Appeal 6005034

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use of existing amenity building 1 to warden's accommodation at [site address] , Scagglethorpe to A64, Scagglethorpe, [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref ZE25/00952/FUL, subject to the following

The building shall be occupied as a dwellinghouse only by [name].

When the building ceases to be occupied by [name], the use as a dwellinghouse hereby permitted shall cease.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings: Site Location Plan ([name] no. Planning Portal 1:1250), Existing Amenity Building Elevations (Drawing no. PC202108-3) and Existing Amenity Building Floor Plans (Drawing no. PC202108-4 [name]).

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by virtue of [name], AA, B, C, D and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be undertaken.

The description of development describes the use of the building as warden’s accommodation. It was established at the hearing that use on this basis would be as a conventional residential use, which is consistent with the indication on the application form that a new residential unit would be created. The reference to warden’s accommodation is in effect a justification for a use and is not in itself a planning use set out in the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended). I proceed on that basis and on the basis that the development is retrospective, as the building has been laid out internally as per the plans submitted and is inhabited as a residential property.

It is common ground between the parties that the appellant and her family members fall within the definition of Gypsy & Travellers (G&T) set out in Annex 1 of the Planning Policy for [name] (PPTS). However, owing to the planning history of the site and that the lawful use of the site was established via continuous use (confirmed by the issuing of a Lawful Development Certificate), there is no restriction on the occupation of the site only to persons who fall under the G&T definition.

The main issues are: (i) Whether the development is suitably located, having regard to relevant development plan policies; (ii) The effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the site; and (iii) Other considerations, including personal circumstances

The appeal site is located within the wider open countryside as defined by the Ryedale Local Plan Strategy 2013 (LPS). Policy SP2 of the LPS permits the conversion of redundant or disused traditional rural buildings. The appellant accepted at the hearing that the building would not be redundant for the purposes that it was permitted, and indeed the justification provided in relation to previous planning applications supports there being a need for the building to provide acceptable living conditions for the occupiers of the wider site. Although there is no definition of ‘traditional’ in the LPS, the appeal building is a modern brick building of no particular visual merit or local vernacular. I do not consider that it could be deemed to be a traditional building for the purposes of Policy SP2.

Whilst there is support in the LPS for locating new housing sites on brownfield land, Policy SP2 is not permissive of such development in the wider open countryside. The LPS also acknowledges that an ageing population requires the provision of a range of accommodation types, however again this is not something that Policy SP2 makes provision for in locations such as the appeal site.

In conclusion therefore, the proposal fails to accord with Policy SP2 of the LPS, where it sets out the spatial approach to development.

Two amenity buildings have been permitted at the wider [site address] site. The Council points to the justification that was put forward in support of the second of those buildings, in terms of the need for the facilities it would provide. [name] have read or that I heard at the hearing leads me to consider that the buildings are not required to provide acceptable living conditions for the occupiers of the site as a whole if occupied by G&Ts.

At present, the use of the amenity building subject to this appeal as a residence does not appear to have any discernible impact on those who live on the site. This is because they are one family and family members can freely use the building and have access to its facilities. However, that is an informal arrangement between family members and could change, not only if non-family members were to occupy one of the pitches but even if overall occupation remains as one family and for whatever reasons the arrangement is discontinued.

A number of potential conditions were discussed at the hearing that might serve to retain the use of the building by the occupiers of the pitches for amenity purposes. I do however have significant reservations that they would meet the tests of reasonableness and enforceability, in particular in the event that the wider site came to be occupied by non-family members. Such conditions would require access to the facilities of the building, including the bathroom, which would undoubtably be intrusive for its occupier and lead to poor, if not entirely unworkable, living conditions.

A further implication of allowing the appeal could therefore be that one of the pitches would be left without the facilities of an amenity building. If that pitch was occupied by G&Ts, it is highly likely that the arrangement would be incompatible with their required living arrangements as there would be no separate building providing day facilities. This could lead to the complete loss of one pitch from the site.

There was reference at the hearing to bathroom facilities being provided within caravans on the wider site. However, if the current co-operation for the use of the building subject to this appeal is withdrawn then it would be the full facilities of the amenity building that would be lost. Therefore, even if such provision is provided, this would not adequately compensate for the loss of the appeal building in living conditions terms if the site continues to be occupied by G&Ts.

