Appeal 6001239

The appeal is dismissed.

Amended plans were submitted with the appeal, showing revised annotations to a bedroom, which is now labelled as a study, and to the bathroom, which is now identified as a shower room. There are no changes to the building’s dimensions or its proposed use. I do not consider these amendments to be substantially different from the plans before the Council at the time of its decision. As the changes are minor and the drawings were provided at the point of appeal submission, the Council and interested parties have had the opportunity to comment. Accepting the amended plans would therefore not result in procedural unfairness.

The main issues in this appeal are: • Whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development with reference to the spatial strategy and the development plan; and • whether the development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to floor space.

The proposal seeks to change the use of an existing mobile home, from its current ancillary role associated with the host property, to an independent residential unit. Although there are dispersed developments within the wider area, including several dwellings, the site itself lies outside any defined settlement boundary. As such, the mobile home is situated within a countryside location.

Within the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (JLP), Policy SPT1 sets out the overarching strategy for pursuing sustainable patterns of growth. Complementing this, Policy SPT2 describes the characteristics that sustainable communities should possess, such as convenient access to day-to-day services and the ability to use public transport, walking, and cycling as realistic alternatives to private car travel.

The distribution of growth across the plan area is guided by a settlement hierarchy, as outlined in Policy TTV1 of the JLP. Under this approach, development in smaller rural settlements, including hamlets and countryside locations, must clearly demonstrate that it contributes to sustainable development in line with Policies SPT1 and SPT2. Proposals must also satisfy the relevant criteria within Policy TTV26 of the JLP.

Under Policy TTV1 the appeal site falls under Tier 4 of the settlement hierarchy. [name] acknowledge that there are businesses in the wider area, their presence does not elevate the site to a Tier 3 location. The site is not within a recognised settlement, and the fact that a range of businesses lies within approximately 4.8 km is a circumstance common to many rural locations. This differs from being within a settlement, where there is a stronger physical relationship with other dwellings and services.

Policy TTV26 is intended to safeguard the countryside by preventing development that would lead to isolated or inappropriate forms of new housing. Its objectives align with Paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which similarly seeks to resist isolated new homes in rural areas unless exceptional justification exists.

In considering whether a site is isolated the [name] v SSCLG judgement1 confirms that “...the word “isolated” in the phrase “isolated homes in the countryside” simply connotes a dwelling that is physically separate or remote from a settlement. Whether a proposed new dwelling is, or is not, “isolated” in this sense will be a matter of fact and planning judgment for the decision-maker in the particular circumstances of the case in hand.” The case of City & Country Bramshill Limited v SSHCLG2 further confirms this approach.

Although the appeal building is not physically isolated in the sense of being detached from all other structures, it lies some distance from the nearest settlement and the facilities associated with it. As a result, its use as a dwelling would not create a sustainable pattern of rural living, as explained in the supporting text to TTV26.

Further to this, Policy MNP1 of the Modbury Neighbourhood Plan (MNP) also restricts development to locations within established settlements, except in specific circumstances, such as proposals for affordable housing or those required to meet an identified agricultural need.

To comply with Policy TTV26, the proposal would need to fall within one of the exceptions set out in the policy. However, none of these exceptions apply in this case. For instance, there is no evidence that the building is redundant or disused; during my site visit it was furnished and appeared suitable for occupation. 1 [name] v SSCLG, Greyread Ltd & Granville Developments Ltd [2018] [name] 610 2 City & Country Bramshill Limited v SSHLG and others [2021] [name] 320

The appellant contends that the proposed dwelling could house someone employed by one of several nearby businesses. However, no evidence has been provided to show that any of those businesses require staff to live on the appeal site or in close proximity. Policy support depends on demonstrating an essential need for a rural worker to reside permanently at or near their place of work, and this has not been established. Simply identifying local businesses where an occupant might work does not amount to demonstrating such a need, and none of the businesses cited have submitted evidence of any operational requirement for employees to live nearby.

Although a list of over 50 businesses within 5km has been submitted, along with others within 2km that are not served by public transport, this does not justify the provision of a dwelling. The employment of any future occupier cannot be controlled, and they could work anywhere. Rural residents commonly commute by car over considerable distances, and the same could be true here. As a result, the proposal does not amount to a sustainable form of development and does not demonstrate the essential need required under policy.

Reference is made to support from Policy SPT1.1 of the JLP, which seeks to promote a sustainable economy. While a future occupier might be employed locally, this cannot be assumed; the dwelling could equally be occupied by someone retired or otherwise not contributing to the local workforce. Any support from this aspect of the policy is therefore limited. Moreover, other elements of Policy SPT1.1 emphasise accessibility to a mix of services and community facilities. Such accessibility is restricted in this location, and the proposal does not gain support from the policy in this regard.

The site is accessed via a track leading to a single-track lane, which, like many roads in the area, has no pavement or street lighting. Although the site is technically within walking distance of a café, vineyard, and distillery, these facilities are limited in scope, and access to everyday services such as shops would, in most cases, require the use of a car. The absence of pavements or lighting makes walking beyond very short distances unattractive, particularly in poor conditions. Longer trips may be possible by bicycle or electric bicycle, but this would not be a practical or appealing option for all occupiers. I have not been provided with details of any nearby bus services, and public transport therefore appears to be very limited. While an electric vehicle could reduce reliance on conventional cars, it would not be reasonable to expect occupants to own one.

Even if a future occupier were employed at the nearest business and could travel there on foot or by bicycle, or even worked from home, the site would remain remote from essential services such as shops. Both local and national planning policies direct new development towards established settlements for precisely this

Overall, I conclude that the location of the dwelling is unsuitable as it is isolated from everyday services and facilities in terms of distance and accessibility constraints. Residents are therefore likely to be dependent on the use of private vehicles. In this respect, the development is contrary to Policies SPT1, SPT2, TTV1, TTV26, DEV29 and DEV32 of the JLP and MNP1 of the MNP.

The submitted drawings show a main living area, a separate bathroom, and two additional rooms. On the plans originally submitted with the application, these two rooms were labelled as bedrooms. However, the amended drawings submitted at appeal relabel the smaller bedroom as a study and the bathroom as a shower room.

The total floor area of the mobile home is 40.75m2. With regards to the [name] (NDSS) this would be of a sufficient size for a one bedroom one person dwelling but not large enough for a one bedroom two person dwelling which requires 50m2 of floorspace.

The bedroom has a floor area of 9.25m2 which is above the size required for a single bedroom but below the size for a double bedroom which is 11.5m2. The room labelled as a study is below the 7.5m2 required to be considered as a bedroom.

Based on the areas of the rooms provided, regardless of how they are labelled on the plans they would only meet the space standards for one single bedroom. With this in mind the floor space would be sufficient for a one bed one person dwelling.

On this basis the proposal does not conflict with Policy DEV10 of the JLP which requires new dwellings to provide a good quality of accommodation and meet the NDSS.

Policy DEV15 of the JLP is referenced by the appellant, however, it is not included within the reason for refusal. This policy is titled Supporting the rural economy. The main parts of the policy relate to supporting business and employment. Given the proposal relates to a residential use it provides limited support for the proposal.

Reference has been made to the expansion of other businesses in the area; however, I have not been provided with the relevant planning or policy context for these, nor any details of associated planning permissions. While such developments may contribute to overall use of the local road network, the policy considerations for business uses differ from those for residential development.

A local school bus route has been highlighted, but as the proposal is for a one-person dwelling intended for adult occupation, there would be no requirement for access to a school. Consequently, this consideration carries very limited weight.

There may be a high proportion of second homes and holiday accommodation in the area, which can affect the availability of longer-term rental properties. The need for affordable rented accommodation is acknowledged, and the proposal is presented as an affordable option. However, while it may offer the potential for lower rental costs, no mechanism has been provided to secure rents below market levels. As a result, this consideration carries only limited weight. Moreover, the proposal would not gain support from Policy MNP1 of the MNP.

I note the appellant’s indication that they would accept the appeal being allowed on the basis of the building operating as a holiday let. However, that is not the scheme before me, and the appeal process should not be used to substantially alter or evolve a proposal. The application was not submitted as a holiday let, and such a use may engage a different policy framework. In addition, the weight attributed in the planning balance with respect to housing supply would differ significantly between a holiday let and a permanent dwelling.

An appeal decision in Yealmpton3 has been cited, but aside from the decision notice itself, I have not been provided with the full details of that case. In that instance, the Inspector acknowledged that, although the distance to the settlement was not great, the absence of pavements and the unlit nature of the route meant that walking would not be particularly safe. While in the present case I do not consider the nearest settlement to be especially close, my conclusions regarding the limitations of using rural roads are consistent with those in the Yealmpton decision. The key distinction, however, is that the Yealmpton case involved a fallback position arising from the site’s previous use, which was material in assessing associated vehicle movements. Furthermore, reference in that case to the building being disused was relevant to considerations under Policy TTV26, which does not apply here.

The appellant raises concerns regarding the Council’s handling of the application, including its interpretation of planning policy, case law, and the extent to which it has taken account of the practical realities of the situation. However, Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. All material considerations put forward by the appellant have been taken into account and are addressed in the planning balance below. As with any case, other developments in the area will have been determined on the basis of the particular policy context and material considerations relevant to them. Although decisions may sometimes appear inconsistent, each application must be assessed on its own merits.

Given the site’s isolated location, future occupiers would be heavily reliant on private vehicles. In this respect, the development would amount to unsustainable growth. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies SPT1, SPT2, TTV1, TTV26, DEV29 and DEV32 of the JLP, as well as Policy MNP1 of the MNP.

The Council states that it has a 2.53-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In these circumstances paragraph 11d of the Framework is engaged. There is nothing before me to indicate that the policies in Footnote 7 of the Framework are relevant in this case. Therefore, the balance in paragraph 11dii is applicable. This states that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to specified key policies.

In favour of the scheme, it would deliver an additional dwelling through the reuse of an existing building, at a time when there is a notable shortfall in housing supply. The development could also offer the potential for lower-cost accommodation for someone working in a nearby business; however, as there is no mechanism to ensure this outcome, I afford this only limited weight. The building’s sustainability features, including its renewable energy systems, and the possibility of electric vehicle charging are also positive considerations. Furthermore, I acknowledge that the cabin is already in place and that its reuse yields some benefit. 3 APP/K1128/W/21/3285450

No harms have been raised in respect of visual impact, impact on neighbours living conditions or highway safety. This weighs neutrally in the planning balance.

While the proposal may bring some benefits, including the provision of an additional dwelling and the proximity of several local businesses that could offer employment opportunities, such circumstances are common to many rural locations. Planning policy directs development towards established settlements, where access to services and sustainable transport is significantly greater. In this case, the site’s poor accessibility and the absence of realistic sustainable travel options amount to clear harm. Even when taking the shortfall in housing supply into account, this harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme.

Having considered all matters raised, I conclude that the adverse impacts arising from the development’s isolated location outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. The proposal therefore does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole, and no material considerations have been advanced that would justify a decision other than in accordance with it.

Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.