Appeal 3268550

This appeal is dismissed.

There are other appeals made by the appellant on nearby sites. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined these appeals on their individual merits. Furthermore, the fact that development has occurred has had no bearing on my decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is part of an open, largely undeveloped field which is laid to grass with numerous trees. This field is adjoined to the side and rear by mainly open land and woodland. There is residential development along [address] and to the north. However, given the rural character of the appeal site and its separation from [address] due to the landscaped boundary, it relates more closely to the surrounding countryside land. [name] makes a positive contribution to this rural setting. Development nearby has been approved including a three storey block of flats and 9m high retail unit and clinic, although there is no evidence that these would result in a change to the character of this surrounding countryside.

The barn includes rooflights and a leaded style of window in the elevations labelled east and west. This fenestration and the number of windows proposed are typically domestic in their character and appearance. The design would therefore result in a residential appearance to the building. It is important that development should ‘belong’ to its setting rather than be discordant by providing mixed signals as to its function. The resultant design would be urban and so would harmfully erode the important countryside character of the land which, in turn, would have a negative effect on the wider surroundings.

The windows would provide natural light into the barn and allow views across parts of [name] and [name]. [name] appreciate that this is pleasing for those volunteering, I am not persuaded that such visibility is necessary in order to properly maintain the land. Nor that artificial lighting could not be used. As such these benefits attract limited weight in this decision.

The barn would be highly visible when accessing [name] and the cemetery. Although this land is privately owned it is currently accessible to the public. Additional planting may reduce this visibility, although views would still be possible along the access to [name]. [name] am not satisfied that landscaping would screen this jarring domestic appearance. As such, this harm would be experienced.

There is no dispute in relation to the heritage effects or the effects on the National Park. The conservation officers and the South Downs National Park have also not objected to the proposed scheme. There is no evidence that the proposed development would result in a harmful level of light pollution as a result of the windows. However, the lack of harm in these regards is a neutral factor which does not weigh in favour of the development.

Consequently, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Therefore, in this respect, it would be contrary to Policies 10, 25, 26, 32 and 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework November 2015 and Policy 14 of the Storrington, Sullington and Washington Neighbourhood Plan which together seek to protect the natural environment and landscape character of the borough and the undeveloped nature of the countryside, including rural economic development, as well as setting criteria to achieve high quality design for new development including a sympathetic relationship with the surroundings.

The appellant makes reference to other applications he has made that have been refused and allowed at appeal ([address] and [address]). However, it is not apparent how these decisions might alter my conclusions on the main issue above.

The appellant is seeking to increase planting on and near the appeal site and has improved the soil, is providing public access to these areas at [name] and is providing funding for this. These objectives are admirable. There is no dispute in relation to the proposed use in a countryside location.

As the proposed development is not for housing, the government’s target to significantly boost the supply of homes would not be relevant to this appeal. The appellant states that this would represent the best use of land, however I find it to be harmful for the reasons set out above, contrary to the

[name] have noted the appellant’s concerns regarding the Council’s handling of the planning application and its previous performance, that does not alter my assessment of the planning merits of the proposal.

The proposal would not accord with the development plan and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, to indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.