In conclusion, the proposal would fail to accord with Policies SP5 and SP20 of the LPS where collectively they seek to provide good quality living accommodation and ensure that new development will not have a material adverse impact on the amenity of present or future occupants.

The description of development refers to the provision of warden’s accommodation. It was explained at the hearing that this would be for the management of the wider site including the 4 static caravans on land adjacent to the appeal site that have planning permission1 for holiday let use. The roles and responsibilities of the warden would include looking after the health and safety of visitors, taking the payment of fees and the general maintenance of the site. It does not appear that the permission for those caravans has been commenced but, in any event, there is no substantive evidence to collaborate a need for a warden for such a quantum of development. It was also suggested that there is a requirement for a warden in connection with the residential use of the rest of the site, or for a combination of the holiday pitches and residential pitches, but the evidence provided offers little in the way of justification or need for such. 1 ZE23/05028/FUL

The argument advanced with respect to health considerations relates to the appellant only. That is that they need to live in a bricks and mortar dwelling for health reasons. The appellant explained at the hearing that periods of cold and damp weather aggravate specific health conditions when living in a caravan. As the Council alluded to, there is little in the way of medical evidence to explain how the conditions referred to are specifically affected by caravan living. However, it is not in dispute that there are health concerns which should be weighed in the planning balance. The appellant also conceded at the hearing that a more comfortable living experience could be achieved in a more modern caravan, but that the cost of this would be prohibitive. It was further confirmed that they have no cultural aversion to bricks and mortar living and that the care they currently receive is provided by a relative who does not live on the appeal site. This collectively sets out the considerations relevant to health grounds.

I have found there to be a conflict with the development plan with regard to both the location of the development and in terms of the harm to living conditions caused if the current arrangement for access to the amenity building is revoked. This means the development fails to accord with the development plan taken as a whole. There are however material considerations which offer mitigation in both regards.

In terms of the location, the red line is drawn tightly around the building and makes no provision for external amenities and facilities such as a garden, parking or access. For that reason alone, the proposed development could not be permitted as a standalone residential dwelling unconnected in any way to the operation of the main [site address] site. It is common ground between the parties that there is an absence of any concern about impact on the character and appearance of the open countryside. Furthermore, the site is already established and one person living in the appeal building as opposed to a caravan does not materially affect the matter of locational sustainability and access to other modes of transport than private motor vehicles. These considerations lessen the weight I give to the in-principle conflict with the relevant strategic policy of the development plan

There could be a loss of a G&T pitch if the sharing arrangement is withdrawn and it is not workable for those who occupy the pitch to live day to day without access to an amenity building. This would be a loss of a pitch in the context of the Council’s inability to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable G&T sites. However, because the wider site is not restricted only to occupation by G&T, the loss of the pitch to G&T occupation could occur at any time. I consider that, in all likelihood, the sharing arrangement that exists would remain in place, not least because it would seem unlikely that the appellant would be able to replicate a situation where they are able to reside in bricks and mortar accommodation surrounded by their family members who live as G&Ts. But even if the pitch is lost, the weight I afford to this is lessened in the absence of it being restricted only to G&T use.

I find there to be no justification for warden’s accommodation. However, whilst I acknowledge that the Council consider that the appellant could have provided more substantive medical evidence, they do not dispute the premise of their being a health-related justification. It also does not appear that the Council considered it necessary to request any further evidence during the course of their consideration of the planning application or in order to comply with their Public Sector Equality Duty and Human Rights Act obligations. On balance, I consider that the appellant has made a case that there is justification on health grounds. Whilst it remains that by the appellant’s own admission a more modern caravan might address the issues they experience from caravan living, that there is the potential they could live in a bricks and mortar dwelling elsewhere and that the care they receive is provided by someone who lives off site, taken as a whole the proposal is not objectionable in the circumstances set out. The considerations in favour of the development therefore outweigh the harm I have identified.

In conclusion, the material considerations set out above indicate that a determination of the appeal should be made otherwise than in accordance with the

It is necessary to impose conditions making the permission personal to the appellant, as this is where the justification for the development that is sought arises, and requiring the use to cease once their occupation has ended. It is also necessary to impose a condition setting out the approved plans to provide certainty, and to remove permitted development rights to safeguard the character and appearance of the area.

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