Appeal 6002986

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of 1 no dwelling at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/2693/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

I have amended the description of development from that on the Council’s decision notice to more accurately align with the description included on the application form, although I have removed some wording which are not acts of development. That said, I note that some works have already commenced and I have determined the appeal on that basis.

I note that the Council’s Statement of Case refers to a smaller barn and indicates that this has already been converted and is proposed to be used as ancillary accommodation to the main barn. However, the small barn, which I assume is the building to the east of the appeal site falls outside the appeal site boundary as shown on [name]: PW1376_P11 and does not form part of the appeal proposal before me.

The main issues are; • Whether or not the appeal site is an appropriate location for the development having regard to the settlement boundaries and development plan and national policies relating to development within rural areas; and • Whether or not the development would harm the significance of a non-designated heritage asset

The appeal site is part of a cluster of buildings, including a number of other barns and a farmhouse. There are residential dwellings on the same side of the road with a detached house on an adjacent site to the south, although there is a gap between the appeal site and a ribbon of residential dwellings to the north.

The appeal site is located outside any settlement boundary and consequently is within the countryside. Policy SCLP3.3 of the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan adopted September 2020 (SCLP) sets out that new residential development will not be permitted within the countryside except where specific policies indicate otherwise. Policy SCLP5.3 sets out that within such an area new residential development will be limited to certain types of development. These include limited development within existing clusters, replacement dwellings on a one-to-one basis and conversions of an existing building.

Planning permission was previously granted for the conversion of an existing building. In accordance with Policy SCLP5.5 to qualify the existing building must meet certain criteria, including that the building provides a positive contribution to the landscape and the conversion does not require significant alteration. The appellant considers that this provides a legitimate fall-back position which I will deal with later, but first I will consider if the proposal could amount to a conversion of an existing building.

I observed at the site visit that the previous barn is now a shell held up by scaffolding with a new steel sub-frame and although there are some original features including beams, rafters, roof ridge and wall plates there is very little of the original building remaining. That said, the beams, roof ridge and rafters do provide the essence of the original building but in my judgement the original building has all but disappeared and realistically there is no existing building to convert. Moreover, even if the shell was considered to be an existing building in its current form it does not provide a positive contribution to the landscape and would clearly need significant alteration. As a result, the proposal would not meet the relevant criteria of Policy SCLP 5.5. Similarly, the previous barn and existing shell of a building was not and is not a dwelling and consequently the proposal cannot be considered a replacement dwelling.

Policy SCLP5.4 deals with housing in clusters in the countryside. To meet the definition of a cluster there would need to be a continuous line of existing dwellings or a close group of existing dwellings adjacent to an existing highway which contains 5 or more dwellings. [name] accept there is a cluster of buildings, there are not 5 or more dwellings and consequently the appeal site does meet the criteria set out in the relevant development plan policies.

It follows that relevant development plan policies do not support the introduction of a dwelling at the appeal site. Moreover, I observed that although the appeal site is located about half a mile from the local facilities of Otley which includes a convenience shop and a primary school there is no footpath along this part of [site address] . Consequently, any future occupants would rely on a private car to access day to day facilities. That said, given the distance involved cycling is a more realistic option. Although the Council indicate that no cycle storage has been proposed as part of the proposal, there is adequate space on the appeal site to provide such storage which could be secured by condition, and in fact such a condition has been suggested by the Council. Consequently, I do not consider that in relation to the provision of cycle storage the proposal would conflict with Policy SCLP7.1.

I also note that the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and I have taken this into account. That said overall, I accept that contrary to the Framework and the relevant part of Policy SCLP7.1 the proposal would not give priority to pedestrian movements and the future residents would be reliant on private vehicles to access services and facilities.

[name] have found that overall development plan policies do not support residential development at the appeal site and contrary to the Framework would not prioritise pedestrian movements, in my judgement there are some aspects of the proposal that do accord with some of the criteria set out in Policy SCLP5.4. For example, the appeal site is located adjacent to existing development on two sides as there is a large barn to the west (The Old Barn), a smaller barn to the east and other buildings including the farmhouse to the south.

Further, the proposal would not represent an extension of the built up area into the surrounding countryside and it would not cause undue harm to the character and appearance of the existing cluster of buildings and would not result in any harmful visual intrusion into the surrounding landscape. It follows that these factors temper the negative weight I afford the non-compliance with the relevant development plan and framework policies.

