Appeal 6005474

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has submitted new indicative plans detailing the current uses for some of the outbuildings at the farm, adjacent to the appeal proposal. These do not alter the proposal, and the Council has had the opportunity to respond through the appeal process. As such, I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by my taking these plans into account in determining this appeal.

The main issues are: • whether the site would provide a suitable location for the proposal, having particular regard to the spatial strategy of the Development Plan and to the accessibility of the site to services and facilities; and • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of future holiday occupiers with particular regard to noise and outlook.

The appeal site forms part of an existing farm in a rural location, outside of any recognised development boundary within the adopted development plan. It is therefore in the open countryside for planning policy purposes.

Policies CP1, CP2 and CP4 of the Mendip District Local Plan (2014) (MDLP) provide the spatial strategy for development in the area. To enable sustainable growth, most development is directed to five principal market towns, with some within primary and secondary villages. In other locations, development is only permitted in specific circumstances.

MDLP policy CP3 supports business development and growth, whilst MDLP policy DP9 requires proposals to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport, particularly by means other than the private car. MDLP policy DP22 supports the reuse and conversion of rural buildings where it would lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting, subject to additional requirements.

Together, these policies support development and the rural economy, including proposals for farm diversification. Nevertheless, it remains pertinent that development proposals should be located where there are choices in the mode of transport available, as well as ensuring new developments are suitably located to facilities.

The appeal site consists of a former agricultural store and domestic garage, set within a group of existing agricultural buildings, with the main farmhouse located to the north of the site. The appellant contends that the proposal should have been considered under the Council’s tourism policy but has not directed me to a specific policy in this regard. However, the proposal seeks to convert these existing outbuildings into two dwellings, albeit restricted by planning condition to a use for holiday purposes only. Accordingly, I have considered the appeal on the basis of new dwellings.

During my site visit, I observed that the nearest village, [site address] , is approximately 2km from the site. Whilst, the village contains a public house, church and village hall, it was evident that other day-to-day facilities or services in the village, and the surrounding area, were extremely limited. A wider range of services and facilities are available in the market village of Frome, approximately 10km from the appeal site. Whilst future occupiers of the holiday units would reside there on a temporary basis, they would still likely seek access to a wider range of services and facilities, for example shops for provisions and visitor attractions. Therefore, it is likely that visitors to the site would need to travel further afield to access these needs and activities.

I have not been directed to any information relating to the accessibility of public transport from the site. However, during my site visit I did not observe a bus stop within a reasonable and safe walking distance from the appeal site. Indeed, the road to the north of the site, the A362, is subject to the national speed limit and is unlit and unpaved. This reflects the surrounding road network within the immediate vicinity of the site, which consists mainly of narrow, unlit country roads that lack separate pavements.

The absence of pavements and lighting may not deter all persons from walking or cycling to facilities in the wider area using the local road networks, but their use on foot or by bicycle would be difficult, particularly at night, in inclement weather, or for those of limited mobility. Whilst policy CP3 of the MDLP lends support to proposals that would enhance the attraction of visitors to the area, the weight afforded to this support is diminished by the site’s limited accessibility to sustainable modes of transport, and a consequent reliance on private vehicle use.

On this basis, future occupiers of the proposal would likely be heavily reliant on private vehicles to access the majority of their day-to-day needs. In this regard the proposal, by virtue of its location, would fail to contribute to a reduction in the reliance on private car use.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would not provide a suitable location for the proposal, having particular regard to the spatial strategy of the Development Plan and to the accessibility of the site to services and facilities. It would therefore conflict with MDLP policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, DP9 and DP22.

MDLP policy DP7 supports high quality design that provides a satisfactory environment for future occupiers, while policy DP22 supports the reuse and conversion of redundant or disused rural buildings where it would lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting, subject to additional requirements.

The proposal sits within the context of a working farm, with associated agricultural vehicular and machinery movements, use of buildings, access tracks and hard standings. The farmhouse access fronts the A362, while access to the lower farmyard is off [address], to the south of the site. At the time of my site inspection the garage building was in use for the storage of residential paraphernalia, whereas the adjacent store building was largely empty. The corollary of this is that the proposal does not strictly comply with the requirements of MDLP policy DP22, in terms of the re-use and conversion of redundant or disused rural buildings in the countryside.

The proposed floor plans refer to the individual units as [name] 1 and [name] 2, I shall refer to them simply as Let 1 and Let 2. At the time of my site visit, early afternoon on a weekday, the farm was peaceful save for the low background noise from the A road to the north. The appellant outlines that measures will be employed to achieve an appropriate reduction in noise from adjacent farm buildings to Let 2.

The appellant outlines that the arable farm utilises the access lane to the south; that the nearest operational building is approximately 13m from the appeal site; that vehicle and machinery operations are focused on the lower yard, some 60m from the proposal; and that as such, noise from the agricultural activities would be limited. The old farm buildings within the immediate setting of the proposal are stated to be given over to the storage of tools and the appellant’s furniture. However, there are a number of agricultural buildings to the immediate southeast of the proposal not annotated on the new plans, which appeared to be in agricultural use at the time of my visit.

The wider site is a working farm where comings and goings are predicated by matters such as optimum timings, day or night, for planting or harvesting crops, and these activities can be highly weather dependant. Whilst the appellant states that this would be incorporated into the management of the holiday units, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, such as a draft management plan, I cannot be certain that the operation of the farm would not result in harm to future occupiers of the holiday units through unacceptable noise impacts.

The proposed holiday units would incorporate all typical day-to-day living facilities at ground floor level, resulting in accommodation akin to bedsits. New openings are proposed on the north and east elevations; however, the outlook from these would be limited, comprising views either towards the parking areas proposed to serve the units (in the case of Let 1) or toward the hardstanding and agricultural buildings within the upper yard (for Let 2).

Indeed, the submitted drawings show no buffer between the front doors of the new units and the parking area (Let 1), access lane or upper yard (Let 2). As such, future occupants of Let 1 would be confronted by the parking and turning area used by other occupiers, immediately at their front door and when looking from the windows on this north elevation. From this aspect, the outlook from Let 1 would be dominated by hardstanding capable of accommodating a number of vehicles. Similarly, to the east where all of Let 2’s windows and doors are located, occupiers would have an outlook dominated by the access road, hardstanding and agricultural buildings. Such outlooks would fail to provide an attractive or appropriate setting for a holiday use, resulting in poor living conditions and outlook.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would fail to provide satisfactory living conditions for future holiday occupiers with particular regard to noise and outlook. It would therefore conflict with MDLP policies DP7 and DP22.

I note that the Parish Council do not object to the proposal, and the [name] support the scheme, subject to compliance with suggested conditions. However, support, or a lack of objection to a scheme is not, in itself, a reason to allow development. I have in any case, determined this appeal on its own particular merits.

The appellant outlined the potential economic and aesthetic benefits of converting the garage and outbuilding to a holiday use. However, even when taken cumulatively, the limited benefits of the proposed development would not outweigh the significant harm I have identified and the conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The site lies within [name] of the Mells Valley Special Area of Conservation for [name] bats. As a European Designated Site, this is protected pursuant to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended).

In the event that I had been allowing the appeal, as the competent authority I would have needed to carry out an Appropriate Assessment in respect of the potential effects of the proposal on the designated site. However, as I have found against the appellant on other substantive grounds, this matter does not need to be considered any further.

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.