Appeal 6005140

The appeal is dismissed.

Prior to the hearing, the Council issued an enforcement notice1 which includes works that have taken place since the original application. I explained to the parties at the hearing, that I can only determine the appeal on the basis of the plans and description of development as set out in the planning application. To deal with additional development outside of what was applied for, would be likely to cause injustice to the Council and any interested parties. Furthermore, it is not for the appeal procedure to advance proposals. This is best achieved through the submission of revised planning applications. For this reason, I have determined the appeal based on the evidence that was before the Council when it made its

I have used the description of development contained within the Council’s Decision Notice as I consider it describes the development more accurately, but in doing this I have nonetheless had full regard in my reasoning to the description on the application form.

In considering this appeal I am required by s66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the nearby listed buildings.

In determining this appeal, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. From the evidence, my decision has the potential to affect persons with a protected characteristic for the purposes of the PSED. I have also had due regard to Article 1 22/00441/02COUL 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 which enshrines the right to respect for a private and family life, their home and their correspondence.

Before the hearing the parties submitted an agreed statement of common ground. This details the application documents, describes the proposed development and the site, giving its planning history. It sets out the development plan context and indicates matters agreed and not agreed. Those not agreed reflect the reasons for refusal contained within the Council’s decision notice.

The main issues are: • Whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the appeal scheme, including whether the appeal building was suitable for conversion having regard to local policies; • The effect of the appeal scheme on the character and appearance of the surrounding area including whether it conserves and enhances the natural beauty of the North Wessex Downs National Landscape (NWDNL); and • The consequences of a refusal of permission for the appellant.

The appeal site is located on the outer edge of the settlement boundary of the village of Curridge. It was discussed at the hearing that the appeal building was historically a riding school which had closed around five to six years ago at the start of the Covid pandemic. There are a number of by-ways and Public Rights of Way (PROW) near to the appeal site. Most notably are the by-way (CHIE/41/2) and PROW (CHI/29/2) which run along the boundary of the site.

Policy DM1 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023-2041 (the WBLPR) outlines a number of exceptions for new residential development outside of adopted settlement boundaries. One of these exceptions (d) is the conversion of redundant or disused buildings (policy DM24).

Policy DM24 of the WBLPR provides criterion that would need to be satisfied for a conversion of an existing redundant or disused building in the countryside to residential use. Criterion (a) requires that the proposal involves a building that is structurally sound and capable of conversion without substantial rebuilding, extension or alteration.

The Council outlines in its statement of case that even if the building was not in use, that this would not necessarily equate to a redundant building. However, Policy DM24 refers to redundant or disused. Accordingly, based on the evidence before me including the discussion at the hearing, on the balance of probabilities, the appeal building was disused even if not redundant from around the start of the Covid pandemic and therefore Policy DM24 is pertinent to the appeal.

The matter of whether the appeal building was structurally sound and capable of conversion was discussed at the hearing. The appellant refers in the evidence to the building being derelict and environmentally damaged prior to the appeal scheme works. However, there is limited substantive evidence before me regarding the damage and whether there has been substantial rebuilding as a consequence.

I acknowledge that there have been surveys conducted in relation to the solar panels (ECO4 scheme). Nevertheless, the survey is not before me and moreover, there is not a structural survey within the evidence for this appeal regarding the appeal building. Therefore, there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the appeal building is structurally sound and capable of conversion. Accordingly, the appeal scheme does not satisfy criteria (a) of Policy DM24 of the WBLPR.

The appellant also contends that the appeal scheme could be viewed as infill development. Policy DM1(i)(i) of the WBLPR provides that limited residential infill in settlements in the countryside with no defined settlement boundary would be supported if is it within a closely knit cluster of 10 or more existing dwellings adjacent to or fronting an existing highway.

I acknowledge the proximity of the neighbouring dwelling known as ‘[name]. However, the [name] is considerably further in distance from the appeal site. Moreover, the appeal site is not within a closely knit cluster of 10 or more existing dwellings and therefore is not infill development. Accordingly, it does not benefit from the support of Policy DM1(i)(i).

In conclusion, for the reasons give above, there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the appeal site is a suitable location for the appeal scheme and that it is suitable for conversion. Accordingly, the appeal scheme fails to comply with Policies DM1(i) and DM24 of the WBLPR insofar as they seek to ensure that residential development in the countryside are exceptional and that the conversion of existing redundant or disused buildings are structurally sound and capable of conversion without substantial rebuilding, extension or alteration.

The statutory purpose of National Landscapes is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 amended the duty on relevant authorities in respect of their functions which affect land in National Landscapes. Relevant authorities must ‘seek to further’ the statutory purposes of [name], including National Landscapes.

The appeal building is located in a predominantly rural location and is within the NWDNL. Policy DM24 of the WBLPR requires amongst other criterion that a proposal respects and retains the character, fabric and distinctive features of the building and uses matching materials where those materials are an essential part of the character of the building and locality (d) and that it has no adverse impact on rural character (f).

Additionally, policy SP7 of the WBLPR outlines that new development will be required, amongst other things, to take opportunities available for conserving and enhancing the character, appearance and quality of an area.

