Case Reference: 3342723

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 30 July 2024
by A Berry MTCP (Hons) MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 5th August 2024
Appeal Ref: APP/P4415/W/24/3342723
Thistle Down Farm, Toad Lane, Brampton-en-le-Morthen, Rotherham
S66 9BG
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as
amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.
• The application Ref is RB2024/0216.
• The development proposed is for 1no dwelling following the demolition/removal of
stables and associated structures and associated works.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issue
2. The main parties have agreed that the proposal would not represent
inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined in development plan
policy and the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’). I concur
with that position. Consequently, the main issue is whether the appeal site is in
a suitable location for the proposed development.
Reasons
3. The appeal site is an existing equestrian development comprising various
stables arranged in a C-shape used for personal use. It is proposed to demolish
the existing stables and construct a detached dwelling.
4. Paragraph 84 of the Framework states that planning decisions should avoid the
development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one or more of a
closed list of circumstances apply. The appellant asserts that the appeal site is
not isolated as it is in proximity of both Brampton-en-le-Morthen and Thurcroft
and refers to the dictionary definition of ‘isolated’ as, “far away from other
places, or people, remote”.
5. Case Law1 has determined that the word ‘isolated’ in the phrase “isolated
homes in the countryside” simply connotes a dwelling that is physically
separate or remote from a settlement.
6. The appeal site is surrounded by open fields used for agricultural and
equestrian purposes. There are no other buildings or dwellings close to the
appeal site. The settlement of Brampton-en-le-Morthen is to the west of the
appeal site and the settlement of Thurcroft is to the north. However, both
1 Braintree DC v SSCLG, Greyread Ltd & Granville Developments Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 610
settlements are separated from the appeal site by open fields. While some of
the dwellings that comprise the settlement of Thurcroft are visible from the
appeal site, they are a substantial distance away.
7. Consequently, I find that the appeal site is isolated for the purposes of
paragraph 84 of the Framework. The proposal would not comply with any of
the closed list of circumstances detailed within paragraph 84. Accordingly, it
would conflict with the Framework that seeks to avoid the development of
isolated homes in the countryside.
8. Policy CS3 of the Rotherham Local Plan Core Strategy 2013-2028, adopted
2014 (CS) relates to the location of new development and amongst other
things, seeks to ensure that sites have regard to relevant sustainability criteria
including its proximity to services, facilities and employment opportunities, and
access to public transport routes and the frequency of services.
9. The appellant asserts that the policy is not of relevance to the appeal proposal
as they consider it only relates to the allocation of a site for development.
However, paragraph 5.2.69 of the supporting text to CS Policy CS3 states,
“delivery will be through informing the site selection process in the production
of the Sites and Policies document and the consideration of planning
applications in the development management process”. Consequently, I am
satisfied that the policy is applicable to the proposal.
10. The appeal site is accessed from Toad Lane via a single width unmade track
adjacent to an agricultural field that is unlit and has no pavement. Toad Lane is
single width, unlit, has no pavements and is subject to the national speed limit.
It is enclosed by hedgerows to either side with limited places where
pedestrians or cyclists could step off the road to allow vehicles to pass.
11. The route towards Brampton-en-le-Morthen (with limited services and facilities)
and a Public Right of Way (PRoW) that provides access to Thurcroft has several
tight bends which severely restrict visibility. Thurcroft contains services and
facilities that could meet the day-to-day needs of future occupiers. However,
access to the settlement via Toad Lane and Green Arbour Road is a not an
insignificant distance and the PRoW from Toad Lane is unlit and traverses
across fields.
12. Nevertheless, some future occupiers could walk or cycle to the services and
facilities in Brampton-en-le-Morthen and Thurcroft. However, due to the
condition of local infrastructure along Toad Lane and the PRoW and the
distances involved, not all future occupants would find it an attractive option,
particularly those with young children or mobility issues, especially after dark
or during inclement weather.
13. Bus stops are on Green Arbour Road to the south of its junction with Toad
Lane, which is not an inconsiderable distance from the appeal site. It has been
asserted that an hourly bus service runs from these bus stops. However,
limited information has been provided regarding the days on which the services
run, the times between which the services operate, or the route that the
services take. Therefore, I am not persuaded there is a reliable bus service that
would serve the appeal site.
14. Consequently, I find that future occupiers of the proposed development would
be heavily reliant on the private car to meet their day-to-day needs.
15. The resurfacing of Toad Lane would improve the condition of the road.
However, at the time of my site visit, I did not find that the road surface was
so bad that it would deter walkers or cyclists. Furthermore, the re-surfacing of
the road would not alter the isolated location of the appeal site or the
distance/route to the nearest services and facilities.
16. The appellant asserts that the existing use generates more vehicle movements
than the proposed development. From the information before me, I accept that
the existing equestrian use generates 6 vehicle movements to and from the
appeal site each day to look after the horses. An additional two vehicle
movements to and from the site each day are undertaken by the appellant’s
mother to buy her lunch from Thurcroft, and further ad-hoc vehicle movements
to and from the site are made by a vet, by an equine physiotherapist and to
deal with emergencies/unforeseen circumstances.
17. Further vehicle movements to and from the site are undertaken to transport
horses to a local rehabilitation centre, to compete in events and to attend horse
riding lessons. However, it is unclear whether these trips would involve
additional vehicle trips to and from the site or whether they would be
undertaken in conjunction with the daily morning and evening trips to feed and
tend to the horses.
18. The proposed dwelling would have three bedrooms and therefore, it is of a size
that could accommodate a family. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume
that the proposed dwelling would generate trips to and from the site to access
such things as employment, schools, children’s activities, food shopping, health
appointments, as well as deliveries to the site by the Royal Mail, delivery
drivers, service providers, maintenance workers etc.
19. Consequently, from the information before me, the vehicle movements
associated with the proposed dwelling, whereby future occupants would be
heavily reliant on the private car to access their day-to-day needs, would be
significantly more than the existing equestrian use.
20. I have been directed to examples whereby planning approval has been granted
for the construction of a dwelling within a similar distance to services and
facilities as the appeal site. Limited information has been provided regarding
these planning approvals. However, the Council state that they differ from the
appeal proposal as there are existing dwellings close-by and as such are not
‘isolated’. The appellant has not disputed this. Accordingly, they are not directly
comparable to the appeal proposal. In any event, I must determine each case
on its own individual merits.
21. I acknowledge that paragraph 109 of the Framework states that “opportunities
to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural
areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-
making”. However, this does not negate the Framework’s requirement to avoid
isolated dwellings in the countryside, or the development plan’s requirement
for developments to comply with sustainability criteria.
22. In reference to the main issue, the appeal site would not be in a suitable
location for the proposed development. It would conflict with Policy CS3 of the
CS and paragraph 84 of the Framework, the content of which I have previously
described.
Other Matters
23. The provision of one additional dwelling would make a contribution, albeit
small, to the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of new
homes and the Council’s housing supply. The proposal would also provide a
limited amount of short-term employment through the demolition of the
existing stables and the construction of the proposal. The proposal would result
in some additional support to the facilities and services within Brampton-en-le-
Morthen and Thurcroft from future occupiers. However, taken as a whole, these
benefits do not outweigh my findings in respect of the main issue.
24. The appellant states that should the appeal be allowed, the horses on the
appeal site would move to the appellant’s parent’s equestrian centre which
would improve the welfare of the horses and ‘free-up’ the appellants’ time.
However, there is no suggestion before me that there are welfare issues
surrounding the stabling of the horses at the appeal site, or that the horses
could not move without the appeal proposal being allowed.
25. The proposal’s use of previously developed land, the proposal not comprising
inappropriate development in the Green Belt through a reduction in built form,
and the acceptability of the design of the proposed dwelling are all neutral
matters. The appellant asserts that the proposal would ensure the appeal site
is effectively used. However, the appeal site is currently used for its permitted
use for the stabling of 13 horses and therefore, I am not convinced that it is
not effectively used.
26. Fly tipping is said to be an issue along Toad Lane. However, it is unlikely that
future occupiers of the proposed dwelling could deter fly tipping as there would
be limited intervisibility between the proposed dwelling and the road. While it is
considered that the proposal could increase security in the surrounding area, I
have not been provided with evidence to demonstrate that this is a particular
problem affecting the area.
27. Concerns have been raised regarding the Council’s handling/determination of
the planning application. However, this has not prevented me from forming a
decision on the appeal proposal. Issues have been raised regarding land
ownership and access restrictions along the track. As I am dismissing the
appeal, it is not necessary for me to consider these matters further.
Conclusion
28. For the reasons given above, having regard to the development plan as a
whole and all other material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should
be dismissed.
A Berry
INSPECTOR