Appeal 6002376

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Bassetlaw District Council and this is the subject of a separate Decision.

The application form refers to the development as including the conversion of existing outbuildings and dwelling to form 8 no holiday lets. However, from other information including the submitted drawings, it would appear that one of the outbuildings (referred to as outbuilding 3) would, in fact, be demolished and rebuilt.

The submitted location plan shows the access road from [address] to be in the ownership of the appellant and outlined in red. However, it would appear that the appellant has only rights of access over the road.

The main issues in this case are the effects of the proposed development on: • The character and appearance of the area around the Rampton [site address] site and the wider area to the north of Rampton, • [name] with regard to the access road and the junction with [address], and • The general tourism industry in [name].

The appeal site is part of a historic estate currently referred to as [site address] . Most of the site lies within the unregistered park and garden (UPG) of [address]. [address] house has been demolished but a number of buildings associated with the estate remain, including a house and outbuildings that comprise the current appeal site. The site is shown as being accessed from [address], within the small village of Rampton, via a 600 metre long track, which enters the estate through a listed gateway structure and passes another residential property (No 7) some 60 metres south of the appeal site buildings.

The proposed development would involve the conversion of the existing two-storey dwelling into two holiday-let apartments; the conversion of 8 small barns attached to the dwelling into two holiday-let cottages; the conversion of two of the single-storey outbuildings (referred to as outbuildings 1 and 2 on the submitted plans) into two holiday-let cottages; the demolition and rebuilding of outbuilding 3 into two further holiday-let cottages; and the conversion of the single-storey outbuilding 4 into a two-storey dwelling. It would also involve the construction of a new large storage building designed to house a historic horse-drawn dining carriage. The submitted plans indicate that the proposal would include the provision of 12 parking spaces to serve the accommodation.

The planning application was subject to a number of agreed extensions of time by the Council and the appellant, but a final request for an extension of time by the Council was not agreed and the appellant subsequently submitted an appeal against non-determination. The Council has indicated that it would have recommended refusal of the proposal for a number of reasons including non-compliance with policy; lack of supporting evidence for conversion of a property into a dwelling; harm to the character and appearance of the site and surroundings; and inadequate highways and access arrangements.

Policy ST10 of the Bassetlaw Local Plan (LP) indicates that proposals, including visitor accommodation should be located in accordance with the sequential approach for main town centre uses in accordance with Policy ST11. New or extensions to existing development should be of a scale that is in-keeping with local character. In addition, proposals, including extensions to existing development and visitor accommodation in the rural area will be supported where its scale is proportionate to its setting and location, in terms of its impact on landscape, biodiversity, heritage, highway capacity and safety.

Policy ST11 of the LP indicates that an impact assessment will be required for all applications for leisure development that provide floorspace of 100 sqm (gross) in the District outside town centre and local centre boundaries.

Policy ST2 of the LP indicates that proposals for residential development outside the existing built form of a settlement, will be supported where they provide for the replacement of an existing dwelling. in this case the replacement dwelling should be of a similar size and scale to the original dwelling and be located on the footprint of the original dwelling unless an alternative position within the existing residential curtilage would have no adverse impact on the wider setting; or where they provide for the conversion of a permanent redundant or disused non-residential building that is structurally capable of conversion and that any extension or alteration would not adversely affect the form, scale, massing or proportion of the building and would enhance the immediate setting.

Policy ST39 of the LP indicates that the Council will protect existing trees, woodland and hedgerows and secure additional planting that increases canopy cover, including retaining, protecting and improving woodland and trees subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). Policy ST53 of the LP indicates that development should contribute towards a sustainable, safe, active transport network and offer a range of public transport and active travel choices, and that it should provide well-designed, safe and convenient access for all.

Policy 8 of the adopted Rampton and Woodbeck Neighbourhood Plan indicates that proposals for small-scale economic uses, which support new business, will be supported where they meet certain criteria. These include that they are of a scale appropriate to the location within the neighbourhood area and the scale and nature of any surrounding uses; that the use is appropriate to its location and setting and would not lead to an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents; that it has an appropriate area for vehicles either servicing or delivering to the site; and that it would not lead to an unacceptable impact on the existing highway capacity or safety.

