Appeal 6001511

The appeal is dismissed.

The application is retrospective, but I have deleted reference to that in the header above, as it does not form an act of development. I am satisfied that neither party is prejudiced by this course of action

I am aware that the development on the site has been the subject of enforcement action. The Council’s officer report notes that the boxing facilities were for use of the appellant and friends. However, the appeal concerns a community boxing facility, and I have assessed it on this basis.

The Council has previously granted permission for a stable building1 at the site. The boxing gym building is materially larger, of a different design and positioned differently from the stable building as approved. Furthermore, there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the structure was constructed as a stable and subsequently reused for the boxing gym. In the absence of such evidence, I cannot conclude that the proposal represents the reuse of a building. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis that the boxing gym is the building's first use.

The main issue is whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development, having regard to the relevant development plan policies, including the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

East Cambridgeshire Local Plan (LP) Policy Growth 2 sets out the locational strategy for the development plan. It seeks to focus the majority of growth at the 1 20/01102/FUL – Proposed erection of stables and associated works market towns of Ely, Soham and Littleport, with more limited development in the villages which have a defined development envelope.

Outside the defined development envelopes, development will be strictly controlled having regard to the need to protect the countryside and the setting of towns and villages. It then provides a list of categories for which development may be permitted as an exception, subject to there being no significant adverse impact on the character of the countryside and that other LP policies are satisfied. The appellant has drawn my attention to categories related to Community-based development (consideration of LP Policy Growth 6) and outdoor recreation and leisure facilities (consideration of LP Policy COM 4).

It is common ground that the appeal site lies outside any defined development envelope and is therefore within the open countryside for policy purposes.

The site is located on [address] between Fordham and Isleham. Development along this stretch of road is sporadic, interspersed with open agricultural land. The appeal site, including the paddock land to the south of No. 82, forms part of this rural setting. The surrounding area is characterised by open fields, mature boundary vegetation and relatively limited built form, giving rise to a tranquil rural character.

The boxing gym building is positioned to the rear of the residential curtilage, separated by a parking area and extending into the former paddock land. It comprises blockwork at lower level with timber cladding above and a shallow-pitched corrugated roof, with small projections on the north and east elevations.

Whilst its height is not substantially greater than other structures on the wider site, its footprint and massing are materially greater than the previously approved stable block. In addition, the insertion of multiple uPVC windows and doors of differing colours introduces a distinctly domestic appearance. These features, together with the associated parking and paraphernalia, result in a building whose scale, siting, and appearance are not characteristic of structures in the countryside.

Although the building is set back from the highway and partially screened by vegetation, it nonetheless encroaches into what was formerly paddock land and introduces a commercial use and built form into the countryside. Where visible, the contrasting white and brown uPVC elements appear incongruous and detract from the rural character of the area. I therefore find that the proposal causes harm to the intrinsic character and appearance of the countryside, contrary to LP Policy Growth 2.

LP Policy Growth 6 supports non-housing community-led schemes where, amongst other criteria, the development is initiated and led by a legitimate local community group (such as a Parish Council or Community Land Trust), there is evidence of meaningful public engagement and general community support, and the scheme demonstrates long-term management and financial viability with benefits retained for the community.

The appellant's case relies on community support and unmet need, and I note that no objections were received in relation to the appeal. However, the proposal has been submitted and is run by a private individual. There is no substantive evidence before me that it is initiated or led by a qualifying community body, nor that it accords with the governance, engagement and long-term retention requirements of LP Policy GROWTH 6.

As such, even if I were to consider the absence of objections and some limited local support as material considerations, they do not in themselves demonstrate compliance with the policy criteria overall. Accordingly, the proposal does not fall within the community-led exception envisaged by LP Policy GROWTH 6.

LP Policy COM 4 states that proposals for new community facilities should be located within settlement boundaries wherever possible. It goes on to state that in exceptional circumstances facilities may be permitted in the countryside, where there is a lack of suitable and available land within settlements or where a rural location is required. It goes on to set out a number of criteria that must be met.

The limited scale of the development means that it is unlikely to give rise to any significant adverse impacts through traffic generation. Nonetheless, [address] lacks any dedicated cycle or footway and is largely unlit such that the boxing gym is not well located or accessible to its catchment populations by foot or cycle.

No detailed assessment of alternative sites within nearby settlements has been submitted. I therefore cannot conclude that suitable and available sites within settlement boundaries do not exist.

It has been suggested that the reason for the countryside location is due to the potential for noise and disturbance from the facility. However, it is not uncommon to find boxing gyms within urban areas. Moreover, in the absence of a noise assessment, the noise from music or training activities in this rural setting would likely be significantly more evident than in a more urban environment. In the absence of robust evidence, I am not persuaded that a rural location is functionally necessary or that the noise from the development does not harmfully disrupt the tranquil character of the area.

No substantive evidence has been put forward to show that opportunities to maximise shared use have been explored or that the building has been designed to facilitate future adaptation for alternative community uses or shared use. Given that the building is in use, a condition requiring evidence of how the building was designed to facilitate future adaptation would not be appropriate.

The appellant refers to a fallback position involving the erection of stables. Whilst planning permission exists for a stable block, the approved building was materially smaller and of a different design and siting. Moreover, an equestrian use would not be an uncharacteristic feature within the countryside.

Consequently, the appeal scheme conflicts with [name] 2, Growth 6 and Com 4 the aims of which are set out above.

The absence of objections, and the lack of identified harm in respect of other matters are neutral factors that weigh neither for nor against the scheme.

The proposal brings economic and social benefits through the users of the boxing gym. Given the scale of the development, and in the absence of further details these benefits would likely be modest and do not outweigh the harms I have identified.

The appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, of sufficient weight to indicate the decision should be taken otherwise. For the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.