Appeal 6001082

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to local and national policy; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the landscape and green infrastructure; and • the effect of the proposed development on ecology, including whether it would make adequate provision for [name] (BNG).

The appeal site includes [site address] , a red-brick structure which occupies a secluded position on the bank of the [name]. Access to the edge of the appeal site is gained via a predominately unmade track leading off [site address] . Beyond this point, there is no formal means of access or track leading to the structure, with the intervening land comprising a field. A Public Right of Way (PROW H31) crosses over the site.

The site is located outside the built-up area of Asfordby and is set well away from the settlement edge. It is therefore evidently within the open countryside. Policy SS2 of the Melton Local Plan (2018) (MLP) sets out a spatial strategy. This includes that outside settlements, in the open countryside, new development will be restricted to that which is necessary and appropriate.

There is nothing before me to suggest that the more immediate surrounds are a particular draw for tourists or that existing holiday accommodation for those visiting the wider area does not cater for any existing demand. The limited supporting evidence, including the opinions by property consultants on holiday lets, appears generalised rather than based on any detailed assessment of demand at this location. Furthermore, the support for a prosperous rural economy in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that such developments respect the character of the countryside and are sensitive to their surroundings. This would not be the case in this instance, for the reasons set out under the second main issue.

In addition, the building is set well away from [site address] and there is also no paved footpath or street lighting linking them. Even then the building is not in close walking distance to the nearest meaningful services and facilities in Asfordby. These factors mean that it is likely that those residing at [address]. These factors further indicate that the proposed holiday let would not be necessary or appropriate in this location and would fail to encourage sustainable growth in line with the spatial strategy for the area.

For the above reasons, the appeal site would not be a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to local and national policy. More particularly, it would conflict with the development strategy for the Borough in Policy SS2 of the MLP. It would also be contrary to the Framework which promotes sustainable patterns of development and developments which are genuinely plan-led.

At the time of my site visit the appeal building was in a dilapidated condition, without a roof and overgrown with vegetation. It is visually isolated due to its position away from the nearest settlement, alongside the [name]. The Asfordby Parish Neighbourhood Plan (2023) identifies this section of the river as a ‘[name] and an integral element of the wider green infrastructure network. Fields surround the site and the river. PROW H31 passes alongside the building and there are trees and hedgerows within the wider fields as well as in and close to the building. The building’s derelict shell, the absence of any formalised access track or associated grounds, together with the established vegetation ensure that it has discreet presence and assimilates with the distinctly rural character of the immediate landscape.

The alterations to the building itself would be modest, with no increase in height or footprint proposed. Even so, its conversion to residential use would necessitate alterations to a sizeable area of the site, much of which is currently undeveloped. This would include some tree removal to facilitate the works to the building. There would also be provision of hard landscaping, to provide an extensive private access track to connect [site address] to the edge of the site, as well as a large area for parking, turning and refuse facilities.

While not detailed, the proposal would also likely require more formalised landscaping to the indicated garden, including for example boundary treatments. Such formal landscaping in the immediate vicinity of the river bank would conflict with the green infrastructure aims of Policy EN3 of the MLP. Taken together, with the hard landscape works and overtly residential use of the building, this would give rise to a significant urbanising effect which would appear incongruous within the rural landscape, unacceptably eroding the tranquil, riverside location for passersby on the PROW.

The appellant has referred to text in the Framework relating to conserving and enhancing the historic environment. However, there is nothing to suggest that the appeal building has been designated as a heritage asset or that it has particular architectural features or historical associations that indicate that the works to it and the wider identified harm to the landscape would be justified.

Consequently, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the landscape and green infrastructure. It these respects, it would conflict with Policies EN1 and EN3 of the MLP which require that the character of the Borough’s landscape and countryside is conserved and, where possible, enhanced and that developments retain and enhance important green infrastructure. It would also conflict with Policy A2 of the Asfordby Parish Neighbourhood Plan (2023) which requires development in the countryside to be of a scale and environmental impact that is compatible with the character of its rural location and respects landscape character. For the same reasons, it would also fail to accord with the objectives to conserve and enhance the natural environment in the Framework.

Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) introduced a statutory framework for BNG, and it applies to all planning applications made on or after 12 February 2024. As such, unless exempt, development proposals are usually subject to the mandatory requirement to deliver a BNG of at least 10%.

The planning application that led to this appeal was submitted to the Council on 29 March 2024. Furthermore, the application form confirms that the site area is 3 hectares (Ha). Consequently, it falls under the definition of major development under Article 2 Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (England) Order 2015 and does not qualify for the ‘non-major’ exemption for applications submitted before 2 April 2024. The proposal is therefore subject to the requirement to deliver 10% BNG.

The appeal is not accompanied by the minimum level of information stipulated in Article 7(1A) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015. This includes information such as the pre-development biodiversity value of on-site habitat. Without this information, I cannot be certain that the proposed development would secure the appropriate level of BNG.

The appellant states they would have provided the required biodiversity information if this had been requested by the Council at validation stage. However, the submission of complete and accurate BNG information is a mandatory requirement. Granting permission would assume that the BNG condition would be in place, which is not possible without the essential baseline information. It would therefore be inappropriate to defer BNG consideration to condition stage.

For the above reasons, the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on ecology as it would not make adequate provision for BNG. In this regard, the proposal would conflict with the mandatory requirements for BNG and Policy EN2 of the Local Plan which seeks to achieve net gains for nature and proactively seek habitat creation as part of new development proposals. It would also fail to meet the biodiversity objectives of the Framework.

My attention has been drawn to a previous planning permission ([name] 20/01092/FUL) for ‘Continued use of the building as an office within use class E(g)(i). Associated renovation works to the building and improvement works to the existing access track’ (the previous permission). From the evidence before me, I understand that the physical works in the proposal before me are broadly comparable to those approved under that permission.

There is nothing to suggest that there was any further parking provision in that case. Given the site’s remote position, it would have been unlikely that visitors to any office would park elsewhere or travel by other means. As a result, the level of vehicular traffic that could reasonably be generated by the previous permission would have been inherently limited.

Furthermore, an office would typically operate on specific days of the week, within confined working hours. While no information has been provided regarding likely occupancy rates for the proposed holiday let across the year, there is nothing to suggest occupation would be restricted to specific days or periods of the year. When occupied, it would likely generate comings and goings throughout the week and at any time of the day or evening. Even if vehicle movements were less frequent than that of an office, the associated illumination from a dwelling and the movement of cars during hours of darkness would be more noticeable than an office. The use of external areas for example to sit out, hang out washing or to contain any other paraphernalia associated with a holiday let use would have a more domestic character. As a result, the appeal scheme is not directly comparable.

Moreover, from my observations on site the building was in a dilapidated state. It was not currently capable of any ‘continued office use’. There is no evidence before me to suggest that steps have taken place to implement the previous permission. The appellant has provided correspondence from an estate agent that as an office ‘it would be a very difficult property to let’ and ‘not to do the development unless they have a bespoke tenant in mind’. Together with the fact that the timescales for implementation of the previous permission are imminent, there appears to be no real prospect of an office use at the site. These factors further undermine any comparison between the previous permission and the proposal. Overall, the appellant’s ‘fallback’ argument is not persuasive.

The appeal proposal would bring an old building back into use and there would be some limited economic benefits associated with construction works and in terms of occupiers of the proposed development supporting local services and facilities. I acknowledge that there may be no objections from statutory consultees and that there is some limited local support for the proposal. However, these considerations do not provide reason to allow a development which would conflict with the development plan and the Framework and would be harmful for the reasons set out under the main issues.

Concerns relating to communication and timeliness during the application stage, are not a matter for me to assess. With regards to any alleged inconsistency in the Council’s decision-making, I have assessed the proposed development on its own merits having regard to the current development plan and national policy.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.