Appeal 6003002

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted to replace a redundant building with a dwelling, at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01547/PIP.

The appeal proposal is for permission in principle. This consent route has two stages. This first stage establishes whether a site is suitable in principle, with the scope of the considerations limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. The second stage, the technical details consent, is where the detailed development proposals are assessed. The Planning Practice Guidance1 also makes clear that it is not possible to impose conditions on a permission in principle. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable in principle for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development.

The appeal site is located on [site address] , which extends westward from the A1 dual carriageway that separates it from the main built-up area of Buckden. The lane contains a sporadic amount of development, mainly to its southern side, including a number of dwellings, agricultural and industrial uses and equestrian facilities. The appeal site is a paddock associated with the adjacent [name] facility containing stables, a manège and other equestrian facilities. Set centrally within the site is a single storey structure with timber framing and sheet cladding, understood to be a shelter and storage area. The proposal would replace this structure with a single dwelling. 1 Paragraph: 020 [name]: 58-[phone]

The Council’s reasons for refusal focus on the location of the appeal site and its suitability for housing. The immediate surroundings of the appeal site appear rural in character, with large, open fields between the built form. Although there is a clustering of development around [address], this is itself separated from Buckden by the A1, and its further detached from the appeal site by a couple of hundred metres. I find that the site most closely resembles ‘isolated properties or areas of ribbon and fragmented development which are physically and visually detached from the main built form,’ a pattern of development specifically excluded from the definition of ‘built-up area’ in Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2016 (May

(the HLP). As such, the site lies in the countryside for planning purposes. This also distinguishes the site from an appeal referred to me at 38 Hardwick Lane2 where the site was found to be part of the built-up area.

The relevant policy asserted by the Council is LP33, which supports conversion or replacement of rural buildings where specific criteria are met. Where replacement is proposed, the existing building must be i) redundant or disused, ii) of permanent and substantial construction, and iii) not in such a state of dereliction or disrepair that significant reconstruction would be required. The fourth criterion – that the building is structurally capable of being converted for the proposed use – does not need to be demonstrated in the case of replacement, only conversion.

It is a matter of common ground that the shelter building can be considered redundant and disused, satisfying the first criterion. The principle areas of disagreement between the parties are whether the existing building on the site is of permanent and substantial construction, as required by criterion (ii), and whether it is in such a state of dereliction or disrepair that significant reconstruction would be required (criterion (iii)) The HLP does not define any of these terms for the purpose of the policy, and as such it is a matter of planning judgment.

The evidence before me is that a field shelter was granted planning permission in 1987, and aerial photographs show a structure in situ for at least 26 years. On this basis, I consider the structure is permanent.

In terms of its construction, the evidence includes commentary from a structural engineer following a visual inspection which notes the timber framed wall and roof structures, concrete slab and profiled sheeting. I saw these for myself on site, though I noted a number of timbers bowing and splitting in places or not standing plumb. I accept the structure is substantial in its construction, given it has stood for as long as it has, but it has evidently deteriorated over time.

The other consideration is whether significant reconstruction would be required. In this respect, I am not persuaded by the appellant’s evidence. The combination of weathering, bowing and leaning of timbers casts doubt on whether the existing timber structure could be incorporated into a new building without significant replacement or reconstruction. Moreover, the profiled sheeting is laid out in a haphazard manner with signs of deterioration, which if requiring replacement would reduce the structure to no more than a skeletal frame. On this basis, I find that the existing structure would require significant reconstruction and so would not accord with criterion (a)(iii) of Policy LP33. 2 APP/H0520/W/22/3295883

I have had regard to an appeal decision3 referenced by the main parties. The assessment of whether a building meets the criteria of Policy LP33 is ultimately one of judgment based on the particular circumstances of each case. As such, whilst noting the condition of the building in the referred appeal, and the Inspector’s judgment, I have considered the proposal before me on its own merits.

