Appeal 6000254

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the application form but has been shortened in the interests of precision.

Although not included in the reason for refusal, it is clear from the Council’s Planning Officer’s Report that it considers the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, I consider this under the main issues below.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development on [name] (MOL); • the effect of the proposal on the openness of MOL; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The development plan for the area comprises the London Plan 2021 (LP) and the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan 2019 (BLP). The site forms part of a designation of [name] (MOL) in the BLP which also includes the adjacent properties. Policy 50 of the BLP and Policy G3 of the LP state that MOL will be given the same protection as Green Belt. Policy 49 of the BLP sets out the approach to proposals in the Green Belt, seeking to protect it from inappropriate development.

Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) lists the types of development that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt. This consideration also applies to MOL. It includes buildings for agriculture and forestry (paragraph 154(a)) which is also referred to in Policy 49 of the BLP.

The description of development indicates that the proposed storage container would be used to store agricultural tools and equipment used to work the land. Nevertheless, the site is currently grassed and wooded and there is little evidence of any agricultural or forestry activities. Indeed, the trees on the site are protected by a blanket Tree Preservation Order. Further, regardless of the description of development, the application form indicates that the land is not part of an agricultural holding. As such, there is insufficient evidence to show that the proposed structure would be used for agricultural or forestry purposes and thus it would not fall within the exception in paragraph 154(a) of the Framework.

There is no case made that the proposal would not constitute inappropriate development on MOL for any other reasons. Therefore, the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development on MOL.

As set out in the Framework, the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. This consideration also applies to MOL. Openness is the counterpart of urban sprawl and often connotates the absence of development. It is an open textured term and can have both spatial and visual dimensions.

The appeal site comprises open grass and scrubland at the front with some trees, and more significant tree planting to the rear. Although there was historically a building on the land, this no longer exists, and the site is undeveloped.

The proposed storage container would be located towards the back of the site on open land between the trees. Whilst it would be modestly sized, the introduction of a new structure would inevitably lead to a loss of spatial openness.

The container would lie some distance from the road and be largely screened from public views by the trees, but there would be glimpses of it between gaps in the vegetation from neighbouring properties. As such, the proposed development would also harm visual openness.

The appeal site lies between Fairmount and [address], substantial sized buildings which have been extended and have various outbuildings and other incidental development within their large plots. In contrast, the site has a verdant, spacious and undeveloped character.

The position of the proposed container on grassland between the trees would harm the open, undeveloped environment. The proposed premium artificial green wall panels are intended to make the container look part of the natural space. However, the artificial greenery and the flat roofed, boxy profile of the proposed structure would appear harmfully at odds with the naturally landscaped and spacious character. This would be evident in some views from adjacent properties.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would conflict with Policy 37 of the BLP where it requires development to be of a high quality design and positively contribute to the existing landscape.

It is indicated that the proposed container would be used for the secure storage of tools to maintain the land. An interested party states that without a secure facility, any items left on-site are an easy target for thieves. As the proposal would make it easier to maintain the site, I attribute moderate weight to this benefit.

The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including impacts on heritage assets. However, even if I were to agree with the Council on this point, the absence of harm would be a neutral matter which would not carry weight in favour of the proposed scheme.

I have concluded that the proposal would be inappropriate development on MOL which is, by definition, harmful. It would also result in a harmful loss of openness of the MOL. Further, there would be harm to the character and appearance of the area. Substantial weight should be given to the harm to the MOL. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the MOL and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations.

I accord moderate weight to the land maintenance benefit of the proposed scheme. However, the other considerations would not clearly outweigh the harm to the MOL by reason of inappropriateness, loss of openness and other harm. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist. As such, it would be contrary to Policy 50 of the BLP and Policy G3 of the LP.

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.