Penderfyniad ar yr Apêl
Appeal Decision
Ymweliad â safle a wnaed ar 04/04/16
Site visit made on 04/04/16
gan Richard Duggan BSc (Hons)
DipTP MRTPI
by Richard Duggan BSc (Hons) DipTP
MRTPI
Arolygydd a benodir gan Weinidogion Cymru
an Inspector appointed by the Welsh Ministers
Dyddiad: 29/04/16
Date: 29/04/16
Appeal Ref: APP/T6850/A/16/3141917
Site address: Lower Trederwen Farm, Trederwen Lane, Arddleen, Llanymynech
SY22 6RZ
The Welsh Ministers have transferred the authority to decide this appeal to me as the
appointed Inspector.






The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a
refusal to grant planning permission under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous
planning permission was granted.
The appeal is made by Mrs Jackie Mountford against the decision of Powys County Council.
The application Ref P/2015/0852, dated 17 August 2015, was refused by notice dated
9 December 2015.
The application sought planning permission for the conversion of existing agricultural buildings
to form 6 holiday units, laundry and office and installation of septic tank without complying with
condition No. 3 attached to planning permission Ref M/2002/0631, dated 2 August 2002.
The condition in dispute is No.3. Condition 3 states that “The accommodation hereby approved
shall be restricted to holiday occupation only for short term holiday lettings and shall not be let
to the same person or persons for a single period exceeding four weeks or for two or more
periods exceeding in total eight weeks, in any period of twelve months calculated from 1 st
January in any year.”
The reason given for the condition is: “In order to prevent the establishment of permanent
residential accommodation and to promote the Council’s tourism policy of promoting all year
round holiday accommodation.”
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issues
2. I consider the main issues in this case to be:
1) Whether sufficient justification has been put forward to delete condition 3 of
planning permission ref. M/2002/0631, and whether the condition is reasonable
and necessary, having regard to planning policies that seek to strictly control
permanent residential uses in the open countryside away from established
settlements;
Appeal Decision APP/T6850/A/16/3141917
2) The effect of allowing permanent residential use on the living conditions of
future occupiers with regard to noise, odour, loss of privacy and disturbance,
and access to outdoor private amenity space; and
3) Whether the proposed permanent residential use represents an acceptable form
of development having regard to its flood zone location and the provisions of
Planning Policy Wales (PPW) and Technical Advice Note 15: Development and
Flood Risk (TAN15).
Reasons
Holiday use restriction
3. Policy GP6 of the Adopted Powys Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2010 establishes a
hierarchy for the conversion or re-use of existing buildings in the countryside, and
applicants are required to demonstrate that attempts have been made to secure a
reuse for purposes in classes i-iii, or provide convincing evidence that such uses would
be impractical. In this case, there is no consideration given to the possibility that the
appeal buildings would be suitable for classes i and ii, although I recognise that the
Council accepts that a commercial re-use may not be appropriate given the farmyard
setting and location.
4. Class iii relates to residential development to meet a proven local need for affordable
housing and where the applicant complies with affordability criteria in UDP policy
HP10. There is no indication that consideration has been given to renting or selling
the units as affordable housing with a suitable mechanism to restrict any future
occupancy in perpetuity to meet that need. In addition, no detailed evidence or
justification has been put forward as to why this option would be impractical. I note
that the Appellant has stated that the proposed units would be ‘affordable in nature’
and briefly refers to the cost of conversion and the inability of local people to get a
mortgage, as reasons why the site would be unviable for 6 affordable units.
However, no substantive evidence in this regard has been produced, and therefore I
attribute limited weight to this argument.
5. Class iv. in the hierarchy includes permanent residential use, holiday accommodation
or other tourism, leisure and recreation uses. Although the policy does not state
which use has priority, Technical Advice Note (TAN) 61 states that residential
conversions have minimal impact on the rural economy whilst conversions for holiday
use can contribute more and may reduce pressure to use other houses in the area for
holiday use2. For this reason, retaining the existing holiday use would be preferable to
an unrestricted residential use, if attempts to use as affordable housing had been
unsuccessful or shown to be impractical.
