Appeal 6000963

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the disputed condition is reasonable or necessary in the interests of protecting the surrounding environment.

The site comprises a field parcel which is served via an adjacent track. It is located in the open countryside with some sporadic buildings to the north. Within the field is a large barn. It is of utilitarian design and simple appearance. Nonetheless, the combination of the building’s size and position give it visibility above the adjacent boundary planting. Despite the building being some distance from the road, it is still visible from that vantage point. Even though such buildings are not always an alien sight in a countryside location, it appears as a large, somewhat isolated agricultural building which draws the eye and is something of a distraction from the natural character of the countryside. From closer views along the public right of way, it is more clearly discernible as an agricultural barn.

Condition 3 of the existing permission limits both the use of the building to agricultural use and removes permitted development rights from it. The reason given for the condition is threefold: to ensure that the building does not have a harmful environmental effect; to protect the character of the area; and in the interests of protecting residential amenity.

It is not clear in what sense this final reason relates to the particular circumstances of the site given it is a somewhat isolated location within the open countryside and there are no nearby residential properties. Nonetheless, the reasons for the condition can collectively be taken as seeking to protect the surrounding environment from harm.

The Council also drew my attention to condition 4, which requires the demolition of the building if agricultural use of it ceases. The reason for this condition states that buildings of this size in the countryside are only permitted if they are needed for agriculture. This condition works in combination with condition 3 and clearly emphasises the limited basis on which a building in this location was permitted. The appellant is silent on this aspect of the permission and any possible conflict between an amended condition 3 and the requirements of condition 4.

Although the conditions on the original planning permission are not linked to any development plan policies, the most recent decision does direct me to policies in what were at the time the Chichester Local Plan and the emerging Local Plan. The emerging plan has now been adopted, and the previous Chichester Local Plan has been superseded. The appellant does not rely on development plan policies but from the officer report would have been aware of the status and weight the emerging plan carried. As such, there is no prejudice in my referring to the policies in the now adopted Local Plan.

Policy NE10 of the emerging Local Plan has become Policy NE11 in the now adopted Local Plan. This policy, together with Policies S1 and S2, seek to limit development in the open countryside outside of settlements to, broadly, development which requires such a location, meets essential local need or supports rural diversification. This is intended to limit adverse impacts on rural settings and countryside locations. Thus, buildings in these locations, unless justified such as for agriculture, would generally not be permitted.

Were the appeal building to change, particularly in terms of use, then given the sensitivity of the location, the building’s isolated position and visibility, any small change could have wider implications for how the building and site would be perceived. A change in the use of the building could also have an effect upon the nature and scope of any activities around and associated with it, which in turn could have adverse impacts upon the surrounding environment. In this sense, the first two limbs of the reason for condition 3 remain directly relevant and the proposed removal of the condition would be likely to conflict with Policies NE11, S1 and S2 of the now adopted Local Plan

The appellant refers specifically to Class Q of the General Permitted Development Order although does not confirm this to be the permitted development right which they would wish to pursue. Nonetheless, it exemplifies the differences that can arise between applying for planning permission and exercising permitted development rights. In assessing proposals under Class Q, the decision maker is not tasked with considering the wider character and appearance of the area, merely the specifics of the building and nature of the conversion.

For a site such as the one before me, the impact of any such a change on the wider area would clearly be an issue of some importance. Thus, I do not share the appellant’s assertion that for this site and building the permitted development regime would provide sufficient oversight of any future developments.

As the appellant notes, the building and hardstanding already exist, and so it may be the case that some works which could otherwise be permitted development might not be materially harmful to the surrounding environment. However, I am mindful that the removal of permitted development rights does not impose a moratorium on development. It simply gives the Council control over the further use or development of the building and site. In the circumstances, I do not see this as being unreasonable. Given that the condition remains necessary and relevant to both the development and planning, and the appellant confirms the condition is enforceable and precise, I am satisfied that the condition accords with the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the condition should be retained and that the appeal should be dismissed.