Appeal 6000855

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s decision notice included only one reason for refusal that relates to the appeal site’s location within the Green Belt. However, it is clear from both the planning officer’s report and the Council’s appeal statement, that the scheme was also considered to conflict with Policy P7 of the Solihull Local Plan (adopted 2013) (the Local Plan) relating to accessibility. Through the appeal the appellant has also sought to directly address the Council’s concerns raised regarding the accessibility of the site and potential conflict with Local Plan Policy P7.

Given the above, the matter of the appeal site’s accessibility is reflected in my

The main issues are:  Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies;  The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt;  Whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to its accessibility and availability of facilities and services; and  Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. 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.

The Framework further establishes that development in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, subject to several specific exceptions set out at Paragraph 154.

Local Plan Policy P17 largely reflects the objectives of the Framework and applies them to a local context. Notably, the policy sets out support for farm-based diversification, provided it is in an appropriate location, of a scale appropriate to its location and does not harm the Green Belt, conservation or enhancement policies.

Given that the proposal involves both the change of use of the land and the stationing of a cabin at the site for tourism purposes, I do not find the exception outlined at Paragraph 154(h)v) of the Framework to apply in this instance. However, the exception outlined at Paragraph 154(b) is of pertinence to the appeal. This allows for the provision of appropriate facilities (in connection with the existing use of land or a change of use) including buildings for outdoor recreation; as long as the facilities preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

I have been provided with the findings of previous Inspectors1 decisions relating to proposals for tourism accommodation in the Green Belt. Notwithstanding that there are subtle differences in the precise contexts of those development proposals, I do not have the full background details of the cases, including the evidence submitted to support the view that tourism accommodation amounts to a building suitable for outdoor recreation.

The proposed cabin would provide overnight accommodation for tourists visiting the site. Although the countryside location would provide guests an opportunity for relaxation, the primary purpose of the development is to provide residential accommodation within the cabin. Whilst the proposed development may serve as a base for engaging with nature, observing wildlife or participating in other recreational activities, I am unconvinced that the proposed building would constitute an appropriate facility for outdoor recreation. The recreational activities cited by the appellant, such as walking, cycling, or visiting outdoor attractions would primarily take place beyond the appeal site and thereby would be incidental as opposed to integral to the proposed development.

Additionally, whilst the cabin may be targeted at individuals seeking holidays within a rural setting, it would not itself provide or include facilities for outdoor recreational activities. Accordingly, I do not find the proposal to clearly fall within the scope of the exception outline under Paragraph 154b) of the Framework. 1 Appeal Ref: APP/C3620/W/24/3338932 - [address], [address], Westcott, Dorking, Surrey [postcode] ; Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/24/3346725 - [address], [address], Wilmslow [postcode] ; and Appeal Ref: APP/H1840/W/24/3353628 - [address] [name], [address], Waresley, Hartlebury [postcode]

Even if I were to accept that the proposed development is suitable for outdoor recreation, the Framework requires that the use and/or facilities preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

Openness of the Green Belt has both visual and spatial aspects. The proposal would result in a cabin of approximately 12.5m in length, 4.7m in width and 3.2m in height being introduced into an area currently devoid of built form. There would also be related paraphernalia including the provision of loose surfaced tracks around the cabin. The proposal would therefore result in a loss of spatial openness to the Green Belt.

The proposed cabin would be sited in a rather secluded spot away from existing built form within the appellant’s wider landholding, such that it would result in development encroaching into the countryside. Its position behind a hedgerow and amongst a copse of trees would limit views of the proposal, but distant glimpses of it are still likely to be available from [site address] , as well as potentially from a nearby public right of way, more so when vegetation is not in leaf. Vegetation, meanwhile, should not be relied upon to screen development given that its long-term retention cannot be guaranteed.

Accordingly, the proposal would fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and would not fulfil the requirements of criteria 154(b). The appeal scheme has not been demonstrated to benefit from any other exceptions to inappropriate development in the Green Belt outlined under the Framework. The proposal would involve farm-based diversification. However, given the loss of openness, and the site’s accessibility credentials (as further detailed below), I also do not consider the proposal to benefit from any of the exceptions outlined under Local Plan Policy P17.

Bringing the above together, I find that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, that would result in a harmful loss of openness. The harm arising in respect of openness and encroachment would be modest given the proposal involves the provision of a single cabin. Nevertheless, the Framework establishes that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. Additionally, the proposal would also conflict with Local Plan Policy P17.

Local Plan Policy P7 promotes accessibility and ease of access to all new developments. Amongst other matters, the policy seeks for development proposals to be located where sustainable modes of travel are available. The policy is reflective of the Framework’s objectives to guide development to sustainable locations.

