Appeal 6002231

The appeal is dismissed.

Permission was granted in 1989 for the conversion of the barn to a unit of holiday accommodation. During my site inspection it was clear that works to convert the barn are largely complete. However, I observed that these minor changes to the internal layout and fenestration were otherwise than in accordance with the conditional approval reference CU/3/39/1518/1989/10337/2 dated 22 September 1989.

According to the appellant’s Statement of Case, the proposal seeks to retain the works undertaken, which differs from the originally consented scheme granted in 1989, as well as change the use of the appeal building to an unrestricted dwelling house. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

Based on the Council’s Officer Report and its Decision Notice, the building alterations are not in contention. Therefore, the main issues are:

whether the location of the proposed development is appropriate for an open-market dwelling, and;

whether sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there is no proven demand for the holiday let.

The appeal site is a two-storey detached stone building set within a cluster of residential dwellings and former farm buildings, located to the north of the main A30 trunk road, in the open countryside.

Policy SPT1 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (2019) (JLP) seeks to manage development in accordance with the principles of sustainable development as set out in the policy. Policy SPT2 of the JLP requires development to support the overall spatial strategy of the JLP through the creation of sustainable linked neighbourhoods and communities which, amongst other things, have reasonable access to facilities and services which meet daily community needs.

There are limited facilities and services in the immediate locality. There is a farm shop located between Liftondown and Lifton, and a convenience store/post office can be found in the village of Lifton approximately 2km and 3.6km from the appeal site respectively.

The settlement of Liftondown is located to the north of the A388 and A30 roads. An unlit pedestrian footway links Liftondown to Lifton. However, from the A388 to the appeal site, the road is primarily single track with few passing places, is unlit and has no pedestrian footway. The nature of the access road is likely to deter walkers and cyclists. As such, in order to access most day-to-day facilities future residents are likely to be reliant on private motor transport. The main parties agree that the site is isolated1 from any settlement. Having regard to the evidence before me and my observations during my site inspection, I have no reason to disagree.

Policy TTV1 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (2019) (JLP) prioritises growth through a hierarchy of sustainable settlements. Development will only be permitted in the smaller villages, hamlets and the countryside where it can be demonstrated to support the principles of sustainable development and sustainable communities. It further outlines that where development proposals are outside of built up areas they will be considered in the context of Policy TTV26.

Policy TTV26 sets out circumstances in which isolated homes in the countryside may be acceptable. Paragraph 1(iii) of Policy TTV26 allows for the re‐use of redundant or disused buildings and brownfield sites for an appropriate use. Paragraph 2(ii) of Policy TTV26 allows for the re‐use of traditional buildings that are structurally sound enough for renovation without significant enhancement or alteration and paragraph 2(vi) requires proposals to help enhance the immediate setting of the site.

Policy TTV26 reflects paragraph 84(c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which directs that planning decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless a development is consistent with one or more of a list of criteria. The criteria includes where a development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting.

It is disputed by the main parties whether the appeal building is redundant or disused. However, even if the building is considered redundant or disused, the proposal must also comply with Part 2(vi) of Policy TTV26. In this regard, although the building is structurally sound, the use of a lesser stone outbuilding for bin and cycle storage cannot be fairly asserted to enhance the immediate setting of the site. 1 [name] v SSCLG [2018] [name] 610 & Bramshill v SSHCLG [2021] [name] 320.

In addition, the appellant contends that the sympathetic conversion works to the appeal building have contributed to the enhanced setting of the building. However, these works appear to have been undertaken some time ago and do not form part of the appeal proposal.

Furthermore, even if the proposal is considered to satisfy Policy TTV26, paragraph 5.168 of the JLP highlights that the policy must be read alongside other policies in the plan, and especially Policies SPT2 and TTV2.

Accordingly, I conclude on the first main issue that the appeal site is not an appropriate location for an open-market dwelling. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of SPT1, SPT2 and TTV1of the JLP, which, among other things, seek to promote sustainable development by steering growth to the most suitable settlements, ensuring communities are well‐connected, mixed, resilient and well‐served by facilities. While not referred to in the reason for refusal, the proposal is also contrary to Policy TTV26 of the JLP and paragraph 84 of the Framework.

Policy DEV15 of the JLP states that the loss of tourist or leisure development will only be permitted where there is no proven demand for the facility.

[name] acknowledge that the appeal building is incomplete, with only the installation of kitchen facilities remaining, and has not been used or marketed for holiday purposes, substantial progress has been made in advancing its conversion to a holiday let. The extant consent provides a lawful basis for the appeal site as holiday accommodation. Furthermore, the description of development is clearly described as the change of use from holiday let to residential. I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis.

The appellant’s Planning Statement refers to supporting information which relies on a generalised indication of a decline in tourism in Devon and Cornwall. However, I find this evidence too broad to identify trends and lacking any meaningful assessment of comparable holiday accommodation in the locality. On this basis, the information presented does not provide compelling evidence to demonstrate that there is no proven demand for the holiday facility.

For the reasons given, I conclude on the second main issue that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there is no proven demand for the holiday let. Accordingly, the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of Policy DEV15 of the JLP.

The main parties disagree as to whether the 1989 permission was granted on the basis that the holiday use would generate economic benefit for the local area. While the reason attached to the original holiday-use condition does not explicitly refer to economic considerations, the reason for a condition is not necessarily the same as the wider planning justification for the permission itself. In the absence of substantive evidence, I cannot place significant weight on either interpretation. In any event, the precise rationale behind the 1989 permission is not determinative of the main issues in this appeal, which must be assessed on their own planning merits.

I note that both the [name] and Parish Council support the proposal. However, support, or a lack of objection, to a scheme is not, in itself, a reason to allow development. I have in any case, determined this appeal on its own particular merits.

My attention has been drawn to similar development in the immediate locality (2016) and at Meadwell, Kelly (2022). However, I find that the policy and legislative context for the 2016 permission differs to that before me. The 2022 permission was granted as the development was found to be the optimum viable use for the non-designated heritage asset and consistency with the development plan. I have therefore assessed the proposal on its own merits.

The Council has confirmed that it cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable sites for housing, with only 2.33 years supply. As a result, the policies which are most important for determining the application are deemed to be out of date and paragraph 11d ii and footnote 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework ( the Framework) requires that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole.

The appellant highlights the environmental benefits of restoring the building. However, the majority of the conversion works appear to have been undertaken some time ago and do not form part of the appeal proposal. I therefore attach very limited weight to this benefit.

The provision of a single new home would assist in meeting the overall housing need in the area and bring associated economic benefits support for local facilities. The provision of a one/ two-bedroom dwelling would positively address the current imbalance between the housing stock and the need for one and two bedroom accommodation in the area. However, the extent of these benefits would be limited by the scale of the development for one dwelling and therefore attracts limited weight.

I have concluded that the location of the proposed development is inappropriate for an open-market dwelling and that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there is no proven demand for the holiday let. This brings the proposal into conflict with the development plan as a whole. While the most relevant polices to the appeal are deemed out of date due to the lack of a five-year housing supply, they are nevertheless broadly consistent with the Framework in directing development to sustainable locations and supporting sustainable rural tourism. I therefore attach significant weight to the conflict with the identified policies in the JLP and to the associated harms.

The adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the polices in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.