Appeal 6001897

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use of a redundant outbuilding to dwelling at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 0769/25/FUL, and drawing numbers 1430.001Rev B – Location Plan, 1430.201 Rev: A - Site Layout (Roof) Plan, 1430.202 Rev: A - Site Layout (Floor) Plan and 1430.203 Rev: B – Elevations, submitted with it.

The description of development above is taken from the application form. However, I have omitted the text which indicates the application was made retrospectively, as this does not describe an act of development. Nonetheless, the application form confirms the development was completed on 1 November 2023. Therefore, like the Council, I have considered the appeal on the basis that the development has taken place and permission is sought retrospectively.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and whether it would preserve the setting of nearby listed buildings.

The appeal property is a detached single storey building, with stained timber boarding to the external walls, above a stone plinth in part, and a natural slate pitched roof. It is located within a group of buildings which form part of the traditional farm complex at [site address] . In addition to the appeal building, the group includes Woodhouse farmhouse, which is the principal dwelling at the farmstead, a range of traditional agricultural buildings, which have been converted to residential and holiday let uses, outbuildings, and modern portal framed agricultural buildings with intervening areas of hardstanding.

The appeal submissions indicate that the building, which fronts an enclosed shared central courtyard, was last in use as a domestic store/workshop/store after the adjoining barns were converted. Permission is sought retrospectively for the conversion of the building to a one-bedroom open market dwelling, including alterations to increase the ridge height and floor area of the building.

Woodhouse farmhouse and the adjacent Barn, Linhay and Stable, are [name] listed buildings. The significance of the listed buildings is derived from their age, together with their architectural and historic interest. In addition, the historic relationship between the farmhouse and the adjacent agricultural buildings associated with the original farmstead, which collectively form a cohesive group, contribute to the setting and significance of the heritage assets.

The context of the buildings has changed as a consequence of the conversion of the original farm buildings to residential uses. Nonetheless, despite alterations to the former agricultural buildings, including the addition of features such as balconies and fenestration, as well as the introduction of ancillary outdoor garden areas and associated domestic accoutrements, the group retains its legibility as a former traditional farm complex.

The proposal introduces a further residential building into this location through the conversion of what appears to be an existing and longstanding feature of the site. Despite the increase in height and floor area of the building, it remains subservient in terms of height and overall scale to the adjacent barns and farmhouse. Moreover, the changes, including the alteration to the roof pitch, largely retain the overall simple form and utilitarian appearance of the original building and do not disrupt the general layout of the historic courtyard. The introduction of new openings has inevitably resulted in a more domesticated appearance of the building. However, the full height fenestration and number, size and design of rooflights do not appear to be significantly at odds with the appearance of the original building. The development also utilises external materials, including timber cladding and natural slate, which are appropriate to the rural location and akin to those on the neighbouring buildings within the group.

Concern is raised by the Council to the potential for additional structures which might arise from the residential use of the building, including fencing, sheds and bin storage, and subsequent resulting domestication of the surrounding courtyard. Given the modest size of the private outdoor space which serves the dwelling, which is sited to the rear of the building and relatively contained, it is unlikely that the presence of any such domestic paraphernalia would detract significantly from the overall appearance of the site or the wider group generally. Moreover, future changes to the ownership of the appeal building would not alter my assessment of the planning merits of the scheme.

Although the appeal building is readily perceptible as a dwelling, for the foregoing reasons the alterations which have been undertaken are not entirely inconsistent with its position within the historic farmyard and rural location. Therefore, the residential use of the building does not appear unduly anomalous within the context of the wider site and enables the historic relationship between the buildings in the farm complex to be appreciated. As such, it does not diminish the legibility of the historic farmstead or undermine the ability to understand the former function of the buildings. Thus, although the development has resulted in a change to the setting of the listed buildings, and the context in which they are experienced, it would not be of such an extent to constitute harm.

The appeal site is located within the South Devon National Landscape (NL). As set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in such areas. The appeal building occupies a position largely enclosed by existing built form. Consequently, given that in longer distance views of the site, it is seen in this context, it does not appear as a visually prominent feature. The landscape and scenic beauty of the NL is therefore conserved as a result of the proposals.

For the foregoing reasons the change of use of the building has largely retained its general form, and the prevailing farmyard context remains legible. As such, the proposal does not harm the character and appearance of the area, including the special qualities of the NL and preserves the setting of the nearby listed buildings and the contribution it makes to their significance. Accordingly, the development does not conflict with the combined aims of Policies DEV20, DEV21, DEV23 and DEV25 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (2014- 2034), adopted March 2019 (JLP) in so far as they require development to meet good standards of design, sustain local character and distinctiveness by conserving and where appropriate enhancing its historic environment and conserve and enhance landscape character and scenic and visual quality, including landscape and scenic beauty in the protected landscapes. It would also accord with the aims of [name] BE3 and KWAC BE4 of the Kingsbridge, [site address] , and Churchstow Neighbourhood Plan (2021- 2034) which seek development of a high quality design which, among other things, responds to and integrates with the local built surroundings, landscape context and setting, and safeguard the historic environment.

The Council confirm that it cannot demonstrate an adequate supply of housing, with a current supply of 2.53 years, as such, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework falls to be considered.

Further to the above considerations, the refusal reason refers to Policy TTV26 of the JLP, which seeks to control development in the countryside. As the proposal is located outside a settlement boundary and does not meet any of the exceptions listed therein, it conflicts with Policy TTV26. While Policy TTV26 is broadly consistent with the Framework in terms of supporting housing developments in rural areas that reflect local needs, it restricts the type of development, including housing, permitted in rural areas where it would be located beyond the development boundary, whereas the Framework only restricts housing permitted in rural areas where the development would result in isolated homes in the countryside. The dwelling in this case is not isolated, given the short distance to [site address] , where amenities are accessible by means other than the private car. Thus, while the site is located within the open countryside, beyond a development boundary, it is not in an unsustainable location. For this reason, I afford the conflict with PolicyTTV26 of the of the JLP only moderate weight.

Set against this, the development supports the aims of the Framework to boost the supply of homes in an area where there is a shortfall in the supply of deliverable housing sites. The one-bedroom dwelling contributes towards the provision of smaller homes, which the Council acknowledge there is currently a shortage. While the contribution in that regard is modest, by virtue of the scale of the scheme, in light of the housing land supply position the benefits attributed to an additional unit are nonetheless valuable. In addition, for the reasons set out I have found that the development does not give rise to harm to the character and appearance of the area and would preserve the setting of nearby listed buildings.

Consequently, taken together, the adverse impacts of granting permission do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Accordingly, the development benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out at paragraph 11 of the Framework. As Government policy, the Framework is a weighty material consideration and, in this case, indicates that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan and permission should be granted.

I note the Parish Council comment regarding the retrospective nature of the development. However, I have considered the development on its own merits and site-specific circumstances, which in this instance, for the reasons set out above, is acceptable.

It is suggested that the original building may have been demolished. However, permission is sought for the change of use of a building, and I have assessed the development on that basis.

Given the retrospective nature of the development, a condition regarding the implementation of the development is not necessary in this instance. I have included the approved drawings, in the terms of my decision, in the interests of certainty.

The development, by virtue of its location, beyond a settlement boundary, conflicts with the development plan, taken as a whole, but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.