Appeal 6005573

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the surrounding natural features and the landscape setting of the area; • whether the building is suitable for conversion to a dwelling having regard to its countryside location; and • whether the proposal provides for adequate outdoor space suitable for future occupiers.

The appeal site comprises a parcel of land associated with [site address] containing a linear stable building and part of its surrounding land, including vehicular access from the west. The site is enclosed by existing post-and-rail fencing and lies within a predominantly rural setting. Immediately adjacent to, but outside of the appeal site is an established hedgerow and a number of mature trees. These are located on elevated land and provide a verdant backdrop to the stables. Their canopies extend across the rear part of the site and over the stable building itself.

There are no trees within the confines of the appeal site and no arboricultural survey has been submitted. However, given the close proximity of the stables to these natural features, a survey and impact assessment is necessary to fully understand the effects of the development.

For example, it has not been demonstrated through a structural survey whether any additional foundation strengthening would be required. If it were, this could well take place within the root protection areas of the adjacent trees, and cause undue harm to their structural integrity, placing these at risk of failure. Furthermore, given the condition of the adjacent trees is not known, I cannot be certain of the risks, or perceived risks, that tree failure might have on the future occupiers of the conversion. This could lead to pressure for heavy tree pruning or the removal of trees given their proximity and the looming presence they would have over the building. Such loss could have an adverse impact on the verdant rural setting and landscape character.

Due to the confined extent of the site area, it is not clear to me that any adverse effects to trees could be mitigated by replacement planting.

As such I cannot be certain that the effects of the proposal on the surrounding natural features and the landscape setting would be acceptable. This brings the scheme into conflict with Policies SCLP5.5, SCLP10.4, SCLP11.1 and SCLP12.34 of the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (2020) (LP). Amongst other things, these policies expect proposals to recognise, protect and enhance natural features, ensuring that any impacts are avoided or adequately mitigated for. It is also contrary to Policy BE1 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2030 (made 2017) (NP) which requires proposals to respect the character and quality of the village, its setting in the landscape and enhance the surrounding area.

Located outside of any defined settlement boundary, it is common ground that the appeal site lies within the countryside.

The LP sets out a strategic approach to development, that seeks to focus it towards areas with the services and infrastructure to support growth. LP Policy SCLP3.2, details a five-tier settlement hierarchy. ‘Countryside’ is at the bottom of this hierarchy, with [site address] , the nearest settlement to the appeal site, named as one of those countryside communities within this lowest tier. It notes that development requirements in the Countryside are expected to come forward through [name] and windfall sites in accordance with other policies in the LP, which is further bolstered by LP Policy SCLP3.3.

LP Policy SCLP5.3 relates to development in the countryside. Its supporting text advises that, due to limited services and facilities, sites in the countryside are not suitable locations to focus new development. In recognition of this, it restricts new residential development outside of settlement boundaries to a number of exceptions, including (e) the conversion of existing buildings governed by LP Policy SCLP5.5. This is permissive of the conversion of buildings in the countryside for housing, subject to proposals meeting eight criteria (a) to (h). The parties agree that two of the criteria; (d) and (h) are met.

Criterion (a) requires that the building is redundant. Limited information is provided on this matter. The appellant asserts the building has been underused for some time, and I observed on site that the building appears to be in use for domestic storage, suggesting it is redundant in terms of the use for which it was first erected. Paragraph 84(c) of the Framework, provides that development of disused buildings is a suitable exception subject to it enhancing the immediate setting, a matter I return to shortly.

The parties agree that the contribution that the existing building makes to the landscape is neutral. From what I have observed, I concur with this assessment. Consequently, this brings the proposal into conflict with criterion (b) of this policy, which requires a positive contribution.

Criterion (c) requires that the conversion does not require significant alteration. There is no definition of what it means by significant alteration, albeit the supporting text notes that only extensions and alterations that are essential to enable the building to be converted for residential use should be made.

The plans indicate that the existing form of the building, including the stable door openings, would largely be retained, with only limited physical alterations proposed. Whilst the appellant’s Design and [name] refers to structural improvements, no substantive evidence has been provided, such as a structural survey or annotated plans, to demonstrate that the building is capable of conversion without significant rebuilding, alteration or structural intervention. This is a fundamental requirement in determining whether the proposal would constitute a genuine conversion, or indeed whether it necessitates a rebuild.

Given the appellant’s assertion that the building is no longer fit for livestock or arable use, the absence of such evidence is particularly notable. Consequently, I cannot be satisfied that the scheme would involve the conversion of the existing stables, rather than the construction of a replacement linear building replicating their appearance. It would not be appropriate to address this matter through a planning condition, as it goes to the core issue of whether the building is capable of conversion at all. The proposal therefore conflicts with criterion (c).

