buildings, such as the appeal building, subject to other considerations.

The appeal site is located in a long narrow strip of land off [site address] , within a field to the rear of [site address] . Access to the site is through the existing access and parking arrangements and rear garden of [site address] and a second parcel of green space given over to incidental residential use.

Beyond this area, the appeal building is located in a field adjacent to a boundary hedge, with a field access off the highway. The appeal building is clad in timber board and corrugated metal sheeting with a corrugated metal roof. To the rear of the building, I observed a scaffold pole and corrugated metal sheet roofed open store, predominantly used for the storage of firewood, various materials, and a standpipe. Beyond the appeal building the land could reasonably be described as being agricultural in character.

Whilst the appellant refers to the appeal land as being within the residential curtilage of [site address] , I found that the character of the land immediately surrounding the dwelling was its curtilage. Beyond that, the next parcel of green space appeared to be occupied by items incidental to the enjoyment of the host building (e.g., trampoline, bench, compost bin). Whereas the proposal field is removed from the garden areas and retains its agricultural character.

The site lies within the [name]. Policy NE2 of the Local Plan update states that great weight will be afforded to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty of designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), with particular reference to their special qualities. This is mirrored in the Framework which states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of NL. The CROW Act requires relevant authorities to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of NL.

The Mendip Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2019-2024 (MHAONBMP) identifies the character of the NL. This includes its limestone ridges, dramatic gorges, dark skies, tranquillity, and sense of remoteness, alongside rich biodiversity and historic features dating back 500,000 years. Its identity has been shaped by the interaction of people and nature over millennia, creating a mosaic of habitats, ancient woodlands, flower-rich grasslands, and archaeological features such as henge monuments and caves.

Whilst the MHAONBMP is not part of the development plan, it helps set out the strategic context for development and provides evidence of the value and special qualities of the area. In this context, the MHAONBMP is a significant material consideration.

The site is located off [site address] which forms part of the northern flank of the [name]. It is a gently rising parcel of land, affording distant views in several directions. The appeal land reflects the NL character type and makes a positive contribution to the character of the NL.

The development proposes the conversion of the existing building, adapting a built form that is already present and forms part of the existing landscape. As the building is already in place the overall visual effect of the scheme would be modest. Nonetheless, the visual effect of the proposed works and impacts of the subsequent use would materially change the character, appearance and setting of the shed.

Furthermore, the proposal would incorporate residential amenity space and associated residential paraphernalia to the site which would have a domesticating effect at odds with the rural and agricultural character of the field and surrounding landscape, which would be evident in wider views of the site, particularly from the public right of way network on higher land. These activities would have an urbanising effect on the site, diminishing the rural context of the landscape and its tranquillity.

The glazed elements of the proposal would be relatively extensive and the attendant day-to-day domestic activity associated with the dwelling would include impacts from night-time illumination. The extent of glazing would create significant new levels of illumination that would erode the dark sky in the area at night in contrast to a key characteristic of the area.

In addition, the submission does not outline mitigation for light spill onto adjacent habitats which may be used by foraging and commuting horseshoe bats as outlined at paragraph 6.1.4 of the [name] and Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment Land off [site address] , [site address] , Bristol, dated 17th April

As such I find the development to be at odds with Policy D2 and criteria 3 of Policy RE6 of the Local Plan update.

Consequently, having regard to the Framework and CROW Act, I find the proposal would neither conserve nor enhance the landscape and scenic and natural beauty of the [name].

At the time of my visit, I could not gain access to the interior of the building due to the owners being unavailable. However, there is a sizeable gap under the door through which I was able to observe a number of stored items. As such, the building appeared to be in use for the storage of various domestic and land management items, which is consistent with the permission granted for the building1.

Whilst the conversion of the appeal building would likely enhance its setting, I have found some tension in regard to the status of the building. The application form states that the building is not vacant, but in a use associated with the C3 dwelling 2, and conversely, the appeal submission refers to it as a redundant agricultural building3.

