Appeal 6001649

The appeal is dismissed.

Revised drawings were submitted by the appellants with their statement of case. The drawings add detail to the existing holiday accommodation plans to show the location of existing doors and windows. The appellants have also clarified that toilet facilities exist within the retained existing holiday accommodation. As such they confirm existing arrangements. The Council has had the opportunity to comment on the revised drawings as part of the appeal process. No parties would be prejudiced were I to accept the revised plans and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The Council has advised the appellants that the proposal more accurately reflects that of a rural worker’s dwelling. However, the appellants sought permission for a live/work unit and I have determined the appeal on that basis.

Since the commencement of the appeal, the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 (SWDPR) was adopted. This represents a material change in the local policy framework compared to that in place when the application was decided. The parties have made submissions regarding the implications of the adopted SWDPR which I have considered. I have determined the appeal on the basis of the policies within the SWDPR.

The main issues are: i. whether the site is a suitable location for the development having regard to national and local planning policies including minimising travel demand; and ii. the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is located adjacent to [site address] , in open countryside as defined in Policy SWDPR 03 of the SWDPR, as any land beyond any development boundary. Policy SWDPR 03 also sets out that in such areas, development will be strictly controlled and limited to that which is permitted under other policies in the SWDPR. In this case the appellants are seeking to establish that the development falls under the ‘exception’ permitted by Policy SWDPR 15 of the SWDPR for live/work units.

The proposed live/work unit comprises a two-bedroom residential space and two holiday lets which are identified on the plan as work floorspace. A reception, laundry room and stores are shown in the existing stables, which are also identified as work floorspace. There are separate toilet facilities in the living space and in the holiday lets.

Policy SWDPR 15 sets out criteria for live/work units which include a requirement that they are located within or adjacent to a town or Category 1, 2 or 3 Village; that the work element of the proposal relates to an existing, established and economically viable business that has been trading for at least 3 years; at least 60% of the proposed floorspace is employment space and no more than 40% is residential space; and that the live and work spaces are entirely separate, with separate entrances, kitchen and toilet facilities.

The location of the appeal site is not within or adjacent to a town or Category 1, 2 or 3 village. The appellants have not submitted financial details regarding the existing business as this was not a policy requirement at the time of the application or commencement of the appeal. Following adoption of the SWDPR the appellants have stated that the business has been operating successfully for 10 years.

The submitted plans show that a significant part of the ‘work space’ element of the live/work unit would be utilised as holiday accommodation. The holiday units would provide income and generate some activities such as cleaning which could be regarded as ‘work’ for the appellants or the occupiers of the live/work unit. However, the primary function of this space would be as holiday accommodation occupied by holiday makers. When occupied, the holiday units would not provide any ‘work space’ for the occupiers of the live/work unit. If the holiday units are excluded, the floor area provided as the ‘work space’ element would fall significantly below the required 60% as set out in Policy SWDPR 15.

The appellants consider that the holiday accommodation is compliant with Policy SWDPR 15, as holiday accommodation is not a specifically prohibited planning use class. However, the reasoned justification of the policy makes clear, that the criteria are set to ensure that proposals are genuinely intended for employment purposes. The holiday accommodation would not be an employment use. In order to meet the 60% floorspace requirement, the area currently occupied by the holiday units would need to be included in the live/work unit. The scheme before me does not propose any alternative ‘work space’ within that part of the appeal site and therefore there is no certainty that this can be achieved.

Drawing all of these points together, the development is not compliant with Policy SWDPR 15 of the SWDPR.

Accessibility by non-car modes to services and facilities from the appeal site is very limited. The explanatory text to Policy SWDPR 03 states that “Land in the open countryside is generally less sustainable as access to local services and employment opportunities tends to be poorer and, therefore, it is appropriate that development in the open countryside is restricted to uses that are supportive of more specific SWDPR policies set out in [name].” The uses noted in [name] are rural workers dwellings and live/work units.

For the reasons set out above, the location is not adjacent to an appropriate settlement and the proposal before me does not constitute a policy compliant live/work unit. Consequently, there is no justification for the proposed development in this location in the countryside, where it is established by planning policy that access to local services and employment opportunities tends to be poorer.

The appellants have submitted a number of planning application and appeal decisions, where live/work development has been permitted in the open countryside. The decisions are as follows: a) [name], Appeal Ref: APP/H1840/W/24/3341594; b) [address], Appeal Ref :APP/H1840/W/24/3340516; c) [name], Appeal Ref: APP/H1840/W/25/3368824; d) [address], Application Ref: M/22/00871/FUL; and e) [address], Application Ref: 19/01888/FUL and Appeal Ref APP/J1860/W/19/3231183.

The appeal decisions were made under a different policy context, and the development proposals that are the subject of those decisions, met the criteria within the development plan current at the time, for live/work units, which is not the case for this appeal. Therefore, the submitted decisions do not weigh in favour of the appeal.

In summary, the site is not a suitable location for the development having regard to national and local planning policies including minimising travel demand. Consequently, the proposal is not compliant with Policy SWDPR 15 and is in conflict with [name] 03 and SWDPR 06 of the SWDPR. These policies seek to strictly control development in the open countryside and minimise travel by car.

Properties along [site address] are typically well spaced from each other and some include a mixture of residential and farm buildings. Facing materials include brick (including painted brick), stone, render and wood.

The existing holiday accommodation building and the existing stores are very different in scale, materials and character. The holiday accommodation block is a modern single storey building with cream colour rendering, grey slate roof (with solar panels) and modern uPVC windows and doors. The stores are former stables of wood construction, corrugated roofing with front overhangs, split stable doors with galvanised metalwork and metal mesh windows. The style and appearance of each building is not out of character in the area. The proposal is to extend the accommodation block to meet the stores.

The appellants note that the site is well screened from [site address] . This is generally true although there are currently some gaps in the vegetation providing limited views. However, there is a public footpath through the site which runs close to the two existing buildings and from it the proposed development would be very visible.

The Council considers that the proposal to combine the two very different buildings by enclosing the space between them, with a rendered extension incorporating large modern glazed openings, would result in an extremely long building with an incongruous and disjointed appearance that would have an adverse impact on the setting.

Rather than appearing as an extremely long single disjointed building, noting that the longest part of the proposal would remain the existing accommodation block, the development would appear as an accommodation block with wooden outbuildings/stables attached. It would appear as two buildings which combine in a U shape around a courtyard which would not appear out of place in this countryside setting.

The proposal would not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and would therefore be compliant with Policy SWDPR 28 of the SWDPR which expects developments to integrate effectively with their surroundings and complement the local character of the area.

The appellants cite a number of benefits which would arise from a permanent on-site presence. However, these would improve the operation of the business and do not weigh in favour or against the appeal.

The live/work unit would reduce the need for the appellants to travel to and from the site but this has not been fully assessed. It is reasonable to assume that there would be some economic benefit arising from the use of the live/work unit on a permanent basis, as opposed to the intermittent use of the holiday unit which it replaces, as occupiers use local shops and services. However, this has also not been fully assessed. Consequently, and given the small scale of the development, these matters attract limited weight in favour of the appeal.

There have been a number of letters of support for the proposal which relate to matters covered above regarding an on-site presence, reduced travel trips and economic benefits.

The appellants note that the proposal was prepared and considered under the previous development plan and that it seems unreasonable that the appeal is determined under the recently adopted SWDPR. However, I am required to determine the appeal against the current development plan.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.