In addition, I note that the Council have referred to paragraph 84 of the Framework which deals with isolated homes in the countryside. However, I find isolated in this context should be given its normal meaning of being remote as in far away from other places, buildings or people. As outlined, the appeal site is part of a cluster of buildings with residential development nearby. Consequently, as the appeal site is not far away from other buildings or people or in a remote location paragraph 84 of the Framework is not pivotal to this appeal proposal.

I therefore, conclude that the appeal site would not be an appropriate location for the proposed development having regard to the settlement boundaries and development plan and national policies relating to development within rural areas. Consequently, the proposal would not accord with policies SCLP3.3, SCLP5.3, SCLP5.4, SCLP5.5 and SCLP7.1 of the SCLP for the reasons set out above. However, any harm caused by the conflict would be modest for the reasons set out above. Consequently, I afford this issue modest weight in the determination of the appeal.

The previous barn on the appeal site has been designated as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). It is now a shell held up by scaffolding with a new steel sub-frame and although there are some original features including beams, rafters, roof ridge and wall plates there is very little of the original building remaining.

Based on the available evidence I am satisfied that the historic fabric of the original building, including its timber frame and pantile roof and vernacular which is consistent with traditional Suffolk barns created a historic form and architectural interest that positively contributed to its significance.

The appellant makes the point that there is nothing to stop the building from being partially demolished under permitted development rights. However, in accordance with the Framework, given that the appellant has demolished and removed a significant part of the original barn the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in this decision.

As a result, I consider that the works undertaken have undoubtedly diminished the significance of the NDHA. However, as outlined above, the essence of the barn remains, including the beams, rafters and roof ridge. It is important that this should be retained, and the appellant confirms that the principal superstructure of the building would be largely retained and I note that beams, rafters and the ridge of the roof remain largely intact.

I am also satisfied that the proposed dwelling would replicate the look of the previous barn. The Officer’s Delegated Report (ODR) sets out that the design principle of creating a new dwelling that shares features similar to the previous agricultural barn has been established and they have no issue with the scale and character of the proposed dwelling.

Moreover, the ODR highlights that as the proposed dwelling would be situated on the same footprint as the previous barn, the proposal would not result in an overdevelopment and the proposed pantiled roof and horizontal cladding would be reminiscent of rural Suffolk barns and would appear in keeping with the adjacent converted barn and the countryside character of the area. I agree with that analysis and consider that the proposed dwelling would be well designed and would result in a high-quality building.

As a result of these factors and the fact that the essence of the original barn would be retained this lessens the harm that the proposal would have on the NDHA because of the works already undertaken. Consequently, I afford the harm modest weight in the determination of the appeal which will form part of my balanced judgement later in the decision.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would result in modest harm to the significance of a non-designated heritage asset. Consequently, the proposal would be at odds with Policies SCLP11.3 and SCLP11.6 which among other things seeks to ensure that development makes a positive contribution to the historic environment, that Framework policies will be applied in respect of NDHAs, and that any proposals that would harm the significance of a NDHA will be judged based on the balance of the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

I turn now to consider housing supply. The Council accept that they cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing. The appellant indicates that the latest figures indicate that the Council has a housing land supply of 3.36 years and I have no reason to disagree with that figure. This is well below Government expectations.

Although the proposal would only involve one additional dwelling it would nevertheless be valuable in boosting housing stock in circumstances where there is an existing shortfall. The proposal would also have modest economic and social benefits. For example, it would provide some jobs and create demand for materials during the construction phase, would broaden the availability of housing in the area and once occupied would support the existing services and facilities in Otley. Overall, I afford the provision of one dwelling moderate weight in the determination of the appeal.

I note that some interested parties highlight that the appellant has demolished most of the former barn on the appeal site and are concerned that this could set an undesirable precedent. I accept that the loss of most of the original building is unfortunate and as outlined above this weighs against the proposal. However, as required I have determined the appeal on the basis of the particular circumstances involved and the harm to the NDHA cannot be considered in isolation, but forms part of the overall planning balance as set out in the next section of the decision.

A decision on whether to grant permission must be made in accordance with the relevant policies in the development plan, unless there are material considerations, such as those in the Framework, which indicate otherwise.

I have afforded some matters weight as outlined above and I afford the totality of the benefits moderate weight in the determination of the appeal. On the other hand, I have found that the appeal site would not be an appropriate location for the proposed development having regard to the settlement boundaries and would result in harm to the significance of a non-designated heritage asset and therefore would conflict with certain policies of the development plan. However, for the reasons set out above I have also afforded both of those issues modest weight and would afford the totality of the harm moderate weight in the determination of the appeal.

