Appeal 6000917

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is referred to as being retrospective and it is clear from my site inspection that the container is already in place.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The site comprises a field containing a barn, stables and mobile unit used in connection with the equestrian use of the land. The site is within the open countryside which is characterised by rolling fields lined by trees and hedgerows and has an attractive verdant, rural character. The appeal relates to a shipping container which is sited adjacent to a barn. Boundary vegetation limits views of the container from [site address] and in distant views.

The site is located within the open countryside where policy S3 of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan (2017) (LP) applies. This policy sets out a list of types of use for which, subject to compliance with a range of criteria, development proposals will be supported. Criterion i allows for the expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings, subject to further considerations set out at parts i to vi.

The container is located adjacent to a substantial barn which was granted planning permission1 for the storage of equipment in association with the equestrian use of 1 under application reference 18/00401/FUL the land. On the basis of the evidence before me it appears that the equestrian area is limited in size and the horses it serves limited in number. There is limited information before me setting out why the horse feed and other items associated with that use could not be stored within the main barn, in particular given its size and siting within the same part of the site. There is no suggestion that the barn is not watertight or that it would not be suitable for the storage of horse feed.

The container is sited adjacent to a barn which is finished in a similar colour. Nonetheless, the box-like profile and solid metallic surface finishes all bestow the container with a utilitarian industrial appearance which contrasts with the site’s rural setting. Seen in combination with the existing barn, solar panels and other paraphernalia stored on this part of the site as well as the mobile unit and stables, the development creates a cluttered appearance which undermines the site’s rural character in views from the site access and nearby fields. The harm in this regard is not lessened by the colour of the unit, and there is no substantive evidence before me that vegetation around the container would address the identified harm. The characteristics and appearance as a shipping container in this site context would not meet the design requirements of LP policy S3. The proposal does not therefore comprise a development form which is supported by this policy.

In light of the above, I find that the development has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It therefore fails to accord with those aims of LP policy S3, as set out above, and LP policy D1, which seeks to ensure that development is well designed.

The appellant’s dissatisfaction with the handling of the planning application is noted, in particular in relation to the length of time the Council took to determine the planning application. However, this is not a matter for consideration in this appeal which focusses on the planning merits of the proposal.

It is noted that no objections were received from local residents. However, a lack of objection does not equate with a lack of harm.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed.