Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 October 2018 by Graham Chamberlain BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17th October 2018

Appeal Ref: APP/U1430/W/18/3201084 Netherhay Barn, Whatlington Road, Battle, East TN33 0NA  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 A McFaite against the decision of Council.  The application Ref RR/2018/285/P, dated 15 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 12 March 2018.  The development proposed is described as ‘proposed dwelling to replace redundant barn’.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a dwelling to replace a redundant barn at Netherhay Barn, Whatlington Road, Battle, TN33 0NA, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: RR/2018/285/P, dated 15 January 2018, subject to the conditions in the schedule at the end of this decisison.

Main Issues

2. The main issues in this appeal are:

 Whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location, with particular reference to policies concerned with housing in rural areas and the accessibility of services and facilities; and

 The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the High Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Reasons

Whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location

3. Policy OSS3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 (CS) addresses the location of development and states that planning applications should be considered in the context of the spatial strategy for the area. In this instance, the appeal site is located outside the settlement boundary of Battle and is within the countryside for the purposes of applying the policies in the CS.

4. Policy RA3 of the CS states that new housing in the countryside will be allowed in extremely limited circumstances. These include rural workers dwellings, the conversion of traditional rural buildings, replacement dwellings and rural exception sites providing affordable housing. The appeal scheme would not be

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/U1430/W/18/3201084

any of the types of development where the principle is exceptionally permitted in the countryside by Policy RA3. As such, the proposal would not be in a suitable location when applying policies concerned with housing in rural areas.

5. Thus, the proposal would be at odds with, and harmfully undermine, the adopted and evidenced based spatial strategy for rural housing in the development plan and the consistency and relative certainty that should flow from a plan led approach to the location of new development.

The accessibility of services and facilities

6. The appeal site is located on the periphery of Battle. The Council suggests it is approximately 1.5 miles away from the town centre. It would be possible for future occupants of the appeal property to walk from the appeal site into the town centre and much of the route would be along a pavement that can be joined at Oakhurst Road. However, given the distance, which would be considerable for a return trip, it is unlikely to be a regular occurrence. Moreover, the first section of the route has no pavement and this may further discourage walking.

7. Cycling into the town centre, or to the rail station, could be an option as the distances travelled would not be too onerous. However, future occupants may not have a sufficient level of confidence, fitness and proficiency for this mode of transport to be relied upon as an alternative to travel by a private motorised vehicle. There is a bus stop located about 600 metres away from the appeal site but I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s evidence that suggests the frequency of the bus service is limited.

8. In light of the foregoing, the appeal site is not well placed, relative to services and facilities, to accommodate a new dwelling. This is because the future occupants would be predisposed to travel by private motorised transport. Such journeys to the facilities in the town would be short in duration but daily vehicle movements would soon add up to a high number of miles travelled with the associated carbon emissions.

9. However, the appeal site is already driven to by the appellants twice a day in order to tend to their horses. The erection of the appeal property would extinguish the need for these trips. I accept that the appellant may not ultimately live in the property but I consider this to be unlikely as it has been designed to meet there needs and to allow them to be close to their horses. As such, the erection of a dwelling would reduce some existing vehicle movements and this would offset some of those that would be come about through the occupation of the proposed dwelling.

10. In conclusion, the appeal site is not well placed for future residents to access everyday services and facilities other than by traveling via private motorised transport. This would harmfully undermine Policy TR3 of CS, which seeks to minimise the need to travel. Nevertheless, the harmful impact is partially off- set by the potential for future occupants to occasionally walk or cycle into the town (or cycle to the rail station) and the proposal would remove some of the daily vehicle movements that already exist. These factors moderately temper the harm that would arise from the conflict with Policy TR3.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/U1430/W/18/3201084

The impact on the character and appearance of the area

11. The appeal site is located towards the edge of Battle and is accessed from Whatlington Road, which is characterised by loosely arranged and irregularly sited ribbon development. The appeal site is therefore partially viewed as being on the edge of an existing pocket of development, including a large dwelling to its immediate south.

12. There are a number of structures within the appeal site including two modern barns, a stable and riding arena. The buildings are surrounded by hardstanding, vehicles and paraphernalia1 and there is daily activity. As such, the site already has a developed appearance, including a long gravel driveway and formal access off the public highway. Some of these features are common components of a residential development and this would considerably limit any urbanising impacts flowing from the appeal scheme.

13. The proposal is for the erection of a detached dwelling in the location of an existing barn and therefore the proposal would not result in development in a position where there is none currently. There is some low level storage in the barn but it otherwise appears redundant. The proportions of the dwelling would reflect the depth of the existing barn and the width would be slightly greater. The height increase would be moderate because the first floor would be accommodated in the roof. As such, the siting and massing of the proposed dwelling would not be a significant departure from that of the existing barn. This would soften the impact on the wider landscape and minimise the sense that there had been an urbanisation of the site.

14. In addition the appearance of the dwelling would be reminiscent of a traditional barn with a simple rectangular plan, low eaves and double height porch. The barn concept would be undermined to an extent by the presence of a chimney, Juliet balcony, yellow Cedral weatherboarding and dormer window, which are overtly domestic features. But overall the concept would assist in settling the building into the landscape, especially if sensitive and locally appropriate external materials are used. This can be controlled through the imposition of a planning condition.

15. The appeal site is not particularly visible from Whatlington Road or nearby properties due to the distance, topography and intervening landscaping. The proposed dwelling would be more visible from the adjoining public footpath but views of it from this direction would be significantly softened by the presence of the dense hedge along the western boundary of the appeal site, which includes a belt of evergreen planting.

16. Given the existing built character of the appeal site and its environs, the modest scale and massing of the dwelling relative to the existing building, the barn style proposed and the presence of dense boundary landscaping, I do not consider the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area or the landscape character and scenic beauty of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The Council has not directed me to any part of the High Weal AONB Management Plan that would suggest otherwise.

17. In conclusion, the proposal would have a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the area and therefore a conflict with Policies OSS4, BA1, RA3

1 Including tools, logs and some building materials https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/U1430/W/18/3201084

and EN1 would not occur. These policies seek to secure development that does not detract from the character and appearance of the locality, the setting of the town and provide stewardship to the distinctive local landscape.

Planning Balance

18. The Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply as required to by the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Council have confirmed that the housing supply is 3.44 years, which is low. Thus, Paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged as an important material consideration. As I have not identified harm to the AONB landscape, the application of policies in the Framework aimed at protecting them do not provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. Instead, planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

19. The appeal scheme would be residential development in the countryside contrary to Policies OSS3 and RA3 of the CS. However, if these policies are applied rigorously then any attempt to remedy the notable housing supply deficit would be frustrated. I have seen nothing to suggest the Council are likely to address the shortfall without releasing sites in the countryside. Consequently, the appeal site, which is previously developed land, located on the edge of a large settlement and viewed as being on the edge of a cluster of development, is well placed to contribute to housing supply through redevelopment. As such, I afford the conflict with the aforementioned policies limited weight in this instance.

20. The appeal scheme would not harm the character and appearance of the area but the absence of harm in respect of this matter, and any others such as the living conditions of neighbours, is a neutral consideration in the overall planning balance.

21. The appeal site is not well placed for future residents to regularly access everyday facilities and services without using private motorised transport. However, for the reasons I have already explained the harm would be moderately tempered. Nevertheless, I still afford the conflict with Policy TR3 moderate weight because this policy is broadly consistent with the Framework’s aim to promote and encourage sustainable transport.

22. Turning to the benefits. The delivery of a new home would boost the supply of housing. The boost would be modest, but it is still a point of moderate weight in favour of the proposal because the Council are at a point in time when the shortfall in the housing land supply is notable. This needs to be considered in the context of the Framework’s aim to significantly boost the supply of housing, which the Council is currently failing to do due the housing land supply deficit.

23. The appeal scheme could support the retention of services and facilities in the area as future occupants of the appeal scheme may spend locally. However, evidence has not been submitted that outlines the practical local effect of this, for example there is nothing to suggest nearby services are failing for lack of patronage. Moreover, as only a single dwelling is proposed these benefits would be of a modest scale. Thus, the benefits to the local community would be a matter of limited weight in favour of the proposal. The appeal scheme

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/U1430/W/18/3201084

would also support the construction industry, albeit in a short term and modest way given the small size of the development.

24. Consequently, when the proposal is assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole the adverse impacts of the appeal scheme, to which I afford limited to moderate weight, would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal, to which I have also afforded limited to moderate weight. This is a material consideration of some force that indicates the proposal should be permitted in spite of the conflict with the development plan.

25. Two other planning appeals have been referred to by the Council but the circumstances presented within them are not entirely similar to the proposal before me. Most notably, the Inspectors identified harm to the AONB in both of the other cases.

Conditions and Conclusion

26. In permitting the development it is necessary to impose planning conditions. I have had regard to the advice in the Planning Practice Guide and the conditions suggested by the Council and consider it is necessary, in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the area, to ensure that the development is undertaken in accordance with the submitted drawings and for samples of external finishing materials to be approved.

27. The site already has parking, which is shown on the proposed drawings, so it is unnecessary to impose conditions in this regard.

28. In conclusion, the proposed development would not accord with the development plan but there are other considerations which outweigh this finding in this instance. Accordingly, the appeal should succeed.

Graham Chamberlain INSPECTOR

Schedule of Planning Conditions

1) The development hereby permitted shall have commenced before the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans;  Drawing No. 5691/LBP dated January 2017; and  Drawing No. 5691/1 dated December 2017

3) Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development above ground level shall take place until further details or samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwelling hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5