Appeal 6002280

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant’s surname was misspelt on the application form, and I have therefore used the correct spelling in the banner heading.

The appeal was accompanied by a deed of unilateral undertaking under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure contributions to mitigate the impact of the proposal on the Ashdown Forest Special Protection Area (SPA). The Council confirmed that it was satisfied with the agreement and no longer wished to defend the reason for refusal relating to the potential impact of the proposal on the SPA.

In light of the above, the main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • whether the proposal would provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to outlook and sense of enclosure; and • whether the proposal would be located so that future occupiers could access services and facilities by a range of transport modes.

The appeal site comprises a large outbuilding which was originally designed for keeping pigs. It is currently used as ancillary living accommodation and storage in connection with the appellant’s adjacent dwelling. A recent application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for use of part of the outbuilding as a dwelling1 was refused by the Council.

The outbuilding has a utilitarian appearance, constructed of timber cladding on a brick base, with a corrugated roof. It forms part of a small cluster of buildings which include the appellant’s dwelling and a building used by the appellant’s landscaping business which is of similar character and appearance to the outbuilding. Associated with the appellant’s business there is a large area of outside storage which includes two portable structures which are used in connection with the business. Several smaller buildings are located nearby which appear to have formerly been agricultural buildings.

To the south of the appeal site is a farm which includes a large area of hardstanding used for the storage of caravans and motor homes, whilst to the west is a ribbon of houses on either side of [site address] .

The proposal would involve the demolition of a porch and a lean-to structure running the length of the building, with an internal wall being exposed whose existing openings would be glazed. New openings would be created in this elevation and the end elevations and roof. Whilst the addition of new fenestration would reflect the mixed character of the surrounding area and to some degree enhance the outbuilding’s current functional appearance, the size and number of additional windows and rooflights would be excessive, giving rise to an overly domestic appearance which would damage the appearance of the countryside.

In place of the current external wall, a boundary wall would be constructed parallel with the outbuilding and running its full length. It is unclear why a boundary wall of this type is required given the site’s countryside location, and moreover no indication has been given of whether alternative means of enclosure have been considered. The boundary wall would create a dominant feature which would detract from the appearance of the countryside.

The proposal would utilise the current outside storage area as a garden for the dwelling. An enforcement notice from 1992 requires open storage on the land to cease and mobile structures to be removed, and the land in effect to return to agriculture. The notice does not mention hard surfacing, which may have been introduced later. Whilst the outside storage and mobile structures are unauthorised, the enforcement notice dates back a number of years and I have been given no indication of steps which have been taken to require compliance with it. I therefore attach moderate weight to the beneficial effect which the removal of the storage and pair of structures would have on the countryside.

Turning the storage area into a garden would not be as beneficial to the countryside as returning it to agriculture. It would create an unusually large area garden whose domestic paraphernalia would be likely to have a negative effect on the character and appearance of the countryside, which a planning condition could not wholly control. Furthermore, the proposal to replace the temporary structures with a larger garage building would be harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside, particularly as the plans show the three garages currently attached to the outbuilding being retained. 1 LPA reference DM/25/2889

The proposed garden would be separated from the dwelling by an area of hardstanding. Whilst it is not unusual for rural dwellings to have an unconventional arrangement of outside space, the area of hardstanding would be substantial and would introduce a notable degree of separation between house and garden. For these reasons, this aspect of the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the countryside.

I conclude, therefore, that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the countryside, contrary to policies DP12 and DP26 of the Mid Sussex District Plan 2014-2031 (MSDP) and policies EG2 and EG3 of the East Grinstead Neighbourhood Plan Made [name] 2016 (EGNP). Together these policies seek to protect and enhance the countryside by ensuring that development is well designed and sensitive to it, and has minimal impact on the openness of the countryside in terms of its curtilage and parking.

The proposed kitchen/living room and kitchen, along with a playroom and bedroom, would have their only outlook towards the proposed boundary wall. The boundary wall would limit the outlook from these rooms such that, when sitting down, the view would be principally of the boundary wall and the sky, with limited if any appreciation of the surrounding countryside. The wall would create an undue sense of enclosure for future occupiers, particularly in the main living rooms.

Whilst the appellant has indicated that the proposal would be self build, with the intended occupier – the appellant’s son – having input into the design, this does not provide a sufficient justification for providing unsuitable living conditions for future occupiers.

