Appeals Lodged Between 26Th April 2004 and 15Th June 2004

APPEALS LODGED AND DECIDED

Appeals Lodged between – 15 October – 15 December 2016

Application Location Proposal Com/Del Appeal Type Date Lodged Number decision 16/00117/FUL The Ducklings Duck Street Removal of condition 05 on application Delegated Written 18 October 2016 Pilling Preston Lancashire 03/01611/FUL to allow unrestricted Representations PR3 6HN residential use (C3). 15/01021/FUL Springfield House Farm Barn Conversion of agricultural building into Delegated Written 25 October 2016 Burned House Lane Preesall dwelling Representations Poulton-Le-Fylde Lancashire FY6 0PQ 16/00233/OULMAJ Land Off Holts Lane Poulton- Outline application for the erection of up to N/A (appeal Public Inquiry 10 November 2016 Le-Fylde Lancashire 130 dwellings with means of access off against non- Holts Lane (layout, landscaping, scale and determinatio appearance reserved), following n) demolition of existing buildings 16/00100/OUT Land At 4 Rosslyn Avenue Outline application for residential Committee Written 07 December 2016 Preesall Lancashire FY6 0HE development of up to 9 dwellings, with the Representations demolition of existing house to form new access road (all other matters reserved) 16/00751/OUT The Warren Longmoor Lane Outline application for the erection of one Delegated Written 08 December 2016 Nateby Preston Lancashire dwelling following removal of existing Representations PR3 0JH agricultural building with access applied for off Longmoor Lane.

Appeals Decided between – 15 October – 15 December 2016

Application Location Proposal Com/Del Decision Date Decided Number decision 15/00167/MB Barn At Helmsdeep Long Lane Prior approval for the conversion of Delegated Dismissed 8 November 2016 Barnacre With Bonds agricultural building to residential dwelling Preston Lancashire PR3 1RN (under use class MB)

16/00354/OUT Bloomfield Garage Outline application for the erection of four Delegated Allowed 15 November 2016 Cockerham Road Forton dwellings with access applied for (all other Lancaster Lancashire matters reserved)(re-submission of LA2 0HE 15/01001/FUL)

16/00209/FUL Momens Farm New Lane Erection of detached dwelling Delegated Dismissed 18 November 2016 Eagland Hill Pilling Preston Lancashire PR3 6BA

16/00164/FUL 57 Fleetwood Road Two storey and single storey rear Delegated Allowed 18 November 2016 Poulton-Le-Fylde extension. Lancashire FY6 7NU

15/00805/OUT Old Quarry Potters Brook Outline application for the erection of one Committee Withdrawn 23 November 2016 Bay Horse Lancaster dwelling (all matters reserved) Lancashire LA2 0HQ

arm/rg/pla/cr/17/0401nc1

Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 11 October 2016 Site visit made on 11 October 2016 by K R Saward Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 08 November 2016

Appeal Ref: APP/U2370/W/15/3137151 Helms Deep Barn, Helms Deep, Long Lane, Barnacre, Garstang, Lancashire PR3 1RN  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Schedule 2, Part 3, Paragraph Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015.  The appeal is made by Mrs Susan Gutierrez-Inostroza against the decision of Wyre Borough Council.  The application Ref 15/00167/MB, dated 24 February 2015, was refused by notice dated 22 April 2015.  The development proposed is the conversion of agricultural building to residential dwelling.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural Matters

2. The application was made in relation to the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MB of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. By the time of the Council’s decision that Order had already been revoked by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 which came into force on 15 April 2015. Class MB and related provisions have been re-enacted by Schedule 2, Part 3 Class Q of the 2015 Order (‘the GPDO’). In these circumstances, the effect of the Interpretation Act 1978 is that anything done under the revoked Class MB now has effect as if done under Class Q. Accordingly, I refer to Class Q in my decision.

3. I have used the description of development in the heading of this decision as it appears in the Appeal Form and the Council’s decision notice. The description contained in the original Application Form includes details of the siting of the barn. It identifies the proposal as being for 1, 3 bedroomed single storey house.

4. Given that the parties disagreed on matters of fact, all oral evidence at the Inquiry was given on oath or solemn affirmation.

5. There had been a difference in opinion over the location of the barn approved as an “Agricultural livestock (Alpacas) building” on 19 July 2007 pursuant to planning reference 07/00585/FUL (the 2007 permission) in comparison to the barn, as built. Having asked the parties to mark out on site where they each considered the approved barn should have been built, the Council conceded

Appeal Decision APP/U2370/W/15/3137151

there is no overlap in footprint and the appellant’s identification of its position on drawing no. 146.102 is broadly correct.

6. It was confirmed at the Inquiry that the proposed development concerns both a change of use of the barn and building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building (Class Q.(a) and (b)).

7. It emerged at the Inquiry that the appellant’s evidence concerning the materials and means of construction of the proposed dwelling related to details discussed with the Council in written exchanges which differ from those in the application. The specification subsequently formed the basis of another application for prior approval which was also refused by the Council. The appellant mistakenly believed that the two applications were the same and that her appeal addressed both. The Appeal Form clearly states the appeal is made in respect of the application made on 24 February 2015. Whilst the different specification was discussed prior to that application being refused, there is no record of the application having been formally amended. Therefore, I shall take the details set out within the application as the basis of the proposal against which this appeal is made.