As outlined, the Council confirm that it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Thus, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged. This means that planning 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 taken as a whole having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes.

Certain development plan policies do not support the proposal and overall I have afforded this conflict with policy moderate weight. However. I have also afforded the totality of the benefits associated with the proposal moderate weight.

I have had particular regard to the relevant key policies. I have dealt with whether or not the appeal site is a sustainable location above and this has already been factored into the weight accorded. The proposed dwelling would not be affordable and there is , and this is no requirement to provide such accommodation and so this is a neutral factor. However, I do consider that the proposal would help to secure a well-designed place and it would make effective use of land which are factors that weigh in favour of the proposed dwelling.

It follows that any adverse impacts associated with the proposal would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to the key policies. Consequently, the scheme would represent sustainable development within the meaning of paragraph 11(d) which weighs substantially in favour of the scheme and indicates that the appeal should be allowed.

The appellant has made much of the fall-back position. Ultimately, whether or not the previously approved scheme which involved the conversion of the original barn can be implemented may be subject to an enforcement process and I am unable to comment on the likely outcome of that process. However, for the purpose of this appeal decision, given my finding above on the implications of paragraph 11 of the Framework it is unnecessary to make a definitive finding on whether or not there is a legitimate fall back as it is not required to be included in the planning balance to justify allowing the appeal.

A list of suggested conditions has been provided by the Council in their appeal statement.

In the interests of clarity, precision and to avoid duplication I have made changes to some conditions to ensure that any condition I impose accords with the Framework which sets out that they should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

As the development has commenced it is not necessary to impose a standard commencement condition. For the avoidance of doubt, it is necessary to ensure development is carried out in accordance with the appeal plans although in accordance with normal practice it is not necessary to refer to all the submitted documents although where relevant I will refer to individual documents.

Given the importance of retaining what is left of the original building and in the interests of the character and appearance of the area it is necessary to ensure the development is constructed of appropriate materials. In the interests of highway safety and to ensure appropriate parking and manoeuvring arrangements are secured and cycle storage is provided it is necessary to impose suitably worded conditions. However, it is not necessary to impose a condition in relation to electric vehicle charging infrastructure as this is adequately covered by building regulations.

To ensure that appropriate refuse collection facilities are provided it is necessary to impose a condition. In the interests of sustainability, it is necessary to impose a condition in relation to sustainable water use. It is also necessary to impose a condition to ensure foul sewage is appropriately dealt with.

To ensure protected species are not harmed it is necessary to impose a condition to ensure development is undertaken in accordance with the recommendations included in the [name]. To ensure any risk of contamination is appropriately addressed it is reasonable to impose a condition that is proportionate to the scale of the development.

Finally, given the characteristics of the appeal site and its position relative to neighbouring buildings it is reasonable to restrict certain permitted development rights

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: Proposed elevations of larger barn dated February 2020; Proposed ground and first floor plans dated February 2020; PW1376_P10 dated 12/12/2024; PW1376_P11 dated 12/6/2025; and PW1376_P12 dated 12/6/2025.

No further development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the superstructure including the beams, rafters, wall plates and roof ridge and the external surfaces of the dwelling hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted the areas within the site shown on drawing no PW1376_P12 for the purposes of loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles shall be provided and shall be retained for those purposes thereafter.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted details of secure cycle storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted and shall be retained for those purposes thereafter.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted the vehicular access onto the highway shall be properly surfaced with a bound material for a minimum distance of 5 metres from the edge of the metalled carriageway in accordance with details that shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted details of refuse and recycling storage and collection facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted and shall be retained for those purposes thereafter.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, measures shall be implemented to ensure the consumption of wholesome water by persons occupying the dwelling must not exceed 110 litres per person per day.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted works for the disposal of foul sewage shall be provided which shall be connected to the mains sewer.

The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations contained in section 5 and the enhancement measures contained in section 6 of the [name] prepared by Liz [name] dated 29 June 2025.

Any contamination that is found while undertaking any works associated with the development hereby permitted shall be reported immediately to the local planning authority. In addition, development of the site shall be suspended until a risk assessment has been carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found, the development shall not resume or continue until remediation and verification schemes have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by virtue of [name] of Part 1 and [name] of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be undertaken.