Appeal 6004847

The appeal is dismissed.

In the interests of accuracy and precision, I have used the Council’s description of development in the header above.

Both parties have confirmed that the plans upon which my decision should be based, are drawing references 189/PL01/R1 and 189/LP02/R2.

A Planning Obligation has been submitted during the appeal. This is a matter I return to later in my decision.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal can be adequately secured as a self-build/custom-build dwelling; and • whether the barn in a countryside location is suitable for conversion to a dwelling, having particular regard to the extent of the proposed addition and its accessibility to local services and amenities.

Under the statutory framework for biodiversity net gain (BNG) in Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the 1990 Act), unless exempted, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the biodiversity gain objective is met.

The application form states that the proposal would be for a self-build or custom-build dwelling. This is one of the exemptions set out in the [name] (Exemptions) Regulations 2024 (the Regulations). However, the Regulations also provide that "self-build or custom housebuilding" has the same meaning as in section 1(A1) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015. In order for the proposed dwelling to benefit from the exemption, it would be necessary to ensure compliance with that definition.

Both parties agree that this is a matter that should be secured by a Planning Obligation. To this end, a [name] has been advanced during this appeal. The document has been signed, dated and witnessed and has details of land title alongside it, but does not include a title plan edged red within it. As it utilises a template designed to capture a range of scenarios, superfluous wording has not been deleted. For example, reference to mortgagees remains when there are none and reserved matters when that does not apply here. Crucially however, it references the incorrect planning application reference number on two occasions, which further undermines the reliability and effectiveness of the obligation. Consequently, I cannot be satisfied that the [name] would secure the dwelling as a self-build/custom build dwelling.

The Planning Practice Guidance1 advises that BNG will often be a material consideration, and it should be considered, where relevant, whether the biodiversity gain condition is capable of being discharged successfully. Indeed, there are minimum national information requirements in relation to BNG which applicants must provide. As the applicant sought exemption, this information has not been provided. I therefore could not be satisfied that were the proposal to be brought forward as a market dwelling, it would be capable of complying with the biodiversity gain condition.

Bringing the above together, I find that the proposal would not adequately secure the development as a self-build or custom-build dwelling. Consequently, the application fails to demonstrate that it would be exempt development. It follows that as a market dwelling, the proposal would not include the minimum biodiversity net gain information. In those circumstances, I cannot be certain that the biodiversity gain condition could be met.

This would conflict with the statutory requirements in Schedule 7A of the 1990 Act, which requires BNG of at least 10%, and would be inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which sets out the policy context for the statutory biodiversity gain condition and the need for decisions to contribute and enhance the natural and local environment.

The Council’s spatial strategy is set out in Policy LP3 of the Fenland Local Plan 2014 (LP). This focuses the majority of growth towards ‘[name] which sit at the top of its six-tier settlement hierarchy. ‘[name] are second in the hierarchy, and the policy names [site address] as one such village. For these settlements, development of a limited scale, either within the existing urban area, or as a small village extension, is deemed appropriate.

Although located within the parish of [site address] , it is common ground that the appeal site lies away from the settlement, in the open countryside. Consequently, LP Policy 12, which deals with development in rural areas, applies. 1 Biodiversity net gain Paragraph: 002 [name]: 74-002-20240214

The appeal proposal seeks to convert one of the two single storey barns on site and extend it to the south, following the demolition of the other modern steel framed barn. As such, [name] of LP Policy 12 is relevant. This relates to the re-use and conversion of rural buildings outside of, or not adjacent to settlements. This is supportive of such proposals subject to meeting four set criteria noted as (a) to (d).

It is common ground that the building is of sufficient architectural and historic merit to warrant its retention and that the building is capable of conversion as demonstrated by a structural survey, thus meeting criteria (a) and (d). Criterion (b), which requires justification as to the change of use, is also not in dispute between the parties. This leaves criterion (c) for consideration, which requires the building to be capable of conversion with minimal alteration, including inappropriate new openings and additional features.

Scale and subservience are not expressly referenced in criterion (c). However, the policy could reasonably be read as indicating that additional features could include extensions, and that the expectation is that they should be minimal and should not be inappropriate.

The barn to be retained is a simple brick-built structure with gable ends and a pitched roof under a timber cut roof, with sliding doors fronting [site address] . The plans show this would be extended with a one-and-a-half storey side extension in place of a steel framed barn with monopitch roof. Whilst the extension proposed is larger than what could reasonably be considered a minimal addition, I am mindful that, following the necessary demolition, the overall footprint of the built form would still marginally reduce as a result of the development. I regard this as an important material consideration.

Although taller than the retained building, the extension would sit back into the site, reducing its impact on the wider area. It would also be sympathetic to the existing building and locality, a matter the Council accept. As such the stance that the extension is dominant is difficult to reconcile with this agreed position. The extension would have no more of a harmful effect than the existing steel framed barn, which extends further to the south and it would not be significantly taller. Therefore, although there is minor conflict with Policy LP12 insofar as the extension is not a minimal feature, it would not be inappropriate. When considered as a whole, the extension would not cause material harm to the barn. Thus, I afford this policy conflict limited weight.

The Council cite conflict with [name] LP2, LP15 and LP16 insofar as the proposed dwelling would have limited opportunities for sustainable modes of travel. Amongst other things these policies seek to direct homes to the right locations, aim to reduce the need to travel, but where it is necessary, to minimise the travel distance needed and increase options available to undertake them and prioritise the needs of pedestrians and cyclists.

Flanked by two residential properties, the appeal site is not isolated. Although located in the countryside, the southern edge of [site address] is located around 1.1km away. Whilst this distance is not substantial, located on a narrow, rural country lane lacking in pedestrian facilities, occupiers of the proposed dwelling would likely be deterred from making trips to access its services and facilities on foot and by cycle. Consequently, access to local services and amenities would be predominantly by private car.

However, there is inevitable tension between the competing policies given the rural location and the objective of reusing existing buildings. In balancing these, I give [name] LP2, LP15 and LP16 less weight in this instance because Policy LP12 is permissive of conversions as an exception. This approach is not at odds with the Framework which promotes the reuse of existing resources including the conversion of existing buildings. It also recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and that this should be taken into account.

Consequently, I find that the barn in a countryside location is suitable for conversion to a dwelling. Despite the limited conflict identified with LP Policy 12 (B) (c) in that the extension cannot be described as minimal, it is not harmful. Taking account of the barn to be demolished, the scheme would improve the overall visual appearance of the site. Moreover, as conversions are an accepted exception to the more general countryside housing policies, I afford the reuse of the building greater weight.

The proposal would boost the supply of homes in the district, adding an additional dwelling to its housing stock, albeit this benefit is tempered by the modest scale of the development. The proposal would also bring about economic benefits during construction and once operational, and would enhance the appearance of the site overall. I attach these benefits moderate positive weight.

I have found that the conflict with the development plan policies arising from the proposals location is limited owing to the lack of harm arising from the conversion including its extension.

However, as the self-build/custom build element is not adequately secured, it risks the proposal coming forward as a market dwelling where the minimum BNG information is not provided. As such, I cannot be certain that the statutory biodiversity gain condition could be met. In my judgement, this conflict with the Act and the Framework, as important material considerations, weighs more heavily than the benefits of the scheme.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.