Appeal 6000559

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site address in the header is taken from the application form. However, I have added the road name, nearest settlement and post code for completeness.

Under Class A of Part 6 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO, the erection of a building that is reasonably necessary for agriculture is defined as permitted development. The Council considers the proposal would comply with all of the clauses under paragraph A.1 of Class A. I find no reason to disagree with this view. However, there is a requirement under sub-paragraph A.2 (2) for an application to be made to the local planning authority as to whether prior approval will be required as to the siting, design and external appearance of the proposed building. This appeal follows on from the Council’s decision to refuse prior approval.

The Council’s refusal reason refers to policy LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy adopted 2015 (the CS). This is only relevant insofar as it sets out provisions that assist in assessing the siting, design and external appearance of the proposed store.

I have been provided with a one page document that is entitled planning obligation in support of the proposal. This sets out the appellant’s proposal that prior approval should be granted subject to landscaping works in the form of tree planting. This document does not refer to section 106 of the Act and it does not in itself identify the extent of the land affected by the claimed obligation nor the local planning authority who is responsible for enforcing the proposed mitigation. Therefore, the submitted document is not a deed that meets the requirements as set out under section 106(9) of the Act and so its provisions do not represent a planning obligation under the terms of the Act. In any event, I have had regard to the stated intentions in respect to planting in my assessment.

The main issue is the effect of the siting, design and external appearance of the development on the character and appearance of the area and the landscape.

The store would be positioned on the east side of [site address] . When looking eastwards, there are extensive views from the highway of fields with trees and hedges. These features as well as the lack of any obvious buildings give the scene a strong rural character. [address] is on the opposite side of the road and hidden to a degree by vegetation. The buildings within the farm do not affect the attractive views of the countryside on the appeal site side of the road.

The proposed building would be sizeable with a wide elevation facing towards the road. It would be clearly seen from the highway, even though it would be set back and on fairly low-lying land compared to other parts of the associated holding.

The store would be typical of modern agricultural buildings in terms of its functional form and appearance. However, it would not be seen with the [address] complex as it would be on the opposite side of the road. Instead, it would stand out as a large and isolated feature amongst an otherwise undeveloped tract of attractive countryside. As a consequence, the development would appear unsympathetic to the visual qualities of the area. The proposed poplar tree planting would be provided on bunding and may provide partial screening once mature. Even so, I am unconvinced from the limited information provided that the trees would entirely conceal the building, particularly during times of leaf fall. In any case, planting cannot be relied upon in the long term to screen the development.

I understand a store is necessary for the viable operation of the holding and the proposed location would allow easy access due to its proximity to the road. However, I conclude the siting, design and external appearance of the building would significantly spoil the intrinsic beauty of the countryside. As such, it would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area and the landscape. Insofar as it is relevant to the determination of this appeal, the proposal would be contrary to CS policy LS1 and the aim that development should integrate appropriately with its surroundings. The detriment that would be caused is the overriding factor in my assessment of the proposal.

Therefore, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.