Reasons

Background

8. The appeal concerns a sizeable barn constructed on the site known as Helms Deep which comprises an expansive area of open and undulating fields located in the countryside. The barn was built to house a large herd of alpacas kept on the land and to store associated feed and bedding provisions. The barn is a portal framed structure beneath a shallow pitched corrugated roof. It has no windows and only a large door at one end.

9. The provisions of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO provide for the change of use of an agricultural building to Class C3 (dwellinghouses) and building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building, as permitted development, as long as it is not excluded by paragraph Q.1. It is also subject to the condition that the developer applies to the Council for a determination as to whether prior approval is required as to the items in paragraph Q.2.

10. The reason given for the Council’s decision is that permitted development rights were restricted by condition when planning permission was granted for the barn on 19 July 2007. Condition 2 of that permission reads:

The use of the building hereby permitted shall be restricted to purposes which are ancillary to the agricultural use of the site and shall not be used for any other purpose or as a separate unit.

11. The thrust of the appellant’s case is that this is not the barn for which planning permission was granted in 2007 and as such, the condition does not bite. If it does, the appellant submits that the condition does not have the effect of removing permitted development rights under Article 3(4) of the GPDO.

12. In arriving at its decision to refuse prior approval, the Council did not raise any concerns over the proposal being excluded development. However, during the course of the appeal the Council has submitted that the development would not be permitted under Q.1.(a). It maintains that there is neither an agricultural use nor one that is solely agricultural as part of an established agricultural unit.

2 Appeal Decision APP/U2370/W/15/3137151

The Council confirmed that it does not take issue with the remaining preclusions in paragraph Q.1.

Main issues

13. Based on the submissions made, the main issues may be summarised as:-

 whether or not the barn is development authorised by the 2007 planning permission having regard to the time when development began, its siting and specification;

 if the barn is approved under the 2007 planning permission, whether condition no. 2 of that permission removes permitted development rights under Article 3(1) of the GPDO;

 if the barn does not have planning permission, whether permitted development rights can be exercised pursuant to Class Q having regard to the limitations in paragraph Q.1.(a); and

 whether the appellant has provided sufficient information to establish that the proposed development complies with the conditions, limitations and restrictions specified in Part 3 of the GPDO.

Time development began

14. My consideration therefore starts with the time that development of the barn began. Clearly, if the 2007 planning permission had lapsed by the time development was begun, then it cannot have planning permission and the disputed condition will not apply.

15. Condition 3 of the permission required development to be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date of the permission i.e. before 19 July 2010.

16. Where development consists of carrying out operations, section 56 of the 1990 Act provides that development shall be taken to be initiated at the time when those operations are begun. This shall be taken to be begun on the earliest date on which any material operation comprised in the development begins to be carried out. “Material operation” is defined in section 56(4) and includes the digging of a trench which is to contain the foundation, or part of the foundations, of a building.

17. Sworn affidavits have been submitted by the appellant, her husband and brother to the effect that development began with the digging of test holes on Friday 30 July 2010 and over that weekend. The appellant confirmed the start date under oath and insisted she could not be mistaken. The reason the date and event are so memorable to the appellant and her husband is that work started immediately after the sale of their property in Bolton on 28 July 2010.

18. The Council produced a copy photograph of pad foundations which is marked as having been taken on 4 August 2010. As this was only a short time after expiry of the 3 year period, it had been suggested that it was likely development had already begun before the planning permission lapsed. However, the Council officer conceded that the accuracy of the date could not be corroborated. As such, it was acknowledged that no reliance could be placed on the photograph as evidence of implementation.

3 Appeal Decision APP/U2370/W/15/3137151

19. In evidence, the appellant confirmed that she knew there was a 3 year time limit, but had not in 2010 been able to recall precisely when it was due to expire. Her copy of the planning permission had been kept in a container that was stolen (and reported to the Police). The appellant also acknowledged that she had thought she was implementing the planning permission, but got the measurements wrong when determining where to build. Ultimately, the intention or belief of the appellant is not relevant in determining whether or not, as a matter of fact, the 2007 planning permission was implemented.

20. The only evidence to contradict the sworn testimony is the appellant’s written response to questions raised by another Inspector when the appeal was initially proceeding by way of written representations. Following doubts expressed by the Council over whether the barn was being used for agricultural purposes, the appellant replied that she was able to state categorically that the building was in agricultural use on 20th March 2010 and would sign an affidavit to this effect. The appellant explained that this was a typographical error which should have said 20th March 2013, being the date specified in the GPDO on which the site must have been in agricultural use. When read in context, it is clear that the appellant was placing emphasis on the date for that purpose. I am satisfied that this is nothing more than a mistake and does not show the barn was already built in March 2010. Indeed, that would be contrary to the Council’s own submissions that foundations had been dug by August 2010 rather than the entire structure.

21. It strikes me as odd that the appellant should have committed to such significant expense without being sure that the works were being undertaken within the time required to benefit from planning permission. She risked not only enforcement action requiring demolition of the barn, but loss of the sum invested in circumstances where financial constraints were said to have delayed the commencement of building operations. As surprising as that all is, the appellant and other witnesses, albeit family members, have all sworn that development did not commence until July 2010. They are clear, precise and consistent in their evidence. That has been done in the knowledge of the severe implications if the truth is not told.

22. In the absence of reliable evidence to indicate otherwise, this leads me to conclude that development began after the 2007 planning permission had lapsed. Thus, the barn does not as a matter of fact have planning permission and the disputed condition does not apply. Accordingly, permitted development rights cannot have been removed and there is no need for me to consider the second main issue and the case law1 and appeal decision2 cited in respect thereof.

Whether permitted development rights can be exercised

23. There is no dispute between the parties that more than 4 years have elapsed since the date on which the barn was substantially completed so that it is immune from enforcement action under section 171B of the 1990 Act. Permitted development rights relate only to lawful development and this

1 Dunnett Investments Limited v SSCLG and East Dorset District Council [2016] EWHC 534 (Admin); Commercial Land Limited/Imperial Resources SA v SSTLG [2002] EWHC 1264 (Admin) 2 Appeal Ref: APP/U1240/A/14/2225668

4 Appeal Decision APP/U2370/W/15/3137151

includes development immune from enforcement action3. Therefore, I agree with the parties that permitted development rights are not excluded by reason of the barn having been built without planning permission.

24. The issue turns to whether the proposal meets the limitations in paragraph Q.1.(a). Under this provision, development is not permitted by Class Q if the site is not used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit on 20 March 2013 or, in the case of a building which was in use before that date but was not in use on that date, when it was last in use.

25. Paragraph X. of Part 3 defines “agricultural building” as a building used for agriculture and which is so used for the purposes of a trade or business, and excludes any dwelling house, and “agricultural use” refers to such uses.

26. Further, to be an “established agricultural unit” means agricultural land occupied as a unit for the purposes of agriculture on or before 20th March 2013 or for 10 years before the date the development begins.

27. “Agriculture” is not defined in the GPDO, but section 336 of the 1990 Act states that agriculture ‘includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes, and “agricultural” shall be construed accordingly’.

28. The evidence of the appellant is that this is a registered agricultural holding. She maintains that alpacas were first introduced onto the land around January 2011 and the land is used for the breeding and selling of alpacas and sale of their fleece. The Council has drawn my attention to the cases of Sykes v SSE and South Oxfordshire District Council v SSE [1981] 42 P.&C.R. 19 where a distinction was drawn between horses being fed from the land by grazing and those being fed wholly or primarily by other means so that the grazing was completely incidental. Only in the former case would there be an agricultural use. The key point for an inspector to decide in such circumstances was identified as the purpose for which the land is being used.

29. A key distinction in this case is that the alpacas are not merely being kept on the land to provide accommodation for them, but for breeding and their fleece. That is the stated purpose of the use of land and one which the appellant says has subsisted from before 20 March 2013 and continued ever since. Such a use would bring the alpacas within the term of ‘livestock’.

30. Just because alpacas are being sold on does not mean they cannot be livestock. The land can still be in use for their breeding and fleece much in the same way as other species of animal more typically found on agricultural holdings. If the alpacas were not primarily fed by grazing the land and were simply kept on the land until sold, that would be different, but that is not what is happening according to the appellant’s sworn testimony. There is no requirement for her evidence to be corroborated. The appellant has been very clear about the use and there is no contrary evidence or cause to consider the stated use to be

3 Article 3(5) of the GPDO

5 Appeal Decision APP/U2370/W/15/3137151

improbable. The activity described by the appellant indicates an ‘agricultural use’, subject to compliance with other elements of the definition within Part 3.

31. The Council submitted that there had been times when officers had inspected the site and no or very few alpacas had been seen. This causes the Council to doubt the level of activity which it was suggested may be more akin to hobby farming. Such suggestion was firmly refuted by the appellant.

32. According to the appellant, the alpacas are bred throughout the year and brought into the barn over winter. At the time of my site visit there were around 40 alpacas in the barn with several having been previously sold. I was able to see that the landholding is expansive making it potentially difficult to spot animals at a distance. It was also apparent how the topography causes parts of the fields to be concealed with sightlines further hindered in places by hedgerow and trees where the alpacas may shelter. These factors could explain the lack of sightings.

33. Nevertheless, whilst the evidence points towards an agricultural use, it is incumbent upon the appellant to show that such use was part of a trade or business as at 20 March 2013. It logically follows that the trade or business must have continued thereafter to benefit from permitted development rights under Class Q.

34. As acknowledged by the appellant under cross-examination, no details whatsoever have been supplied of the business activity. Although the size of herd may be regarded as large for alpaca farming, there is no detailed information on how this translates to a business. It does not necessarily need to be making a profit, but it does need to be run for commercial gain. It is not enough for the appellant to assert there is a business use without substantiation when there could be other explanations. Even the levels of stock and sales going back to 20 March 2013 are unclear. Without further information it has not been demonstrated that this was and is a commercial operation.

35. Moreover, the site must be used solely for an agricultural use and this includes the barn. The Council produced a series of photographs taken at a site visit in September 2016 which show a multitude of non-agricultural items being stored in the barn scattered across significant parts of the floorspace and on the mezzanine. The items include a cabin boat, caravan as well as items of domestic furniture.

36. The parties disagree on whether the Council condoned some items being moved from outside into the barn, but that is immaterial to establishing whether the barn has been solely in agricultural use. The appellant contends that the images shown in the Council’s photographs were not typical. However, the boat was still present at my site visit. Whilst the floor space had been substantially cleared there were domestic items stacked on the mezzanine floor, such as an old door and mattress amongst a multitude of seemingly non-agricultural items. Indeed, when questioned the appellant accepted the Council’s assertion that there is a mixed agricultural and storage use of the barn.