The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) indicates in Paragraph 88 that planning decisions should enable sustainable rural leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside, Paragraph 115 indicates that in assessing specific applications for development, it should be ensured that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users.

The appellant contends that the proposal would be a beneficial addition to the provision of tourist accommodation across the wider area within Nottinghamshire; that it would make use of disused and/or redundant buildings; that there is a potential alternative means of access to the north of the site; and that it would have no adverse effects on trees within the UPG or its heritage value.

The appeal site lies some 500 metres north of the village of Rampton in an area of open countryside, Much of the land between the site and the village comprises the remains of the historic estate of [address] which, in the vicinity of the appeal site, is currently largely wooded. The site itself includes a two-storey house at its north-eastern corner, a row of small barns attached to the house, and four separate outbuildings within what has the appearance of a small agricultural-type grouping. The site edged red also includes part of a walled garden, once associated with the Manor and which apparently contained glasshouses at some time in the past. At the time of my visit, there was a historic dining car, designed to be horse-drawn, located within the walled garden.

The buildings contained within the appeal site, in themselves, have limited heritage value, and I do not consider that conversion of the buildings to holiday-let accommodation would, in principle, have any significant adverse effect on the heritage value of the area. However, I have concerns regarding a number of elements of the proposal on the general character and appearance of the area.

With regard to access, I will deal in more detail with this issue later in this decision letter, but it would appear that the increased volume of traffic along the existing track resulting from the proposal may require the provision of passing places along its length. This would potentially entail the removal of some protected trees and there is no indication within the current proposals of how this issue would be dealt with. Given the importance of the trees visually within the UPG and the wider landscape, there would be some, albeit limited, adverse impacts of this.

The walled garden is, in my opinion, an important heritage element of the UPG. Part of the proposal would involve the demolition of outbuilding 3, which uses a length of the wall as part of its structure. The proposed replacement holiday-let structure would involve creating a number of window and sliding door openings into the wall and including part of the walled garden as courtyard accommodation for the holiday lets. The conversion of outbuilding 2 would also include similar incursions into the wall and the walled garden, while the construction of the storage building would add a sizeable and uncharacteristic structure into the otherwise open walled garden area. These elements of the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the UPG.

Other than the house, all of the other buildings within the complex are single-storey in nature. The proposed two-storey manager’s house to the north of the barns, and the proposed storage building within the walled garden, would be significantly taller than the existing outbuildings and would be sited outside of the main grouping. These would be more prominent and would be uncharacteristic of the complex as a whole. There is some doubt as to the ability to convert the existing outbuilding 4 because of its nature and condition, but should it be accepted as capable of conversion, I consider that it would adversely affect the current low-key form, scale, and massing of the building, and that it would not enhance the immediate setting..

I acknowledge that the proposal would result in the retained buildings being in a better condition than is currently the case, and that they would be of a similar general character and appearance. However, in the light of the above, I conclude on this issue that the proposal would be harmful to the overall character and appearance of the site and its surroundings, particularly in the context of its position within the UPG and the significance of the walled garden to the historic character of the area.

The driveway leading from [address] to the appeal site passes through a listed gateway structure, which has a narrow arched opening. It is fully surfaced for a limited distance before becoming a rough-surfaced access lane. The driveway serves a small number of residential properties including No 7, [address], [address] and the appeal property at the northern end of the UPG. Although shown as part of the site edged red, it would appear that the appellant has only a right of way over this access lane. In addition to residential properties, the driveway to the north of the gateway also serves the Village Hall, providing access to its car park.

The proposed development would include parking spaces for 12 vehicles. This would represent a significant increase in the number of vehicles using the driveway. In addition, the village of Rampton would not appear to provide any shopping or other daily services that might be required by visitors using the holiday lets. On this basis, the proposal would place great reliance on use of the car for day to day needs. In addition to the above, the driveway is only partly surfaced, narrow and unlit, and it would not be a safe or attractive route for pedestrians to access the holiday lets from [address]. I consider the appeal site to be in a relatively unsustainable location.

The entrance gateway is very narrow and, although arched, is of limited useable height. It is also close to the junction with [address]. The Highway Authority has expressed concerns regarding its ability to serve the appeal site safely in terms of inadequate sight lines at the junction, and also in terms of its limited accessibility for service vehicles. I have similar concerns. In addition, and as noted above, the significant increase in usage would likely require the provision of passing places, which may or may not be possible on land in the control of the appellant without harm to protected trees.

