Appeal 3272786

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the submission of the appeal the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published and came into force on 20 July 2021. In light of this, I have sought the views of the main parties in writing, and I have taken any relevant correspondence into consideration.

Planning history confirms that a previous scheme for the replacement of the agricultural building at the site with a detached dwelling was dismissed at appeal1 in 2020, on grounds of harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and that that scheme would conflict with national and local planning policy with regards to the conservation and enhancement of landscape and scenic beauty of the New Forest National Park (the National Park).

Subsequently, planning permission for the demolition of the agricultural barn at the site and its replacement with a detached residential building was granted by the Council on 18 March 2021, with the evidence before me indicating that 1 Appeal Reference: APP/Y3940/W/20/3252379 permission was granted on the basis that the Council considered that the appeal building would retain an agricultural character and appearance, being sympathetic and compatible with the rural character of the area and the setting of the National Park.

The disputed condition would prevent extensions to the proposed dwelling as well as restricting erection of outbuildings, whilst also preventing the incorporation of new additional windows, dormers or rooflights. The appeal seeks to remove this condition so that the full range of permitted development rights are available to the proposed detached replacement dwelling.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the disputed condition is reasonable and necessary in order to preserve the character and appearance of the surrounding area including the setting of the National Park and the setting of nearby listed buildings, and in the interests of protecting residential amenity.

The National Park borders the appeal site on its northern boundary. There is residential development within the boundary of the National Park and to the north and east of the site, with the land to the south and southwest of the site comprising predominately open agricultural land.

Section 11A(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 requires that ‘in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land’ in National Parks, relevant authorities ‘shall have regard’ to their purposes for which these areas are designated. The Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) confirms that this duty is particularly important to the delivery of the statutory purposes of protected areas. It applies to all local planning authorities, not just National Park authorities, and is relevant in considering development proposals that are situated outside National Park or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty boundaries, but which might have an impact on their setting or protection2.

The PPG further states3 that ‘conditions restricting the future use of permitted development rights or changes of use may not pass the test of reasonableness or necessity. The scope of such conditions needs to be precisely defined, by reference to the relevant provisions in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015, so that it is clear exactly which rights have been limited or withdrawn’. Paragraph 54 of the Framework provides that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so.

The Council have put it to me that the disputed condition would pass the relevant tests included within paragraph 56 of the Framework. In respect of the effect of such alterations and additions on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and on the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Park, permitted development rights would allow for extensions which could, based on the extent of those permitted rights, result in a building that no longer retained an agricultural appearance and could therefore result in a building that would be visually discordant within its rural surroundings. 2 Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 039 [name]: 8-039-20190721 3 Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 017 [name]: 21a-[phone]

Furthermore, in respect of outbuildings, by reason of the size of the site and the curtilage associated with the approved dwelling, additional outbuildings could result in a significant spread of built form across the site. This would further erode and harm the rural character and appearance of the area and would be harmful to the landscape and scenic beauty of the adjacent National Park.

Accordingly, whilst I do not concur with the Council that submission of the planning appeal to remove the disputed condition shows an intention to carry out works restricted by the disputed condition, I find that the restriction on permitted development rights identified within the disputed condition would be justified and necessary to enable proper consideration of alterations and extensions and thus avoid unacceptable harm being caused to the character and appearance of the surrounding area or to the setting of the National Park by the construction of unsuitable or unsightly additions.

Under section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have a duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest. In this respect, the consultation from the Conservation Officer included reference to an earlier application at the site and which considered whether the site formed an important part of the setting of a number of nearby listed buildings.

The listed buildings referenced in the consultation includes [site address] House and [site address] [name] located north of the site, and [address] which is located west of the site. The submissions in this appeal indicate that the Conservation Officer concluded that the rural outlook from the principal elevations of [site address] House, [address] and [site address] [name] contributes to the setting and significance of these designated

By reason of the separation distance between the site and the buildings at [address] and [site address] [name], and given that intervisibility between the site and [site address] [name] is very limited on account of intervening vegetation, I find no harm to the significance or setting of these

Nonetheless, the agricultural appearance of the permitted replacement dwelling would help ensure that the rural outlook from [site address] House is preserved. The extensions and provision of outbuildings provided under permitted development rights could significantly alter the character and appearance of the site as noted above, eroding the rural nature of the site which, in my view, contributes to the setting of this listed building so causing harm, albeit less than substantial harm, to its significance. Whilst it was noted on my visit that the site is partially screened by vegetation, the site and the replacement dwelling would still be visible in views from [site address] House.

In terms of the effect on existing nearby residents’ amenity, I find that, by reason of the separation distance between the permitted dwelling and its immediate neighbour, even in the event that additional openings were inserted on the eastern elevation at first floor level, there would be no unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy.

Notwithstanding the above with regards to nearby resident’s amenity, in terms of the restriction of permitted development rights with regards to additional windows, dormer and rooflights, I find that the inclusion of additional openings at first floor level would further erode the rural character and appearance of the permitted dwelling, resulting in a building that would have a more domestic residential appearance being harmful to the character and appearance of the area, harmful to the scenic and landscape beauty of the National Park and harmful to the setting and significance of the listed building at [site address] House.

For the above reasons, and given the importance placed within national planning policy with regards to the conservation and enhancement of landscape and scenic beauty of National Parks and to the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment, I find that development in non-compliance with the disputed condition would mean there would not be proper consideration of alterations and extensions and so could result in unacceptable harm being caused to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the setting of the National Park, and less than substantial harm being caused to the significance of [site address] House. I am not aware of public benefits to outweigh this harm to the significance of the listed building.

The disputed condition would allow for greater control to be applied to the size, bulk and appearance of the permitted dwelling, ensuring that it retained its agricultural form and scale. In light of the above, the removal of the disputed condition could result in a form of development that would not comply with the provisions of Policies 24, 51, 57 and 58 of the [name] and Saved Policy C6 of the Salisbury District Local Plan which, amongst other matters, aim to protect landscape character including the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Park and which requires that development conserves the historic environment.

The Appellants have referred me to a recent appeal at Landford Wood4 which concerned a disputed condition which appeared to restrict potential change of use of an agricultural building to a residential dwelling under Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO). In that appeal the Inspector considered that the condition did not satisfy the required tests and that the prior approval process would ensure that the Council would retain an element of control over the external appearance of the relevant building. Whilst the conclusions of that appeal are noted, the circumstances of the cited appeal are not comparable to this appeal given that the replacement dwelling has already been approved and that no such elements of control would exist in relation to further alterations and additions made under the GPDO. Consequently, I have determined this appeal on its own merits.

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