37. On the evidence before me, I conclude that although the use of the land for the purpose of breeding and keeping of alpacas for their fleece would be an agricultural use, the land is not being used for that sole purpose as part of an established agricultural unit. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence that the use is for the purposes of a trade or business. Accordingly, the proposed

6 Appeal Decision APP/U2370/W/15/3137151

development is precluded under paragraph Q.1.(a). and does not benefit form permission under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO.

The works

38. Paragraph W(3) of Part 3 provides that the local planning authority may refuse an application for prior approval, where in the opinion of the authority, the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with any conditions, limitations or restrictions specified in Part 3 as being applicable to the development.

39. The barn is a steel framed structure supported by concrete anchor points. A low level concrete wall has vertical timber boarding above and the roof is constructed of corrugated sheets. The application form identifies that the external walls would be replaced with cavity walls with an external render finish and 11 windows and 4 doors would be added. The cement fibre roof would be replaced with natural clay tiles. At the Inquiry the appellant suggested that the vertical timber boards would simply be replaced with horizontal cladding with new roof tiles and insertion of windows and doors. It transpired that those details were contained in a subsequent application. The appellant was therefore afforded opportunity to comment on the details as set out in the original application.

40. Pursuant to Class Q.b. building operations are permitted that are reasonably necessary to convert the building to residential use. The national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) provides guidance on how Class Q should be interpreted. It explains that the permitted development right under Class Q assumes that the agricultural building is capable of functioning as a dwelling. However, it recognises that for the building to function as a dwelling some building operations which would affect the external appearance of the building, which would otherwise require planning permission, should be permitted. The right allows for the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs, exterior walls, water, drainage, electricity, gas or other services to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwelling house.

41. The PPG goes on to say that it is not the intention of the permitted development right to include the construction of new structural elements for the building. Therefore it is only where the existing building is structurally strong enough to take the loading which comes with the external works to provide for residential use that the building would be considered to have the permitted development right.

42. The Council has drawn my attention to various previous appeal decisions4 where Inspectors have dismissed appeals for prior approval under Class Q due to the lack of a structural survey. Invariably, such cases will depend on their individual circumstances and so whilst noting those other decisions, they are not determinative in this appeal.

43. The appellant considers that because the dwelling would be single storey, the extent of works proposed could be facilitated by utilising modern construction techniques. Reliance has been placed on the experience of her husband who

4 Appeal Refs: APP/B3410/W/15/3005883 dated 28 July 2016; APP/X1355/W/15/3003938 dated 28 July 2015; APP/Y0435/W/15/3005863 dated 29 July 2015; APP/J3530/A/14/2229019 dated 17 June 2015 and APP/M2325/W/16/3145251 dated 23 June 2016.

7 Appeal Decision APP/U2370/W/15/3137151

works in the building trade, but who is not a structural engineer. Pertinently, the appellant advised the Council in writing that if the application was considered favourably, a structural survey would then be obtained and full plans drawn up to meet building regulations. Clearly, it would be too late by then should it emerge that the structure is not sufficiently sound to tolerate the proposed operations or without more extensive works. There appears to be hardcore beneath the barn and if foundations are needed this would be likely to involve new structural elements taking the proposal outside the scope of Class Q.

44. It seems to me that even if I were to accept there would be lesser works than those described in the application, there remains a fundamental issue over whether the building is structural strong enough to support the external works. In the absence of a structural survey I simply cannot be satisfied on such scant details that the structure is able to support the external works to provide for residential use. Thus, there is insufficient information to establish compliance with the restrictions, conditions and limitations of the GPDO.

Conclusion

45. On the information available, the proposed development would not satisfy the requirements of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO and therefore is not development permitted by the Order.

46. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

KR Saward

INSPECTOR

8 Appeal Decision APP/U2370/W/15/3137151

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Susan Gutierrez Appellant

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr Killian Garvey of Counsel, instructed by the Solicitor to the Council

He called Franc Genley, Senior Planner

Graham Avis, Planning Enforcement Officer

DOCUMENTS submitted at the inquiry

1. Notices of appeal and Inquiry

2. Proof of evidence of Franc Genley

3. Second proof of evidence of Franc Genley

4. Enlarged copy photographs to proof of evidence of Franc Genley

5. Approved drawing no. ML/SG/EN/B/4510; location plan scale 1:2500 and red line site plan for planning ref: 07/00585/FUL dated 19 July 2007

6. ‘Note for the Inspector’ on behalf of the Council dated 3 October 2016

7. A3 drawings, Appendix A and Appendix C marked by the Council to show the position of the approved barn and the barn, as built

8. Extracts of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 – Schedule 2, Part 3, paragraphs Q, W and X.

9. Dunnett Investments Limited v SSCLG and East Dorset District Council [2016] EWHC 534 (Admin)

10. Sykes v SSE and South Oxfordshire District Council v SSE [1981] 42 P.&C.R. 19

11. Commercial Land Limited/Imperial Resources SA v SSTLG [2002] EWHC 1264 (Admin)

12. References to pages 74 - 83 of the publication titled ‘A Practical Guide to Permitted Changes of Use’ by Martin H. Goodall

13. Appeal Decisions: APP/B3410/W/15/3005883 dated 28 July 2016; APP/X1355/W/15/3003938 dated 28 July 2015; APP/Y0435/W/15/3005863 dated 29 July 2015; APP/J3530/A/14/2229019 dated 17 June 2015 and APP/M2325/W/16/3145251 dated 23 June 2016.

14. Complete copy of prior approval application form dated 24 February 2015

9 Appeal Decision APP/U2370/W/15/3137151

15. Email from Andrea Stewart to the appellant on 25 March 2015

16. Appellant’s reply to Council on works proposed, dated 2 April 2015

17. Handwritten note from the appellant to Andrea Stewart, received 17 April 2015

18. Appellant’s replies to Inspector questions (undated)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 October 2016 by I Jenkins BSc CEng MICE MCIWEM an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 15 November 2016

Appeal Ref: APP/U2370/W/16/3153014 Bloomfield Garage, Cockerham Road, Lancashire, Forton, LA2 0HE  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr G Capstick against the decision of Wyre Borough Council.  The application Ref. 16/00354/OUT, dated 2 March 2016, was refused by notice dated 8 June 2016.  The development proposed is 4 residential dwellings on existing haulage yard/depot.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for 4 residential dwellings on existing haulage yard/depot at Bloomfield Garage, Cockerham Road, Lancashire, Forton, LA2 0HE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 16/00354/OUT, dated 2 March 2016, subject to the conditions set out in the Schedule of Conditions at the end of this decision.

Procedural matters

2. The development for which planning permission is sought in this case is in outline with all matters, except access, reserved for future consideration.

Main Issue

3. I consider that the main issue in this case is whether the proposal would amount to sustainable development, with reference to accessibility, amongst other things.

Reasons

4. The appeal site, which fronts onto the southern side of Cockerham Road, is currently used as a haulage yard. In relation to a building that abuts the western boundary of the site, planning permission has been granted for a change of use from a barn (part residential) to a single dwelling. To the west of that building is Bloomfield House and opposite the appeal site, on the northern side of Cockerham Road, there are a significant number of residential properties. There are fields to the east and south of the site. The proposal involves residential re-use of the appeal site, with the erection of 4 dwellings.

5. I understand that the site forms part of an area designated as countryside on the Proposals Map of the Wyre Borough Local Plan 1999 (LP). LP Policy SP13 indicates that, unless otherwise justified by the policies of the plan, development in the area designated as the countryside on the Proposals Map

Appeal Decision APP/U2370/W/16/3153014

will not be permitted, subject to a number of identified exceptions. The Council has confirmed that the proposal would not meet the exceptions criteria and this is not disputed by the appellant. It follows that the scheme would conflict with LP Policy SP13.

6. However, the Council has stated that it is unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates that under such circumstances relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date. I consider LP Policy SP13, which has the effect of restricting housing development in the countryside, to be such a Policy. Under these circumstances, I give little weight to the identified conflict with LP Policy SP13. The Framework confirms that, where relevant policies of the Development Plan are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

7. In light of the scale of existing development neighbouring the site, described by the Council as a small hamlet and cluster of farm buildings, in my view, the proposal would not amount to the introduction of isolated new homes in the countryside, in relation to which the Framework identifies particular requirements.

Accessibility

8. The appellant has estimated that the site is around 700 metres from bus stops on the A6 and around 1,200 metres1 from the settlement of Forton, which includes a primary school, village hall, cricket club, bowling green and church. The Council’s estimates are not significantly different. The highway network leading from the appeal site to those locations are characterised for the most part by relatively narrow rural highways, which are unlit and lacking in footways. I consider that these features, together with the distances involved, would be likely to discourage people from using those routes to travel to and from the appeal site by foot. In the absence of any evidence concerning existing levels of pedestrian traffic, the low level of recorded accidents on Cockerham Road is of little assistance in relation to that matter. Whilst it does not automatically follow that cyclists would be discouraged from using the route between the site and Forton, under the circumstances, I consider it likely that the predominant mode of transport used by future residents of the site to reach jobs, shops and services would be by private motor vehicle. Therefore, the proposal would perform poorly in relation to accessibility. However, the Framework, whilst promoting sustainable transport, identifies the Government recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas. With this in mind, I have considered other matters raised.

Other matters

9. The Framework indicates that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a nearby village. Against this background, although the trips to and from the appeal site

1 0.75 miles x 1,609 metres/mile.

2 Appeal Decision APP/U2370/W/16/3153014

would be most likely to be by private motor vehicles, the driving distance between the site and Forton is relatively short and so future residents of the site may well use facilities in that village. Whilst there is no evidence to show that their patronage is needed to maintain the vitality of the rural community, it appears to me that residents of the proposed dwellings would be likely to at least enhance the viability of existing facilities and the vitality of the rural community. Furthermore, the scheme would make an important, albeit modest, contribution towards meeting the housing supply needs of the Borough. In addition, I understand that the existing haulage use has a detrimental effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with respect to noise and disturbance. The Council acknowledges that the cessation of that use would benefit the nearby residential properties, a view echoed by a number of local residents, and would reduce the impact of the associated heavy goods vehicle traffic on the local highway network. I consider that these benefits of the scheme attract significant weight.

10. The Council has also indicated that it would be possible to ensure, through the control of reserved matters, that the proposed development would be unlikely to have any significant detrimental impact on either the landscape or residential amenity. It has also identified that whilst the southern part of the site is on the edge of a designated mineral safeguarding area, having regard to the area affected, this is not a constraint to development. I have no reason to take a different view.

11. In its appeal statement the Council observes that the appellant has not indicated whether the removal of the haulage use from the site would be likely to result in the loss of the business to the rural economy. However, nor is there any evidence to show that this is a matter upon which the Council has sought clarification. In the absence of any evidence to show that the scheme would be likely to result in the loss of a business of value to the local economy either in employment terms or otherwise, I give the Council’s concerns in this respect little weight.

12. The Council has drawn my attention to a previously dismissed appeal involving residential development at Clifton House Farm, which I understand is approximately 800 metres2 from Forton3. However, in a number of respects that scheme, which involved development at a farmstead, is not directly comparable to the proposal before me. For example, the current appeal scheme involves development in a hamlet, which comprises a significant number of existing dwellings and the benefits of the proposal would include a reduced impact on residential amenity resulting from the cessation of an existing haulage use. Furthermore, my colleague who dealt with the appeal found that the Clifton House Farm scheme would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area in which it would be located. Under the circumstances, I have found that previous appeal decision to be of little assistance.

13. The appellant has drawn my attention to a scheme for which the Council has granted planning permission, on Hollins Lane, Forton. I understand the site in that case was similar to the appeal site in terms of distance to the nearest bus stops, which were also on the A6. However, that site was closer to a number of other facilities, such as a public house, part-time post office and a country

2 0.5 miles x 1,609 metres/mile. 3 APP/U2370/W/15/3003093.

3 Appeal Decision APP/U2370/W/16/3153014

store. It is not directly comparable to the scheme before me. Similar observations can be made in relation to another site further along Hollins Lane, in relation to which the appellant has indicated that the Council is minded to grant planning permission. As to the appeal decision4 drawn to my attention by the appellant, it involved the conversion of a barn elsewhere in the Borough, outside Catterall, and so is not directly comparable to the scheme before me. I give these matters little weight.

Conditions and planning obligations

14. The Council has suggested 6 conditions should be imposed in the event that the appeal is allowed and planning permission granted. I have considered them in light of the guidance provided by the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and, where necessary have made a number of modifications in the interests of precision and enforceability.

15. A condition (1) would be necessary to control reserved matters and the commencement of the development, in the interests of proper planning. In order to safeguard the environment, a condition (2) would be necessary to control the details of foul and surface water systems serving the site. In light of the previous use of the site as a haulage yard, a condition (3) would be necessary in the interests of the living conditions of future residents, to ensure that any sources of contamination within the site are identified and appropriately addressed. For the avoidance of doubt, a condition (4) would be necessary to ensure that the development would be carried out in accordance with the access details submitted for approval as part of the planning application. In order to reduce the risk of loose material from the proposed construction site being carried onto the highway, to the detriment of the safety of highway users, a condition (5) would be required to ensure that the initial section of the site accessway leading from the road is appropriately surfaced at an early stage. As landscaping is a reserved matter, the details of which would be controlled by proposed condition no. 1, a separate condition (6) seeking to control landscaping details would not be necessary.

16. The appellant has not provided any formally completed planning obligations in this case and the Council has not indicated that any are required.

Conclusions

17. I consider that the adverse impacts of the scheme, with reference to accessibility, amongst other things, would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Notwithstanding that the accessibility of jobs, shops and services from the site by modes other than the private car would be relatively poor, I conclude on balance, having regard to economic, social and environmental factors, that the scheme would amount to sustainable development under the terms of the Framework taken as a whole.

18. Whilst the proposal would conflict with LP Policy SP13, with reference to the terms of the Framework, in the absence of a demonstrable 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites this Policy is not considered up to date. The conflict with LP Policy SP13 would not be sufficient to justify withholding planning permission in this case. The Council has not identified any other conflict with the Development Plan or the emerging plan local plan.

4 APP/U2370/W/15/3078128.

4 Appeal Decision APP/U2370/W/16/3153014

19. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

I Jenkins

INSPECTOR

Schedule of Conditions 1) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale of the development hereby permitted (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than 3 years from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. 2) None of the dwellings hereby permitted shall be occupied until works for the disposal of surface water and sewage shall have been provided on the site to serve the development hereby permitted, in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 3) No development hereby permitted shall commence until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination, carried out in accordance with British Standard BS 10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice and the Environment Agency’s Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR 11) (or equivalent British Standard and Model Procedures if replaced), shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If any contamination is identified, a report specifying the measures to be taken, including the timescale, to remediate the site to render it suitable for the approved development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development hereby permitted commences. The site shall be remediated in accordance with the approved measures and timescale and a verification report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the dwellings hereby permitted are first occupied. If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been previously identified, work shall be suspended and additional measures for its remediation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The remediation of the site shall incorporate the approved additional measures and a verification report for all the remediation works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the dwellings hereby approved are first occupied. 4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the access details shown on drawing no. GA2062-PSP-01-A received by the local planning authority on 13 April 2016.

5 Appeal Decision APP/U2370/W/16/3153014

5) Prior to the commencement of the construction of the dwellings hereby approved, that part of the site access extending from the highway boundary for a minimum distance of 5 metres into the site shall be appropriately paved in accordance with details previously submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 November 2016 by Helen Hockenhull BA(Hons) B.Pl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 18 November 2016

Appeal Ref: APP/U2370/W/16/3153600 Momens Farmhouse, New Lane, Eagland Hill, Pilling, PR3 6BA  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 Mr John Hodgeson against the decision of Wyre Borough Council.  The application Ref 16/00209/FUL, dated 26 February 2016, was refused by notice dated 22 April 2016.  The development proposed is the erection of 1 detached dwelling (Infill).

