Appeal 6000482

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council has amended the description of development from that seen on the application form which did not include the new access and gates. I have therefore adopted the revised description of the development from the decision notice in the heading above.

The application form states that the development was undertaken in January 2024. I observed during my visit that the access, gates, timber building, and change of use have already primarily been undertaken, in accordance with the plans before me. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis that the development has commenced.

The main issues are: • whether the development is in a suitable location with respect to local planning policy; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether the development is subject to the [name] requirements.

The appeal site is a triangular area of land that previously formed part of a larger agricultural field located at the junction of the A456 and [site address] . The site is severed from the adjoining agricultural land and ‘ [site address] ’ dwelling, by a fence. The site comprises a modest area of gravel adjacent to the new access and gate, a small timber building along with a utilised skip and used palettes of hard landscaping materials. At the time of my visit, not all the appeal site was being used for storage.

Policy SP2 of the Wyre Forest District Local Plan 2016-2036 (2022) (LP) identifies both [address] and Rock as rural settlements. The appeal site is some distance outside of the Rock settlement boundary. The nearest settlement is [address], albeit that the site is also outside of its settlement boundary. The development is therefore considered to be within the open countryside.

Policy SP2 also sets out that development beyond settlement boundaries is strictly controlled and is limited to a few exceptions including employment development in rural areas and buildings for agriculture and forestry under Policy DM10 of the LP.

The use of the land for storage relates to the appellants business operations concerning the construction of garden rooms and falls within Use Class B8 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes Order) 1987 (as amended). The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) recognises in paragraph 89 that sites meeting local business needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements.

However, no evidence is before me that identifies why the storage activity must be located at the other end of the field to the appellant’s residential curtilage. The evidence also does not demonstrate that the storage use relates to or supports rural employment for agricultural purposes, rural regeneration of existing employment sites, farm diversification, or the redevelopment of previously developed land. Consequently, the development does not meet the exceptions site criteria under LP Policy SP2 and is not supported under LP Policy DM10.

For the above reasons, the proposal is not located in an appropriate location with respect to the Council’s spatial planning policy. Accordingly, the development conflicts with Policies SP2 and DM10 of the LP, the requirements of which have been outlined above.

The appeal site forms part of a wider area of agricultural land located on either side of [site address] . The land provides a visual and spatial gap between the A456, and the small cluster of rural dwellings located on [site address] . Due to the agricultural and open nature of the land, the rural nature of the surroundings and its visual and spatial roles, the site makes an important contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

LP Policy SP22 identifies the requirement for new development to protect and where possible enhance the unique character of the landscape, referring to the Worcestershire County Council Landscape Character Assessment (LCA).

The site is located within the ‘Forest and Smallholdings and Dwellings’ character area. The area is identified as densely settled and is characterised by strings of wayside cottages and associated smallholdings which are nestled within a matrix of pastoral fields and narrow interlocking lanes, defined by dense hedges and hedgerow trees. The description goes on to identify that human activity has resulted in a unified, palpably domestic character. However, the appeal site, adjacent farmland and small cluster of dwellings do not exhibit the densely settled characteristics of the character area as the surroundings are rural and agrarian.

Due to the minimal storage that is currently taking place on site and the existing hedge along the road boundaries, the use, at present, has a limited adverse effect on the erosion of the visual and spatial gap. The topography of the A456 and the appeal site, restrict public views of the site when passing and no residential properties directly overlook the site. However, the site is visible from dwellings on the opposite side of [site address] and the storage, gravel area, shed and skip already on the site can be seen from the new access gate on [site address] .

The site’s use as storage, and the timber shed fail to exhibit high-quality design that would enable these elements to integrate with its surroundings or reinforce local distinctiveness sought by [name] SP20 and DM24. The storage would therefore be incongruous with the pastoral fields of the area, in conflict with the aim of new development to strengthen and enhance its landscape character. The lack of intrinsic habitat value or absence of protected species on site is noted but this is a neutral factor in the planning balance.

The appeal site is larger than the current area being used for storage and is severed entirely from the appellants residential accommodation. Given the site can be accessed independently and is larger than is currently utilised, a planning permission for storage on the site would provide the ability for a significant intensification of the activity to that currently observed.

The Framework identifies that consideration should be given to whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions. Conditions could be imposed to overcome possible visual effects of the storage use, including the height of any materials stored and the type of material stored to be inert only. However, their imposition would not materially ameliorate the identified harm to the character and appearance of the site. Furthermore, whilst offered by the appellant, a condition restricting the proposal to the appellant’s personal use only, would not address the harm to the character of the area and it is rarely appropriate to restrict development for personal use.

Accordingly, for the above reasons, the development conflicts with [name] SP20, SP22 and DM24, the requirements of which have been outlined above.

[name] (BNG) is required under a statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021). Under the statutory framework for BNG, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the biodiversity gain objective is met. One of the exemptions from BNG is where the development is retrospective. The Council’s Officer Report acknowledges that the development has already taken place and that the application is the result of an enforcement complaint.

Despite this, the Council refused planning permission on the basis that the required 10% BNG would not be met and that the proposal was not exempt. The Council confirmed in an email on 22 May 2025 that it had incorrectly refused planning permission due to the BNG exemption. It has however continued to pursue the second reason for refusal on the basis that the change of use undertaken extends beyond the red line boundary. Whilst on site, I observed that the use was already occurring however this was of a limited nature when compared to the red line site boundary. As such, from my observations the change of use had not extended beyond the red line boundary established within the application.

Notwithstanding the issue of BNG, the Council’s evidence goes on to conclude that the proposed ecological enhancements, which appear to have not yet been delivered on site, would deliver measurable net gains in biodiversity and therefore accords with Policy SP23 of the LP.

Given the above, the submitted plans and my site observations, I am satisfied that the development has commenced and due to the retrospective nature of the proposal it is therefore exempt from the BNG requirements. As such, reason for refusal 2 has been met.

Both parties have drawn my attention to an enforcement notice related to the use of the appeal site. However, this has had no material bearing on my consideration of the proposal which has been assessed on its own merits based on the specific evidence before me.

Notwithstanding my conclusions in respect of BNG, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and the Framework with regards to the suitability of the location as well as character and appearance. The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan when read as a whole in respect of spatial planning policy as well as design, local distinctiveness, and landscape quality. There are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.