Appeal 3293714

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is one of three relating to the same site. The other two cases, referenced APP/W3005/W/22/3295894 and APP/W3005/D/22/3293714, relate to different proposals and are subject to separate decision letters.

The Council determined the application based on the ‘location map’ submitted on 13 December 2021 and referenced Plan A2 in the appellants evidence. The plan indicates a ‘proposed agri building’, encircled within a red line drawn closely around the proposed building. Other land in the ownership of the applicant is shown outlined in blue. I will determine this appeal on the same basis.

The main issue is whether the proposed development complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions applicable to development permitted by Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO).

Part 6 of Schedule 2, Class A of the GPDO provides that the carrying out of works for the erection, extension or alteration of a building on agricultural land comprised in an agricultural unit of 5 hectares or more in area, which are reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit, are permitted development subject to the conditions, limitations and restrictions set out within paragraph A.1. (a) to (k) inclusive.

[name].1. (b) of the GPDO indicates that development is not permitted by Class A if it would consist of the erection or extension of any agricultural building on an established agricultural unit where development under Class Q of Part 3 of Schedule 2 has been carried out within a period of 10 years ending with the date on which development under Class A(a) begins.

An appeal decision1 was allowed for the conversion of a barn under Class Q, on land within the appellants ownership, into a dwelling on 31 August 2018 with a requirement for the works to be completed within a period of 3 years, starting from the prior approval date. From what I saw on my site visit the works required to carry out the conversion had been completed.

In allowing the conversion of the former barn into a dwelling the Inspector was satisfied that the appeal site was being used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit. That said, I find nothing in the decision that defines the extent of the land which was considered to be the agricultural unit at that time. Similarly, in the current appeal there is no agreed definition of what is considered to be the agricultural unit.

On my site visit I saw that the land, as shown edged blue on the submitted plan, appeared to be part of the same agricultural unit. The agricultural unit appeared to include land close to the barn conversion, including land edged red on plan [name], whilst noting that the appellant’s assertion that the proposed development falls outside the red line boundary for the barn conversion, given the drawings submitted, it could be reasonably interpreted that the proposed development is in the same area as the development permitted under class Q.

Part 6 Class A allows agricultural development on units of 5 hectares or more which are ‘reasonably necessary’ for the purposes of agriculture within that unit. The appellant indicates that the proposed building would be used for the storage of agri machinery etc. – equipment. However, at the time of my visit, it was evident that no agricultural activity was taking place on the land in the appellants ownership. In the absence of compelling evidence, I am not convinced that there is a need for the proposed development. In this regard it is incumbent on the applicant to provide sufficient information to demonstrate need. Consequently, I am unable to determine, with any certainty, whether the development proposed is ‘reasonably necessary’.

Even if, I was to accept the appellants argument that, the area of the agricultural unit for this appeal should exclude the land associated with the barn conversion, and there is need for the proposed development, I am required to consider the proposals as detailed on the prior notification. In particular I am drawn to [name].1. (a) of Part 6 Class A of the GPDO, which indicates that development is not permitted if it would be carried out on a separate parcel of land forming part of an agricultural unit which is less than 1 hectare in area.

In this regard, I note that the area of the agricultural unit, as specified on the application form, is [address] metres. This figure equates closely to the floorspace of the proposed building, and even allowing for space around the building, the appeal site would have an area well below 1 hectare. 1 APP/W3005/W/18/3202400 Furthermore, there is no evidence before me to indicate whether any, or all, of the land outlined blue should be considered as part of the agricultural unit.

These matters, when considered together, mean that the proposed development fails to satisfy the conditions, limitations and restrictions set out within paragraph A.1. (a) to (k) inclusive.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the proposed development does not comply with the conditions, limitations and restrictions applicable to permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO.

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the conservatory.

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for 4 x skylight windows to roof at [site address] , [address] [site address] , Nottinghamshire [postcode] , subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The materials to be used for the skylight windows to roof hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The development hereby permitted, insofar as it relates to the skylight windows to roof hereby permitted only, shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

This appeal is one of three relating to the same site. The other two cases, referenced APP/W3005/W/22/3295894 and APP/W3005/W/22/3295897, relate to different proposals and are subject to separate decision letters.

The Council, in their officers report, and the appellant, in his appeal statement make reference to the quality of the plans and the supporting information to determine the application. Whilst the information provided is basic, I find that it gives a reasonable appreciation of what is proposed. The Council determined the application on this basis and so shall I.

The appellant has provided details of a development permitted by the Council for an 18 x 8 metre two storey dwelling in an adjacent field in the week preceding my site visit. He has asked that I take this matter into consideration when making my decision. The Council has been made aware of this request and provided with an opportunity to comment. As a result, I consider that no parties have been disadvantaged.

The main issues in this case are: • Whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • If the proposed development is inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to very special circumstances to justify it.

Paragraph 149 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) establishes that new buildings in the Green Belt are inappropriate, subject to a number of exceptions. One of the exceptions set out in paragraph 149 c) of the Framework is the extension of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The Framework defines ‘original building’ as meaning the building as existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after that date, as it was built originally.

