Appeal 6005013

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission reference 18/01981/FUL (the 2018 permission) was granted for the erection of four detached holiday lets at the site, together with associated parking and landscaping. Subsequently, an application was made to vary some of the conditions of the 2018 permission, to change the design and size of the buildings on plots 1 and 2. This was approved resulting in another planning permission, reference 25/00184/S73A (the 2025 permission). Two of the holiday units, plots 3 and 4, have been built on site, but plots 1 and 2 have not been started.

The proposal before me seeks to vary some of the conditions on the 2025 permission. Condition 2 currently requires all units to be occupied as holiday accommodation. It is proposed that the unit on plot 1 would be unrestricted, and so could be occupied as a permanent dwelling. The wording of conditions 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 is proposed to be amended to remove reference to holiday use for plot 1, with the other units being unchanged. Similarly, some of the approved plans listed in condition 1 would be amended to reflect this change.

The description of the 2025 permission refers to all the units being holiday lets. Both the approved and proposed uses are within Use Class C3. As such, and having regard to case law1, it is common ground between the Council and the appellant that it is permissible to use a S73 application as proposed. I see little reason to disagree, and I shall determine the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is whether conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 continue to be reasonable and necessary in requiring the holiday use of plot 1, and whether their variation as proposed would conflict with the Council’s spatial strategy for development, including access to services and facilities.

Policies SS1 and SS2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (SSLP), adopted March 2015, provide the spatial strategy for the Local Plan area. Together, they make clear that development in the countryside is strictly controlled and is permitted in 1 Reid v SSLUHC [2022] EWHC 3116 (Admin) [name] only in limited circumstances. Policy TA1 and its supporting text seek to increase sustainable travel, while policy TA5 requires safe and convenient access on foot and cycle, as well as by public and private transport.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) recognises that opportunities for sustainable transport will vary between urban and rural areas. That said, at paragraph 84, the Framework seeks to avoid isolated homes in the countryside, and at paragraph 110 it seeks to actively manage patterns of growth to promote walking, cycling and public transport use.

The site lies adjacent to a tall railway embankment. There are rural uses and buildings nearby, as well as the built holiday lets and Southview itself. Another dwelling, [address], is close by. In granting planning permission2 for this property, its location was described by the Council as relatively isolated, and it was approved only as an agricultural worker’s dwelling. The nearest recognisable settlement is Upton, a hamlet. However, the appeal site is separated from the built form of Upton by countryside. Consequently, having regard to case law3, I conclude that the site is remote from any settlement, and so is isolated for the purposes of the Framework.

The appeal site is around 1.3 miles from [site address] village, which has a range of services and facilities. Access to the village requires the use of narrow, unlit country roads without pavements, and/or footpaths through fields. Traffic levels on the lanes may be low, and the Highway Authority found no increase in highway safety concerns. Even so, regular journeys on foot or by bicycle to the village would not be attractive, particularly for those of limited mobility, at night, or in inclement weather. Few details of local bus services have been provided. It follows that occupiers of plot 1 would be heavily reliant on private vehicles, including to access larger communities, such as Langport or Somerton.

The use of plot 1 for holiday purposes as already approved would generate some traffic movements to and from the site, such as from weekly guest changeovers. Non-holiday occupiers may become familiar with local walking and cycling routes and might support local businesses year-round. Against that, such permanent occupiers could well generate movements for example from deliveries, and health and education needs, which are less likely to be undertaken by visitors. On this basis, the levels of movements could well be greater as a result of the proposed full use, compared with the approved use.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would not provide convenient access on foot or by bicycle to services and facilities, and would be detrimental to sustainable travel. In failing to contribute to a cumulative reduction in carbon emissions and an improvement in air quality and public health, it would ultimately cause environmental harm.

Policy SS2 relates to [name], but I am not convinced that the site lies within a settlement. In any case, policy SS2 and its explanatory text are supportive of uses such as tourism in rural areas, because of their economic benefits, or for affordable or similar housing. The Framework also supports some sites for rural businesses beyond existing settlements, but generally seeks to avoid isolated 2 LPA reference 16/00431/FUL 3 Braintree District Council v SSCLG [2018] [name] 610 homes. For the reasons given, the proposal would conflict with these aims and with the spatial strategy for the area.

Planning permission was granted on appeal4 for three holiday units at [address]. That site is a similar distance from the village. The other Inspector found it to be not particularly accessible, but within the community of [site address] . Given the distance to the village, he found that regular use of the footway along the A372 would be unlikely. The Inspector also found that the short length of car journeys to [site address] and elsewhere were supportive of the proposal.

Even so, the tension between accessibility and the provision of tourist facilities was acknowledged. Other relevant factors identified by the Inspector included a greater likelihood that visitors would stay on site, and the wider economic benefits of holiday use. He concluded that the overall social and economic benefits of that proposal outweighed the harm caused, including in respect of its poor accessibility.

Subsequently, the Council has granted planning permission5 for all three units at [address] to be occupied on an unrestricted basis. Nevertheless, this site is close to the continuous, lit footway to the village, albeit requiring the crossing of the A372 initially. In contrast, the proposal before me is some distance from the footway, and is in a more remote, countryside location. As a result, even if the distances by car to Langport and Somerton for example would be similar, the proposal that I am considering would be in a less sustainable and more isolated location. As such, the Council’s decision at [address] does not set a precedent that I must follow.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 continue to be reasonable and necessary in requiring the holiday use of plot 1. Consequently, their proposed variation would not accord with the Council’s spatial strategy for development, including access to services and facilities. The proposal would therefore conflict with SSLP policies SS1, SS2, TA1 and TA5. I give this harm and conflict substantial weight in the planning balance. However, I find no conflict with SSLP policy EQ2, which relates to design and general principles.

The Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate an adequate supply of housing land. With only around 2.11 years of supply within the former [name] area, it has a shortfall significantly below five years. Accordingly, Framework paragraph 11 requires that I determine whether the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits, including by helping to address the undersupply.

I have found conflict with SSLP policies SS1, SS2, TA1 and TA5, which are consistent with the Framework. Against that, the proposal would make a positive addition to the supply of unfettered housing, on a small site. Its future occupiers would make some positive social and economic contributions. Even so, due to the proposal being for only a single dwelling, such benefits would be minor. Therefore, I give them only limited positive weight. 4 APP/R3325/W/20/3262373 5 LPA reference 25/00572/S73A

Challenges to the holiday industry since 2018 have been highlighted, including in respect of additional taxation and regulation. The full use of plot 1 might allow for cross-subsidisation of the remaining units. However, I have little substantive evidence to show that the holiday use of the other units would not be viable without the proposal, or that plot 1 is not viable as holiday accommodation. For personal and family reasons, the appellant intends to live on site within the unit on plot 1 whilst continuing to manage the other units, including their hot tubs. Nonetheless, these represent largely private advantages, rather than public interest matters. I give the above benefits only very limited additional positive weight.

The proposal lies within an area where it may affect the [name] and Moors Ramsar Site. This is protected pursuant to the Conservation of Habitats Regulations 2017. [name] found no harm in respect of the main issue, as competent authority I would have carried out an Appropriate Assessment in respect of the potential effects on the Ramsar Site. However, as the balance of considerations is against the proposal, this matter need not be considered any further in this case.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that applications for planning permission, and therefore appeals, must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Given the harm that I have identified, and the weight I have given to this, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken in the round.

For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case, including the Framework, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.