The appeal site is in a rural location, forming part of a wider agricultural landholding. The site is set back a considerable distance from [address]. This is a busy rural road, with vehicles moving at high speeds. Within the vicinity of the appeal site, the road is largely unlit and does not have separate pedestrian footpaths, there is also a general lack of surveillance along its route as it is highly enclosed by vegetation. As such, the character of the surrounding road network would not promote pedestrian or cyclist usage.

I have not been provided with specific details of nearby public transport options. Given the site’s rural context though it is highly likely that visitors will need to arrive by private motor vehicle. Additionally, whilst visitors would only be residing in the cabin on a temporary basis they would still likely seek access to a wider range of services and facilities, for example shops for provisions, pubs/restaurants and visitor attractions.

The appeal site lies approximately two miles from the nearest village. Notwithstanding my above concerns with regards to the local highway network, based on my observations, the surrounding area offers very limited facilities and services within a reasonable walking or cycling distance of the appeal site.

The intention of the appellant may be to promote ‘slow tourism’, whereby guests stay locally, as opposed to undertaking multiple trips to wider destinations. However, the precise way potential visitors utilise the proposal could not be guaranteed and given the lack of services and facilities in the near vicinity of the site, I consider it highly likely that guests would use the appeal site as a base for visiting localities or attractions further afield.

Potential tourist interests in the wider area have been highlighted, including at Kenilworth, Warwick and Solihull. These remain rather distant from the appeal site and are highly unlikely to be accessed via sustainable travel modes.

Even though the appellant may provide future visitors with details of walking or cycling routes, the site’s surrounding context is such that future visitors are likely to be heavily reliant on the use of private vehicles. This would be the least sustainable travel option. Moreover, even if, motor vehicle journeys from the appeal site were relatively short, this does not overcome the fact that the proposals is fundamentally reliant on the use of private vehicles.

The potential for alternative means of transport in rural areas is often limited. Indeed, the Framework recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport will vary between urban and rural areas. However, in this case, I find the site’s characteristics would not encourage future visitors to use alternative modes of transport or provide genuine, usable, or practical alternative modes. There is also no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the tourism use being promoted would require the degree of seclusion that the appeal site would provide.

Consequently, I do not find the appeal site to be a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to its accessibility and availability of facilities and services. The proposal therefore also conflicts with Local Plan Policy P7.

The Local Plan conveys support for new tourism opportunities and small-scale rural diversification schemes, including under Policy P17, nonetheless, this is subject to specific considerations. Nor does it negate the need for such development proposals to also be considered against wider development plan policies and determined against the development plan as a whole.

Similarly, the Framework provides support for the rural economy. This includes promoting the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses and sustainable rural tourism developments that respect the character of the countryside. However, the support for rural economic development is not unconditional, with development that is sustainable in nature being a key consideration under Paragraph 89, along with the wider Framework. Given the accessibility issues outlined above, the proposal would not represent sustainable rural tourism development.

Additionally, I have very limited details of the existing farm’s operations, the level of need for the appeal proposal, or whether there are alternative more suitable diversification options available to the appellant. In light of the above matters, I have given the benefits of farm diversification only modest weight in this instance.

The proposal would bring some social and economic benefits to the local area, through increased visitor spend in tourism and leisure related uses. There may also be social benefits in providing access to the countryside for future visitors. No detailed quantification of these benefits has been outlined by the appellant but given the scale of the development I deem that they would be limited in nature.

Permission for tourism accommodation already exists at [site address] , but the evidence before me indicates that this involved conversion of an existing barn building that is more closely related to other buildings on the appellant’s landholding. It was also approved during the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown period. In allowing that development the policy context, and potential material considerations, before the Council would have likely differed to the current appeal proposal.

Compliance with other development plan policies, for example in respect of highway safety, heritage assets, or the character and appearance of the area (including in respect of trees) amount to neutral factors in my determination of the appeal.

Due to the design of the proposed cabin, the proposal has the potential to be reversible. Nevertheless, permission is not sought for a temporary period and the development would be likely to be in place for a considerable time, while I cannot be certain it would not be replaced. This is a matter to which I therefore give limited weight.

There is no robust evidence to support the appellant’s view that the appeal scheme would positively contribute towards net zero climate change goals.

As indicated, the other appeal decisions the appellant has put before me have contextual differences to the current proposal. From my reading of the decisions this includes two of the proposals involving shepherds huts that are likely to be far smaller in scale than the appeal cabin, whilst also having different site-specific contexts due to geographic locations. Additionally, the appeal scheme relating to the provision of four timber holiday lodges2 involved the use of previously developed land. It therefore was found to be covered by the exception set out under Framework Paragraph 154(g), the test of which is different to the proposal before me.

The proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and it would result in modest harm to openness. The Framework states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness, and 2 Appeal Ref: APP/H1840/W/24/3353628 - [address] [name], [address], Waresley, Hartlebury [postcode] should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The Framework further advises that 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 find that the other considerations in this case, together, do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Consequently, very special circumstances do not exist to justify the proposal.

For the reasons outlined above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole and other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.