Penderfyniad ar yr Apêl Appeal Decision Ymweliad â safle a wnaed ar 04/04/16 Site visit made on 04/04/16 gan Richard Duggan BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI Arolygydd a benodir gan Weinidogion Cymru Dyddiad: 29/04/16 Date: 29/04/16 by Richard Duggan BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Welsh Ministers Appeal Ref: APP/T6850/A/16/3141917 Site address: Lower Trederwen Farm, Trederwen Lane, Arddleen, Llanymynech SY22 6RZ The Welsh Ministers have transferred the authority to decide this appeal to me as the appointed Inspector. The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. The appeal is made by Mrs Jackie Mountford against the decision of Powys County Council. The application Ref P/2015/0852, dated 17 August 2015, was refused by notice dated 9 December 2015. The application sought planning permission for the conversion of existing agricultural buildings to form 6 holiday units, laundry and office and installation of septic tank without complying with condition No. 3 attached to planning permission Ref M/2002/0631, dated 2 August 2002. The condition in dispute is No.3. Condition 3 states that The accommodation hereby approved shall be restricted to holiday occupation only for short term holiday lettings and shall not be let to the same person or persons for a single period exceeding four weeks or for two or more periods exceeding in total eight weeks, in any period of twelve months calculated from 1 st January in any year. The reason given for the condition is: In order to prevent the establishment of permanent residential accommodation and to promote the Council s tourism policy of promoting all year round holiday accommodation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. I consider the main issues in this case to be: 1) Whether sufficient justification has been put forward to delete condition 3 of planning permission ref. M/2002/0631, and whether the condition is reasonable and necessary, having regard to planning policies that seek to strictly control permanent residential uses in the open countryside away from established settlements;
Reasons 2) The effect of allowing permanent residential use on the living conditions of future occupiers with regard to noise, odour, loss of privacy and disturbance, and access to outdoor private amenity space; and 3) Whether the proposed permanent residential use represents an acceptable form of development having regard to its flood zone location and the provisions of Planning Policy Wales (PPW) and Technical Advice Note 15: Development and Flood Risk (TAN15). Holiday use restriction 3. Policy GP6 of the Adopted Powys Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2010 establishes a hierarchy for the conversion or re-use of existing buildings in the countryside, and applicants are required to demonstrate that attempts have been made to secure a reuse for purposes in classes i-iii, or provide convincing evidence that such uses would be impractical. In this case, there is no consideration given to the possibility that the appeal buildings would be suitable for classes i and ii, although I recognise that the Council accepts that a commercial re-use may not be appropriate given the farmyard setting and location. 4. Class iii relates to residential development to meet a proven local need for affordable housing and where the applicant complies with affordability criteria in UDP policy HP10. There is no indication that consideration has been given to renting or selling the units as affordable housing with a suitable mechanism to restrict any future occupancy in perpetuity to meet that need. In addition, no detailed evidence or justification has been put forward as to why this option would be impractical. I note that the Appellant has stated that the proposed units would be affordable in nature and briefly refers to the cost of conversion and the inability of local people to get a mortgage, as reasons why the site would be unviable for 6 affordable units. However, no substantive evidence in this regard has been produced, and therefore I attribute limited weight to this argument. 5. Class iv. in the hierarchy includes permanent residential use, holiday accommodation or other tourism, leisure and recreation uses. Although the policy does not state which use has priority, Technical Advice Note (TAN) 6 1 states that residential conversions have minimal impact on the rural economy whilst conversions for holiday use can contribute more and may reduce pressure to use other houses in the area for holiday use 2. For this reason, retaining the existing holiday use would be preferable to an unrestricted residential use, if attempts to use as affordable housing had been unsuccessful or shown to be impractical. 6. Although planning permission was granted for the conversion of the agricultural building to holiday accommodation in 2002 3 it appears that it is yet to be fully completed or ready for occupation. From the evidence before me, it would appear that the buildings have not been let out as holiday accommodation to paying 1 TAN 6 Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities 2 TAN 6 Paragraph 3.6.1 3 Planning Permission Ref: M2002 0631 granted on 2 August 2002 2
customers which means that the potential profitability or viability of the holiday let business has not been properly tested. 7. The thrust of national planning policy seeks to create balanced sustainable rural communities, with new development located within and adjoining those settlements where it can be best accommodated in term of inter alia infrastructure and access. I observed that the options for travelling without the use of a car are somewhat limited, and it is evident that only limited local services and facilities are located in Arddleen. Although it may be possible to cycle in some instances, such an arrangement would not adequately cater for the day to day needs of the future occupants of this development without significant reliance on the car as a means of travel. I therefore consider that the proposal would be at odds with the objectives of PPW insofar as it would be located outside of a settlement and would be inadequate in terms of its accessibility by non-car modes. 8. Having regard to the above, it has not been demonstrated that permanent residential use of the buildings is justified and that alternative uses have been fully considered. On this basis, I consider the deletion of condition3 attached to planning permission M2002 0631 has not been justified. As such, the proposal conflicts with Policy GP6 of the UDP. I also find that condition 3 is reasonable and necessary having regard to the planning policies that seek to strictly control permanent residential uses in the open countryside away from established settlements. Living conditions 9. The proposed occupation of the dwellings would not be restricted. That is, they would be open market dwellings, and whether the proximity to the farming activity could be regarded as undesirable has to be considered in that context. The proximity to the large farm building closest to the appeal site would potentially give rise to significant levels of noise and disturbance to future occupiers of the proposed dwellings. The domestic use of the dwelling houses and the garden areas, especially the garden of unit 6, would be disturbed by increased potential for odours emanating from the yard and barns. There would also be disturbance from activity within the yard by vehicles using the main driveway and entering or leaving the sheds, and by movement associated with the farming activity. 