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural Matter

2. The Council’s second reason for refusal stated that insufficient ecological information had been provided with the planning application to determine the potential harm or impacts of the development on protected species or ecology in the area. The appellant as part of his appeal submission has provided an Ecological Appraisal which the Council considers adequately addresses this matter. The Council advises that they wish to withdraw this reason for refusal. Accordingly I have determined the appeal on this basis.

Main Issues

3. The main issues in this case are:

 whether the location of the development would be consistent with the principles of sustainable development having regard to national and local planning policies;

 the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

Reasons

Sustainable development

4. The appeal site forms part of the side garden to Momens Farmhouse which is located in the open countryside in the small hamlet of Eagland Hill. It lies approximately 2.4 miles south east of Pilling and 3.6 miles to the east of Garstang. The site is bounded by the existing farmhouse and other agricultural and ancillary buildings to the east and by neighbouring residential dwellings to the west. Open fields lie immediately to the north of the site with residential

Appeal Decision APP/U2370/W/16/3153600

properties beyond and to the south on the other side of New Lane is open agricultural land.

5. Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) aims to promote sustainable development in rural areas and states that housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances. None of these apply in this case.

6. Saved Policy SP13 of the Wyre Borough Local Plan 1999 restricts development in the open countryside and sets down a number of exceptions where development would be acceptable. Whilst this Policy pre dates the Framework, I consider it to be broadly consistent with Paragraph 55, seeking to avoid isolated new dwellings in the countryside. Criterion E of Policy SP13 refers to the development of single infill plots within established built up frontages of not less than five dwellings. Whilst the appeal site complies with this criterion, it does not form one of the exceptions within paragraph 55 of the Framework. Accordingly I attribute limited weight to this policy as the development must be considered against the sustainable development principles of the Framework.

7. The site lies in the small hamlet of Eagland Hill. There are no shops or facilities in the hamlet and I am advised by the Council that the Church is no longer in use. There is also no public transport serving the community. I have had regard to the advice in Paragraph 55 of the Framework, that development in one village may support services in a village nearby. In this case, the site lies approximately 2.4 miles from Pilling and 3.5 miles from Garstang where shops and facilities can be accessed. I observed on my site visit that the local roads are undulating, generally single track with passing places, have limited if any verges, are unlit and have no footways. They have limited forward visibility in places and are subject to the national speed limit. They would not provide a safe pedestrian route and having regard to the distance to Pilling, I consider it unlikely that potential future occupants would walk to access the services it provides.

8. Whilst cycling may form an alternative mode of transport, having regard to the nature of the local roads and the distances involved, I do not consider that cycling would be the preferred mode of transport. Future occupants are more likely to use the car especially in the evenings or in poor weather. Whilst occupants of the proposed dwelling would make use of the services and facilities in nearby settlements which would support their viability, they would more than likely do so using unsustainable transport means. Furthermore, as the development proposed is for a single dwelling, I do not consider that it would enhance or maintain the vitality of the nearby settlements to any significant degree.

9. I therefore consider that by reason of its location and lack of pedestrian connectivity to nearby settlements that the proposal would result in the increased need to travel by car and would not lead to a sustainable form of development. The proposal would be contrary to Policy SP13 of the Wyre Borough Local Plan and paragraph 55 of the Framework which seeks to avoid isolated new homes in the countryside.

2 Appeal Decision APP/U2370/W/16/3153600

Character and appearance

10. The appeal proposes a two storey detached dwelling with accommodation in the roofspace and a detached double garage. Two small piked dormers would be provided in the front and rear roof spaces and the dwelling would be constructed in red brick with a natural slate roof. Eagland Hill is characterised by two storey detached dwellings of a mix of designs and styles including dormer bungalows and more traditional dwellings.

11. The proposed dwelling would occupy a large plot and have a footprint comparable to neighbouring properties, in particular Hill Crest to the west. It would have a height to the ridge of around 9 metres and would provide three floors of accommodation. Other dwellings in the locality are generally lower in height and do not have dormers providing living space at third floor level. I consider that the height of the proposed dwelling together with the proposed dormers would result in the property being out of character with neighbouring dwellings. The proposal would appear dominant and incongruous in the street scene. It would not comply with Saved Policies SP13 and SP14 of the Wyre Borough Local Plan 1999 which aim to achieve a high standard of design and amenity. These policies are generally consistent with the principles of good design outlined in paragraph 17 and Section 7 of the Framework.

Other Matters

12. Both main parties agree that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land. In line with paragraph 49 of the Framework relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date. There is also a requirement to consider development proposals in light of paragraph 14 of the Framework which advises that where the development plan is absent, silent or out of date, planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole.

13. The Framework states a presumption in favour of sustainable development, seeking to achieve economic, social and environmental gains. I acknowledge that there would be some economic gains from the development in terms of construction jobs and the need for materials. In addition, the dwelling would contribute to the supply of housing in the area and future occupants would support local services and facilities in Pilling and Garstang. However as the proposal is for a single dwelling these gains would be very limited. Whilst these factors give some support to the development, I consider that they would not outweigh the harm I have identified in respect of the sites unsustainable location and effect on the character and appearance of the area.

