Appeal 6000921

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has made an application for costs which is the subject of a separate

Both parties agree that the application relates to the conversion of a redundant rural building to form what is described as ancillary accommodation. This is reflected in the Authority’s decision notice. Accordingly, I have determined the appeal on this basis, rather than the description of development set out in the application form and banner heading above.

The main issue is whether the site is a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to local and national policy.

The overall purpose of the Dartmoor Local Plan (LP) is set out in Strategic Policy (SP)1.1 which seeks to protect the National Park’s special qualities, whilst meeting the needs of its communities. All development 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. It is necessary to seek to further these purposes in decision making. Amongst other things, SP1.2 promotes sustainable development that supports these purposes by prioritising the use of previously developed land and buildings whilst conserving and enhancing the character, quality, and tranquillity of the National Park. Furthermore, in such areas, paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework attaches great weight to conserving and enhancing natural beauty.

The appeal site lies in an isolated countryside location within the Dartmoor National Park. SP1.3 of the LP makes clear that development in such areas is strictly limited to specific circumstances, such as rural businesses with a proven need to be located in the open countryside. No special justification addressing these policy limitations has been advanced in support of the appeal.

Elsewhere, the LP supports householder or domestic-related development. In that context, Policy 3.7 permits residential outbuildings where they are subservient to the original dwelling and conserve and enhance its character, appearance, curtilage, and immediate surroundings. Although the policy does not expressly state that such development must be located within the residential unit, the supporting text expects converted outbuildings to be connected or accessed from the original dwelling. Moreover, there are other policies, including SP2.8, which I will return to later, that specifically address the conversion of non‐residential buildings in the countryside. Taken together, the reasonable interpretation of Policy 3.7 is that it applies to development within the residential planning unit or overall household, rather than to development outside it.

The appeal site comprises what the appellant describes as a small yard. It includes a modest sized and rather unassuming outbuilding of what appeared to be of traditional external construction, with some more recent looking internal blockwork. I agree with the appellant that its separation distance from the farmhouse is likely to be closer to 39m than the 50m described by the Authority. It is claimed that the proposed conversion of this building will be used for additional living space to the main house, essentially being within the same planning unit. Noting that the term “curtilage” is not a use of land, the immediate garden area surrounding the host property was evidently enclosed by walls and gates and included neatly cut lawns, a patio, swings, greenhouse, and other similar domestic paraphernalia.

Beyond this intimately enclosed garden space, there is a gated access to a roughly surfaced public right of way, with the appeal building positioned at the far side of this track. Parked vehicles and a low-level outbuilding of agricultural appearance that contained logs and a quad bike were also positioned next to the track, adjoining the main property’s garden wall. However, other more formalised and dedicated household parking was available next to the property’s front entrance.

I have paid regard to the various referenced court judgements, including Hampshire County Council v SSEFRA with particular regard to the terms “messuage” and “appurtenance.” In that context, the appellant claims that the appeal building has been within the main farmstead curtilage for centuries. Although within the appellant’s ownership and noting the vegetable patch, the available evidence together with my own observations indicate that the land the appeal building sits within is more closely associated with a former dwelling and its surviving outbuilding, rather than the host property.

Claims of overflow parking and play areas for the family’s children are noted, though the land fronting and surrounding the appeal building did not appear to have any close connection with a residential use. The plans show that this would provide a parking area that would be functionally separate to the 2 areas already used by the host property. Additionally, the gated access to the appeal building is shown to lead to a generous and enclosed ”amenity area.” Future occupants would be provided with their own parking and fully enclosed private garden space that the design and access statement describes as being adequate for hanging out laundry, outdoor seating, and leisure use, as well as waste and recycling bins.

In that respect, when viewed from public vantage points, the appeal building and its surrounds can be appreciated as an entirely separate entity to the farmhouse. Located even further from the host property, this land is not intimately connected to the residential unit and cannot reasonably be described as being part and parcel of it. Accordingly, the introduction of a residential use and inevitable associated paraphernalia would be at odds with the rather low-key, tranquil, rural nature and layout of the appeal site, in conflict with the National Park’s statutory purpose.

It is acknowledged that through Gravesham and Uttlesford a self-contained unit alone would not necessarily lead to an independent one. Moreover, within the submissions, the Council concedes that drainage would be connected to that of the main house. The statement explaining the additional need for accommodation for an extended family is understood though it is also stated there is a desire to rent the building for holiday purposes. This supporting evidence does not therefore provide any compelling justification in respect of a familial relationship between its intended occupiers. Therefore, for the reasons above, including the level of accommodation being proposed, the development would be tantamount to a new residential unit in the open countryside.

In these circumstances it would not be appropriate to attempt to add a planning condition to restrict the use of the building to part of the dwelling known as [site address] , as it would be located outside this planning unit. For similar reasons, and notwithstanding the way the appeal has been agreed to be determined, it would also not be possible for the proposal to comply with LP Policy 3.7.

Given the above, it is necessary to explore whether or not the proposal could be supported elsewhere in the LP. The Authority refused the scheme partly on the basis there was conflict with LP SP2.8. As mentioned earlier, this policy is concerned with the conservation of historic non-residential buildings in the open countryside. In order to comply with the policy, conversions must relate to redundant buildings.

On the one hand, it is claimed that the building is redundant for modern agricultural uses, given the restricted form of its enclosed yard and overall scale; yet on the other, it is said that the building has remained in everyday use for the appellant’s furniture and other storage, as well as for chickens and geese, which provide the family with eggs. Furthermore, there are claims alterations could be made to the building, which would be potentially suitable for ongoing use. The latter uses are consistent with my onsite observations that, rather than being surplus to requirements, the building continues to serve a useful purpose for general storage and the keeping of poultry, even if no agricultural trade or business is currently taking place in respect of these particular activities. Despite its small scale, there is also little convincing reason why it could not be put to some other low key agricultural use to assist with the wider farm operation.

In that context, it is not appropriate for me to determine the lawfulness or otherwise of a use of land or building. This can only be formally decided by way of an application for a certificate of lawfulness. I have had regard to the representations made in respect of matters including the heritage value of the building, and its structural condition. Even so, as the building evidently continues to be used, the proposal cannot comply with LP SP2.8. Accordingly, it would not be necessary to determine whether or not these or other limitations set out therein would be complied with. The appellant does not attempt to demonstrate compliance with the policy’s requirements in respect of permanent residential uses as this has not been applied for.

Drawing these matters together, while use would be made of an existing building, with roof alterations that might reflect its former appearance, the proposal would nevertheless result in the incremental creep of residential development in the countryside. Rather than being additional accommodation part and parcel of the main dwellinghouse, it would erode the rural character and tranquillity of the National Park. In conclusion, the site is not in a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to local and national policy. As such, there would be conflict with [name] 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and policies 2.8 and 3.7.

My attention has been drawn to 2 appeals where it is said conditions have been applied to restrict occupancy, though the references given are not shown to relate to such matters. This is also true of 2 other appeal examples claimed to relate to drainage. Even so, I have assessed this scheme on its merits. I have also paid regard to the various case law extracts referenced by the appellant. However, it has not been convincingly demonstrated any of these would lead me to reach a different overall conclusion.

Discussions with the Authority’s case officer during the processing of the application are noted and I do have some sympathy with the appellant in this regard. However, this has no bearing on my decision which is based on the planning merits of the proposal.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no considerations individually or cumulatively that outweigh this. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.