Appeal 6001785

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is an appropriate location for the proposed development, having particular regard to the spatial strategy; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and, • the effect of the proposal on highway safety, with particular regard to the provision of off-street parking.

The appeal site is close to but outside of the nearest settlement, Doddington. The parties agree that the appeal site is in an “Elsewhere” location as defined by Policy LP3 of the Fenland Local Plan, May 2014 (LP). LP Policy LP3 seeks to restrict development in Elsewhere locations. Both parties agree that the proposed development would not comprise one of the uses supported in [name] by LP Policy LP3.

LP Policy LP6 seeks to maximise opportunities for job growth in the district. It sets out a strategy against which proposals for commercial development will be assessed. For office-only proposals, other than small scale rural offices, the Policy gives priority to locations in the centre of the identified [name]. LP Policy LP12 concerns development in rural areas. It supports proposals which meet the specified criteria. This includes, the site being in or adjacent to the existing developed footprint of a village and where it can be served by sustainable infrastructure provision, including highways.

As above, the proposal is in an Elsewhere location and not adjacent to the existing developed footprint of a village. Also, this section of [site address] is subject to the national speed limit, it does not accommodate a footpath, and there are no street lights. There is a bus stop in proximity to the site, which would offer an alternative to the use of private motor vehicles. Moreover, there is a footpath which starts close to the dwellings to the north of the appeal site and connects to Doddington. However, on balance the appeal site is not well served by infrastructure which would encourage the use of sustainable transport modes; future users would be largely reliant on the use of private motor vehicles.

The proposed building would be a small scale office, but it has not been evidenced that it would support a rural enterprise. Taking all of the above into account the proposal would not comply with LP policies LP3, LP6, and LP12.

The neighbouring building, The Quadrant, is used for commercial purposes. The proposal could be considered as a logical extension of that use. Although this type of extension would not be supported by LP policies, it would be in accordance with paragraph 88 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The appellant contends that the appeal site is previously developed land on the basis that it is within the curtilage of The Quadrant. The extent of a curtilage is a matter of judgement for a decision-maker. I acknowledge that The Quadrant and the appeal site is under the same ownership, and the parcels of land are accessed by a single access from [site address] . Nonetheless, they are separated by a large fence, and the use of the existing pole barn is different and not connected to the use of The Quadrant. There is also a large area of hardstanding around The Quadrant which stops at the boundary with the appeal site. On balance, I consider that the appeal site does not fall within the curtilage of The Quadrant.

Furthermore, the appellant has indicated on the Application Form that the current used of the site is agricultural. For clarity, the planning permissions referred to within the [name] concern the building which is now identified as The Quadrant. There is no evidence that there is an extant planning permission for a commercial use of the building within the appeal site. Taking the above into account, the appeal site is not previously developed land, as defined by the Framework.

The proposal would comply with the Framework where it supports the sustainable growth of rural business and where it encourages proposals to make an effective use of underutilised land. However, the weight I ascribe to this as a benefit is limited as there is no substantive evidence that there is a need to extend the neighbouring business, and the proposal does not utilise previously developed land or land within a settlement. As such, these benefits would not outweigh the conflict with the spatial strategy set out within the LP.

Overall, I conclude that the appeal site is not an appropriate location for the proposed development, having particular regard to the spatial strategy. The proposal would be contrary to LP policies LP3, LP6 and LP12, for the reasons set out above.

The wider area is defined by open fields enclosed by low hedgerows. There are small clusters of development across the area, largely related to agricultural or other rural activities. The topography of the area is largely flat so there are long ranging views across the landscape. These aspects combine to create an open and rural character.

Notwithstanding this, the appeal site is located between The Quadrant, which is a large commercial building, and a large dwelling. Currently on site there is a dilapidated pole barn which is utilitarian in appearance. Whilst the pole barn is characteristic of the wider rural character, the character of the immediately surrounding area is largely influenced by the development on either side of the appeal site.

The proposal comprises of the demolition of the pole barn and the construction of a larger building which would be used for commercial purposes. The proposal also includes the installation of a vehicle parking area towards the site frontage. The proposed development, including the proposed change of use, would have an urbanising effect on the appeal site. Nonetheless, the proposed building would be modest in size when compared to neighbouring development. It would assimilate with the much larger commercial and residential development and would have a negligible effect on the character of the wider area.

On balance, I conclude that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. In this regard only, it would comply with LP Policy LP12 where it indicates that proposals will need to ensure that it would not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside.

[name] of the LP specifies a parking standard which proposals are expected to comply with. For the proposed use, the standard specifies 2 spaces per unit, plus one space for every 40m2, over 50m2. There is a dispute between the parties with regard to how much floorspace should be considered when making the assessment as to how many vehicle parking spaces are required. Whilst the appellant’s argument is logical, there is no evidence before me that specifies that the standard discounts floorspace that is not in active use, i.e. circulation space. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the full internal floor area as specified on the Application Form. This would result in there being a requirement for 6.4 vehicle spaces, which should be rounded up to 7.

The Proposed Plans, Elevations, Site and Location Plan1 shows a parking layout which would accommodate 5 vehicles. Given the space available on the proposed parking area a sixth space could be accommodated. The neighbouring property, The Quadrant, is under the same ownership as the appeal site and includes a large area of hardstanding. Additional parking for the proposed use could be accommodated on neighbouring land. I note the Council’s concern that this provision may not be secured in perpetuity, but given the land is under the same ownership the provision could have been secured by an obligation which could be subject to a Grampian condition.

The appellant appended a revised [name], Elevations, Site and Location Plan2 to their Statement of Case. The changes to the plan include the reduction in the size of the proposed building and an increased parking provision for 6 vehicles. 1 [name]. SE-2244, [name]. P1000, [name], [name] 2025 2 [name]. SE-2244, [name]. P1000, [name], [name] 2025 The appellant indicated that this was submitted to overcome the Council’s concern with parking and that their preference was the proposal that was before the Council when it determined the planning application. [name] have found that an acceptable parking provision could have been secured for the original proposal, I have not considered the amended proposal. For clarity, the amended plans would not have overcome my concerns with regard to the first main issue which relates to the site’s location.

I conclude that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on highway safety, with particular regard to the provision of off street parking. In this regard only, it would comply with LP Policy LP15 where it indicates that proposals should provide well designed car parking appropriate to the amount of development proposed.

The proposal would create employment space which would provide economic benefits. It would also include measures which would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as photovoltaic panels, and the proposed building would comply with ‘[name] of the Building Regulations. However, given the scale of the development, only modest weight is ascribed to these benefits which would not outweigh the identified harm.

The appeal site is in [name] 1. Also, the Council do not object to the demolition of the pole barn. Nonetheless, these are neutral factors which neither weigh in favour nor against the proposal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.