Appeal 6004262

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the appeal site would be a suitable location for the proposal, having specific consideration of the spatial strategy, the need for the retention of the building in employment or community use, and accessibility.

The Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan (2023) (JLP) seeks to direct most development towards existing settlements where it can be sustainably located and in the interests of recognising the intrinsic character of the countryside. Consequently, there is a general presumption against development outside of settlement boundaries. Within this context, JLP Policy SP03 provides some flexibility. It sets out several exceptions, which include development that would be in accordance with one of the policies listed in Table 5.

One such policy is JLP Policy LP10 that relates to a change from employment use, such as a workshop for a farrier or blacksmith, as is proposed here. Part 2 of the policy confirms that proposals which would lead to the full or partial loss of employment sites or premises will be required to demonstrate compliance with criteria a) and b). There is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the possibility of re-using or redeveloping the land for other employment or community uses has been explored to any meaningful degree. Criteria a) specifically requires a period of sustained marketing to have been undertaken, which is an accepted way of demonstrating that the loss of an employment use would not be harmful to choice and supply. The appellant asserts that appeal decisions support their case for significant flexibility and proportionality in such marketing exercises. However, no specific details have been provided, and in any case the policy includes some flexibility in the scope of such an exercise. Furthermore, it is acknowledged that the appeal site is detached from other employment uses. However, this does not mean that it is invaluable to rural enterprises. The proposal therefore fails to comply with criteria a), and it is not necessary to consider the proposal against criteria b) as both need to be met to satisfy the requirements of JLP Policy LP10.

Table 5 also references Part 2 of JLP Policy LP04, which encompasses the wording in the exception to the avoidance of isolated homes in the countryside at Part c) of Paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The building is in active use, with the large expanse on the ground floor being used for a combination of storage and workshop space, regardless of whether it is currently being used by a farrier or blacksmith. Furthermore, as articulated above, there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that there is a lack of need for the building as an alternative employment or community use. Therefore, there is an absence of compelling evidence to demonstrate that the building is either redundant or disused. Given that the proposal fails to comply with this requirement of Part 2 of Policy LP04, there is no need to consider the other conditions given that they should all be met.

Another of the JLP policies listed in Table 5 is Policy LP09. However, this policy relates to the change of use of buildings to small scale employment within a residential curtilage, which is not relevant to this case.

The proposal would introduce isolated homes in the countryside. Although the two dwellings would be adjacent to one another, they would be a substantial distance from the nearest settlement and physically separated by other land from the dwelling on the opposite side of [site address] . Furthermore, the appeal site is located approximately 5km from the nearest local services and facilities and is not safely accessible on foot due to the absence of footpaths along this part of [site address] . Thus, residents would be almost entirely reliant on the private car as a mode of transport.

For the above reasons, the appeal site would not be an appropriate location for the proposal, having specific consideration of the spatial strategy, the need for the retention of the building in employment or community use, and accessibility. Consequently, it would be contrary to [name] SP03, LP10 and LP04.

The proposal would make efficient use of an existing building, would contribute to housing supply and would retain embodied carbon. There are also some economic benefits, such as employment and supply chain spend during conversion and resident spend locally once occupied. However, these benefits are limited given the small scale of the proposal and do not outweigh the harm identified above. Furthermore, no harm has been identified relating to various other matters. However, this does not weigh in favour of the proposal but is neutral in the planning balance.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan, and material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Thus, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR