Appeal 6000591

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • Whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposal, having particular regard to flood risk; • The effect of the proposal on the landscape character and appearance of the area; and • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [name], with particular regard to odour emissions.

The site comprises agricultural land which was previously used for poultry farming. It has been acquired as an addition to the appellant’s beef farming enterprise. The 3 large poultry sheds which formerly occupied the site have been dismantled and the only building which now remains is a small shed.

A stream runs along the northern site boundary, and both parties are agreed that the site lies within the Environment Agency (EA) [name] 3. The land has not been identified as a functional floodplain with the highest level of flood risk (Zone 3b) in the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment1 (SFRA). However, the Council’s approach, as confirmed in its SFRA, is that where modelled data for a site is not available, as precautionary measure, land within [name] 3a with a 1 Partnership for [name] 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) (Part 10 – New Forest District Council and New Forest National Park Authority) [name] (Version 2) (February 2024) high probability of flooding (in the case of the appeal site, a 1% or greater annual probability of river flooding) will be considered to comprise [name] 3b land until a specific FRA has been undertaken to establish the flood risk potential of the site.

That being the case, the Council’s view is that the proposed agricultural buildings, which comprise a ‘[name] use in accordance with the flood risk vulnerability classification in Annex 3 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework), would not be acceptable in this location, having regard to advice in the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG)2.

The appellant’s supporting [name] Assessment3 (FRA) has taken account of EA advice that considered the site to be within [name] 3b requiring flood plain compensation as part of the scheme. The FRA concludes that subject to appropriate building finished floor levels and the provision of a flood storage area to compensate for the required loss of flood plain, the proposal would be safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. The EA has subsequently raised no objection to the appeal scheme subject to the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures.

However, notwithstanding whether the appeal site lies within [name] 3a or 3b, the Framework is clear that development should not be permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding, so that new development is steered towards areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source.

The Framework is clear that where a [name] (ST) is required, this is a two-stage test, and that it is only when the ST is passed and development is necessary, that an [name] should be carried out to demonstrate that the development can be made safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. The PPG states that even where a flood risk assessment shows the development can be made safe throughout its lifetime without increasing risk elsewhere, the ST still needs to be satisfied. This requirement is not negated by a lack of objection to the planning application from the EA.

Paragraph 175 of the Framework confirms that the ST approach should be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding, except where a site-specific FRA demonstrates that no built development within the site boundary would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding from any source, now and in the future. Having regard to the position of the proposed buildings within the area of identified flood risk, the latter does not apply in the case of the appeal scheme.

The appellant disputes that the ST should be applied to the appeal scheme, on the basis that the proposal comprises the reconstruction of existing barns. As the former poultry sheds have already been removed from the site and the appeal scheme involves the erection of 2 very differently designed, sized and sited buildings, the proposal cannot reasonably be considered to comprise a reconstruction of the former buildings. 2 Paragraph:079 [name]: 7-079-20220825 3 [name] Assessment for Planning Issue dated 2 August 2024 as amended by Issue 5 dated January 2025

The PPG advises that a proportionate approach should be taken in applying Framework Paragraph 175, so that the ST need not be applied in cases where a site-specific FRA demonstrates that the layout, design and mitigation measures would ensure that occupiers and users would remain safe from current and future surface water flood risk for the lifetime of the development without increasing flood risk elsewhere. However, as the appeal site lies within a fluvial flood risk area, this does not apply in the circumstances of this appeal.

Moreover, the proposal does not fall within the listed exemptions to the ST requirement contained in Paragraphs 176 and 180 of the Framework.

As such, I find that the ST must be applied to the appeal scheme, and in accordance with PPG advice, it is only where the developer can demonstrate, by undertaking a ST, that it is not possible to locate the proposal in a low flood risk area, that the ST should then go on to compare reasonably available sites within medium risk areas, and then, only when there are no reasonably available sites in low and medium risk areas, within high-risk areas.

Such information would reasonably include an explanation of the evidence base used for identification of such sites, the criteria against which they were considered, and justification as to why they are not suitable, having regard to factors such as location or availability for development.

In the case of the appeal scheme, there is no substantive evidence before me that there are no reasonably available sites in [name] 1 that could accommodate the proposal. The evidence before me is that, in addition to the appeal site, the appellant’s wider agricultural holding includes large areas of land at Rockbourne, Fordingbridge and Damerham. No detailed evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the appellant has considered the potential availability of any of this land to provide an alternative low flood risk site for the appeal development.

Moreover, the PPG confirms that such sites do not need to be owned by the appellant to be considered ‘reasonably available’, thereby increasing the potential for other possible agricultural land within the wider area of this part of the District to be used for the proposal.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that there is insufficient substantive evidence before me to conclude that the ST has been passed. As such, the appeal site would not be a suitable location for the proposal, having particular regard to flood risk. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy CCC1 of the New Forest District Outside the New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016-2036 [name]: Planning Strategy (6 July 2020) (the LPP1) in so much as this policy, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that vulnerable developments will not be permitted in areas at risk of flooding unless in accordance with the Sequential and Exception tests, in the interests of public safety.

For similar reasons it would be contrary to the aforesaid advice of the Framework.

The site comprises agricultural land which lies within open countryside north of the village of Rockbourne and within the Cranborne Chase National Landscape (CCNL). Following the removal of the former poultry sheds, the site has an open, predominantly undeveloped character. Whilst the site may have previously contained dilapidated redundant farm buildings, they have been removed and, as agricultural land it is in keeping with its surroundings and does not have a detrimental impact upon the landscape character of the area.

The site is accessed via a farm track which descends from the Rockbourne to [address]. As such, the site is at a lower ground level than the road and is set well back from it. Land levels also rise behind the site, so that it lies in a valley position in relation to surrounding undulating land and close to the valley stream.

The prevailing landscape around the site comprises open fields with treed and hedged field boundaries. The front boundary of the site facing the road is open and the other boundaries are partially open and partially bounded by trees and hedging, which at the time of my visit during the Winter was sparse and only thinly screened the site in wider views.

Accordingly, the site is visually prominent in views from the surrounding countryside and in public views from the road off which it is located, particularly at the site access point. This is notwithstanding the presence of some boundary hedging along the roadside.

There are dwellings to the southwest and northeast of the appeal site. The former comprises a small single storey agricultural dwelling and the latter a more substantial 2-storey dwelling with other ancillary outbuildings arranged around it to form a group. Both these residential units comprise part of a prevailing pattern of ad hoc scattered dwellings and farm buildings dispersed throughout this part of the surrounding countryside. The spacious open character of this part of the valley is maintained, and the appeal site contributes to this sense of openness.

The proposal would result in two substantially sized agricultural buildings situated within this gap. They would be of a significantly larger size and scale than that of the agricultural dwelling at [site address] to which they would be functionally linked. Notwithstanding that they would be positioned some distance away from that property, they would be read alongside it in terms of their layout as both buildings would be positioned to align with the orientation of the bungalow parallel to the site frontage, and building A would be sited close to the edge of the access track.

Due to their combined width, height and scale, the buildings would appear over-dominant in relation to the existing bungalow and detrimentally erode the spacious character of this part of the valley. As such, they would appear unduly visually intrusive in wider views towards the site from the surrounding fields and public highway.

There are no detailed landscape proposals before me to demonstrate that the proposal could be suitably screened. Moreover, it is not sufficient to rely upon the implementation and future maintenance and retention of new landscaping to screen development which is otherwise unacceptable.

The buildings comprise a typical functional agricultural design which, per se, is acceptable in principle within the wider farming landscape which prevails. Moreover, appropriate detailing for the building materials can be ensured by a planning condition. The appellant has also confirmed that no external lighting would be installed, and the proposal would involve the undergrounding of a visually intrusive overhead powerline on the site.

However, whilst comprising positive aspects of the proposal, these design elements alone do not justify allowing buildings of the size and scale proposed in this location, for which the appellant has provided no landscape impact assessment/justification having regard to the Council’s adopted CCNL Character Assessment (2024).

For the above reasons I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the landscape character and appearance of the area. As such, it would be contrary to LPP1 Policies ENV3, ENV4 and STR2, Policy DM22 of the New Forest District Outside the National Park Local Plan Part 2: Sites and Development Management (2014) and saved Policy CS21 of the New Forest Outside the National Park Core Strategy (October 2009). These policies, amongst other things seek to ensure that new development, including farm buildings, achieves high quality design, and is sympathetic to its environment and context, including not having an unacceptable impact upon the special qualities and purposes of the CCNL, and that it respects and enhances local distinctiveness in terms of, inter alia, layout, landscape, scale, height and appearance.

This accords with the aims of Chapters 12 and 15 of the Framework which seek to achieve well-designed places and conserve and enhance the natural environment, including giving great weight to the conservation and enhancement of landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues.

The information before me is that the appellant currently manages a herd of approximately 180 – 200 beef cattle on its wider agricultural enterprise and that, as the main farm buildings are located on tenanted land, which is being sold, a relocation of the main farm centre is necessary.

Following the purchase of the appeal site and the associated adjacent agricultural dwelling at [site address] , the appellant intends to use the proposed building A as the main livestock barn, to be used throughout the year, and to use building B for the storage of hay/machinery including for the storage of the hay crop from the enterprise which is mainly used as livestock fodder and is currently stored in a number of locations around the wider farm holding.

Whilst the site has a lawful agricultural use, the former use as a poultry enterprise ceased operating in the early part of this century. The appeal scheme would therefore reasonably be considered to result in an intensification of the existing agricultural use of the site, and the Council’s third reason for refusal is concerned with the impacts of associated odour emissions on the living conditions of the occupiers of [name] to the north-east of the site.

This comprises a two-storey dwelling which is not agriculturally tied and is sited approximately 55m north-east of proposed building A. It has principal windows on its side facing the appeal site and there is intervening garden land between the house and the boundary with the appeal site which extends to approximately 40m of the proposed building A. As such, there is potential for the appeal scheme to affect the living conditions of the occupiers of this property having regard to the potential impact of odour emissions on the outdoor and indoor living space associated with the dwelling.

The two proposed buildings would be positioned in the same area within the site as the former poultry sheds, thereby maintaining a similar distance from the neighbouring property at [name]. However, they would be of a notably different design and scale and would be orientated perpendicularly to the siting of the previous buildings. Also, they would be used in a very different way than the former poultry sheds.

In particular, building A which is intended to house circa 200 beef calves, could reasonably give rise to significant odour emissions, and I have noted the restrictions of the GPDO4 in respect of new agricultural buildings to be used for livestock accommodation where they are within 400m of the curtilage of a protected building, which applies in the case of [name].

In support of the proposal, the appellant has confirmed that the cattle would continue to be grazed on land elsewhere around the wider holding throughout the year and would not be intensively farmed within the livestock barn. When in the building, for parts of the year, it is intended that the calves would be closely monitored from the adjacent agricultural dwelling at [site address] .

Also, it is proposed that the cattle would be housed using a deep litter straw-bed, with manure produced by the livestock being stored elsewhere off-site. Additionally, building A has been designed to face inwards towards the adjacent building B, with enclosed sides and rear and providing natural ventilation through the openings on its front elevation facing building [name] such, it is contended that odour emissions would be partially contained by the building itself.

The appellant submitted an Odour Assessment (the OA)5 to evaluate such impacts. This was produced in accordance with the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) guidance6 by professional environmental consultants with specialist experience in the air quality sector.

The OA was undertaken using a qualitative risk-based approach which took account of the Environment Agency FIDOR acronym in respect of factors that will determine the degree of odour pollution7, and included analysis of the Source Odour Potential, [name], [name] and Sensitivity of Receptor to determine the resulting [name] (OES).

The OES was found to be ‘negligible’ for 5 of the nearby residential properties and ‘slight’ in the case of [name]. Accordingly, having regard to the IAMQ guidance, these results indicate that potential odour effects due to emissions arising from the appeal scheme would be ‘not significant’.

I have considered the subsequent responses to the appellant’s OS from the Council’s Environmental Health Officer and from third parties representing the occupiers of [name], having regard to the methodology and conclusions of this report, as well as the subsequent [name] Note8 by Redmore Environmental in response to those comments. 4 Schedule 2 Part 6 Class A para A.1(i) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 5 Redmore Environmental Ref: 8966r2 dated 23 January 2025 6 Guidance on the Assessment of Odour for Planning v1.1 (2018) 7 H4: Odour Management Environment Agency 2011 8 Ref 8966-1c1 dated 12 March 2025

I have also had regard to an independent OA9 by [name] and Data Ltd (ASMDL) commissioned by the occupiers of [name], which was also undertaken by professionals with experience and qualifications in air quality assessments and weather observing and forecasting.

The results of the ASMDL report indicate that potentially over parts of the curtilage and residence of [name], the predicted odour exposure would exceed that which [name] (2001) suggests gives rise to complaints, and that at that property the odour exposure would exceed the Environment Agency’s benchmark for moderately offensive odours.

The ASMDL report, whilst also referring to the aforesaid FIDOR acronym, used the quantitative [name] (ADMS) to study the impact of odour from the proposed cattle barn, instead of the qualitative approach taken in the appellant’s OA.

In the absence of details of the proposed cattle stocking regime, the ASMDL odour study assumed constant occupation at maximum stocking as a precautionary measure and it used a baseline emission factor of 100oue/LU/s, in accordance with VERA10 reporting which sets testing standards for environmental technologies for agricultural production in Europe.

The appellant’s view is that this figure is above the maximum value reported by VERA, so that the predicted odour concentrations at the neighbouring property could have been overestimated.

This is disputed by the third parties involved in providing the ASMDL study, who cite higher reported figures and contend that the figure that has been used is realistic, albeit precautionary, and that VERA benchmarks are broad averages that do not account for site-specific conditions of calf-rearing units, where local factors such as stocking density, ventilation, bedding and slurry management can mean higher emission figures.

Given that the appellant already rears calves at a similar level of intensity and in a similarly sized barn elsewhere on the holding, which was used to inform the evidence submitted in respect of noise impacts, I concur with the Council that a reasonable way of effectively addressing the concerns raised would be for the appellant to provide a comparative OS based upon the quantitative methodology adopted by the ASMDL report and using the existing rearing barn to provide the required data.

This approach has been rejected by the appellant on the basis of costs and the fact that the qualitative methodology used by the appellant does not contravene the aforesaid IAQM guidance. However, this is largely based on the appellant’s assumption that the proposal is likely to have a low-risk adverse effect, without substantive evidence to support this assertion. In the circumstances of this proposal whereby there is a sensitive receptor close to the proposed building, I am not persuaded, on the basis of the evidence before me, that this is necessarily the case. 9 [name] and Data Ltd dated 12 February 2025 10 [name] for [name] and [name], Version 3:2018-09 (2018)

Moreover, the meteorological information before me in respect of prevailing wind conditions11 read in connection with the plans submitted with the application, indicate that [name] is within downwind of the prevailing SW and WSW wind direction, potentially resulting in a ‘highly effective’ pathway and a ‘moderate’ overall odour impact which would be classed as ‘significant’. As such, this results in unresolved uncertainty in respect of the conclusions reached by the appellant’s OS.

With the above in mind, having regard to the odour emission evidence submitted by all parties to date, I find that the level of uncertainty that remains in respect of the likely impact upon [name] is too great to provide satisfactory assurance that there would not be material harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of that property.

The matter may be capable of being resolved by means of a planning condition requiring the implementation of an approved Odour Management Plan, as suggested by the appellant. However, given the absence of precise details before me as to what this would entail, and taking the precautionary approach, I find there is currently insufficient information before me to satisfactorily demonstrate that an appropriately worded condition that would meet the Framework conditions tests could address the matter.

[name] otherwise minded to allow the appeal, I would seek further comments from the parties on this matter. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, this issue is not determinative, and there is therefore no need for me to consider it further as part of my determination of this appeal.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that, the evidence submitted fails to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposal would not materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of [name], with particular regard to odour emissions. The proposal would therefore be contrary to LPP1 Policy ENV3, in so much as this policy, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that new development avoids unacceptable effects by reason of adverse impacts upon residential amenity.

This accords with Paragraph 135 of the Framework in so much as it seeks to ensure that developments will function well with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

There would be economic benefits to the rural economy as a result of improvements to the existing agricultural enterprise. However, these do not outweigh the harm I have identified in respect of the 3 main issues.

The Council has raised no objections in respect of matters including the need for the proposal, highway safety and ecology. Since these are planning policy requirements, a lack of objection is a neutral factor in the planning balance. 11 [name] for (EGHH) Bournemouth. Observations between 1 Jan 2019 and 31 December 2023

My attention has been drawn to Parish Council support for the proposal. This does not alter my conclusions in respect of the main issues and I must determine the appeal based on the merits of the scheme before me.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and there are no other material considerations, including the Framework, which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.