Appeal 6003415

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • Whether the development would be acceptable at this site, having regard to locational policy, and if conflict is found, whether personal circumstances outweigh this policy conflict; and • The effect of the proposal on the character of the appeal property.

The appeal property comprises a very large plot that hosts an extended detached bungalow. There are other built forms, including a timber cabin, close to this dwellinghouse.

Rockhampton has a scattered pattern of development without a distinct core. However, key features, including the church, village hall and common provide a focus where built forms appear loosely clustered. Located some distance along [site address] , while the church can be seen from the appeal property, [site address] is nevertheless surrounded by relatively undeveloped fields. Therefore, the appeal property appears part of the sporadic and sparse development that characterises the open countryside that surrounds the settlement.

The proposal is for a building that would be separate of the main dwellinghouse. The submitted drawings show that this would be a sizeable addition to the property, with a footprint not dissimilar to that of the existing dwelling.

The ground floor drawings indicate living accommodation that has features that would make the building suitable for independent living. The supporting evidence states that the new accommodation is intended exclusively for use by the immediate family for the care of a relative, with disabilities, residing in the existing house. However, the description of development, for which permission is being sought, does not clearly state that the building would be used part and parcel with the main dwellinghouse at the appeal property.

There is a single access and driveway to the property, and the drawings show that the new building would be connected to this by a footpath. No boundary treatment is shown, such that future occupants of the building would share not only the access/driveway but also the garden.

That said, while the building would be located to the rear of the dwellinghouse, the pedestrian connection to the site access would be direct, but the drawings show no clear physical link to the main dwelling. Indeed, the new building would be several metres separate of that existing house. Proposed as additional living space for carers of the existing resident, who requires care on a 24 hr basis, it is unclear why this additional accommodation should be located some distance from where the individual requiring constant care resides.

It is stated that the amount of accommodation proposed is necessary to house multiple family carers. Although this may account for the number of bedrooms proposed, this new building would also have a substantial living room with space for dining and a kitchen, two bathrooms, a further toilet, enclosed porch and utility room.

Such a building would be capable of supporting a separate household. Although the stated intent is that this would be used by family members of the appellant, circumstances change, and I must consider the development over its lifetime. With the features in the building, as described above, the need for future occupants to share facilities or living activities with those residing in the main house, could be minimal under this scheme. The resultant building would not necessarily function as part of the living space of the existing dwellinghouse or be an integral part of that single planning unit. As a matter of fact and degree, a subdivision of the existing unit could occur as a consequence of permitting this development.

Policy CS5 of the [site address] Local Plan: [name] ([name]) guides the location of development in the district. Limb 5 c) of this Policy states that in villages and other settlements without boundaries, development will be strictly controlled, but small scale development within or well related to settlements may come forward through Neighbourhood Planning initiatives and rural housing exception site policy.

The single building would be considered small scale development. However, for the reasons set out, this development would not be in the settlement of Rockhampton, and given the property’s location along a narrow lane, nor would it be well related to that settlement in my opinion. Moreover, the proposal does not appear to satisfy the other requirements specified in this limb of the local Policy. Given the site circumstances, the property is in open countryside, where this Policy states new development will be strictly limited.

Policy PSP 38 of the [site address] Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (PSPP) sets out criteria to guide development in residential curtilages. For urban areas and rural settlements with defined settlement boundaries this includes extensions and new dwellings. However, elsewhere, the criteria should be applied to residential extensions. Given the factors outlined above, it is uncertain whether this proposed development would comprise a residential extension. Furthermore, this Policy does not provide support for other forms of development in residential curtilage where the site, as is the case here, is outside a settlement.

The appellant states that the plot could not be subdivided due to site constraints. However, constraints that may restrict the boundary treatment around the new building appear generally limited to overhead cables. The installation of a garden fence would unlikely interfere with those existing features.

It is highlighted that it is not possible to create a new access at the site. On this basis the suggested condition preventing the creation of autonomous access would be unnecessary and would not likely satisfy the six tests for conditions. In any event, shared access is not an uncommon arrangement in residential developments that comprise more than one planning unit.

