Appeal 6005539

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission for a tennis court and swimming pool building to be used incidentally to the existing dwellinghouse was granted under application reference DM/22/3735. Although it has not been constructed, the permission is a consideration in my determination of this appeal. Permission was also granted on a temporary basis for an access onto [site address] , to be used in connection with the construction of the pool building (DM/23/1767). The temporary site entrance has been constructed. At the time of my site visit, the land on the appeal site had been cleared.

I have been provided with a copy of the Regulation 19 version of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan 2021-2039. No draft policies were referred to in the reasons for refusal and their relevance to this proposal has not been explained within the Council’s case. [name] have no evidence as to whether there are outstanding objections to the policies put to me, or how they might relate to the proposal, I can attach no more than limited weight to the emerging policies.

A completed planning obligation has been provided during the course of the appeal, which secures a travel plan for a minibus service and staff car sharing initiatives. I have taken it into account in my decision.

The main issues are: • the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the countryside; • whether the site is a suitable location for the proposed pre-school having regard to the Council’s strategy for the location of development; and, • whether the proposal would preserve the setting of the [name] listed ‘The Wallage’ and the [name] listed ‘[name] and [address]’.

The appeal site forms the southern part of the garden to ‘ [site address] ’, a dwelling located within a substantial plot on the west side of [site address] as it approaches [site address] . It is bordered by hedges to its boundaries with [site address] and residential properties to the rear including Allens and [name]. There is an open boundary to [site address] . The site sits within a loose cluster of dwellings to the west side of [site address] . In terms of the wider context, there are open fields opposite, sporadic dwellings to the south and fields and woodlands beyond to the west. The settlement of [site address] lies to the north. As part of a residential garden, the appeal site contributes to the open, verdant and semi-rural character of the area.

The proposed pre-school building would be of a similar scale and footprint to the approved pool building. In visual terms, there is no dispute that the proposed building would be acceptable in terms of its detailed design and scale.

Nevertheless, taken together, the proposed pre-school use along with the physical alterations comprising the parking area, pre-school building and associated play areas would fundamentally change the character of the appeal site. The increased comings and goings, number of people and vehicular activity associated with the nursery would result in an intensification of activity on the site, which would detract from the existing semi-rural, residential character of the site and surroundings. I note the car park would be formed of a mesh system allowing grass growth. Whilst this may slightly reduce the visual perception of hardstanding, the car park function would remain. [name] appreciate that there may have been activity on the site arising from the approved tennis court and pool, these would be used in connection with the existing residential use and would not be comparable to the character of the proposed use.

The proposed access would essentially formalise the existing permitted temporary arrangement. My attention has been drawn to similar arrangements along [site address] in the form of vehicular accesses and gates leading to dwellings. Despite the presence of these entrances connected to the sporadic residential development along [site address] , the character of the area immediately around the appeal site remains residential and semi-rural, characteristically with hedgerows bordering the street.

The proposed entrance would have a suburbanising effect, albeit incremental. However, cumulatively, such alterations can add up to be significant, contributing to the erosion of rural character. The proposed entrance would also result in the permanent loss of hedgerow which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. The retention of the entrance would therefore result in visual harm arising from the loss of the hedgerow and the suburbanising effect of the entrance and gates.

I acknowledge the hedges around the site would have a screening effect and would assist in shielding views into the site. Nevertheless, the proposed development would be visible through the entrance and I do not consider that the presence of the hedges around the site would mitigate the harm I have identified to the character of the area arising from the proposed use.

I note that there are other commercial uses set within the countryside close to the appeal site, including those drawn to my attention at [address] and Rowfant. These commercial activities do not directly influence the character of the immediate surroundings of the appeal site. Neither are they directly comparable to the appeal site, the Council confirming they are allocated employment sites and part of a set of former agricultural buildings. The presence of other commercial activity locally does not necessarily indicate that the appeal scheme should be allowed.

