Appeal 6005349

The appeal is dismissed.

The fourth reason for refusal of the planning application cited insufficient evidence that there would be no adverse impact on protected species. The appellant has supplied an updated [name] in which the relevant building is downgraded from moderate potential to low potential for bat roosts. The Council is content that the reason for refusal has been overcome and has set out its reasoning in its Statement of Case. I see no reason to take a different view.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site (the site) would be a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the development plan; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether adequate living conditions would be provided for future occupiers of the proposed development.

The appeal site is in the countryside outside of any settlement boundary, and so the proposal does not have the support of the Council’s spatial strategy as set out in Policy S1 of the Mole Valley Local Plan (2024) (the Local Plan).

The nearest settlement is the village of Ockley, which possesses limited facilities. The appellant draws my attention to Local Plan policies that nevertheless support new housing at the edge of the village and cites rail connections to larger towns from [name].

The simplest route between the site and Ockley is along [site address] and [address]. There are no segregated cycle lanes, pavements or lighting. Dense greenery lines the sides of narrow roadways, and there are few places where pedestrians could step off the road as a motor vehicle passes. There is a public footpath between [site address] and Ockley but to reach it from the site one must walk some 400m along one of these narrow, unlit roads. I have no evidence the footpath itself has lighting, or indeed that it is passable all year round.

Whilst the distance between the site and the village is one that many would consider walking or cycling, the nature of the connecting routes means all but the keenest and most confident would likely use a car instead, particularly after dark, in poor weather, or if carrying shopping.

As such, even if I take Ockley to contain sufficient services to meet some day-to-day domestic needs, occupants of the proposed development would be very unlikely to walk or cycle there. [name] is further away still in much the same direction. Overall, future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would largely depend upon the private motor car.

Notwithstanding the above, Local Plan Policy EN2 supports the conversion of existing buildings to alternative uses provided the development, including associated uses and activities, would not have an adverse impact on the rural character and largely undeveloped nature of the countryside by reason of scale, design or siting. I shall therefore consider those matters before returning to whether the site would be a suitable location for the proposed development.

The site is in an area with strong rural characteristics, in which open fields and dense belts of woodland form the backdrop to the narrow lanes described above. Intermittent dwellings and other buildings are visible in places, often in glimpses between roadside greenery or in the middle distance across swathes of open land. This reveals a dispersed pattern of development.

The appeal site is within the curtilage of [site address] , a detached dwelling. It includes two connected outbuildings, a garage and store, positioned immediately north of the access drive.

Whilst the appeal site is accessed from [site address] , it is appreciably one of a string of dwellings running on an east-west axis along the southern side of [address]. These are reasonably large, detached homes on large plots, many of which have smaller outbuildings within their curtilages.

[site address] is typical of this pattern of development. Along with the appeal site outbuildings, it also has a scattering of other structures along its northern boundary, as well as to the south of the appeal site. These are immediately recognisable as ancillary to the host dwelling. They have the effect of emphasising the size of the [site address] plot, in that they show it is large enough (firstly) to host the outbuildings whilst remaining open and spacious, and (secondly) to require them. Neither would likely be true of a more modest domestic plot.

The effect of this is that the relationship between [site address] and its outbuildings is characteristic of a larger house and plot. That in turn is typical of the local pattern of development to which [site address] most directly relates, which in its turn is representative of the rural character and largely undeveloped nature of the countryside in which it is set.

It is proposed to convert the connected outbuildings into an independent dwelling. This would involve only modest additions and alterations to the buildings, which would remain recognisable. Even so, the introduction of an additional dwelling would be discernible as it would be signposted in some way, and there would be new, additional domestic activities and movements, including vehicle parking.

[name] appreciate that the wider local area includes a range of housing types and densities, I have no evidence that small dwellings within the traditional curtilage of larger houses, including the conversion of outbuildings, is a feature of the local area. Indeed, based on my observations above I find that the appeal scheme would be so wholly at odds with the established local pattern of development as to be harmfully incongruous.

The scheme would make us of established features in the form of the appeal site buildings and the [site address] point of access. On one hand, this would help to limit the visual impact of the appeal scheme by introducing only modest visual change. On the other however, and overall, it would exacerbate the incongruity of the scheme; The retention of so much established built form would highlight that domestic outbuildings had been converted into a separate dwelling, and that the curtilage of a larger house had been subdivided to facilitate it. [name] have set out, these are forms of development at odds with the established local pattern. They would also harmfully undermine the existing, locally characteristic relationship between [site address] and the appeal site, as I have identified it above.

Whilst much of the site is screened by roadside greenery, the southern ends of the appeal site buildings are nevertheless visible from [site address] , such that the proposed alterations would not be wholly concealed from view. I have no evidence that views of the site do not open up in winter once the leaves have fallen, or indeed that the roadside greenery is certain to remain in place in the future. Given these considerations I attribute only modest weight to the effects of screening.

In any event, the relationship between [site address] and the appeal site is directly visible from within both, as would be the effects upon it of the proposed development. I have been provided with very little to show me that my assessment should be restricted to the effects upon the public sphere and see none for myself.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would be harmfully at odds with the established character of [site address] including the appeal site, and with the surrounding pattern of development which itself reflects the sporadically developed and rural nature of the local area. It would therefore have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy EN4 of the Local Plan where it requires new development to understand the site and how it relates to the existing area, including features of local distinctiveness.

Furthermore, the development, including associated uses and activities, would have an adverse impact on the rural character and largely undeveloped nature of the countryside by reason of its scale, design, and siting. As such, the development does not have the support of Local Plan Policy EN2, and the appeal site is not a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the

The rear garden of the proposed dwelling would be separated from the front garden of [site address] by post and rail fencing. This would do so little to prevent direct intervisibility between the two that neither could comfortably be used, such would be the absence of privacy. There would also be a harmful, direct line of sight over a short distance between the front garden of [site address] and the windows of the proposed dwelling.

Whilst the appellant suggests boundary planting, no landscaping scheme has been provided. It is not evident, therefore, that planting capable of ensuring privacy would establish quickly, be robust over time, and avoid negative effects on occupiers of the proposed dwelling in respect of outlook and light.

Occupiers of [site address] may prefer to make use of its rear and side gardens. I cannot, however, ensure or rely upon this. Indeed, the assortment of domestic outbuildings found both along the northern boundary of [site address] and immediately south of the appeal site would suggest that residents of [site address] would be likely to use its front garden area regularly.

Cars entering or leaving [site address] would pass within some 5m of the bedroom of the proposed dwelling. Even if I accept that the number of vehicle movements is, and will remain, low, the area is likely to be so quiet at night that any vehicle movements would be intrusive. Furthermore, I have little evidence that headlights will not shine directly into the bedroom windows at night. These effects would undermine peaceful living conditions in the proposed dwelling, particularly in the bedroom where it would be most keenly felt.

Even if, as the appellant contends, shared access driveways are not unusual in a rural setting, I have little evidence that cars passing by bedrooms is common, much less that such an arrangement preserves residential amenity.

Adequate living conditions would not be provided for future occupiers of the proposed development, contrary to the requirement of Policy EN4 of the Local Plan that they must be.

The Design and [name] refers to four other approved developments which are said to set a precedent for the appeal scheme. I have been provided with so few details of these developments that I cannot establish any direct comparability and attach minimal weight to them as a result.

The proposal would yield a net gain of one new house towards the Government’s aim of significantly boosting supply. There would be temporary economic benefits associated with the construction phase and, thereafter, ongoing local economic and potentially social benefits relating to the occupation of the site, in which local facilities may benefit from increased demand and participation. Nevertheless, given the relatively modest scale of the proposal and the small number of new residents brought about, these benefits would be minor and not outweigh the conflict with policy described above.

I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

The appeal is dismissed.