As a consequence of the poor outlook and sense of enclosure, the proposal would provide unsatisfactory living conditions for future occupiers, contrary to Policy DP26 of the MSDP, which requires developments to be well designed by avoiding harm to the amenities of future occupants and taking account, amongst other things, of the impact on outlook.

The appeal site is located in the countryside some way from the nearest settlements of [site address] and Fellbridge. The distances to these settlements and the nature of the intervening roads makes accessing local services and facilities on foot and by bicycle from the appeal site challenging.

A bus route between Crawley and [name] runs along [site address] , with bus stops located at the entrance to the appeal site. I have been furnished with timetables which show that there are two services operating on the route, which together provide a half hourly service on weekdays, from early in the morning until late in the afternoon, with a reduced frequency in the evening. There is a half hourly service on Saturdays and an hourly service on Sundays, with a later start and an earlier finish than on weekdays. Having regard to the advice in paragraph 110 of the Framework that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, I consider that the bus services are capable of providing a feasible alternative to the private car, notwithstanding the reduced frequency in the evenings and at weekends.

There have been two previous appeals at the site, for 6 live/work units2 and 30 self custom build plots3 respectively, in both of which the Inspectors concluded that the bus service was insufficient to ensure that future residents would not be largely reliant on the private vehicle. However, these conclusions must be balanced against the fact that the use of the outbuilding as ancillary accommodation appears to be of long standing, meaning that at least part of it can currently be occupied by members of the appellant’s family, albeit as a single household. I am moreover mindful that the support offered by Policy DP15 of the MSDP and Policy EG2 of the EGNP for the re-use of rural buildings for residential use, whilst subject to a number of limitations, is not caveated by a requirement for a sustainable location. Both these factors distinguish the proposal from the two previous appeals.

Taking all the above matters into consideration, I consider that the proposal would be located so that future occupiers could access services and facilities by a range of transport modes, in accordance with Policy DP21 of the MSDP and Policy EG5 of the EGNP. Together these policies require the need for travel to be minimised, whilst noting that there might be circumstances where development needs to be located in the countryside, and for appropriate opportunities to be taken to facilitate access to public transport.

A house is proposed, and the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land. Therefore, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework applies. The application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or asset of particular importance, as defined in Footnote 7, do not provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies as set out in paragraph 11(d)ii and permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole.

The delivery of a home on previously developed land would be a social benefit, whilst economic benefits would accrue from the construction phase and from expenditure on goods and services by future occupiers. A converted dwelling is capable of being constructed quickly, which counts in its favour. The dwelling would be energy efficient and would enhance biodiversity and protected species habitats. It would achieve some visual improvements by removing a lean-to structure and porch, outside storage, mobile structures and hard surfacing. Although the appellant has indicated that the proposal is for a self build dwelling, no mechanism to secure it as self build is before me, and I am therefore unable to afford weight to the appellant’s aspiration for a self build development. Nevertheless, positively contributing to the Council’s housing land supply, albeit in a modest manner for a single dwelling, is a benefit given the Council’s housing land supply shortfall. I therefore attach moderate weight to the benefits that the scheme delivers.

The MSDP contains detailed policies for protecting the countryside from harm and providing appropriate living conditions. The harm I have identified as arising from the proposal relates to the large number of new openings proposed in the building, 2 PINS reference APP/D3830/W/14/3000104 3 PINS reference APP/D3830/W/20/3264243 the dominating appearance of the boundary wall, and the excessively large private garden, garages and hardstanding. Cumulatively, the changes would adversely affect the character and appearance of the countryside. Additionally, the outlook for future occupiers would be poor. I attach significant negative weight to these harms.

The Framework requires proposals to recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and guides that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Notwithstanding the mixed character of the nearby countryside, I attach considerable weight to the cumulative harm which the proposal would cause. I consider therefore that the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The appeal site lies within the 7km zone of influence of the SPA, whose qualifying features are its concentrations of [name] and [name]. Ashdown Forest is also designated as a Special Area of Conservation, for its European dry heath, [name] wet heath and great crested newts. It is a European Designated Site afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as amended (the Habitats Regulations).

[name] been minded to allow the appeal, it would have been incumbent upon me as competent authority to consider whether the development would be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the site. However, as I am dismissing the appeal, it has not been necessary for me to pursue this issue further.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole, and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.