10. Furthermore, the pedestrian and vehicle movements associated with the new dwellings would have to utilise the farm access that would remain the primary access point to the machinery store and farmyard. The main entrance to the dwellings off the existing vehicular access areas into the yard would present a danger for pedestrians entering and exiting the dwellings when farm vehicles were passing. 11. I noted that the current site appears to be a fairly low-key farming enterprise with the main fields located away from the appeal buildings, and that the intention is to remove the adjacent barn. However, it is possible that the type of farming on the surrounding land could change in the future and there is no guarantee that the barn would be removed and it could be used for the storage of materials or machinery which could be noisy, smelly or dangerous. The fact that the proposed dwellings would be physically separated from this storage element does not properly protect future occupants of the dwellings from that kind of potential harm to living conditions. 12. The Appellant contends that the holiday units can be accommodated 365 days a year, and the potential pollution or nuisance is identical to holiday residence and permanent residential residence. However, I consider that the adjacent barn and 3
other buildings are more likely to be used during winter months to house livestock and permanent year round residential use in such close proximity to it would be likely to result in conflicts arising from noise and odour. Whereas, there would be less of an impact during summer months, when there is greater demand for holiday accommodation, and staying next to a working farm could be considered as part of the holiday experience. 13. I acknowledge the fact that the Council s Environmental Health Officer does not object. However, in my opinion the appeal proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of proposed occupiers of the dwellings with regard to noise, odour, loss of privacy and disturbance and conflict with UDP Policies GP1 and DC17. 14. The Council is also concerned that the level of outdoor amenity space for the proposed units would be inadequate. However, the plans approved under the original planning permission for the conversion to holiday accommodation include provision for an area of outdoor amenity space for each unit which I consider to be sufficient in scale to cater for the needs of future occupiers. As such, there would be no conflict with Policy GP1 of the UDP in respect of the level of private outdoor amenity space. Flooding 15. Whilst acknowledging that holiday and residential accommodation falls within the same use class (Class C3) for the purposes of the Use Classes Order 4 and are both classed as highly vulnerable for the purposes of TAN15, the Council consider the risks and consequences of flooding associated with holiday accommodation to be less than those associated with residential use. 16. The main source of flood risk to the site comes from the River Severn and it lies within Zone C2 as defined by the Development Advice Map (DAM) referred to under TAN15. It is this designation which dictates how the appeal proposal shall be assessed. In accordance with TAN15, development can take place in Zone C2 subject to being justified and, if it is, the provision of evidence that the consequences of the flooding which will occur can be managed to an acceptable level. 17. TAN15 requires that development should only be permitted within Zone C2 if it is determined that it is justified in that location. Development will only be justified if it can be demonstrated that the location satisfies the tests set out in TAN15 para 6.2. I have seen no evidence indicating that the development is necessary to assist, or be part of a local authority regeneration initiative or a local authority strategy required to sustain an existing settlement (test criterion i.), or that it is necessary to contribute to key employment objectives supported by the local authority and other key partners to sustain an existing settlement (test criterion ii). Thus, it does not meet the justification tests i. or ii. set out in paragraph 6.2 of TAN15. 18. TAN15 advises that whether a development should proceed or not will depend upon whether the consequences of flooding of that development can be managed down to a level which is acceptable for the nature/type of development being proposed. A balanced judgement is also required to enable the risks of flooding to be addressed whilst recognising the benefits of reusing previously developed land. At the time of determination of the planning application the Appellant had not submitted a Flood 4 The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 4
Consequence Assessment (FCA) and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) had not raised concerns with the proposal. 19. Although a formal FCA has not been prepared, the Appellant has stated a willingness to prepare a Flood Management Plan which could include measures to be taken in the event of flood warnings being issued or flooding to occur. Permanent residents would have an increased knowledge of the Flood Management Plan and would have more of an awareness of what to do in the event of a flooding event in contrast with visitors to the holiday accommodation who would stay at the site for short periods of time. A suitably worded condition could be used to ensure this is prepared and agreed with the Council prior to first occupation. 20. Therefore, whilst it has not been demonstrated that the development is justified with regard to the tests set out in section 6 of TAN15, in this instance the proposed permanent residential occupation of the buildings would not, in my opinion, prove to be more of a threat to life than the permitted use of the site as holiday accommodation. In this regard, I find that the proposal would not represent an unacceptable form of development having regard to its flood zone location and the provisions of PPW, TAN15 and Policy DC13 and DC14 of the UDP. Other matters 21. My attention has been drawn to another appeal decision 5 within Powys. Although the appeal is similar to this proposal, each case must be determined on its own merits having regard to the particular location and circumstances. Therefore, I have given this decision limited weight in my determination of this appeal. 22. The lack of a 5-year housing supply is given considerable weight in favour of the development where it otherwise complies with the development plan and national policies. In this case the development does not comply and therefore less weight would be attributed to the contribution this development would make to housing land supply. Conclusions 23. Notwithstanding my favourable conclusions for the appellant on amenity space and flooding, this does not outweigh the harm that I have identified to the living conditions of future occupiers, or my conclusions that condition 3 which restricts the use of the existing property to holiday use is reasonable and necessary. 24. For the reasons given above and having considered all other matters raised, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed. Richard Duggan INSPECTOR 5 APP/T6850/A/12/2175420 5