Given the above, there would not be policy support under Policy LP33 for a replacement dwelling on the site. By extension, there would be conflict with Policy LP10, which supports development in the countryside where provided for by other policies of the HLP.

The Council further argues that the location would fail to provide safe and convenient access to the site for pedestrians. The site is located around 450m from the junction with the A1 along what is a straight, flat and lightly trafficked lane, albeit one that is not lit by street lights. Pedestrians wishing to reach the centre of Buckden could do so via an underpass a short distance to the north, where there is also a bus stop. However, to reach these would require pedestrians to walk alongside the A1 dual carriageway on a narrow footway with no barrier separation from traffic and where a 50mph speed limit is in operation. These are unsuitable, hazardous conditions which are not conducive to encouraging walking, particularly for those less physically able or families with pushchairs and/or small children.

That said, it is to be expected that dwellings in rural locations would have a car, and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. In this case, a single dwelling would generate a limited amount of additional car travel, which would be no different in nature to that generated by existing dwellings on [site address] . I also saw that there is a longer but safer route between the appeal site and the underpass/bus stop via [address] which pedestrians and cyclists could use. Given this, I find the location of the site would not result in local facilities in Buckden being wholly inaccessible by pedestrians and/or cyclists. Therefore, I do not find conflict with Policies LP2 or LP8 of the HLP in terms of their aims to concentrate development in locations well-related to built-up areas with the most comprehensive range of services and facilities.

The Council assessed the potential residential use of the site in respect of flood risk, effects on neighbours’ living conditions and did not identify any in harm in principle in these respects. I saw on site that the plot is sufficiently sized to enable adequate separation distances from the nearest buildings that would ensure concerns over privacy and/or overshadowing would not arise. There are some industrial and agricultural uses on [site address] , but also existing residential uses, and as such a further residential use would not be incompatible in principle.

The Council has not identified any fundamental ecological constraints to the development of the site, which I saw to be an open paddock laid to grass. I see no reason to disagree with this conclusion.

The Council has not opposed the amount of development, which is limited to a single dwelling. The spaciousness of the site would enable a development of comparable density to neighbours and allow for sufficient landscaping to integrate 3 APP/H0520/W/24/3354715 with the rural surroundings. Detailed design would be a matter for the technical details stage, but given the diverse range of building forms and materials in immediate surroundings, there is no in principle reason why a dwelling of suitable design could not be achieved on the site. No highway safety concern has been raised in terms of potential access, and I saw nothing to suggest otherwise on site.

For the reasons set out, the proposal would conflict with development plan Policies LP10 and LP33 in terms of locating development in the countryside. However, I have found that the site would not cause demonstrable harm in terms of its accessibility to local services, and it would not be unacceptable in principle in terms of its land use or the amount of development proposed.

The Council accepts that it is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, with supply stated to be 3.88 years. In this scenario, per Footnote 8 of the Framework, policies which are most important for determining the application, including Policies LP10 and LP33 in this case, are deemed to be out-of-date, and Paragraph 11(d) is engaged. I have not identified strong reasons to refuse the proposal under 11(d)(i). Therefore, it is 11(d)(ii) which is relevant. This states 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 taken as a whole, having regard to specified key policies.

Although the site is in the countryside and would conflict with policies for replacement buildings, the harm arising from this is minor, given the proposal would replace a longstanding structure and its location is not so detached from the built-up area as to render local services inaccessible to pedestrians and cyclists.

Set against this, the proposal would make effective use of land; it is capable of improving the appearance of the site to secure well-designed places and it would provide an additional dwelling supporting the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes. It would also deliver modest economic gains for the local area.

Overall, I find that the adverse effects of the proposal would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in this case, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Pursuant to Paragraph 11, the presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore applies and points towards permitting the proposal.

In the final balance, significant material considerations in this case, in particular the Framework, outweigh the identified conflict with Policies LP10 and LP33, and so justify a determination other than in accordance with the development plan.

Therefore, the appeal should be allowed and permission in principle granted.