6. Although planning permission was granted for the conversion of the agricultural
building to holiday accommodation in 20023 it appears that it is yet to be fully
completed or ready for occupation. From the evidence before me, it would appear
that the buildings have not been let out as holiday accommodation to paying
1
TAN 6 ‘Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities’
2
TAN 6 Paragraph 3.6.1
3
Planning Permission Ref: M2002 0631 granted on 2 August 2002
2
Appeal Decision APP/T6850/A/16/3141917
customers which means that the potential profitability or viability of the holiday let
business has not been properly tested.
7. The thrust of national planning policy seeks to create balanced sustainable rural
communities, with new development located within and adjoining those settlements
where it can be best accommodated in term of inter alia infrastructure and access. I
observed that the options for travelling without the use of a car are somewhat limited,
and it is evident that only limited local services and facilities are located in Arddleen.
Although it may be possible to cycle in some instances, such an arrangement would
not adequately cater for the day to day needs of the future occupants of this
development without significant reliance on the car as a means of travel. I therefore
consider that the proposal would be at odds with the objectives of PPW insofar as it
would be located outside of a settlement and would be inadequate in terms of its
accessibility by non-car modes.
8. Having regard to the above, it has not been demonstrated that permanent residential
use of the buildings is justified and that alternative uses have been fully considered.
On this basis, I consider the deletion of condition3 attached to planning permission
M2002 0631 has not been justified. As such, the proposal conflicts with Policy GP6 of
the UDP. I also find that condition 3 is reasonable and necessary having regard to the
planning policies that seek to strictly control permanent residential uses in the open
countryside away from established settlements.
Living conditions
9. The proposed occupation of the dwellings would not be restricted. That is, they would
be open market dwellings, and whether the proximity to the farming activity could be
regarded as undesirable has to be considered in that context. The proximity to the
large farm building closest to the appeal site would potentially give rise to significant
levels of noise and disturbance to future occupiers of the proposed dwellings. The
domestic use of the dwelling houses and the garden areas, especially the garden of
unit 6, would be disturbed by increased potential for odours emanating from the yard
and barns. There would also be disturbance from activity within the yard by vehicles
using the main driveway and entering or leaving the sheds, and by movement
associated with the farming activity.
10. Furthermore, the pedestrian and vehicle movements associated with the new
dwellings would have to utilise the farm access that would remain the primary access
point to the machinery store and farmyard. The main entrance to the dwellings off
the existing vehicular access areas into the yard would present a danger for
pedestrians entering and exiting the dwellings when farm vehicles were passing.
11. I noted that the current site appears to be a fairly low-key farming enterprise with the
main fields located away from the appeal buildings, and that the intention is to
remove the adjacent barn. However, it is possible that the type of farming on the
surrounding land could change in the future and there is no guarantee that the barn
would be removed and it could be used for the storage of materials or machinery
which could be noisy, smelly or dangerous. The fact that the proposed dwellings
would be physically separated from this storage element does not properly protect
future occupants of the dwellings from that kind of potential harm to living conditions.
12. The Appellant contends that the holiday units can be accommodated 365 days a
year, and the potential pollution or nuisance is identical to holiday residence and
permanent residential residence. However, I consider that the adjacent barn and
3
Appeal Decision APP/T6850/A/16/3141917
other buildings are more likely to be used during winter months to house livestock and
permanent year round residential use in such close proximity to it would be likely to
result in conflicts arising from noise and odour. Whereas, there would be less of an
impact during summer months, when there is greater demand for holiday
accommodation, and staying next to a working farm could be considered as part of the
holiday experience.
13. I acknowledge the fact that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer does not
object. However, in my opinion the appeal proposal would be harmful to the living
conditions of proposed occupiers of the dwellings with regard to noise, odour, loss of
privacy and disturbance and conflict with UDP Policies GP1 and DC17.
14. The Council is also concerned that the level of outdoor amenity space for the proposed
units would be inadequate. However, the plans approved under the original planning
permission for the conversion to holiday accommodation include provision for an area
of outdoor amenity space for each unit which I consider to be sufficient in scale to
cater for the needs of future occupiers. As such, there would be no conflict with Policy
GP1 of the UDP in respect of the level of private outdoor amenity space.
Flooding
15. Whilst acknowledging that holiday and residential accommodation falls within the
same use class (Class C3) for the purposes of the Use Classes Order4 and are both
classed as ‘highly vulnerable’ for the purposes of TAN15 , the Council consider the
risks and consequences of flooding associated with holiday accommodation to be less
than those associated with residential use.
16. The main source of flood risk to the site comes from the River Severn and it lies within
Zone C2 as defined by the Development Advice Map (DAM) referred to under TAN15.
It is this designation which dictates how the appeal proposal shall be assessed. In
accordance with TAN15, development can take place in Zone C2 subject to being
justified and, if it is, the provision of evidence that the consequences of the flooding
which will occur can be managed to an acceptable level.
17. TAN15 requires that development should only be permitted within Zone C2 if it is
determined that it is justified in that location. Development will only be justified if it
can be demonstrated that the location satisfies the tests set out in TAN15 para 6.2. I
have seen no evidence indicating that the development is necessary to assist, or be
part of a local authority regeneration initiative or a local authority strategy required to
sustain an existing settlement (test criterion i.), or that it is necessary to contribute to
key employment objectives supported by the local authority and other key partners to
sustain an existing settlement (test criterion ii). Thus, it does not meet the
justification tests i. or ii. set out in paragraph 6.2 of TAN15.
18. TAN15 advises that whether a development should proceed or not will depend upon
whether the consequences of flooding of that development can be managed down to a
level which is acceptable for the nature/type of development being proposed. A
balanced judgement is also required to enable the risks of flooding to be addressed
whilst recognising the benefits of reusing previously developed land. At the time of
determination of the planning application the Appellant had not submitted a Flood
4
The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987
4
Appeal Decision APP/T6850/A/16/3141917
Consequence Assessment (FCA) and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) had not raised
concerns with the proposal.
19. Although a formal FCA has not been prepared, the Appellant has stated a willingness
to prepare a Flood Management Plan which could include measures to be taken in the
event of flood warnings being issued or flooding to occur. Permanent residents would
have an increased knowledge of the Flood Management Plan and would have more of
an awareness of what to do in the event of a flooding event in contrast with visitors to
the holiday accommodation who would stay at the site for short periods of time. A
suitably worded condition could be used to ensure this is prepared and agreed with
the Council prior to first occupation.
20. Therefore, whilst it has not been demonstrated that the development is justified with
regard to the tests set out in section 6 of TAN15, in this instance the proposed
permanent residential occupation of the buildings would not, in my opinion, prove to
be more of a threat to life than the permitted use of the site as holiday
accommodation. In this regard, I find that the proposal would not represent an
unacceptable form of development having regard to its flood zone location and the
provisions of PPW, TAN15 and Policy DC13 and DC14 of the UDP.
Other matters
21. My attention has been drawn to another appeal decision5 within Powys. Although the
appeal is similar to this proposal, each case must be determined on its own merits
having regard to the particular location and circumstances. Therefore, I have given
this decision limited weight in my determination of this appeal.
22. The lack of a 5-year housing supply is given considerable weight in favour of the
development where it otherwise complies with the development plan and national
policies. In this case the development does not comply and therefore less weight
would be attributed to the contribution this development would make to housing land
supply.
Conclusions
23. Notwithstanding my favourable conclusions for the appellant on amenity space and
flooding, this does not outweigh the harm that I have identified to the living conditions
of future occupiers, or my conclusions that condition 3 which restricts the use of the
existing property to holiday use is reasonable and necessary.
24. For the reasons given above and having considered all other matters raised, I
conclude the appeal should be dismissed.
Richard Duggan
INSPECTOR
5
APP/T6850/A/12/2175420
5