Appeal 6000514

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the heading above has been amended from that provided in the application form to mention the raised deck area and formation of the track, for reasons of clarity. This description is also used on the decision notice; however I have removed the word ‘retrospective’ as this is not a form of development.

The cabin reception room is already in place, and the hard surfaced track has been constructed. I have considered the appeal in accordance with the submitted plans.

The appellant suggests that the track relates to an historical use of the land. However, within the context of an appeal made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) it is not within my remit to formally determine whether a particular use has already been established as claimed by the appellant. It is open to the appellant to apply to have that matter determined under section 191 of the Act, and any such application would be unaffected by my determination of this appeal.

The main issues are: • whether the scheme is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to relevant development plan policies, the provisions of the Framework and the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; • if the scheme is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development.

The appeal site forms a part of a campsite and outdoor recreational facility known as ‘ [site address] .’ The facility is operated by The Scouts Association. It is situated off [site address] and the wider site comprises of over 20 buildings which are used as part of the recreational facility. The appeal site relates to a small cabin outbuilding, located adjacent to a car park and in proximity to the [name], and part of a field which borders [site address] . Both the cabin and track have already been constructed. The site is situated within the Metropolitan Green Belt.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It goes on to state that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Policy 49 of the Bromley Local Plan (BLP) and Policy G2 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) similarly state that the Green Belt should be protected from inappropriate development.

Certain forms of development are, however, not inappropriate. A number of exceptions have been put forward by the appellant. I have considered these below. Paragraph 154(b)

Paragraph 154(b) relates to the provision of appropriate facilities including buildings for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, amongst other things, as long as the facilities preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

It is common ground that the site forms part of a campsite and outdoor recreational facility. The cabin is used to support the sites operation by providing a point of arrival for visitors, as a space to brief visiting groups and a dedicated office space for staff. It also provides secure storage of personal items, amongst other things. The Council raise concerns regarding the need for the building, outlining how it has not been demonstrated that the use could not be accommodated in another building within the wider site.

However, there is no requirement under paragraph 154(b) to demonstrate a need for the building, only that it be an appropriate facility for recreation use. Given the existing use of the site, and the described use of the cabin, I am satisfied that it would be considered appropriate facilities for outdoor recreation. Nevertheless, to comply with paragraph 154(b) an assessment must also be made as to whether it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. I will return to this matter later.

The appellant outlines how the track allows for the creation of a one-way system and improved access to the site for larger vehicles. Given the nature of a track, I consider it to be more appropriate to consider it under the exception set out in paragraph 154(h) ii of the Framework. I have considered this below. Paragraph 154(h) ii

The main parties consider the creation of the track to be engineering operations and to fall within the terms of Paragraph 154(h)(ii). I see no reason to disagree within this assessment. Notwithstanding this, under this exception I also must consider whether it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) provides advice on the factors that can be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt. These include both spatial and visual aspects, as well as the duration and remediability of the development. The degree of activity likely to be generated, such as traffic movement, may also be relevant.

The cabin measures just over 2.5 metres in height and 12.3 metres in length. It features a flat roof, and the decking extends around it. In a physical sense, the cabin takes up space that was previously free from development, resulting in a loss of spatial openness. The track extends across the entire field in a central position, with a width of 5 metres, however it sits at the same level as the surrounding field. Nonetheless, it still occupies land that was previously free from development. Given this, this aspect of the scheme results in some harm to spatial openness.

With regard to visual openness, the cabin is located some distance away from the road. Existing mature hedging offers some screening from the road, therefore views of the development from the highway are relatively limited. However, the building is readily visible from within the site as it occupies a relatively exposed and central position. Moreover, the land to the east of the cabin comprises an open field, exacerbating its prominence.

The track is also somewhat screened from the public highway however there are glimpsed views of it from the road, as it terminates close to the where the existing laneway to the facility meets [site address] . There are also views of it from within the car park at the facility. Given the above, overall, there is a loss of visual openness. I am not satisfied that the cabin’s brown colour sufficiently mitigates any harm to openness.

The appellant outlines that both the cabin and track could easily be removed, however I consider there is no short-term intention of this occurring as they are needed to meet the foreseeable needs of the Scouts. Given there is no intention to remove them, I have afforded this consideration limited weight in favour of the appeal. I do not consider that granting a temporary permission would overcome the harm to visual and spatial openness outlined above.

The appellant outlines how the proposals are not based on any anticipated increase of activity at the centre. Nonetheless, the track in particular would introduce activity, such as the driving of cars and lorries, into an area that historically comprised an open field. This activity would also result in some harm to openness.

Overall, the proposal results in a loss of openness, but only to a moderate degree given the scale of the proposal. Nonetheless, given this, the scheme does not meet the exceptions set out in paragraph 154(b) or 154(h)ii of the Framework. Paragraph 155- Grey belt

Paragraph 155 of the Framework establishes that the development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where it utilises grey belt land subject to several criteria. The appeal site is not within or close to a large built-up area, nor does it prevent neighbouring towns merging, or preserve the setting and special character of a historic town. As such, it does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b) or (d) of paragraph 143 of the Framework. It therefore meets the Framework definition of grey belt land for the purposes of this appeal. The criteria at paragraph 155 of the Framework therefore apply.

Criterion (a) requires development to not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. Green Belt purpose (c) seeks to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. The scheme introduces a laid track into a field which was historically free from development. Additionally, the cabin is situated to the west of the existing cluster of small buildings, moving development further into the open field. As such, the scheme results in encroachment into the countryside. Consequently, the scheme fails to meet the requirements of criterion (a) and therefore the exception at paragraph 155 cannot be met.

Consequently, the proposed development does not meet the exceptions listed in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework put forward by the appellant. From the information before me, there is no reason to believe that the scheme would meet any of the other exceptions set out in paragraph 154. The development is therefore inappropriate development within the Green Belt which results in moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt. It is contrary to Policy 49 of the BLP and Policy G2 of the LP in this regard.

In accordance with paragraph 153 of the Framework, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. I will return to this matter later in the decision.

The appeal site forms part of a 92-acre campsite and recreational facility. As mentioned, the site comprises of over 20 buildings, most of which appear to be relatively small in scale. Notwithstanding this, the area is rural and verdant in character, mainly comprising of open fields and wooded areas.

As mentioned, the gravel track extends across the open field in a central position for a considerable distance. The reasons for the positioning of the track are noted. Nonetheless, it introduces a man-made gravel surface of considerable size into what was previously an open field. This detracts from and is harmful to the verdant and rural character of the area.

The aerial images show evidence of vehicles using the field to drive over for a number of years, however the track marks in the images are very faint and blend into the landscape. Whereas the gravel contrasts with the surrounding open field, representing an incongruous and prominent feature within the landscape. [name] note that views from the public highway are somewhat screened by mature hedging, there are still glimpsed views of the track and in any case, a lack of visibility does not equate to a lack of harm.

The Council outline how the cabin has an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area. I see no reason to disagree with this.

For the reasons outlined above, the track results in harm to the character and appearance of the area. This is contrary to Policy 37 of the BLP and Policy D3 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure high quality design that positively contributes to the character of an area.

The appellant outlines the need for the cabin, which includes a ramp for disabled access, specifying how, amongst other things, it is inappropriate for children requiring help or assistance, particularly overnight, to be encouraged or required to visit a building that also provides overnight sleeping accommodation to staff.

There are over 20 buildings within the wider facility. The appellant outlines how all but 3 of the buildings are incapable of providing a reception due to lack of space, their timber construction, lack of connections to amenities and distance from the main entry point. The other three buildings are incapable of providing the use as they either provide existing sleeping accommodation for children, or for staff. However, the illustrative site map shown on page 6 of the appellant’s statement of case shows various buildings near another entrance off [address]. I am therefore not satisfied that it has been adequately demonstrated that no other building on the site could accommodate the purpose of the cabin. Additionally, whilst it may be preferrable to use a new building, as existing buildings may have alternative uses, this does not justify the harm identified and I have afforded this consideration limited weight in favour of the development.

I also acknowledge the appellants need for the access road, however I am not satisfied that such operational issues regarding access for vehicles could not be managed in an alternative way that would not involve a substantial track across an open field and a one-way system. I have also afforded this consideration limited weight in favour of the appeal.

It is suggested that part of the reason for the sites closure in 2019, after operating from 1938, was due to lack of suitable facilities for its day-to-day operation and management. There is however limited evidence to demonstrate this, and in any case, it appears that the site operated successfully from 1938 to its closure in 2019, without the additional cabin. Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate that without the cabin and track, the facility would be rendered unviable and cease to operate.

I acknowledge the role that the centre plays in providing the opportunity for local groups to enjoy the outdoors. It also provides educational benefits to young people and offers some benefits to the local and rural economy. However, as outlined, there is no empirical evidence before me to demonstrate that without the cabin and track, the facility would cease to operate and provide these benefits.

The case officer report suggests that the track may have a greater impact on the living conditions of neighbouring properties by way of noise and disturbance. This matter is however not cited in the refusal reasons. As can be seen from my findings above, this issue would not be determinative. I have therefore not considered it further.

The scheme is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, resulting in harm to openness. In addition, there is also harm to the character and appearance of the area, as a result of the track. Substantial weight should be given to the harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The benefits of the scheme are fairly minor and are therefore afforded limited weight in favour of the appeal. The substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm, and the other harm identified, is not clearly outweighed by the other considerations sufficient to demonstrate very special circumstances. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.