Appeal 6001537

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission has previously been granted1 for the conversion of the outbuildings. The appellant has stated that the permission has been implemented following the commencement of works.

A submitted drawing of the proposed annexe and elevations show two rooflights which were not on the previously approved plan. This has been superseded by [name] 2209-205 [name].

Policy 18 of the Lake District National Park Local Plan 2020-2035, 2021, (LP) requires consideration of whether a building can be used for employment use. However, there is no dispute that as the building is in a residential area, it would not be suitable for this purpose.

The main issue is whether the proposal is suitable for local or affordable needs housing, having regard to the provision of satisfactory living conditions for the occupiers and the residents of No [site address] .

Policy 18 of the LP supports proposals for the reuse of existing buildings (excluding guest houses) for short term holiday letting where, amongst other considerations, they would not utilise a building that is suitable for providing local need or affordable needs housing. This is to support the aims of LP Policy 15 to increase the supply of homes to meet local community need, and the guidance set out in the Housing Supplementary Planning Document, 2023. To meet the local 1 Ref 7/2023/5084 need, there is a requirement for 1,200 new permanent homes between 2020 and

This is because there is huge pressure on the existing housing stock in many parts of the Lake District, partly due to second homes, or homes used for holiday lets.

The existing planning permission is for the use of the building for ancillary accommodation for visiting family members. An informative on the decision notice states that if used separately from the main house, it would amount to a material change of use that requires planning permission. This proposal seeks to allow the use of the annexe for occasional short-term holiday lets for paying guests. This is suggested as being for one or two nights over a weekend, and that on average, 50% of the use would be by their family. Because of the costs of converting the building, this would generate additional revenue to support the development.

No [site address] (No 1) is a three storey, end terrace. The house is entered either by a side door off the drive, shown as a utility area on the proposed plan, or through a door fronting the road, into a kitchen. Behind the metal gates to the side of the house, there is a drive wide enough for the parking of one vehicle. To the rear of the house, there is a gravel surface and paving, with an outdoor table and chairs. From here, stone steps lead to a further area of garden, with some small trees and bushes, bounded by traditional stone walls.

On the other side of the drive are the single-storey outbuildings, which are attached but not connected. They currently form a T-shape, but the permission allows for a flat roofed extension on the northern elevation. This would overlook a large, gravel covered, open area, entered either by steps from the drive, or by a metal field gate enabling vehicular access off the adjoining B5343.

The garage facing the road is small, but the garage to the east appeared quite spacious. When converted and extended, it is agreed between the main parties that the internal floorspace of the proposed annexe would be 55.8m2, which I have no reason to dispute. This means that the size of the building would satisfy the space set out in the [name] Standards2 for a one storey, 1-bed, 1- person dwelling, required to be at least 39m2, or a 1-bed, 2-person dwelling which needs to be at least 50m2. The South Lakeland Strategic Housing and Economic Needs Assessment (SHENA), 2023, states that there is a demand for all types and sizes of property, with the appellants referring to a 15% need for 1-bedroom dwellings.

The permitted accommodation has two bedrooms, a sitting area and a shower/toilet, with no kitchen. The application does not change the approved internal layout, with the intention that a microwave and kettle would be provided for occasional holiday use.

The appellants contend that if used as an independent dwelling, a further extension to the outbuildings would be required. However, if occupied as a 1-bed dwelling, from the evidence and what I saw, the size of the approved building could accommodate further changes and the reorganisation of the space without requiring any form of extension.

On the southern elevation, which is closest to the house, the permitted scheme includes a rooflight over the shower room, which would not result in overlooking, 2 Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard, MHCLG, 2015 and a window in bedroom 2, which would overlook the rear garden of No 1. It is acknowledged that because of the position of the outbuilding in relation to properties to the rear, windows on the east elevation are not appropriate. However, there is scope elsewhere for rooflights, high-level windows or obscure glazing which would avoid overlooking between the occupiers of the converted outbuilding and those in No 1.

Indeed, on both the western and northern elevations of the outbuilding, several windows are proposed. Therefore, I can see that when converted, the building would have adequate natural light and outlook.

There is no plan that shows the proposed parking, and details of outdoor space for a holiday use has not been provided. However, to the north of the buildings is a sizeable area of ground, enclosed by traditional stone walling. This could easily accommodate parking and outdoor space for both a holiday let and permanent occupation. This would enable the driveway and the existing garden area to the rear of No 1 to be retained for the residents of the house.

The northern part of the site is open, meaning that there is the potential for any outdoor space to be overlooked, either from the 1st floor side window of No 1, or by surrounding residential properties. However, the relationship between houses along [name] and those surrounding the site, is such that many garden areas and outdoor sitting spaces are close and often overlooked by occupiers in neighbouring properties. The use of appropriate soft landscaping could ameliorate this, to provide further privacy.

The appellant considers that if the building is only used by short-term holiday guests, combined with its location at the end of the terrace, it would not harm the amenity of surrounding occupiers. However, whilst there may be some oversight from the appellants occupying No 1, who could control any noise from a holiday let, there is no substantive evidence that there would be less noise and disruption than if the building was permanently occupied.

The close relationship between the buildings has led the appellants to contend that an ancillary use is more suitable than it being an independent dwelling. However, the appellants have applied for the building to be used as a holiday let for up to 50% of the time. This would result in a material change of use and the creation of a separate residential dwelling.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal is suitable for local or affordable needs housing, having regard to the provision of satisfactory living conditions for the occupiers and the residents of No 1. Thus, the use of the building as a holiday let would be contrary to the requirements of LP Policy 18 as set out above.

The appellants have stated that there is a mismatch between versions of the location plan and block plan, so that the red line boundary differs. Consequently, if I had been minded to approve the appeal, I would have recommended reconsultation. However, this does not change my findings on the main issue.

The site is within the designated Lake District National Park (NP) where there is a statutory duty upon relevant authorities exercising their function to seek to further the purposes for which National Parks are designated. This includes conserving and enhancing their natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage. The NP is, in addition, a World Heritage Site (WHS), a designated heritage asset of the highest significance. Such sites are internationally recognised to be of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). Its significance is in part derived from its mountainous character, glaciated valleys and numerous lakes which has created a landscape of natural and cultural beauty, shaped by an agro-pastoral land use. Based on the scale and nature of the proposal, it would not harm the special qualities of the NP and would protect the OUV of the WHS. Thereby, the significance of the WHS would not be harmed.

Details of an application for a one-bedroom unit of accommodation, converted from a garage at [address], Windermere3 has been provided. Whilst there were similar issues to this case, access and clear views into the host dwelling meant that it was unsuitable for use as a local occupancy house or local needs housing. However, the circumstances in each proposal are likely to be different and I have determined the appeal on its own merits, based on the evidence before me.

An appeal decision4 found that providing suitable outdoor space for both the main house and an annexe would harm living conditions for both properties, would not be suitable for local or affordable needs housing and not contrary to the requirements of [name] 15 and 18. This does not, however, affect my findings on this appeal, where there is additional space next to the proposed outbuilding.

There would be economic benefits from paying guests using the annexe for holidays, and there is availability of local transport and services. However, if the building was occupied on a permanent basis, the residents would also contribute to the economy of the local area and support local services. Therefore, this is a neutral matter.

The appellants refer to a bat survey undertaken in 2022, and that an advisory note could be attached to any permission. Furthermore, they advise that the proposal is exempt from [name]. However, as I am dismissing the appeal, I do not need to consider these matters further.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations that outweigh the identified harm and that warrant a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.