Finally, the shared driveway to the appeal property passes in very close proximity to existing dwellings, in particular to No 7, and the increase in traffic would represent harm to the amenities of the occupiers of those dwellings by of additional noise and disturbance. The appellant has indicated that there could be an alternative access to the appeal site from [address] to the north. However, this route does not form part of the appeal site and there are no proposals before me. At the time of my visit this potential access was a grassed area only, and I have doubts as to the suitability of [address], which is a narrow track, to serve the number of vehicles that would be generated by the proposal without some improvement, and this would appear to be outside of the control of the appellant.

On this issue, I find that the proposal would not provide a safe or attractive means of access to the appeal site. Moreover, the increased traffic generated would be on a scale likely to cause harm to highway safety around the junction of [address] and harm to the residential amenities of occupiers of other properties served by the driveway with regard to noise and disturbance.

The appellant contends that the proposal would result in an increase in holiday accommodation which would benefit the tourism industry in this part of Nottinghamshire. In addition, she contends that the type of accommodation could not be provided in a town or local centre or edge of centre location, and that the site is in close proximity to the [name] facility. I acknowledge these points, though there would not appear to be any functional relationship between the appeal proposals and the nearby Adventureland facility. Moreover, for my reasons given elsewhere in this letter, I consider the scale of the proposal to be disproportionate to its setting and location, in terms of its likely impact on landscape, heritage, and highway capacity and safety.

The appellant comments on Policy ST11 of the LP and contends that the proposal could not be considered a town centre or edge of centre type use, and that there should not be a requirement for a sequential test to be carried out. I concur with that view in this case. However, Policy ST11 also requires that an impact assessment will be required for all applications for leisure development that provides floorspace of 100 sqm (gross) outside town centre and local centre boundaries. In this case, the proposal would provide significantly more than 100 sqm of floorspace and no impact assessment has been submitted.

Finally, the appellant makes reference to the [name] (NVES), which notes that the County is in need of more places to stay. However, it states that ‘Glamping’ has been identified as a growth opportunity alongside potential hotel development opportunities. While it does not preclude other forms of accommodation, it would appear that the current proposal at the appeal site is not a priority form of such development.

In conclusion on this issue, I find that the proposal would provide some tourist accommodation in an area that has been identified as in need of additional facilities. However, it would appear that relatively isolated holiday lets in such a setting and location are not the priority type of accommodation required. On this basis, any benefits resulting from the proposal would be outweighed by the harmful impacts of the development on the heritage and highway issues identified earlier.

The Council has indicated a requirement that structural surveys be carried out to determine whether the outbuildings are capable of being converted. The appellant contends that such surveys are not specifically required by Policy ST2 of the LP. I acknowledge that there is no specific reference to such a requirement. However, with regard to the proposed conversion of outbuilding 4 to a new dwelling, I note that Policy ST2 requires that conversion of a permanent redundant or disused non-residential building should be structurally capable of conversion.

In this case, and given that the existing outbuilding 4 is single-storey with an extension that has significant vegetation growing within it, I consider that a structural survey would be necessary to establish whether the building would be capable of conversion into a two-storey dwelling. In any case, the proposal, which is effectively a replacement for the existing dwelling, would have an adverse effect on the wider setting, as noted above.

In conclusion, I find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the UPG, including tree cover, and to the wider area around Rampton. It would also be harmful to highway safety around the junction with [address] and would result in unsatisfactory access to the appeal site. Finally, while it would result in provision of additional tourist accommodation, it would be in a relatively unsustainable location and would not appear to be the priority type of accommodation identified in the NVES, It would, therefore, be of only limited benefit. On balance, I consider that the limited benefits of the additional accommodation resulting from the scheme would be significantly outweighed by the harm to the character and appearance of the area, and to highway safety caused by unsuitability of the proposed access arrangements.

On the basis of the above, the proposal would conflict with guidance in the Framework; with Policies ST2, ST10, ST11, ST39 and ST53 of the LP; and with Policy 8 of the NP. Accordingly, I dismiss this appeal.