Appeal 6001942

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the original application form. This differs from that on the Councils Decision Notice, which includes reference to ‘self-build and custom build’.

Planning permission was granted for the use of the appeal site for equestrian purposes was granted with planning permission in 2007 (Ref 21964/009). The description of development also included reference to the building of three stables, tack room and hay store. These, now constructed, form the building that is the subject of the appeal before me. During my site visit, horses were being kept in part of the appeal site. I saw no evidence of agricultural activity on the site and I have been provided with no substantive evidence to support the appellant’s claim that the land is now in agricultural use. As such, notwithstanding he lack of certificate of lawful use, the evidence before me indicates that the appeal site is in equestrian use and my assessment is on this basis.

On this basis, Policy SD41 of the South Downs National Park Local Plan (2019) (Local Plan), which deals with the conversion of redundant agricultural or forestry buildings has little relevance to the appeal scheme. It did not form part of the Council’s reason for refusal.

The plans submitted with the appeal differ from those upon which the Council made its decision. Despite their differences, both versions of the plans have the same reference numbers (Refs: 24910-P001 [name], 24910-P002 [name], and 24910-P007 [name]). The original plans had a large red line boundary around the whole field. Comparitively, the updated plans had a smaller red line boundary encompassing only the building, yard, and access track, with a blue line boundary indicating land within the appellants ownership around the wider field. Following correspondence with the main parties, it is evident that although the updated plans had been sent to the Council, they were not used in their determination.

This matter is material in the determination of the Councils second reason for refusal. I have no evidence to suggest that the updated plans were consulted upon during the original application process. In the interests of fairness for all parties, I have based my decision on the plans submitted with the original application.

The main issues are (a) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area, and (b) whether the proposal would be in a suitable location for residential development.

The site is located on [address], a tree lined country lane located within an attractive, rolling rural landscape of fields interspersed with woodland. The site is outside of any settlement boundary and lies within the South Downs National Park (SDNP). It comprises a large, grassed field, an L shaped block of stables, and an access track.

The site slopes steeply from the northeastern corner down to the southwestern corner of the site. Owing to the topography of the site and the density of the trees along the boundary between the building and [address], and between the orchard near to [address], the existing building is partially shielded from view. However, the site when taken as a whole, is visible within the local landscape owing to its topography.

The proposal would convert part of the stable block into a dwelling with the adjacent land becoming residential in use. The conversion of the appeal site from equestrian to residential would alter the way in which the site is used, and therefore they way it is contextually viewed within the landscape. Although the proposal would retain the stables and paddocks, it is likely that domestic paraphernalia, such as domestic planting, gardening equipment, and washing lines, would be introduced onto the site. Even if the domestic paraphernalia was confined to an area near to the building, it would nevertheless alter the site from being equestrian in character, an expected use in the open countryside, to being residential in character, at odds with the countryside location.

The proposal would utilise the existing haybarn and canopy area, at the end of the L shaped block. It would retain the original footprint of the building, albeit infilling the canopy area with stained horizontal timber cladding. However, elements of glazing, including glazed double doors, and new window openings, would be introduced. These elements would give the building a domestic character, such that it would appear as an isolated dwelling or bungalow, incongruous with this rural setting, and visible within the local landscape.

In response to the appellant’s suggestion, the potential absence of any further development does not justify the harm to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

Accordingly, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. It would therefore be contrary to Policies SD1, SD4, SD5 and SD25 of the Local Plan, is so far as they seek to ensure developments conserve and enhance the special qualities of the National Park and protect existing landscape character features which contribute to the distinctive character and pattern of the landscape. The proposal would also be contrary to paragraph 135 of the Framework, which seeks to ensure that developments add to the overall quality of the area and maintain a strong sense of place.

Policy SD25 of the Local Plan deals with the principle for development across the SDNP. It identifies that development outside the settlement is only permitted in exceptional circumstances. Part 2 of Policy SD25 identifies that as well as compliance with relevant policies within the Local Plan and responding to the context of the area, it should also meet one of the 4 circumstances listed in the Policy.

The appeal site is not allocated for development or safeguarded for the proposed use, nor is it for community infrastructure. I have concluded above that the proposal would not conserve or enhance the special qualities of the SDNP and therefore this would not represent an appropriate re-use of a previously developed site. In this regard, the proposal does not comply with criteria 2. a), 2. c) or 2. d).

Point 2. b) relates to the essential need for a countryside location. The appellant has indicated that a dwelling is required to accept deliveries, respond to emergencies, and provide security for the site. However, given the small scale of the site, with few stables, the likelihood of frequent emergencies is very low. The number of deliveries associated with a site of this size would also be limited and could be scheduled without requiring a permanent on-site presence. In addition, the site could be secured through measures other than a permanent dwelling. Accordingly, these factors do not demonstrate an essential need for a countryside location.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not be in a suitable location for residential development. It would conflict with Policies SD1 and SD25 of the Local Plan which collectively seek to ensure that developments promote the purposes of the National Park and prioritise development within settlements.

The proposal would also be contrary to paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework), which seeks to avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside.

The appellant has identified three examples of conversions from agricultural buildings to residential dwellings within the Peak District National Park, the Yorkshire Dales National Park, and Dartmoor National Park. I have not been provided with details of these examples. In any case, none are within the SDNP, and have therefore been considered against a different Development Plan. As such, these examples bear little weight in favour of the appeal proposal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR