Appeal 6000513

The appeal is dismissed.

Two applications for an award of costs have been made as part of this appeal. These applications will be the subject of separate decisions.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: (i) the character and appearance of the area; (ii) highway safety; and (iii) the living conditions of nearby residents, with particular regard to noise.

The appeal site forms part of an attractive and gently rolling landscape between the villages of Tillington and Burghill. Given the topography of the land in this area, the site is visible as part of occasional medium range views from certain vantage points, as well as closer views from a nearby public right of way. The site itself is currently used as a storage area, and as such, it is slightly untidy. However, the impact of the current use is fairly minimal, and its general appearance is not unusual on a working farm. It therefore currently has a relatively neutral impact on the character of the immediate area.

During the hearing it was clear that the Council had concerns about the way in which this particular site was identified, and that a detailed analysis of opportunities and constraints for the rest of the appellant’s landholding had not been provided. However, during the course of the discussion, it was apparent that the appellant had gone to some lengths to assess different locational options for the proposed development. This work has been helpfully summarised within the submitted document entitled ‘Locational Factors Assessment’, as well as drawing number 101697/Drummond/012/PL23 Rev 1. However, it is my role as the decision maker in this case to assess the proposal as it stands before me, rather than theoretical alternatives that may or may not be more appropriate in landscape terms.

The proposed building in this instance would be a large barn type structure with a permeable surface at either end. The appellant has provided a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for the scheme (the LVIA). The LVIA concludes that there would be a slight adverse impact on landscape character in the immediate area, while from a visual perspective, there would be a medium impact on views from the public right of way to the north of the site, with a low impact when seen from [address]. While the methodology of the LVIA appears to be sound, I am of the view that it underplays the likely effect of the proposed development.

In terms of the materials to be used, as well as its general appearance, the barn would not look unusual within the rural setting. However, it would be of a very significant size, and in combination with the permeable surfaces, it would inevitably look rather incongruous and dominant within the landscape and would therefore detract from the character of the area. This would clearly be the case when viewed from the footpath which passes the site, but there are also other vantage points that would likely offer views of the building, including on [address] close to the existing site entrance. There is potential for a comprehensive landscaping scheme, including the use of bunds and planting. However, this would take several years to mature, and in any event, the height of the building would mean that it would still be at least partly visible, even taking account of proposed planting.

The building would also be visible from the rear windows and gardens of several existing homes to the south of the site. However, private views cannot, in themselves, be regarded as a planning matter.

Nevertheless, even taking account of the intention to remove existing clutter and machinery from the site, I conclude that the proposed development would result in moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area. The scheme would therefore conflict with Policies RA6 and LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2011 – 2031 (the CS) and Policy B5 of the Burghill Neighbourhood Development Plan, January 2019 (the NP). Taken together, the relevant aspects of these policies seek to ensure that new development is well designed and that it preserves character and appearance. Conversely, I do not find conflict with NP Policy B2. While this policy seeks to ensure that new employment development is well designed, this is only in relation to proposals within existing employment areas or where they would involve the conversion of an existing building or use of a brownfield site.

At present, apples are transported from different parts of the appellant’s landholding to storage units some distance away. During the hearing, it was made clear by the appellant that the proposed development would not result in an overall increase in the number of vehicular journeys. From the written evidence before me, and from what I heard during the hearing, I can see no reason to disagree with that position.

However, the provision of the proposed apple store would mean that the fruit would instead be stored at the appeal site rather than elsewhere. As such, all of the existing vehicular journeys would be directed towards one part of [address], in the area of the proposed new site entrance. The appellant has provided a plan which shows the provision of suitable visibility splays at the proposed entrance. A Traffic Management Statement (Mid West Planning February 2025) was also submitted as part of the original application. However, this is a short non-technical document which only provides a brief overview of the way in which the site would operate. In particular, it notes that apples would be transferred to the proposed apple store by tractor and would then eventually be removed from the store via articulated HGV.

As such, there is no technical information before me which sets out existing road capacity or conditions, or the number of journeys that would likely take place to and from the site and any associated impacts. Furthermore, without additional information such as tracking data, it is not certain that the entrance would be sufficiently wide enough to allow two vehicles to pass each other if necessary. Without this technical information, and despite the fact that the appellant would in theory be able to control the timing of deliveries and pick-ups, I cannot conclude with sufficient certainty that the proposal would not result in highway safety issues.

The proposed entrance would be situated near to an existing school. I am satisfied that a condition could be imposed to ensure that any vehicular movements to or from the proposed apple store would not take place during school drop off or pick up times. However, requiring the provision of additional technical information via condition would not be appropriate as I am not certain that it would show that the development would be acceptable in highway terms.

Therefore, for the reasons given, and based on the submitted evidence, I conclude that the proposal could result in harm in relation to highway safety. As such, it would conflict with [name] MT1 and RA6, as well as NP Policy B5. The relevant aspects of these policies seek to ensure that new development would be safe in highway terms.

There are several properties to the south of the appeal site which would be in reasonably close proximity to the proposed apple store. The appellant provided an Environmental Noise Assessment as part of their application material (Noise.co.uk Ltd, August 2025). The assessment concludes that the noise emanating from the refrigeration units inside the apple store would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of nearby occupiers. Based on the content of the assessment, and the helpful explanation provided to me during the hearing, I am satisfied that this would be the case and that these particular matters could be controlled by condition, including requiring that the refrigeration units be located at the north end of the site. I note that the Council does not seek to disagree with that position.

However, it is clear that other possible sources of noise, such as vehicular movements or the operation of machinery, have not been assessed. Without this information, I do not have sufficient certainty that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable level of harm in relation to noise and general disturbance. This is a particular concern given the rural character of the area and the low background noise associated with it. It would not be appropriate to require the preparation of further technical information by condition as I cannot know whether any such information, and any mitigation proposed, would make the development acceptable with regards to living conditions.

As a result of that uncertainty, and the potential for harm, the proposal would conflict with [name] SD1 and RA6. The relevant aspects of these policies seek to protect the living conditions of existing residents.

The proposed development would result in harm to character and appearance, while there would also be potential for harm in relation to highway safety and living conditions. It would therefore conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. During the hearing, I heard how the apple store would benefit the appellant’s business, and that it was required in light of other existing storage solutions becoming unavailable in the near future. I have had regard to paragraph 88 of the National Planning Policy Framework which provides strong support for the growth and expansion of rural businesses. These economic factors are issues to which I attribute significant weight. There would also be other economic benefits during the construction phase, while the development could incorporate features such as solar panels and rainwater harvesting, and provide enhancements to biodiversity through the delivery of a suitable landscaping scheme.

[name] only found harm in relation to character and appearance, then I would have concluded that the benefits of the scheme outweigh the harm in this instance. However, the uncertainty in relation to highway safety and living conditions are very important matters which must be given the highest possible weight.

Accordingly, having taken account of all of the material considerations in this case, I conclude that the collective harm, and associated development plan conflict, outweighs the identified benefits. For these reasons, the appeal is therefore dismissed.