Drawing the above together, the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area arising from the change in character of the appeal site, along with the suburbanising effect and loss of hedgerow as a result of the proposed access.

The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies DP12 and DP26 of the Mid Sussex District Plan. Taken together and amongst other things, they seek to protect the countryside in recognition of its intrinsic character and beauty, permit development outside the built-up area boundaries in limited circumstances and protect gardens that contribute to the character of the area.

The appeal site is outside the defined built-up area boundary as defined within the Mid Sussex District Plan 2018 (the Local Plan) and as such is a countryside location for planning policy purposes.

Policy DP14 of the Local Plan allows new small scale economic development in the countryside, where it does not conflict with Policies DP12 or DP13, provided it supports sustainable growth and vitality of the rural economy, and where possible, utilises previously developed sites.

Policy DP21 is delivered in the context of, amongst other things, ensuring access to services, employment and housing. It requires decisions on development proposals to take into account whether a scheme is sustainably located to minimise the need for travel noting that there might be circumstances where development needs to be located within the countryside. Amongst other things, it also requires proposals to provide appropriate opportunities to facilitate and promote the increased use of alternative means of transport to the private car.

Leading northbound towards the appeal site, [site address] has a speed limit of 40mph, reducing to 30mph to the north of the appeal site approaching [site address] . [site address] is one of the principal roads into and out of [site address] . The road has no footway in either direction. There is a grassed verge with a substantial ditch running alongside the appeal site. It would not provide a safe or realistic means for pedestrians, particularly those escorting small children to pre-school, to reach the appeal site from [site address] itself or from nearby dwellings. The nature of the road would in my view also make it prohibitive for all but confident cyclists as a means of travel. There are no bus stops which would be safely accessible by foot from the appeal site.

The proposed pre-school would therefore be reliant on private transport for dropping off and picking up children. I accept there may be a lesser reliance on private transport by staff who may be willing to use the grass verge to walk from a bus stop, however I would not regard this as a safe or convenient means of accessing the appeal site. By way of mitigation to reduce journeys made by private car to the appeal site, the appellant has submitted a planning obligation to secure a travel plan. Amongst other things, the appellant commits to providing a shared minibus service that would operate from pre-agreed collection and drop off points for the parents/carers to congregate and wait for the minibus. Car sharing would also be encouraged for staff. Given the needs of pre-school age children, I do not consider that the minibus service would provide a realistic or sufficiently attractive alternative to the flexibility, security and convenience offered by car drop off. There is no guarantee that parents/carers would use the minibus service, and I do not find that it would provide adequate mitigation for the car-dependent location of the proposal.

The appellant’s evidence shows that there are few pre-schools offering full time childcare in the local area, with parents/carers consequently needing to travel to nearby towns for pre-school provision. The proposal would therefore likely result in a reduction in longer journeys to pre-schools further afield. It would be a reasonable assumption that car journeys in connection with the appeal proposal would be reasonably local. Nevertheless, the location would not provide an opportunity for the pre-school to be reached by walking or public transport for those living locally. There is no compelling evidence before me that there is a need for the pre-school to be located in the countryside.

Consequently, for the reasons set out above, the proposal would not be sustainably located. It would conflict with Mid Sussex District Plan Policies DP14 and DP21, along with CDNP10 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2016. Taken together and amongst other things, these policies allow small scale economic development in the countryside in certain circumstances, require decisions to take into account whether a scheme is sustainably located to minimise the need for travel, and promote the increased use of alternative means of transport to the private car.

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features or special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The Framework sets out when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

[name] and [address], comprise two attached dwellings off an unmade lane running adjacent to [site address] . The building is listed [name] and was constructed as a timber framed single dwelling dating from 16th Century. It was altered during the 19th Century, adding red brick infill and hanging tiles to the first-floor elevation. Its significance is largely derived from its age, architectural merit and surviving historic fabric. Historic maps show that the building’s setting would once have been open countryside, with extensive fields to the south and west. Its setting has clearly changed over time due to the residential development in the surrounding fields, notably to the south and east. The heritage asset is not readily appreciated in views from [site address] ; and its once rural setting has been eroded. Its current semi-rural setting moderately contributes to the asset’s significance.

