Appeal 6006625

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of disused agricultural barn to 2 units of holiday accommodation at [site address] , Pyworthy, Devon [postcode] in accordance with the application Ref 1/0686/2025/FUL, without compliance with condition number 1 previously imposed on planning permission Ref 1/1720/2002/48/0015, dated 15 January 2003 and subject to the following condition:

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by virtue of [name], B, C, D & E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be undertaken.

Planning permission was granted in 2003 for the conversion of a disused barn into 2 units of holiday accommodation. However, a Certificate of Lawfulness has subsequently confirmed the use of the building as a single unit. For the purposes of this appeal, the removal of the holiday occupancy condition would therefore permit the use of the building as a single unrestricted dwelling. This does not alter the nature of the development proposed but clarifies the lawful baseline against which the effects of the proposal are assessed. Furthermore, whilst the description of development in my formal decision still relates to holiday accommodation, the effect of my decision is to allow the occupation of the building as a permanent dwelling.

The main issues are whether the condition is reasonable and necessary, having regard to the location and access to services and facilities; and the effect of the loss of holiday accommodation on local tourism.

Location - The appeal site is located in a particularly rural part of the countryside. Holsworthy is said to be 4.6 miles away, being the nearest settlement able to provide a range of services and facilities. Access to it would require travelling through a network of often narrow lanes. In the absence of any known public transport options and notably uninviting cycling or walking routes, this would probably necessitate private vehicle use.

The Council is concerned that the development would create a dwelling in a location that would be contrary to its hierarchical spatial strategy set out in Policy ST07 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan (LP). Amongst other things, and in this respect, the policy seeks to direct most development to the largest settlements with a good range of services and facilities. In the countryside, part (4) of ST07 limits development to certain circumstances, including rural building reuse.

It is acknowledged that different policies applied at the time the appeal building was given permission. Even so, as it has already been converted, LP Policy DM27 and paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) are not relevant. Furthermore, having paid regard to the [address] appeal1, there is little reason the appeal property would necessarily become redundant, particularly given the current occupation arrangements. Be that as it may, the building is already in a residential use, and the removal of the condition would not create a dwelling. Moreover, ST07 does not stipulate that rural buildings must be redundant and therefore the proposal would not be in conflict with it.

Within that context, LP Policy ST10 aims to reduce the need to travel by car and the Council is concerned that the day-to-day requirements of a permanent home are less sustainable than a holiday let. However, the evidence shows that the property has been used as a second home and I am not aware this would be particularly intensive in terms of traffic movements. Notwithstanding this, as permitted, the property could be permanently used as holiday accommodation which could result in significant travelling across large geographical areas. If it were to be used during peak holiday seasons, the impacts on the road network may well be more acute than potential smoother year-round demands associated with an unrestricted dwelling. This is an impact ST10 seeks to guard against. In any case, while the type of services and facilities used by different occupiers might vary, in these particular circumstances there is no substantive evidence before me that indicates either type of residential use would be meaningfully different from one another in transport terms.

It is acknowledged that the Framework says housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, though there is also a recognition that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. That said, housing is already established here. 1 APP/X1118/W/19/3232497 Furthermore, the appeal property is positioned amongst a small cluster of other dwellings. Even if this is not considered to be a settlement, unrestricted occupancy would be likely to add to the vitality of this small rural community and could also support services in nearby settlements. Overall, I conclude on this main issue that the condition is not reasonable or necessary in respect of the appeal site’s location, including its access to services and facilities. As such, there would be no conflict with LP policies ST07 or ST10.

Tourism – Overarching support for tourism development that provides a year-round industry is set out in LP Policy ST13, which is broadly consistent with paragraph 88 of the Framework. Specific applications for the removal of holiday occupancy conditions are dealt with under LP Policy DM18. In that respect, if the property is capable of being permanently occupied without the need for major extension or alteration, the policy requires compelling evidence to demonstrate that a holiday restriction is no longer justified. There is no dispute between the parties that the property is capable of being permanently occupied.

There is however some disagreement over the amount of evidence required to comply with DM18, with the Council interpreting the supporting text to mean that wider demand, or lack thereof, in the locality needs to be demonstrated as well as a reasonably priced marketing effort for at least 12 months prior to the application’s submission. In respect of the latter point, recent marketing following the Council’s decision would not align with the spirit of the policy’s intentions. It is important to note though that such text does not have the force of policy, and it is appropriate to apply planning judgement here.

In light of this, a marketing campaign would indicate whether or not there is an appetite for the property to remain as tourism accommodation in the locality. It is accepted that ‘compelling evidence’ represents a high bar and even if I were to agree with the Council that more evidence of wider demand is needed, for some considerable time, the property has not provided tourist accommodation. In these circumstances, there would seem to be very little benefit in providing estimated profitability on a business that does not exist. Furthermore, the evidence relating to a comparable property in Clawton shows that it failed to attract demand as holiday accommodation. This reflects the appeal property’s remote, rural location, which is likely to be less appealing to the tourism market than more accessible or coastal alternatives.

Therefore, the effect of removing the condition would probably have limited consequences for existing tourism supply in this part of the district. For the above reasons, the absence of further detailed information on other tourist accommodation does not alter my view that marketing would align with the supporting text and represents a reasonably appropriate test of policy compliance.

It is agreed that the property was marketed for a period of 20 months. Due to a claimed anomalous valuation within the appraisals carried out by the appellant, the Council considers the initial guide price of £550,000 was too high and should have been around £512,500. Given the advertised price was merely a guide and not substantially greater than that suggested by the Council, this would not necessarily have discouraged potential purchasers to come forward with lower offers. As such, the initial guide price was not wholly unreasonable. Additionally, the guide price was periodically reduced over the 12 months, with about 7 months where it was under £500,000. Although not representing a 12-month period below the lowest market appraisal, this nevertheless shows a concerted effort to market the property and adapt the strategy to stimulate interest and activity. Despite these efforts, I am not aware any firm offers were made.

For the reasons given, I conclude on this main issue that the effect of the loss of holiday accommodation on local tourism would be negligible and the evidence provided is sufficiently robust to demonstrate the occupancy condition is no longer reasonable or necessary. Accordingly, there would be no conflict with LP policies ST13 or DM18.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing land and has therefore relied on paragraph 11(d) of the Framework. However, the appeal proposal would not result in a net increase in the number of dwellings, as the building is already in a residential use. In these circumstances, the proposal does not engage the supply of housing in the manner anticipated by the Framework. Moreover, I have found that the proposal accords with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate a different decision should be taken. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.

By allowing this appeal a new planning permission is created. The PPG advises that, for clarity, decision notices for the grant of planning permission under section 73 should restate the conditions imposed on earlier permissions that continue to have effect, unless they have already been discharged.

Within that context, a condition removing permitted development rights is still necessary in the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the building. As such, I have reimposed an amended version of condition 5 to reflect advice contained in the PPG and updated legislation.