Appeal 6006248

The appeal is allowed and planning permission granted for the change of use of outbuilding to allow holiday let use (building having extant permission for annexe under ref DC/25/03040) at [site address] , [site address] , Thrandeston, Suffolk [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application [name]/25/05011 and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 831/01A – Location Plan; 831/18C – Proposed Site Block Plans; 831/19A – [name]; 831/20 – [name].

Prior to first us of the holiday let, details of hard and soft landscape works and an implementation programme, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the holiday let is brought into use in accordance with the agreed implementation programme.

The development shall be occupied as holiday accommodation only and shall not be occupied as a sole or main place of residence or by any persons exceeding a period of more than 28 days in any calendar year. An up-to-date register shall be kept and be made available for inspection by the local planning authority upon request. The register shall contain details of the names of all the occupiers of the accommodation, their main home addresses and their date of arrival and departure from the accommodation.

The planning application was determined having regard to revision B of the Proposed Site Block Plans1. However, the appellant submitted an amended version (revision C) with their appeal. The proposal in general remains unchanged and the only difference is the addition of an annotation showing the proposed location of an electric vehicle charging point. This does not materially alter the development proposed, and the revised plan has therefore been accepted.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal meets the requirements of local planning policy in relation to countryside tourist accommodation, with specific consideration of need, effect on the character of the area and accessibility by a range of transport modes; and • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the users of the holiday let regarding privacy and disturbance.

The appeal site comprises a garage and storage building (the appeal building) set within the wider residential plot of [site address] . It is located on a quiet lane within a rural area that is largely characterised by open fields, wooded areas and a very limited amount of sporadic residential development within spacious plots.

Extant planning permission2 exists for the appeal building to be used as a residential annexe, ancillary to the main dwelling. The appeal building sits perpendicular to the main house, with a substantial amount of intervening driveway. Adjacent to the appeal building is an area that would be set aside for the private use of the holiday let. Beyond this area is an existing fence and substantial secondary car parking area, with the extensive garden to [site address] wrapping around the back of the house. Only minor alterations are proposed to the external appearance of the appeal building, including the installation of a flue, window, door and rooflights.

The Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan (2023) (JLP) seeks to direct most development towards existing settlements where it can be sustainably located and in the interests of recognising the intrinsic character of the countryside. Within this context, JLP Policy SP03 confirms that development outside of settlement boundaries will normally only be permitted where, amongst other things, it is in accordance with one of the policies listed in Table 5. This list includes JLP Policy LP13, which confirms that tourist accommodation outside of settlement boundaries will be considered on an exceptional basis and it must also demonstrate compliance with criteria a) to c).

Criteria a) requires demonstration of an overriding business need for the tourist accommodation to be in that location. The appellant’s assertion that there is a requirement for additional tourist accommodation in the area is plausible given that 1 [name] 831/18B. 2 Council Ref DC/25/03040. the wider area is known for its appeal to holiday makers. That said, although there is no specific policy requirement to consider the suitability and availability of alternative locations, the appellant has not provided compelling justification for the need for the holiday let to be in this specific location.

The minor external alterations to the appeal building would retain its ancillary appearance. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the proposed holiday let use would introduce a level of domestic activity on the site over and above the building’s use as a residential annexe. It would also share the existing vehicular access point with [site address] , and no additional built development is proposed. For these reasons, the proposal would be sympathetic to the rural character of the area in compliance with criteria b).

Criteria c) requires proposals to be accessible by a range of transport modes, which the appeal site fulfils. It has good access to the public footpath network, providing access to a range of countryside walks. Furthermore, it is immediately adjacent to the highway and is therefore accessible by car and bicycle.

Notwithstanding the conflict with JLP Policy LP13, as articulated above, it is unclear what associated harm would arise from a lack of need for the proposal to be in this specific location. Furthermore, the appeal building exists, could be used for residential purposes as an annexe by residents other than those of the main house and it is likely that such occupants would make some trips by private car.

For the above reasons, the proposal would conflict with [name] SP03 and LP13, but with associated limited harm.

Due to the orientation of the buildings and the substantial intervening driveway, direct views into the proposed holiday let from [site address] would be minimal. Furthermore, the closest outdoor space to [site address] itself is hard surfaced and would most likely be used for vehicle parking. Consequently, residents of [site address] would likely spend a substantial amount of their outdoor time within the substantial grounds to the rear, away from the holiday let. In addition, the large driveway to the front of the property would allow sufficient space for residents to access parking spaces to the side of [site address] without the need to drive close to the holiday let. In any case, such movements would be minimal in number. It is accepted that separation distances could be considered less than would normally be acceptable in a residential situation. However, the circumstances of this case are different in that the holiday let would be within the grounds of [site address] , would be operated by the appellants and that individual holiday makers would only utilise the building on a short-term basis.

For these reasons, the proposal would not cause harm to the living conditions of the users of the holiday let regarding privacy and disturbance. Thus, it would comply with JLP Policy LP24, which, amongst other things, requires protection of the health and amenity of occupiers by avoiding development that is overlooked or results in unacceptable levels of noise.

The proposal would bring forward tourist accommodation that is sensitive to its countryside location and in an area where there is a need. Development that supports tourism, even on a small scale such as this, can be hugely beneficial to achieving rural prosperity by helping local economies to thrive.

[address] and [address] are grade II listed buildings that are set within substantial grounds and are therefore located a significant distance from the appeal site. This, together with the presence of intervening mature vegetation boundaries and built form, and the minor nature of external alterations proposed to the appeal building, mean that the proposal would preserve their settings.

The motivation for seeking planning permission, such as to maximise assets, is not a matter for deliberation in this appeal.

The Council has also expressed concern regarding the potential for a new planning unit to be created and that holiday accommodation can come under pressure to be altered into a separate dwelling for full time residential use. Although the appeal building is physically separated from the main house and boundary features could be introduced to delineate the holiday let from the main residence, it is set within the grounds of [site address] , they would share a single driveway, and the proposed holiday let would be small in scale. In any case, any future proposal to seek a further change of use of the building would be assessed and determined on its own planning merits.

Some of the conditions suggested by the Council have been consolidated and excessive and unnecessary prescriptive test removed for conciseness.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to impose a condition specifying the approved plans for clarity. Furthermore, in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the area, a condition is included requiring the submission and approval of soft and hard landscaping details and an implementation programme. It is appropriate for these details to be submitted prior to first use in this case given that the building already exists, and any additional landscaping is anticipated to be minor. A condition has also been included restricting the use of the building to holiday accommodation given that an alternative use has not been assessed under this appeal.

[site address] sits outside the red line boundary of the site and its permitted development rights could not therefore be removed under this appeal. Failing to remove the rights would not lead to the proposal being unacceptable in planning terms given that there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the property’s context indicates that such a restriction would be necessary.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, but with only limited associated harm. In this context, material considerations, including the contribution the proposal would make towards tourism and the local rural economy, indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Thus, the appeal is allowed.