The Wallage is [name] listed and located on [site address] some distance to the south of the appeal site. It comprises a timber framed former tenant cottage dating from the 17th Century with 19th and 20th Century modifications. Its significance is derived from its architecture and surviving historic fabric. The dwelling remains largely surrounded by open countryside. Its rural setting and prominence in views from [site address] contribute to its significance as a rural dwelling closely linked to the surrounding landscape.

Both heritage assets are somewhat removed from the appeal site. [name] and [address] are located closest to the appeal site, but the proposal would be separated from the listed building by the remaining garden of [site address] and the unmade road. The Wallage is further removed to the south along [site address] . Due to the distance from the appeal site and intervening dwellings along [site address] , I do not find that the proposal would be harmful to the setting of The Wallage.

As such, I conclude that the appeal proposal would not harm the significance of the designated heritage assets though development within their setting, such that its setting would be preserved. The appeal proposal would therefore be in line with the aims of chapter 16 of the Framework and Policy DP34 of the Mid Sussex District Plan insofar as they seek to preserve the setting of designated heritage assets.

Reference is made to outline permissions for 350 new dwellings in [site address] (references DM25/0016 and DM/25/0014) where childcare provision did not form part of the approvals. I note these sites are allocated for housing through the development plan. Whilst there may well be an increased need arising due to the development of allocated sites, I have limited evidence before me about the projected timelines for delivery and timing of any consequent child-care need. The existence of these outline permissions would not in themselves lead me to conclude that the appeal scheme should be allowed.

I have also been referred to a planning permission granted by the Council on land to the west of Rowfant Business Centre (reference DM/24/0540) for a climbing centre. The travel plan associated with the climbing centre includes the provision of a minibus service. The Council clarify that the minibus service links the climbing centre with nearby train stations and there is also access to the climbing centre by foot or bicycle. The customer base of the climbing centre would clearly have a very different profile to that of the appeal scheme; the use of a minibus service to improve accessibility to the climbing centre is not directly comparable to the appeal scheme.

I have had regard to the representations of interested parties, both in favour of and against the proposal. The matters raised do not outweigh or alter my conclusions on the main issues.

The proposal would have several benefits. Firstly, it would provide additional nursery places in an area where there is little existing provision; the nursery would have a suitable outdoor area including an area for ‘forest school’. The Framework explains that great weight should be given to the need to create early years facilities, presumably as this is filling an educational need and supports parents/guardians to work. Ultimately, I have afforded this matter weight of a high order for the purposes of this planning balance.

The scheme would also provide some moderate economic benefits through employment during construction and the subsequent operation of the nursey. When operational, the nursery could create 6 FTE jobs. There would also be biodiversity benefits arising from the provision of [name] and other enhancements, to which I attach moderate weight.

I have concluded that the scheme would not harm the setting of any designated heritage assets. The Council indicates that the scheme would also be acceptable with regard to matters including its effect on the living conditions of surrounding residents, highway safety, flood risk and drainage. There is no compelling evidence before me which would lead me to reach a different conclusion. Nevertheless, these matters hold neutral weight in the planning balance.

Weighing against the proposal is the harm I have identified in terms of the unsustainable location and consequent reliance on private vehicles to access the site. I attach significant weight to this harm. For the reasons set out above, I place limited weight on the travel plan as a means of mitigating the unsustainable location. There would also be harm to the character and appearance of the area arising from the proposed use, along with the loss of the hedgerow and suburbanising effect of the proposed vehicular entrance. Taken together, the conflicts I have identified with the development plan should be given significant weight in the planning balance. Overall, I do not find that the benefits of the scheme would outweigh the harm identified.

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.