Case Reference: 3247902

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 5 October 2020
by M Cryan BA(Hons) DipTP MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 21 December 2020
Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/W/20/3247902
The Stable, Dagnall Road, Dunstable LU6 2LD
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Central Bedfordshire Council.
• The application Ref CB/19/02573/FULL, dated 1 August 2019, was refused by notice
dated 10 February 2020.
• The development proposed is described as ‘redundant stable block conversion to 1 no 2-
bedroom dwelling’.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the conversion of
a stable block to a 2 bedroom dwelling at The Stable, Dagnall Road, Dunstable
LU6 2LD in accordance with the terms of the application,
Ref CB/19/02573/FULL, dated 1 August 2019, subject to the conditions in the
attached schedule.
Procedural Matters
2. The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the
planning application form. In its decision notice the Council removed the word
‘redundant’ from the description of development and I have also used the
amended description in my formal decision. This is firstly because ‘redundant’
is not descriptive of the proposed development. Secondly, at the time of my
site visit the site and buildings were very much in use for stabling horses.
3. Further evidence was submitted by the appellant in respect of a planning
application near the appeal site, which was approved by the Council after the
normal deadline for submitting comments had passed. This evidence is relevant
to the proposal before me, and the Council has been given an opportunity to
comment on it. I am therefore satisfied that no party has been prejudiced, and
I have determined this appeal having taken it into account.
Background and Main Issue
4. The appeal relates to the proposed conversion of a stable building to a dwelling
on a site within the Green Belt. Paragraph 143 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (the Framework) states that inappropriate development is, by
definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very
specific circumstances. However, Paragraph 146 (d) allows for the re-use of
buildings within the Green Belt provided that they are of permanent and
substantial construction, and where the development would preserve the
openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it.
5. The existing stable block is of permanent and substantial construction, and no
enlargement of the building is proposed. Although the proposal would result in
a hardstanding and parking area being created and the change of use would
inevitably lead to the introduction of domestic paraphernalia, the site is already
used for the parking of vehicles and storage of a horsebox, as well as other
equestrian equipment. The proposal would not therefore lead either to a loss of
openness or conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.
Taking these points together it is common ground between the main parties
that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt,
and on the basis of all the evidence before me as well as my observations on
my site visit, I agree. There is therefore no need for me to consider whether or
not the development is justified by very special circumstances in respect of its
Green Belt location.
6. The main issue is therefore whether or not the site is an appropriate location
for the proposed development, having regard to local and national policy.
Reasons
7. The appeal relates to a stable block, which it is proposed to convert to form a
2-bedroom dwelling, along with a small paddock/manège which would become
a residential garden with a small area of hardstanding and allocated car
parking. It is situated at the end of an access lane which serves four dwellings
as well as the appeal site, in a small developed cluster on the western side of
the B4506, an unrestricted single carriageway road.
8. Some services are available in the village of Dagnall around 1 mile south of the
appeal site, which has a pub, a farm shop, a church, and a (Church of England)
primary school. A much greater range of services is available in the town of
Dunstable, around 3 miles to the north east. I saw on my site visit that the
B4506 connecting the appeal site to both Dagnall and Dunstable has high and
densely planted verges in many places, no footways or street lighting, and
although traffic volumes were moderate many vehicles were fast-moving.
9. Paragraph 78 of the Framework states that to promote sustainable
development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or
maintain the vitality of rural communities. Paragraph 79 of the Framework
states that planning policies and decisions should avoid development of isolated
homes in the countryside unless one or more listed circumstances apply. This
matter did not form part of the Council’s reasoning in refusing planning
permission, but it considers that the dwelling would be isolated in relation to
access to services.
10. Both parties have referred to the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Braintree1,
which held that ‘isolated homes in the countryside’ simply referred to dwellings
that are physically separate or remote from a settlement. While the appeal site
is some way from the nearest services as I have already described, it is close
to the dwellings with which it shares an access road, as well as the other
dwellings immediately to its north. Accordingly, I do not consider that the
appeal site is remote in the ordinary sense of the word, and the proposal would
1 Braintree DC v. SoSCLG [2018] EWCA Civ 610
not therefore result in the creation of an ‘isolated home’ in the context of
Paragraph 79. There is consequently no need for me to consider the
circumstances which would justify allowing an isolated home.
11. Given the road and traffic conditions on the B4506, it is unlikely that occupants
of the proposed dwelling would walk or cycle to use services in either Dagnall
or Dunstable. I have not been made aware of any public transport routes
serving the appeal site. Occupants of the dwelling would therefore be
dependent on the use of a private car, although given the range of services
available in Dunstable I consider that most journeys would be likely to be
reasonably short.
12. Policy SD1 of the 2004 South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review (the SBLPR) takes
a sequential approach to preferred locations for development. Among other
things, it seeks to ensure that the countryside is protected, and that housing
and other development is located in areas which are accessible and
environmentally sustainable. The appeal site and its neighbouring properties lie
outside any defined settlement boundary, and in planning policy terms the site
is therefore within the countryside. Consequently the site is not within any of
the four preferred locational categories to which Policy SD1 seeks to direct
development. For proposals for sites in other locations, regardless of the type
of development proposed, the policy sets out five criteria to be met in order
that a proposal will be ‘favourably considered’. These include that there is a
need for the development that could not be met by proposals in the SBLPR,
that there are no sites in the first four categories of the development strategy
which could meet that need, and that the proposal is acceptable in terms of
Green Belt policy.
13. Policy SD1 is clearly more restrictive than the Framework in terms of the type
and location of development that it permits in the countryside. Paragraph 146
of the Framework does not require the reuse of buildings in the Green Belt to
be justified by need, and also indicates that planning decisions should promote
and support the development of under-utilised land and buildings. While the
building was in use for stabling at the time of my site visit, and therefore I do
not accept the appellant’s assertion that the building is currently disused, it is
also the case that its conversion to a dwelling would support its use in the
longer term. I have already found that the proposal is not inappropriate in the
Framework’s Green Belt terms. Furthermore, Paragraph 103 of the Framework
recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will
vary between urban and rural areas, and states that this should be taken into
account in both plan-making and decision making.
14. The provision of a single additional dwelling would be a very limited benefit in
terms of addressing local housing demand. Given the small size of the property
any social or economic benefits arising either from building work during
conversion or from its occupation as a dwelling would also be limited. I
consider that the proposal would be unlikely to make a significantly greater
social or economic contribution to the area than it does in its use as a stable,
and it would therefore be neutral in these respects.
15. The appellant has suggested that the proposal would provide a social benefit of
an affordable housing unit. However, there is nothing before me to indicate
that the proposal would provide affordable housing in line with any of the
definitions in the Framework, nor is there any planning obligation or other
mechanism which would secure such a provision. This is not therefore an
argument which carries weight in favour of the proposal.
16. As the SBLPR predates the revised Framework and justification has not been
provided for the more restrictive policy approach, I find that there is a conflict
between Policy SD1 and the Framework. Accordingly, I attach greater weight to
the Framework.
17. I find that although there would be reliance on the private car, this would be
likely to be for relatively short journeys in the rural context of the surrounding
area. The social and economic benefits of using the property as a dwelling
would be limited, although securing the building’s long-term use would
represent a modest benefit. Taken as a whole, I find no harm arising from the
proposal which would justify refusing planning permission, and I therefore
conclude that the site is an appropriate location for the proposed development.
As such, I find no conflict with the provisions of the Framework.
Other Matters
18. As well as the Green Belt, the site is within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty (the AONB). The Framework emphasises at Paragraph 172 the
importance of conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of
AONBs. The Council considered that the proposed alterations to the stable
would be acceptable, and in fact would enhance the appearance of the building.
Subject to the use of a condition in respect of landscaping and boundary
treatments, I agree that the proposal would not cause harm to the character
and appearance of the area, and the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB
would be conserved.
