Appeal 6007227

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are whether the proposed development would: • amount to the creation of a new building, and if so, whether the site would be in a suitable location for the proposal, having regard to local and national policy, and accessibility to services and facilities; and • provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with regard to the potential for odour, and noise and disturbance.

The appeal site is located within the countryside and consists of a single storey steel framed barn. A small lean-to is attached to the south elevation. Internally, the tack room and stables were not in use at the time of my visit.

A single storey side extension accommodating the proposed dwelling’s bedroom would be located to the south elevation and involve the removal of the lean-to.

Contained within the Council’s Rural Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is guidance on the re-use of rural buildings. Paragraph 1.2 of [name] highlights that not all rural buildings are suitable for conversion, with some requiring major or complete reconstruction, alteration or extension to allow their re-use. Adding that, in such cases, it would effectively represent the creation of a new building in the countryside. Moreover, paragraph 2.3 e) emphasises that the residential use is generally only appropriate for buildings that are, inter alia, capable of conversion without substantial alteration or extension.

The SPD does not provide a definition of ‘major or complete reconstruction, alteration of extension’ or ‘substantial alteration or extension’, and the Council’s calculated increase in floorspace has not been contested. Whilst such qualitative measures are useful, its scale and massing, as well as the purpose of the extension are also relevant to such an assessment in this case.

In this respect, the extension would noticeably elongate the building’s frontage to [address] and be visible above the adjacent hedgerow and from the site access. In addition, the extension would accommodate the only bedroom, which forms an essential element of the proposed dwelling. Consequently, the appeal scheme, without this sizeable extension to facilitate the sleeping accommodation, would not be capable of conversion to a dwelling.

Although the appeal building is sound and suitable for conversion into residential use without major structural reconstruction or upgrade, this is, as well as the alterations to the existing elevations, not a determinative factor in this case.

Therefore, due to the size of the extension and the essential function of the accommodation it would provide to allow the re-use of this rural building as a dwelling, the proposed extension would be major, and, as such, the appeal scheme constitutes the creation of a new building rather than a conversion.

Core Policy 1 (CP1) of the Lichfield District Local Plan Strategy 2008-2029 (LP) identifies that growth will be located at the most accessible and sustainable locations in accordance with the [name]. New rural housing will be directed mainly towards identified key rural settlements, and smaller villages will accommodate housing to meet local needs, mainly within identified village boundaries.

LP Core Policy 6 (CP6) sets out a criteria-based approach to the provision of residential development in the remaining rural areas. Relevant to this case is ‘changes of use and conversion schemes’. However, as detailed above, the appeal scheme does not represent a conversion and none of the other listed criteria apply to the proposed development.

Whilst the appeal building contributes to a very loose group of buildings along [address], close to its junction with [address], it is a considerable distance from a built-up area. The route to the closest village includes the narrow [address] and, although wider, [address], and for much of the journey neither footpaths nor streetlights are present. Whilst this may be suitable for confident walkers and cyclists, and within the claimed 5km threshold for cycling to day-to-day services and facilities, the road conditions would not be attractive to all, including those with mobility issues, particularly during adverse weather and during the hours of darkness. Moreover, there is limited information before me on public transport provision in the area. Due to a lack of genuine sustainable travel choices, the occupants of the proposed dwelling would be heavily reliant on private motor vehicles to access services and facilities on a regular basis, and I find the site to be isolated from a settlement.

It is contended that the proposed development would accord with paragraph 84 c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which identifies exceptions for the development of isolated homes in the countryside. However, as I have concluded that the proposal constitutes a new building, it would not represent the re-use of redundant or disused buildings. Furthermore, as a result of the existing abundance of hedgerows and trees in the locality, including along [address], I am not persuaded that the modest provision of new hedgerow and tree planting within the site would enhance its immediate setting.

It is claimed that the proposal would result in fewer vehicle movements as the appellant currently travels to the site on a regular basis to attend to the horses. Nevertheless, in terms of access to services and facilities by users of the site, the current equestrian use is materially different to a dwelling and without the same need for day-to-day services and facilities.

For these reasons, I conclude that the appeal site is not a suitable location for the proposal, having regard to local and national policy, and accessibility to services and facilities. This is contrary to [name] CP1 and CP6, which, amongst other things, set out the spatial strategy for growth within the district over the plan period, seek to reduce the need to travel and restrict new housing developments in remaining rural areas to those that meet the listed exceptions.

[name] saw that the appeal building was no longer in use as stables, a small number of horses were kept on an adjoining field and what appeared to be a modest field shelter was located in close proximity with a pathway linking the 2 structures. I experienced minimal noise from these equestrian activities and despite my visit taking place during a particularly hot period of weather, there was no discernible odour or flies present.

However, my site visit was only a snapshot in time and not necessarily representative of all scenarios that would be experienced, including horses being fed and watered early in the morning. Moreover, the hard surfaced route to the field shelter from the access would cross over the concrete slab directly in front of the proposed dwelling that has the potential to introduce comings and goings at more unsociable hours.

In response, the appellants have suggested that the occupation of the proposed dwelling could be limited to persons who own / operate the adjacent equestrian facilities as it falls within their control. This approach is not contested by the Council. In the event that the appeal was to be allowed, this matter could be covered by a planning condition.

On this basis, I have found that the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with regard to the potential for odour, and noise and disturbance. The Council has not identified conflict with the LP in terms of living conditions. However, it accords with the Framework in securing a high standard of amenity for future users.

The appeal site falls within the Zone of Influence for the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (SAC), which is a European Site as defined in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). The appellant has provided a signed unilateral undertaking (UU), which would secure a financial contribution towards measures to mitigate the adverse impacts resulting from increased recreational pressure. Whilst details have not been provided by the Council, based on my knowledge of the SAC, this approach accords with the mitigation developed for the SAC and the Council has confirmed that the UU is an appropriate mechanism. Notwithstanding the UU, as I have found that the appeal scheme would be unacceptable for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to consider whether there would be any likely significant effects on the integrity of the SAC or undertake an Appropriate Assessment.

The Framework states that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. I give significant weight to the conflict with [name] CP1 and CP6, which are consistent with the Framework insofar as they seek to direct development to sustainable locations and promote sustainable transport.

There is no dispute that the Council currently does not have a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, and a figure of 3.5 years has been given by both parties. Consequently, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is applicable. Paragraph 11 d) ii) identifies that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impact 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 certain key policies including directing development to sustainable locations.

Whilst there is synergy between [name] CP1 and CP6 and the Framework insofar as they seek to avoid isolated homes in the countryside, considering the lack of a 5-year housing land supply, the weight I afford to this conflict is limited. Nevertheless, due to the conflict with [name] CP1 and CP6 in terms of sustainable locations and transport, I find that there is conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The proposed development would make a positive contribution in the delivery of an energy efficient smaller dwelling, which makes effective use of land by incorporating an existing structure located on a previously developed site. There would also be associated social and economic benefits during the period of construction and once the dwelling is occupied, and an enhancement to biodiversity on the site.

The limited scale of the development means that I afford the provision of a new house within the context of the current shortfall, along with the other benefits listed above, moderate weight in favour of the proposed development.

On the other side of the balance, the proposal would not be located in a suitable location, having regard to local and national policy, and accessibility to services and facilities. This would be contrary to paragraphs 84 and 115 of the Framework. Given the long-lasting nature of such effects, I attribute significant weight to this conflict.

Therefore, I conclude that the adverse impacts of the proposals would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As such the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 11 d) of the Framework does not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan 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. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.