Conclusion

14. Notwithstanding the benefits of the scheme including the contribution to the supply of housing, I consider that the proposal would not be consistent with the principles of sustainable development as it would result in a dwelling in the open countryside in a location with poor accessibility. Furthermore the design

3 Appeal Decision APP/U2370/W/16/3153600

of the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the locality.

15. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I dismiss this appeal.

Helen Hockenhull

INSPECTOR

Appeal Ref: APP/U2370/D/16/3155667 57 Fleetwood Road, Poulton le Fylde, Lancashire FY6 7NU  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 Mr and Mrs Nick Mills against the decision of Wyre Borough Council.  The application Ref 16/00164/FUL, dated 17 February 2016, was refused by notice dated 6 July 2016.  The development proposed is a two storey rear extension and addition of side dormers.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey and single storey rear extension at 57 Fleetwood Road, Poulton le Fylde, Lancashire FY6 7NU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 16/00164/FUL, dated 17 February 2016, subject to the following 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 plans: Drawing No.1511/01/2A - Proposed Site Plan, Drawing No. 1511/01/07 – Proposed rear first floor plan, Drawing No. 1511/01/06 – Proposed rear ground floor plan, Drawing No. 1511/01/08A – Proposed elevations. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

Procedural Matter

2. The description of development I have used in the banner heading is taken from the original planning application form. I am advised by the main parties that the side dormers have been removed from the scheme as they can be constructed under permitted development rights. I have considered the appeal on this basis.

3. I also note that the description of development used by the Council refers to a two storey and single storey rear extension. I consider that this description more accurately reflects the development proposed. I have therefore revised the description in my decision accordingly.

Appeal Decision APP/U2370/D/16/3155667

Main Issue

4. The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties with particular regard to outlook and daylight.

Reasons

5. The appeal property forms a detached bungalow located in a predominantly residential area. Neighbouring dwellings comprise detached bungalows of differing designs. The dwelling has a large single storey conservatory extension to the rear close to the boundary with No. 59 Fleetwood Road.

6. The proposed two storey rear extension would project approximately 4.5 metres at ground floor and 2.5 metres at first floor and have a pitched roof similar to the existing property.

7. The Councils Supplementary Planning Guidance Extending Your Home (SPD) provides guidance on single storey and two storey rear extensions. The neighbouring property, No. 55 Fleetwood Road has been extended beyond the existing rear elevation and the footprint of the dwelling is off set. In these circumstances the application of this guidance is not straight forward and in their evidence the Council have not assessed the proposal on this basis. I note however that the appellant has tried to demonstrate how the proposal meets the advice in this document.

8. The neighbouring dwelling No. 55 as a result if its staggered footprint, has a narrow area of amenity space running along the northern side boundary of the property adjacent to the appeal site. There is a bedroom window in the rear facing wall of the property and a small dining room window and orangery window in the side elevation. I noted on my site visit a small single storey shed located by the bedroom and dining room windows adjacent the existing 1.9 metre boundary fence between the two properties. This building together with the fence reduces light to these windows.

9. The appellant has provided copies of approved plans1 for an extension to No. 55 which provides a ground floor layout. This indicates that the dining room window on the side elevation is not the only source of light to this room. There is an overall separation distance of around 4.7 metres between the neighbouring properties. The two storey element of the proposal would project around 2.5 metres forward of the existing rear elevation of the appeal property and the proposal would have a low pitched roof. Having regard to these factors, the separation distance between the properties and the presence of the existing boundary fence and shed, I consider that the appeal proposal would not have a materially adverse effect on the current level of light experienced at the bedroom and dining room windows of the neighbouring dwelling. The orangery window is located beyond the proposed projection of the extension. I therefore consider it would not be affected by the proposal in terms of loss of daylight.

10. The outlook from the windows on the side boundary of No 55 is already affected by the boundary fence and the shed which I have referred to above. Having regard to the position of these windows, the separation distances between the two properties and the pitch of the proposed roof, I do not

1 Planning application ref 15/00605/FUL

2 Appeal Decision APP/U2370/D/16/3155667

consider that the proposed extension would have any greater enclosing effect on these windows. There would therefore be no material loss of outlook.

11. With regard to No 59 Fleetwood Road, I noted on my site visit that this property has an existing single storey flat roof rear extension which runs parallel to the existing conservatory at No.57. The proposed extension would project around a metre less than this neighbouring extension. Ground floor secondary windows in the side elevation of No 59 appear to me to be positioned facing the original flank wall of the appeal property. In terms of outlook and daylight they are already affected by the existing boundary fence and the side wall of the conservatory extension to No 57. Having regard to the position of the existing windows in the neighbouring dwelling, I consider that the appeal proposal would not materially affect daylight or outlook to these windows.

12. I therefore conclude that the appeal proposal would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring properties. The development would comply with Saved Policies SP14 and H4 of the adopted Wyre Borough Local Plan 2009. These policies I consider to be generally consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework in particular paragraph 17 which seeks to ensure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupiers of land and buildings.

Conditions

13. I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council. In addition to the standard condition which limits the timespan of the planning permission I have specified the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. A condition relating to materials is also necessary to ensure that the appearance of the development would be satisfactory.

Conclusion

14. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed.

Helen Hockenhull

INSPECTOR