19. The appellant has drawn my attention to two other developments very close to
the appeal site where planning permission has been granted for small
residential schemes. The first, in March 2018, was for the demolition of existing
workshops and their replacement with two single storey dwellings at a property
known as Wentworth, a short distance north of the appeal site (LPA ref:
CB/17/057031FULL). The second, in September 2020, was for the conversion
and extension of an existing commercial garage workshop to form a 3-bedroom
bungalow at Edenhurst, a house within the same access lane as the appeal site
(LPA ref: CB/20/00382/FULL). I do not know the full details of these cases,
although proximity to and accessibility of services was not addressed in the
officer report for either proposal. The Council has commented that in both
cases it considered that the benefits which would arise to the character and
appearance of the Green Belt from the removal or improvement of industrial or
commercial buildings justified granting permission.
20. Although the aforementioned planning permissions are material considerations,
they principally serve to emphasise that each case must be judged on its own
merits, and they have neither set a precedent nor been determinative for this
case.
21. Updated housing land supply figures2 demonstrate that at the beginning of
2020 the Council could demonstrate a 5.75 year supply of deliverable housing
sites. My attention was also drawn to three appeal decisions issued in early
2020 in which Inspectors concluded that the Council was able to demonstrate a
2 Central Bedfordshire Council – Five Year Land Supply Statement for the five-year period commencing 1st January
2020
housing land supply of more than five years3. Consequently Paragraph 11(d) of
the Framework is not engaged.
Conditions
22. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council in the light of
Paragraph 55 of the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice
Guidance (the PPG). Where necessary I have altered the ordering and proposed
wording in the interests of clarity and effectiveness. As well as the standard
time limit condition (1) I have specified the approved plan to provide certainty
(2).
23. A condition in respect of hard and soft landscaping, including details of
proposed boundary treatments, is necessary in the interests of protecting the
character and appearance of the area (3). Given the sensitive location of the
site within the Green Belt and the AONB, I consider that this should be
submitted to and approved by the Council before development commences. In
accordance with Section 100ZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,
the appellant has provided written agreement to this pre-commencement
condition.
24. In the interests of highway safety a condition is necessary requiring the
approved car parking spaces to be provided before the dwelling is occupied,
and retained as car parking space thereafter (4).
25. Paragraph 53 of the Framework states that planning conditions should not be
used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear
justification for doing so, and the PPG advises that conditions restricting the
future use of permitted development rights or changes of use ‘may not pass
the test of reasonableness or necessity’4. In this case, I consider that it is
necessary to remove permitted development rights relating to extensions and
outbuildings in order to control the effect of the development on the Green Belt
and the AONB, and as such conditions restricting the permitted development
rights of the dwelling (5 and 6) would be in accordance with the Framework
and the PPG.
26. I have not included the condition suggested by the Council requiring a turning
area to be provided for light goods vehicles, as the submitted plans and my
observations on site suggest that a dedicated turning provision would not be
necessary. I have incorporated the Council’s suggested condition in respect of
boundary treatments into Condition 3, and so a separate condition is not
necessary.
Conclusion
27. For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed subject to conditions.
M Cryan
Inspector
3 References APP/P0240/W/16/3164961, APP/P0240/W/19/3236423, and APP/P0240/W/18/3219213
4 Paragraph: 017 Reference ID: 21a-017-20190723
Schedule of Conditions
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years
from the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plan: LB-0157 Rev A.
3) No development shall commence until there shall have been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority a scheme of
landscaping, to include all hard and soft landscaping and boundary
treatments, and a schedule of landscape maintenance for a period of 5
years. The approved scheme shall be implemented by the end of the full
planting season immediately following the occupation of the dwelling
hereby permitted or the completion of the development, whichever is the
sooner. Maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
schedule. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the
completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously
damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with
others of similar size and species.
4) The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until space has been
laid out within the site in accordance with drawing no. LB-0157 Rev A for
3 cars to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and
leave the site in forward gear, and that space shall thereafter be kept
available at all times for the parking of vehicles.
5) Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1, Class A of Schedule 2 to the
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995
(or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without
modification), no extensions to the dwelling hereby permitted shall be
carried out without the grant of further specific planning permission from
the Local Planning Authority.
6) Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1 Class E of Schedule 2 to the
Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any
order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification),
no buildings or other structures shall be erected or constructed within the
curtilage of the property without the grant of further specific planning
permission from the Local Planning Authority.
--End of schedule of conditions--