Conditions are also suggested to restricts the separate sale or postal code. However, these are matters outside planning such that these conditions may not meet national tests.

Planning permission would likely be required for additional living space to be used as a separate dwelling where it has been approved previously as part and parcel of a single planning unit. A condition on this matter should not therefore be necessary. In this case, however, for the reasons stated, it is not clear that the proposed building would form an integral part of the existing single residential planning unit at this property, and a condition on this matter would not address my concerns.

As already stated, this scheme is proposed to support a person with disabilities, living at [address]. Disability is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. Section 149 of the Act sets out three aims: eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act; advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and...do not share; and, foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

Addressing this public sector equality duty, the appeal property is a sizeable bungalow, and its current extended form appears capable of accommodating a large family with ease. Moreover, there is plenty of space immediately around the existing dwelling for future extensions. Also, the site history shows permission for a timber cabin, and I saw that the cabin on the site appeared well maintained and habitable, such that this is already providing additional living accommodation.

Even taking account of the around the clock care necessary due to the severity of the disability, the evidence indicates that there is just one person with disabilities at the property. Also, there is considerable living accommodation already on the site that seems capable of accommodating this individual and some other family members. If more space is required, there is also the potential to extend the existing living accommodation in the terms that finds support in Policy PSP38 of the PSPP.

In light of these factors, I am unpersuaded that carers could only be accommodated in the sizeable building proposed in this case. There are options open to the appellant to address this need without conflict with local locational policy occurring. I will return to the public sector equality duty in my conclusion.

Accordingly, I find that the development would be unacceptable at this site, having regard to locational policy. In this respect the proposal would fail to accord with Policy CS5 of the [name].

Existing built form in this area is a mix of historic and contemporary development. The pattern of this varies, as does the plot size of existing residential units comprising Rockhampton and its surrounds. There is very little consistency, and the character is therefore mixed. Any coherency is mainly derived from the traditional style in the built forms.

As already indicated, the appeal property is separated from the developed areas that comprise the settlement of Rockhampton. As such, changes in the large appeal plot would have very little visual impact on positive features of this settlement.

In terms of the effect on the site itself, the proposed building would be single storey, and a traditional domestic form. This design would be in keeping with the style of existing built forms on the site. Although it would be detached from the existing dwelling, set behind that built form, and confined by the existing high site boundary, visually the new structure would be seen in the context of existing development at the site. Also, much of the large garden would remain relatively undeveloped in this scheme. The proposed development would therefore not harmfully alter the prevailing character of the property.

I find that the proposal would not have a harmful visual effect on the character of the appeal property. In this respect the proposal would accord with Policy CS1 of the [name] and Policy PSP1 of the PSPP. [name] collectively, among other things, seek high quality design.

[name] have found that the proposal would not cause harm to character, there would be conflict with local locational policy under this scheme. The development would have a small effect on the local development strategy, in light of its scale. Nonetheless, the proposal would undermine the spatial hierarchy set out in the development plan. This erosion of the spatial strategy would lead to significant harm.

The proposal would result in some social benefits and there is some support for this in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). However, the small scale of this benefit would not outweigh the conflict with locational policy in my view.

For the factors stated previously, this development would not be the only means of addressing the needs of those with protected characteristics living at [address]. Having due regard to the three aims set out in s149 of the Equality Act, with other options open to the appellant, dismissing this appeal would not unreasonably impact on a person with protected characteristics, or disadvantage individuals such that this would result in unlawful discrimination. Any benefit related to the future function of the proposed building is very much reduced by this factor. The small benefits that would arise from this development would not outweigh the policy conflict and the resulting significant harm to the local spatial strategy in my judgement.

Planning law requires that applications be determined in accordance with the development plan. Material considerations do not indicate a decision otherwise in this case. For the reasons stated above and having regard to the development plan, and material considerations, including the Framework, the appeal should be dismissed.