Policy ST4 of the Ashfield Local Plan Review (adopted November 2002) (LP) deals with development outside the main urban areas and named settlements. It identifies that permission will only be given for development appropriate to the Green Belt. Policy EV1 indicates that the limited extension or alteration of existing dwellings is not considered inappropriate so long as it is located and designed so as not to adversely affect the purposes of the Green Belt and its openness. Whilst the development plan was adopted some time ago its aims are nevertheless broadly consistent with the approach in the Framework insofar as relevant to the appeal proposal. No quantitative guidance is provided in local or national policy regarding what might be considered disproportionate.

In the absence of substantive evidence as part of the appeal submission, I am unable to identify with any certainty what constituted the original building, nor am I able to quantify the degree to which it might have been extended. That said, given the scale of the proposed development in relation to the size of the host property, and the size of the garden within which it sits, I find that the proposal would not constitute a disproportionate addition.

Consequently, I conclude, on this main issue, that the proposed conservatory and skylights would not amount to disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, and therefore would not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the Framework.

Unless there is a specific requirement to consider the actual effect on openness, the impact on openness is implicitly taken into account in the exceptions contained within Framework paragraph 149. The exception contained within paragraph 149 c) of the Framework does not say that an assessment of the effect of a proposal on openness is a determinative factor in assessing whether a scheme would fall to be considered as inappropriate development. Accordingly, there is no requirement to assess the impact of the extension and skylights on the openness of the Green Belt.

The appeal site is located within a rural area, a short distance from the settlement of Underwood. The appeal property is set back from the public highway and comprises of a converted barn situated at the end of an unmade track. A hedge runs along its western boundary and a tall native hedge adjacent [address] South limits views from the south, however there is an open aspect in an easterly direction.

Whilst the conservatory would be relatively small in scale it would occupy a prominent position on the front of the host property. Moreover, its size, mass and design would not reflect the more traditional qualities of the former agricultural building to which it would be attached. As a result, it would appear as an incongruous feature within its rural setting to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed skylights would be of limited scale and would not be readily apparent from the surrounding area. Therefore, whilst noting the Council’s concern that the residential use of the property would become more apparent, as a consequence of their provision, I find that this would not cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant has referred to a number of decisions made by the Council permitting the erection of buildings in the locality, including an 18 x 8 metre two storey dwelling in an adjacent field. Insofar as the latter case is concerned, I am informed by the Council that the development related to a dwelling for an agricultural worker, and as a consequence it is not directly comparable with the appeal proposal. Furthermore, in the absence of substantive details of each of the other cases I am unable to assess with any certainty whether they are directly comparable with the case before me. In any case I have dealt with this particular case on its own merits.

The two elements of the development are severable, and given my findings above, I consider that there is an opportunity to issue a split decision allowing the proposed skylights and dismissing the conservatory.

Consequently, I conclude, on this main issue, that the proposed conservatory would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area contrary to Policy ST1 of the LP, Policy NP3 of the [name] and Selston Neighbourhood Plan 2017 -2032 and the Framework. That said, I conclude that the proposed skylights would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and therefore would not conflict with Policy ST1 of the LP, Policy NP3 of the [name] and Selston Neighbourhood Plan 2017 -2032 or the Framework. These policies, amongst other matters, seek high quality design that does not adversely affect the character, quality or amenity of the environment.

Given my conclusion that the proposed conservatory and skylights would not constitute inappropriate development, it is not necessary for me to consider whether very special circumstances exist to justify the proposed development.

I acknowledge that the appellant has sought the advice of the Council prior to, and during consideration of the application, however this does not alter the conclusions that I have reached.

I have taken into account the appellants desire to provide space for occupants to remove outdoor clothing and footwear prior to entering their home. However, the proposal before me does not represent the only solution that would satisfy this requirement. This benefit does not outweigh the harm that I have identified above.

The Council indicate that the proposed development has the potential to have a negative impact on the [name] which lies adjacent to the site. They do not elaborate on what that impact might be or quantify the effect that would arise from the proposal. In this regard I note that Natural England have raised no objection to the proposal, subject to mitigation measures being secured to minimise the impact on the SSSI in the event that the appeal is allowed. That said, the Council have not refused the application on the basis of its effect on biodiversity or suggested a mechanism by which mitigation could be secured. Given the nature, and limited scale, of the proposal, I consider that it would be unlikely to increase recreational pressure upon the SSSI. Accordingly, the proposal would not have either a direct or indirect effect upon the integrity of the SSSI. No mitigation is therefore necessary in this case.

With respect to the 4 x skylight windows to roof and in the interests of the appearance of the area and certainty, conditions relating to materials and the relevant drawing have been imposed.

For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that a split decision should be issued, dismissing the appeal with respect to the conservatory and allowing the appeal with regards to the 4 x skylight windows to roof.

The appeal is dismissed.

This appeal is one of three relating to the same site. The other two cases, referenced APP/W3005/D/22/3293714 and APP/W3005/W/22/3295897, relate to different proposals and are subject to separate decision letters.

The appeal is against the failure of the Council to determine the planning application in the prescribed period. The Council advised that, if it were now in a position to make a decision, it would refuse the application due to concerns relating to the impact of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and the extension of a residential use beyond the existing residential curtilage.

The appellant, in his final comments, expresses concern that, in the absence of a formal decision on the application, he was unaware that the application would have been refused on Green Belt grounds. Whilst acknowledging that the Council’s case was not clear until their appeal statement was submitted the appellant was aware that the appeal site is located in the Green Belt. Moreover, he has subsequently had an opportunity to comment on the views expressed by the Council in their appeal statement. Consequently, I do not agree that he has been disadvantaged in presenting his case.

The main issues in this case are: • Whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; and • If the proposed development is inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to very special circumstances to justify it.

Paragraph 149 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) establishes that new buildings in the Green Belt are inappropriate, subject to a number of exceptions.

The Council considers that the development would extend the curtilage of the dwelling. The appellant disagrees with this interpretation and asserts that the aviary would not be placed within the curtilage of the dwelling and cannot be reasonably considered to be an extension.

The proposed aviary would be located some distance from the host property and cannot be considered to be an adjunct to it. Moreover, it would not fall within the curtilage of the property as defined in the appeal decision1 that granted planning permission for the conversion of the original barn to a dwelling. Consequently, it appears to me that the proposed development would not extend the curtilage of the property.

The appellant’s case focusses on the proposal being an essential facility for outdoor recreation. In this regard the exception set out in paragraph 149 b) relates to the provision of appropriate facilities (in connection with the existing use of land or a change of use) for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation, cemeteries and burial grounds and allotments. Such facilities are not considered inappropriate development providing that they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

Policy EV1 of the Ashfield Local Plan Review ([name] 2002) (LP) seeks to restrict development in the Green Belt unless it is for specific defined purposes. These include (ii) essential facilities for outdoor sport... and for other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with one of the purposes of including land within it. The justification for the policy gives examples of such facilities as including small stables for outdoor sports and recreation. No definition is given of what would constitute ‘small’.

There is a slight conflict between policy EV1 and paragraph 149 b) in that the local policy refers to ‘essential’ facilities whereas the Framework now refers to ‘appropriate’ facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation. Notwithstanding the slight difference in the wording the development plan policy is broadly consistent with the Framework.

The aviary would be used to house a number of falcons that the appellant cares for. Moreover, he indicates that the birds are trained and flown at [address] and require an ‘immense’ amount of open space, such as that which he owns directly adjoining the appeal site. Given this information I consider that the proposal can be reasonably considered as an outdoor recreational activity. 1 APP/W3005/W/18/3202400

In light of the above, I find that the proposed development potentially falls within the exception set out in Paragraph 149 b). That said, I am required to assess the impact of the proposed development on openness and the purpose of including land in the Green Belt before I can conclude whether or not it would comprise inappropriate development.

The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. In this case, the development would result in a structure where previously none existed. Moreover, it would not be insignificant in scale. having a height of over 2.4 metres and a footprint of around 39.[address] metres. This relatively large addition, both in terms of footprint and volume, would represent a further increase in built development in the locality to the detriment of the openness of the Green Belt.

I accept that the appeal site is well screened from neighbouring areas by hedgerows and existing stables, and in isolation the reduction in openness would be limited and localised. However, the absence of significant visual intrusion does not in itself mean that there is no impact on the openness of the Green Belt. When considered as a whole, the spatial impact of the development means that it would clearly fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, the proposed development would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt as it would not fall within any of the exceptions in the Framework.

The Framework makes it clear at paragraph 144, that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. It establishes that ‘very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The appellant has drawn my attention to the grant of planning permission for a stable extension in a nearby field. However, I have not been provided with substantive details of the development referred to, or the circumstances under which it was permitted. Therefore, I am unable to assess with any certainty whether it is directly comparable with the case before me. Accordingly, I give this matter only limited weight.

I have taken into account the appellants long experience in training falcons and the desire to provide a place where they can live, be exercised and be kept safe from predators, close to where he lives. However, the development will exist long after the personal circumstances have ceased to exist. Consequently, I afford this matter only limited weight.

I also note that training falcons can assist in deterring wild birds from around airports and land fill tips, with associated health and social benefits to society. benefits. I acknowledge that this would be a benefit to the wider society, however it would not provide any direct benefits to the area in which the proposed development would be located. Consequently, I am only able to give this matter limited weight.

I accept that falcons are not domestic pets and have specific requirements in terms of the environment within which they live, are trained, and breed. That said, I have no evidence before me to indicate that the appeal site provides the only opportunity to provide suitable accommodation and facilities to meet this aspiration.

In conclusion, I find that the proposed development would constitute inappropriate development in that it does not preserve the openness of the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Limited weight has been given to the material considerations cited in support of the proposed development, and I conclude that they do not outweigh the harm the proposed development would cause to the Green Belt. Consequently, the very special circumstances to justify the proposal do not exist. The proposal therefore conflicts with Green Belt policy contained within Policy EV1 of the LP and the Framework, which jointly seek to preserve the openness of the Green Belt.

There are no other relevant material considerations that indicate the application should be determined in accordance with the development plan as a whole. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.