Appeal 6004300

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the Bradiford Valley Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

The appeal site lies within the SSSI. Natural England (NE) has advised that the ‘SSSI is designated for its mosaic of high-quality habitats, which together support distinctive assemblages of species and ecological processes. Its value lies in both its habitat diversity and the integrity and connectivity of those habitats, making the site particularly sensitive to ecological disturbance.’ NE further advises that the SSSI is ‘an ecological system dependent on low-disturbance management regimes. The SSSI’s location within the Bradiford catchment means it plays a key role in water quality, hydrological naturalness, and habitat continuity—all of which are susceptible to degradation from incremental development.’

The [site address] [name] submitted in support of the application states that ‘The 23.61ha SSSI is designated for its ancient sessile oak woodland and associated breeding birds. Additional habitats are provided by an old mill leat, pond, stream, and several meadows ([name]). The SSSI is 67% favourable and 33% unfavourable – declining’.

As a result of the above, the site lies in a sensitive habitat susceptible to change.

Paragraph 193 of The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that development that is likely to have an adverse effect on land within a SSSI should not normally be permitted. This requires consideration of the effect of the development on its own as well as in combination with other developments. It confirms that the only exception to this is where the benefits of the development clearly outweigh its impact on the features that make the site of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national SSSI network. This wording is reflected within Policy DM08 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011- 2031 October 2018 (LP).

I have had regard to the baseline condition of the site comprising an existing, permanent building that has been present for decades with associated agricultural use and use for up to ten horses. I have also had regard to the footprint of the barn not comprising functioning SSSI habitat, and to the appellants commitment to the conservation and enhancement of the SSSI including through improvements to ditches, planting, habitat connectivity, bee hives and bird boxes. However, and although no extensions to the building are proposed, the development also comprises the provision of a small domestic garden, would include the introduction of lighting and domestic activity and paraphernalia.

Even if the residential use were low intensity with limited external lighting and removal of the proposed skylights, given that I observed a lack of lighting at the time of my site visit, and by reason of a residential use being more intensive by allowing occupation by a number of people with likely increased on-site presence, and increased comings and goings, the proposal would increase lighting levels at the site and general activity that would extend beyond the building. Furthermore, even if the barn were used as 10 stables, any activity would be limited in extent and mainly comprise daytime activities and would not extend uses on the site significantly beyond the building further into the SSSI. Moreover, I have little substantive evidence before me demonstrating that the environmental impact from stabling and managing ten horses would exceed that of a residential use.

By reason of this, residential development in the form of continuous activity, lighting, garden use resulting in loss of permanent habitat and risk of non-native species entering the SSSI, comings and goings, noise, pets and associated paraphernalia, would be incompatible with a sensitive habitat susceptible to change

I acknowledge that the appellant advises that the building is degraded and will degrade further in the future, but I have little substantive evidence before me in this regard. In any case, this would not outweigh the harm identified above.

I also acknowledge that the proposal would include some ecological enhancements, including the introduction of a [name], wildflower meadow, native hedgerow and tree planting and native shrub planting. I further note that the [site address] [name] states that this would represent an enhancement and marked increase in habitat diversity within the site, strengthen habitat corridors and provide an increase in the overall biodiversity of the Site. Even if this is the case, it would not address or prevent impacts on the SSSI from increased activity, lighting, garden use resulting in loss of permanent habitat and risk of non-native species entering the SSSI, comings and goings, noise, pets and associated paraphernalia. As such, I do not find that the ecological enhancements would outweigh harm from the introduction of a residential use.

The appellant has suggested a number of conditions to mitigate impacts on the SSSI including the removal of permitted development rights for extensions and further hardstandings, restriction of the garden area, no external lighting, services to use existing routes, contamination and submission of an ecological management statement restricting outside operations. However, and even with these conditions, the proposal would result in the loss of permanent habitat, increased levels of noise and activity, and would not prevent internal lighting, structures in the garden such as BBQ’s and swings that do not require planning permission, pets, and insensitive planting. As such, I do not find that conditions would mitigate the identified harm. Furthermore, while the Council have suggested conditions, this is standard practice in appeals and does not by itself demonstrate that the Council accept that the imposition of such conditions would overcome the harm it has identified.

Given the importance of the SSSI in terms of biodiversity, I do not accept that the benefits of the development clearly outweigh its impact and represents a sensitive use that would not degrade the SSSI. In taking account of NE’s advice, and in adopting a necessarily precautionary approach to this issue I conclude that it has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposal would avoid adverse effects on the SSSI. The SSSI is a nationally important ecological site, and for the reasons given I attach substantial weight to the harm to the SSSI.

In light of the above, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the SSSI. As such, it is contrary to [name] ST14, DM08 and DM27(e). Amongst other things, these seek to protect and enhance the quality of northern Devon’s natural environment, do not support development proposals within SSSI’s which would be likely to affect the designation adversely unless the benefits clearly outweigh any adverse impacts, and support the conversion of redundant and disused buildings where any nature conservation interest of the wider site is retained. Consequently, and as required by the Framework, I cannot ascertain that the benefits of the development would clearly outweigh its impact on the features that confer the site’s special interest.

While the proposal would re-use an existing building in a location close to some services and facilities, deliver a dwelling relatively quickly that would use renewable energy, together with associated economic benefits from construction spend and general spend from future occupiers, and some ecological enhancements, due to the small scale of the development, I attach only limited weight to the proposal and its associated benefits.

[name] acknowledge the appellant’s sensitive ecological stewardship of the site, and possibility that this may end if planning permission is not forthcoming, this does not outweigh the harm identified above. Moreover, I give this limited weight as I cannot be sure that sensitive stewardship would continue under different ownership in the future or that such stewardship would cease if permission were not granted. As such, I find that these matters outweigh the impact from the development on the features that make the site of special interest, and any broader impacts on the national SSSI network.

I have had regard to the presence of a chicken enclosure and residential paraphernalia including a bouncy castle within an adjacent garden, and to the felling of trees and introduction of non-native species. I also note the presence and condition of nearby public footpaths regularly used by walkers including dog walkers. Nonetheless, the proposal would add to activity and harm to the SSSI and the presence of existing activity does not justify further activity and harm. Furthermore, I do not have substantive evidence before me demonstrating that the chicken enclosure, residential paraphernalia and tree felling required planning permission and it is the possible introduction of such items on the appeal site that would further harm the SSSI. I therefore give this very little weight.

The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. This would normally mean that Paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged. However, because the application of policies in the Framework as far as they protect designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest provide a strong reason for refusing the proposal, it does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the Framework.

My attention has been drawn to comments regarding private access rights and water supply but given that I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, these matters are not determinative in relation to this appeal.

I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole, and there are no other considerations, including the Framework, that outweigh that harm. The appeal is therefore dismissed.