Furthermore, policy SP2 of the WBLPR relates to the NWDNL which outlines, amongst other things, that development should respond positively to the local context, conserving and enhancing local distinctiveness, sense of place and setting of the National Landscape. Notably, it also highlights that the strong sense of remoteness, tranquillity and dark night skies should be preserved.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes. The appeal site is located within the Lowland Mosaic Character Area (8A: [name]) of the North Wessex Downs Landscape Character Assessment 2025 (the LCA). The site is also part of the [name] as outlined in the West Berkshire Landscape Character Assessment 2019.

The LCA describes it as forming a broad undulating lowland plateau and that present-day settlement is largely dispersed across the area. Furthermore, that there are also many scattered farmsteads and residential country houses dispersed across the area along the intricate network of rural lanes. Red brick is the most common building material. Notably, it also highlights that there is a good experience of dark night skies.

Mindful of the characteristics described in the LCA, the appeal scheme introduces domestic features such as blue upvc windows and doors, associated glazing, light pink paint on several of the elevations, a flue as well as solar panels and a heat pump. These features when considered together erode to a harmful extent the functional architecture associated with the previous riding school such as corrugated iron roof sheeting and unpainted block work.

There is now considerable glazing on the appeal building which likely results in a harmful light spill into the dark skies associated with the NWDNL as outlined in the LCA. At the hearing a discussion took place regarding the previous lighting associated with the riding school including floodlights. However, there is limited substantive evidence before me regarding the previous lighting scheme associated with the riding school and therefore, I cannot be certain that the appeal scheme before me is a betterment.

I acknowledge the appellant considers the repair works associated with the appeal scheme have been carried out on a like-for-like basis in relation to the welfare rooms that were present for the riding school. However, considering the domestic materials and features I have identified above, there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate this to be the case.

I am mindful of the topography of the site, which is at the top of a slope and whilst the appellant refers to landscaping which would limit views of the appeal site from dwellings located at the bottom of the slope, there are limited specific details in the evidence before me regarding this including types of trees for example.

Considering all of the above, the discussion at the event and based on the evidence before me in this case, the appeal scheme, on balance, results in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It also fails to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the NWDNL.

The appeal scheme conflicts with Policies DM24, SP2 and SP7 of the WBLPR in so far as they seek to ensure that developments do not result in harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area as well as conserve and enhance the local distinctiveness of the NWDNL.

It is for the same reasons that it also fails to accord with the aims of [name] – [name] 2006.

From the evidence, my decision has the potential to affect an individual with a protected characteristic for the purposes of the PSED such as disability. The appeal scheme provides a home for an individual who for medical reasons has been unable to find suitable employment. Consequently, an approval of the appeal scheme would be beneficial to ensure that the individual would not need to move home or become homeless. Accordingly, there is a potential for an adverse impact upon a person with a protected characteristic.

I am aware that the appeal site is proximate to the Grade II Listed buildings known as: “1-2 [site address] ” and "[address]”. Mindful of the statutory duty set out in s66(1) of the Act, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving their setting. The special interest and significance of these designated heritage assets derive, in part, from their architectural interest and historic fabric. The appeal site is a significant distance from these heritage assets and there is limited intervisibility between them. Accordingly, in my judgement, the appeal scheme preserves the setting of these designated heritage assets and their significance would not be harmed. A lack of harm in this respect, however, does not alter my conclusions.

Based on the evidence before me the appeal site is within the catchment for the River Lambourn Special Area of Conservation (SAC). I have a duty under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to assess any impact the proposed development would have upon the SAC. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for the reasons given above, I do not need to conduct any further assessment in relation to these sites.

As set out above, I have found the appeal site to not be a suitable location for the appeal scheme, that it has not been adequately demonstrated it is suitable for conversion and results in harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area as well as fails to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the NWDNL. I attach substantial weight to these findings against the appeal.

[name] am cognisant of the Framework and rural housing, the appeal scheme results in one additional dwelling in an area that can currently demonstrate a housing land supply of 5.7 years. It follows therefore that the presumption in favour of sustainable development as outlined in paragraph 11(d) is not engaged. Accordingly, given it is one dwelling and the Council’s housing land supply figure this attracts limited weight in favour of the appeal.

Additionally, the benefits associated with a contribution to net zero targets in the form of solar panels, heat pump technology, permeable materials, reinstatement of soil, the sealing of the septic system and introduction of native saplings and wildlife hedging attracts limited weight given there is limited substantive evidence before me regarding them and their scale considering they are associated with one dwelling.

I am mindful of paragraph 8 of the Framework regarding sustainable development. At the hearing, the parties agreed that there is a reduction of traffic associated with the appeal scheme when compared to the former use of the building as a riding school. Nevertheless, the extent of the reduction is not clear given there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate the reduction is at the significant level outlined by the appellant. Reference is made in the evidence before me to the appeal scheme strengthening local amenity. There is limited substantive evidence before me regarding these matters and therefore they attract limited weight.

Nevertheless, it is a positive consideration that the appeal scheme provides a home for a person with a protected characteristic as outlined in the PSED. Consequently, I attach significant weight to this consideration.

I note the appellants comments regarding fiscal responsibility and public confidence in planning. I have had due regard to the PSED as set out under s149 of the Equality Act 2010 and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. However, the benefits associated with the appeal scheme do not clearly outweigh the harm to the NWDNL which attracts great weight as outlined in the Framework and the other harms I have identified regarding the suitability of the location. Accordingly, considering the harm identified above, dismissing the appeal is a necessary and proportionate response in this case.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.