Appeal 6002572

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is from the application form. I note that it was described as ‘use of existing annex building as 1 no. dwelling’ on the decision notice. The nature of the proposal is clear.

The main issue is whether the appeal site (the site) would be a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the development plan.

The site is alongside and associated with a dwelling called Timberhill. It includes an annex building subject of this appeal. The submissions indicate that the annex was erected in line with the terms of the General Permitted Development Order (2015) and that its use for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of Timberhill is lawful.

The site is in the countryside, beyond the nearest settlement boundary. Policy SP03 of the Babergh District Council & Mid Suffolk District Council Joint Local Plan Part 1 (2023) (the Local Plan) sets out the Council’s spatial strategy. It supports development outside of settlement boundaries if in accordance with other policies of the plan, including Policies LP02 and LP04, both of which are cited in the reason for refusal.

Policy LP02 sets out the Council's approach to residential annexes. I note the Council’s view that it provides context but nevertheless set it aside for the purposes of my determination, as the proposal does not involve the creation of a residential annex.

Policy LP04 requires at subsection (2) that proposals for the conversion of buildings to residential must, along with other things, reuse redundant or disused buildings. The Council cites conflict with this requirement, as the annex is being occupied by the appellants on a temporary basis whilst repairs are undertaken to Timberhill.

Subsection (3) of Policy LP04 sets out further requirements, none of which the Council’s case relies upon. I note (3)(d) states that “redundant buildings should be reused where possible” and the appellants contention that this suggests instances when buildings are not entirely redundant but are still suitable for conversion. Even if that is the correct approach to subsection (3) the appeal proposal must still, in any event, satisfy subsection (2). The test in subsection (2) is therefore the pertinent one.

The appellants contend that the annex is redundant because [firstly] there is no longer any requirement for annexe accommodation at the site and [secondly] their current occupation of it is temporary.

The first point suggests that the annex may previously have served a particular purpose. I have no reason to doubt this may be so, or that the particular purpose may now have been served. That does not, however, mean there is no requirement for annex accommodation at the site. The annex is in use, and so the appellants apparently do require it, even if for different purposes to those they originally intended. As Policy LP04 does not define the terms redundant or disused, I see no reason not to give them their ordinary meaning; Neither can reasonably be applied to a building that is in use.

Regarding the second point, I have very few details of when the current occupation of the annex commenced or how long it is likely to last. In any event, and more pertinently, the appellants have provided me with no clear reasoning as to why its temporary nature might overcome what appears such a clear and straightforward conflict with the policy as identified above. I see none for myself.

The site would not be a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the development plan. The proposed development would fail to comply with Local Plan Policies SP03 and LP04 where they set out the requirements for the conversion of buildings to residential beyond a settlement boundary.

Regarding whether the proposal would benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I note the Councils concerns that site occupiers would rely on the private car. Neither the appellants submissions or my visit to the area have given me reason to believe Yaxley or Eye are readily accessible from the site on foot, by bike, or using public transport. I find little to demonstrate therefore that the proposal benefits from the presumption.

The site is immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary. I have no reason to doubt that boundaries were last reviewed under the 1998 Mid Suffolk Local Plan, or that an anticipated review of them in a Part 2 Plan, as described in the preamble to Policy SP03, has not occurred.

At the same time the preamble is clear that when the Part 1 Plan was adopted the review was left to later as, in the short to medium term, the existing boundaries were considered adequate to enable development needs. That the Council has a 7.7 year supply of housing land suggests this was, and remains, a sound approach. Given this, I see little implication for the appeal in the age of the current boundary.

My attention has been drawn to two previous decisions1 to allow single dwellings nearby. Both schemes differ significantly from the appeal proposal in that they had the support of Local Plan Policy LP01. Whilst the Inspector in the latter case concluded that the site would be a suitable location having regard to local and national policy, they were clear that “Policy LP01 explicitly relates to windfall infill housing outside of development boundaries where, it is accepted that sustainability in terms of these matters will be inherently reduced”. The conclusion was reached in that context, which is not the same as that before me. I therefore attach minimal weight to the cited decisions.

The decision notice is clear that the proposal was refused on the basis of principle, and due to the site’s unsustainable location. The harm arising from conflict with Policy SP03 is inherent in the purpose of that policy, as set out in the preamble. I therefore attach minimal weight to the omission from the decision notice of any further or more detailed articulation of that harm.

The proposal would yield a new house towards the Governmental aim of significantly boosting supply, using a building that has already been built. The supply of new housing carries significant weight but is tempered in this case by the modest scale of the scheme. There would be ongoing local economic and social activity relating to the occupation of the site but given the small number of new residents brought about these benefits would be minor. The benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the harm resulting from the conflict with the development plan described above.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with it.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.