Appeal 6006837

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the principle of development is acceptable having regard to the policies of the development plan.

The appeal site is outside of a defined settlement boundary. Policy SP03 of the Babergh District Council and Mid Suffolk District Council Joint Local Plan Part 1 (2023) (JLP) permits proposals where it is in accordance with one of the policies in the JLP listed in table 5 of Policy SP03. The appellant advances that the proposal would accord with three of the policies listed; Policy LP04, LP05 and LP12.

Policy LP04 of the JLP permits proposals for conversion of buildings to residential where it has been demonstrated that the structure is capable of accommodating the use and the development would reuse redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting.

The existing building is a tractor shed which was granted permission in 2021 for the storage of tractors and other ancillary equipment required for the upkeep of the campsite meadow. The appellant states that the tractor shed is no longer needed and thus the proposal would be reusing a disused building. However, very limited substantive evidence has been submitted to qualify this statement. Little explanation has been given as to why the tractor shed is no longer required, where the tractors would be relocated to and how the maintenance and upkeep of the meadow would be undertaken without the tractor shed. On the basis of the information submitted I cannot be satisfied that the building proposed for conversion is redundant or disused. Therefore, even if I were to consider the building structurally sound, it would not meet the policy requirement.

Policy LP05 of the JLP permits residential accommodation outside settlement boundaries subject to it meeting all six criteria set out in the policy. The first criterion, a) is that the proposal demonstrates an essential need for residential accommodation to be located with the existing or proposed use.

The appellant contends that it is necessary for them to reside on the campsite to provide security and supervision as well as to meet the guests and enforce the campsite rules. However, limited information has been provided as to why the existing way in which the campsite operates is no longer feasible. From the limited information submitted, I am not persuaded that a permanent onsite presence is the only way in which the appellants objectives could be met. For example, CCTV could perhaps be used to monitor the site and/or the use of a staff rota. Given the limited information submitted, I am not satisfied that it has been sufficiently demonstrated that there is an essential need for residential accommodation on the site.

The second criterion, b), requires that the proposal must demonstrate that there are no other suitable building(s) or nearby available residential accommodation to serve the proposal. The appellant has stated that there are no suitable buildings on the site. I observed that this was the case on my site visit. However, no information has been submitted to demonstrate that there is no other nearby residential accommodation available that could serve the proposal.

I note the Council’s responses to criteria c, d, e and f of Policy LP05 of the JLP within their statement of case and that they are satisfied the proposal complies with these criteria. However, as I have found that the proposal fails to meet criteria a) and b), and as all criteria needs to be met, the proposal does not accord with Policy LP05. It is therefore not necessary for me to consider the proposal against the remaining criteria of this policy.

Turning to the café element of the proposal, Policy LP12 supports proposals for facilities that support the leisure and tourism sectors, provided it accords with a series of criteria. This includes that the proposal improves the District’s ability to attract and cater for visitors, has facilities open to the wider community and is accessible by public transport. At the application stage, the Council was not satisfied that the proposal met the criteria of Policy LP12, as it was understood the proposal would only be for users of the campsite. However, at appeal stage, the appellant has stated that the proposal would serve the wider community.

My attention has not been drawn to any public transport facilities. Notwithstanding this, on the basis that the proposal would be open to the wider community, and from the information submitted within the Appellants appeal statement on this particular matter, the Council has accepted in its statement of case that the requirements of Policy LP12 have been met. However, even if I were to agree with the Council because the café is physically linked to the proposed dwelling, permission could not be granted for this element alone.

For the reasons given, the principle of the proposed development as a whole would not be acceptable and would be in conflict with Policies SP03, LP04 and LP05 of the JLP, the aims of which I have already set out.

In support of their case, the appellant has drawn my attention to appeal ref: APP/W3520/W/24/3354473 for the retention of a holiday lodge and continued use of land for camping pitches. The development proposed in that case is materially different to this appeal and was assessed primarily against Policy LP13 ([name]) of the JLP. It is therefore not directly comparable and I afford it limited weight.

The tractor shed proposed for conversion is near three [name] listed buildings; [address] (1285185) a c.19th century farmhouse with an earlier timber core, constructed in a distinctive gault brick and the c.17th century traditional timber framed and weatherboarded barn (1352337) and stable (1181031). The significance of these is derived from their age and architectural interest. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires that, in my consideration of whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, I must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Taking account of the modest scale of the proposal, intervening mature trees and the distance between the location of the proposed dwelling/café and the listed buildings, the proposal would not diminish the ability to appreciate the significance of these heritage assets and the setting of these listed buildings would be preserved. I note the Council have not identified any harm in this regard.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The proposal would improve visitor facilities at the site and would make a small positive contribution to the local economy. However, owing to the small scale of the proposal, I afford limited weight to this.

No harm has been identified to character and appearance of the area. However, an absence of harm is of neutral weight.

Whilst the proposal would make efficient use of an existing building, it has not been demonstrated sufficiently that the existing building is redundant or disused nor that there are no other suitable buildings nearby that could serve the proposal. I afford significant weight to this policy conflict.

In conclusion, the conflicts with the above identified JLP policies indicates that the proposed development would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole. The material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.