Appeal 6003656

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from granny annexe to self-catering holiday let at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/0371, subject to conditions in the attached schedule.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location, in particular regard to proximity to services and facilities, accessibility via a range of travel modes and, identified areas for tourism development.

The appeal site is a detached permanent and substantial building in the open countryside, within the Green Belt. It has previously been used as a one-bedroom granny annexe, although is no longer occupied and needed for such purposes. There is an existing access, parking and garden space serving the appeal site, shared with [site address] . No external alterations are proposed to the building or its surrounding area. Therefore, the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the appeal building or its surrounding and so, would respect the character of the open countryside. Furthermore, as undisputed by the main parties, the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and it would not cause harm to its character or openness.

In rural areas, including within the Green Belt, Policy SS 10 of the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan (2020) (SMLP) only allows development which has an essential need to be located in the countryside, supports rural diversification and sustainability of the rural areas, promotes sustainable tourism, or enhances the countryside. To achieve this, Part 5 of the policy sets out, amongst other matters, that the rural economy is sustained by enhancing tourist opportunities by allowing for small-scale tourism developments in areas beyond the Churnet Valley, in accordance with Policy E 4 of the SMLP. Therefore, the policy does not preclude small-scale tourist development outside of the Churnet Valley area.

Even though the appeal site is not within a settlement, it is not that far from settlements where local services, facilities and public transport are available. This includes the suburbs of Stoke-on-Trent, such as [name], with bus services to Hanley City Centre, and [name] which has a railway station. There are also other facilities and services within these suburb areas and within Caverswall; which has a village store and public houses. Additionally, there are some tourist attractions in relatively close proximity to the appeal site, including [name] and Park Hall Country Park, as well as other tourist attractions within wider parts of Stoke, that are further away.

The routes to the nearest bus and rail services are via national speed limit country lanes, which do not have designated footways or lighting. Therefore, visitors to the proposed holiday let would unlikely walk to access public transport, particular at nighttime and during inclement weather. Also, although, there are designated public footpaths within the general local area, it is not shown that these would directly connect to bus and rail links. However, the relatively flat country lanes would be suitable for cycle use and there are services and facilities within reasonable cycle distance from the appeal site. Therefore, visitors to the holiday-let would not be wholly reliant on a car.

In view of the above, the proposal would offer a range of possible modes of transport, albeit limited and, the appeal site is relatively close to settlements where some local services, facilities and public transport are available. Therefore, while the proposed holiday let accommodation would not have particularly good connectivity with all tourist destinations and amenities, particularly via walking, it would comply with part 1 B) of Policy E4 of the SMLP.

The appeal proposal would provide an additional tourist facility that would help support the local rural economy and complement the distinctive character and quality of this part of the District. One of the aims of the Council’s Tourism Strategy is to expand, improve and encourage the development of accommodation to attract visitors to stay overnight and keep their spending in the local areas, rather than losing to neighbouring regions. Even if the appeal site is closer to visitor attractions outside the District, the proposal would still likely generate visitor spend and economic benefits to the [name] economy, through income from the accommodation itself and use of nearby local facilities and services within the District, such as public houses.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), supports sustainable rural tourism developments that respect the character of the countryside, and sets out at paragraph 89 that policies and decisions should recognise that sites to meet local business and community needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport. Also, the Framework supports the re-use of rural buildings and creation of additional visitor accommodation.

The number of vehicular trips associated with a one-bedroom holiday let, which would likely be occupied for approximately 70% of the time, would potentially be no greater than, and possibly less than, those associated with the approved granny annexe. The granny annexe could be occupied on a permanent basis with residents owning and using a separate private vehicle, thereby generating additional trips to local services and facilities, despite its ancillary relationship with [site address] . Furthermore, the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal and, no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would harm highway safety or the flow of traffic on surrounding roads. Consequently, when compared to the existing permitted use of the appeal building, the proposal would not represent a less sustainable or more harmful form of development in terms of its location, accessibility to public transport, or traffic generation from private motor vehicles.

Therefore, although the proposal would not exploit opportunities to make the location more sustainable, it would help support a prosperous rural economy and represent and appropriate form of rural diversification, while respecting the character of the countryside and avoiding any unacceptable impact on local roads. Consequently, these considerations justify the rural location of the proposal. Furthermore, the evidence provided shows there is an identified need for additional visitor accommodation within the District, which the proposal would help to address.

In view of the above, the proposed development would be in a suitable location, in particular regard to proximity to services and facilities, accessibility via a range of travel modes and identified areas for tourism development. Therefore, there would be no conflict with Policy E 4 of the SMLP and, the proposal would allow for small-scale tourism development, enhancing tourist opportunities, in accordance with Policy SS 10 of the SMLP.

The appellant has had opportunity to comment on conditions suggested by the Council. Having regard to the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance and the Framework, in the interests of certainty, conditions are needed to clarify the approved plans and the timescale for commencing the development. In addition, it would be necessary to restrict the use of the appeal building to holiday-let accommodation only, as applied for, so it is not occupied as a separate dwellinghouse. Although, I have amended the wording suggested by the Council to be more precise and enforceable, including that it cannot be occupied by the same person/s for an extended period.

However, the holiday-let accommodation itself would not benefit from any permitted development rights to alter the building under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, as it would not be part of a dwellinghouse for the purposes of Part 1 of Schedule 2. Furthermore, as the appeal site includes the garden, access, and house at The Twigg1, in imposing the condition recommended by the Council, it would remove permitted development rights for certain alterations to the existing house and other buildings incidental to the enjoyment of it. Consequently, this would not meet the tests of reasonableness or necessity and so, I have not included such.

For the reasons given above, the appeal would accord with the development plan read as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate otherwise. Accordingly, the appeal should be allowed. [planning inspector] [name] overleaf for Schedule of Conditions 1 As shown on the Location Plan.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings: Location Plan ([name] plan to scale of 1:1250), Site Plan (ReQuestaPlan, date produced 04 Aug 2025) and Existing and [name] no changes (Drg no 1621/02).

The development hereby permitted shall be occupied as holiday accommodation only and shall not be occupied as a sole or main place of residence or by any persons exceeding a period of 56 days in any 12 month period. An up-to-date register shall be kept and be made available for inspection by the local planning authority upon request. The register shall contain details of the names of all of the occupiers of the accommodation, their main home addresses and their date of arrival and departure from the accommodation. End of Schedule