Whilst the works are considered by the appellant to be well within the spirit of conversion, as underpinned by caselaw1, this has not been evidenced, unlike the example cited which was accompanied by information relating to load bearing capacity and construction details.

I have already established that given the uncertainties regarding the level of intervention necessary, it has not been demonstrated that any necessary works would not have a harmful effect on the character of the landscape. Nor am I satisfied that the impacts on the natural environment could be adequately mitigated. As such the proposal conflicts with criteria (e) and (f) of LP Policy SCLP5.5.

Finally, criterion (g) requires consideration of whether the conversion would enhance the immediate setting of the area. As established above, the existing building has a neutral effect on its surroundings. While the proposal would secure improvements to a building in decline, this alone would not amount to a meaningful enhancement. Although the timber stable building is sympathetic to its rural context, the proposed linear dwelling, with its extensive domestic glazing, engineered and contrived curtilage and associated domestic paraphernalia, would introduce a markedly more domestic character to the site. In my judgement, this would urbanise and erode the rural character of the countryside location and would therefore fail to enhance the immediate setting of the area, contrary to criterion (g).

Bringing the above together, I identify conflicts with LP Policy SCLP5.5, which I find to be broadly consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Paragraph 84 expects that decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless it meets a listed exception, including 1 Hibbitt v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin) that (c) the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting. Whilst not isolated in that it is located close to [site address] and the edge of [site address] , it has not been demonstrated that the building can be converted. Even if it had, and irrespective of whether the building can be considered to be redundant or not, it would not enhance its immediate setting. Consequently, it would not meet the expectations of the Framework.

I have not been pointed to any other policy from the development plan that offers support to the proposal. For these reasons, based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the building is suitable for conversion to a dwelling, having regard to its countryside location. As such, the proposal conflicts with [name] SCLP5.5, SCLP10.4, SCLP11.1 and SCLP12.34 as well as [name] LP1 and BE1. Amongst other things, these policies seek to protect the countryside from inappropriate, unsustainable development.

The extent of the proposed curtilage is modest, denoted by the red line of the application site. Whilst there would be little in the way of outdoor space to either the front or rear, there would be an open area of external space to the eastern end of the conversion.

There is nothing before me to suggest that this area of space would not be fit for purpose to provide for a suitable garden commensurate with the proposal. It would offer a space away from the access and parking provision where occupiers could sit outside or dry laundry for example. Moreover, I have not been shown that the Council has adopted any external space standards upon which their concerns are based.

As such I do not find the alleged harm set out in the Council’s first reason for refusal to have been substantiated. In this respect, I identify no harm with LP Policy SCLP11.1, which amongst other things, expects a good standard of amenity for future occupiers. Neither do I find conflict with NP Policy BE1 in respect of this main issue, which requires good quality design.

The appeal site lies within the zone of influence of a number of European habitat sites protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. [name] been minded to allow this appeal, it would have been necessary for me to consider the effects of the proposal on the integrity of these sites, particularly from recreational pressure. However, as I am dismissing this appeal for other reasons, I have not considered this further, as it would not alter the outcome of this appeal.

The Council cannot currently demonstrate the necessary five-year supply of deliverable housing sites in accordance with the Framework. This warrants the application of paragraph 11(d) of the Framework. In this case, for decision-taking it means where policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The proposal would make an important contribution to boosting housing supply and bring about economic benefits such as temporary construction jobs and an increase in local spend once operational. These weigh considerably in favour of the scheme and are tempered only by the minor scale of development. Whilst cognisant that the dwelling is advanced as a self-build dwelling, no satisfactory condition is before me that would meet the tests of the Framework. Nor is it secured by a Planning Obligation, such that I give this only limited weight. Overall, I afford the totality of these benefits moderate positive weight.

On the other hand, it has not been robustly demonstrated that this proposal would amount to the re-use of an existing building. Whilst not isolated, it nevertheless lies in an area where development is restricted owing to its location away from services and facilities.

I have found that LP Policy SCLP5.5 is broadly consistent with the Framework, and that the proposal also conflicts with the expectations of the Framework insofar as it does not bring about an enhancement to its immediate setting. Furthermore, there would be demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the potential for tree loss. In addition to being contrary to LP policies in this regard, it also runs counter to the Framework which emphasises the importance of trees and expects existing trees to be retained where possible. These harms attract significant weight.

Given the relative benefits weighed against the harm and having had particular regard to relevant key policies, I find that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out in paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is disengaged and the scheme should be considered under a normal planning balance. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

In this case, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.