Appeal 3274136

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: i) whether there is a genuine and proven need for the proposal, having regard to the requirements of local policy; and ii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is located outside of a settlement boundary and as a consequence, it is situated within the countryside. Policy CP19 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: [name] (2014) (JCS) is a policy of general restraint in order to protect the countryside for its own sake. Accordingly, it confirms that the only development allowed in the countryside will be that with a genuine and proven need for a countryside location, such as that necessary for farming, forestry, or other rural enterprises.

The proposal would seek to remove two dilapidated structures and replace them with a storage building so as to enable the effective marketing of the land as a smallholding with storage building. However, although nationally there may be considerable interest in such parcels of land, no compelling evidence has been provided to demonstrate that there is obvious demand for this site. For example, the site would not appear to have been actively marketed to demonstrate particular levels of demand. The site is also not currently used as a smallholding and does not contain any livestock or host any agricultural activity. Although the existing buildings could be refurbished, and the site put to agricultural use, the evidence before me is not persuasive that such events are likely to happen.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal fails to demonstrate a genuine and proven need for the agricultural building. It would therefore fail to accord with Policy CP19 of the JCS and Policy 1 of the Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan (2016) (NP), which taken together, establish the requirements for development within the countryside. This is a fundamental conflict with the development plan and is therefore a matter that weighs very heavily against the proposal.

The building would be single storey with a pitched roof. It would have a modest footprint and would be clad in timber with a corrugated sheet roof. Accordingly, the design of the proposal would be wholly appropriate for its countryside location. This matter is not contested by the Council, however, their concerns manifest themselves in the specific location of the building, relative to other buildings.

The location would be accessed via a long access track and the building itself would be situated beyond the existing buildings which front onto [site address] . Accordingly, it would be somewhat removed from other established built form. Despite this, due to its distance from the road, the building would be difficult to perceive from the public realm. Moreover, due to its appropriate design and scale, any views that could be achieved, would reveal a building that would be sympathetic to its rural surroundings.

Accordingly, in my judgement, notwithstanding the locational concerns identified above, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. On this basis, it would accord with Policies CP20 and CP29 of the JCS and Policy 1 of the NP. Taken together, these seek amongst other things, a high standard of design which is sensitive to the natural environment.

I have found that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. However, this is not a direct benefit of the proposal and therefore, it weighs neutrally in my assessment of the appeal. Accordingly, it does not alter my findings in relation to the need for the proposal and as a consequence, the appeal should be dismissed.