Given my observations during the site visit and the inconsistency of the evidence, it has not been demonstrated that the building is redundant or disused. Consequently, in these circumstances, criteria 5 of Policy RE6 of the Local Plan update and the considerations outlined in the Framework do not apply. 1 Ref 00/00076/FUL. 2 Application form – [name] section. 3 Section 6 of the [name].

Therefore, I conclude on the first main issue, that the proposal would be at odds with the relevant aims and objectives of Policies D2, NE2 and RE6 of the Local Plan update, which among other things, seek to ensure that development proposals conserve or enhance landscape and scenic beauty, character and distinctiveness and enhance the setting of redundant or disused buildings.

Policy DW1 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan [name] and Placemaking Plan incorporating the Local Plan Partial Update (the Local Plan update). sets out the overarching framework for growth across Bath and [name]. It directs development to the most sustainable locations, primarily Bath, Keynsham, and the Somer Valley, while limiting expansion in rural areas and protecting the Green Belt. The policy aims to concentrate housing, employment, and services where infrastructure and accessibility are strongest, reducing car dependency and supporting climate objectives.

Policy ST7 of the Local Plan update, aims to strengthen connectivity, support walking, cycling, and public transport infrastructure, and reduce reliance on private vehicles.

[site address] is a narrow, rural lane, with no pedestrian footways or streetlighting. Although there is a footpath off [site address] that links to [site address] , access to this footpath is approximately 250m along the narrow, unlit, unpaved rural road where the national speed limit applies.

[site address] is also part of the National Cycle Network (Route 3). However, I find that the existence of the pedestrian and cycle routes do not necessarily translate into the appeal site being in a suitable and accessible location for the proposed development. The site and wider locality do not benefit from suitable pedestrian access and therefore would not offer real travel choice or promote sustainable travel throughout the day. Although a bus stop is relatively close to the appeal site, the service is extremely limited.

The appeal site is outside any defined settlement boundary so is in the countryside for planning policy purposes. The nearest settlements are [name] or [site address] , where there are few facilities. Although there is a GP surgery, dentist and public house in [site address] , it is likely that future occupiers would be reliant on private vehicles to access these and other day-to-day services.

As set out above, the proposed development would be outside any settlement limits and would offer poor accessibility. Therefore, the proposed development would not be in an appropriate location and at odds with the aims and objectives of Policy DW1 and ST7 of the Local Plan update.

For the reasons set out above, the countryside location would not be suitable for new residential development. The proposal is contrary to the Framework, where it gives weight to the benefits of using suitable sites within existing settlements for homes and seeks to manage patterns of growth in support of promoting walking, cycling and public transport use.

I therefore conclude on the second main issue, that the proposal would be at odds with the relevant aims and objectives of Policies DW1and ST7 of the Local Plan update, which among other things, seek to ensure that development is located in sustainable locations, with links to good facilities and public transport.

The access for the proposed dwelling would be via the existing driveway to [site address] . The Council outline their concerns regarding the limited visibility of oncoming vehicles along the highway where the national speed limit applies. During my site visit I noted the safety mirror and found that, on egress, due to the configuration of the road toward the junction with the A368, visibility was limited.

There are no proposed changes to the access or egress arrangements but allowing the appeal would result in additional vehicular movements. However, there is little evidence before me to show that the additional use of the access would cause an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

Therefore, on the third main issue, I conclude that the proposal is compliant with Policy ST7 of the Local Plan update.

The Council has confirmed that it cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In these circumstances, according to the Framework, the policies most important for determining the appeal are out of date. However, for the reasons set out above, policies in the Framework that protect NL provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. Therefore, according to paragraph 11(d)(i) and footnote 7 of the Framework, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply. Policy NE2 of the Local Plan update follows the Framework’s approach to this presumption.

The delivery of one dwelling would make a modest contribution to meeting housing need in the area, boosting the supply of homes. The development would also support the local rural economy during the construction process and through future occupiers’ use of services and facilities. These benefits would accord with the Framework’s social and economic objectives. However, they would not be sufficient to outweigh the great weight I am required to give to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of the NL and the weight of the harm from the unsuitable countryside location.

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.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.