Appeal 6001113

The appeal is dismissed.

The converted shipping container, timber decking and hot tub were installed and in use at the time of my visit. I also note that the application has been submitted retrospectively. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

The planning application for the scheme sought to regularise the development after the Council served an [name] requiring the removal of the shipping container and associated structures. The Enforcement Notice is the subject of a separate enforcement appeal.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies, and the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • whether the development is acceptable in principle having regard to development plan policy and the accessibility of services; • the effect of the development upon the supply of good quality agricultural land; • whether the development adequately provides for [name] (BNG); • the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area, and, Appeal Decision: 6001113 • if there would be harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, whether the harm would be clearly outweighed by other considerations to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.

The appeal site is located within the Bristol/Bath Green Belt. Paragraph 153 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Development in the Green Belt is considered inappropriate unless it is an exception identified in paragraph 154 of the Framework.

Paragraph 154 g) of the Framework allows for the redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL) whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The Framework defines PDL as land that has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it, including the curtilage of the developed land. It also includes land comprising large areas of fixed surface infrastructure such as large areas of hardstanding but excludes land that is or was last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings.

The land on which the container sits is a few metres from the corner of a substantial barn. Aerial photographs indicate that it formed part of the yard around the barn since at least 2015. The appellant’s statement of case (SoC) also refers to the land being variously used as parking adjacent to the barns and as part of the farm hardstanding. Based on the evidence provided and my observations on site, I consider the appeal site is part of the curtilage of the agricultural building and cannot be classified as PDL. The scheme does not therefore accord with Paragraph 154 g) of the Framework.

Paragraph 154 h) of the Framework allows for other forms of development provided they preserve the Green Belt’s openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

The Council concluded that the container is a building because of its utility connections, fixed infrastructure and the difficulty of moving it due to structural issues related to its conversion. The appellant contends that it should therefore be assessed against Paragraph 154 h) iv. of the Framework which allows for the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction. However, the appellants evidence suggests that the container was brought onto the site and installed as a holiday unit, rather than having been used on the site previously and cannot, therefore, be considered the re-use of a building.

Paragraph 154 h) v. of the Framework lists changes in use of land for outdoor sport or recreation, cemeteries, and burial grounds as examples that would not be considered inappropriate development. The courts1 have interpreted this as limiting the scope of changes of use to those which are similar in nature to the examples given. A change of use of land for stationing a holiday cabin is not similar to the 1 RB of Kingston upon Thames v SSLUHC [2023] EWHC 2055 (Admin) Appeal Decision: 6001113 uses described and would not therefore fall within the exceptions in paragraph 154 h).

Views of the container from public roads and from the nearest properties are distant and it is seen against the backdrop of existing farm buildings such that its visual impact on openness is minor, despite its elevated position above much of the surrounding landscape. The container is single storey, and the decking has a maximum height of around 1 metre with both structures covering a small area. Therefore, the impact of the development on openness in spatial terms is similarly minor, albeit greater than the hardstanding on which it was placed. Nonetheless, despite the minor harm that I have identified the development does not preserve the openness of the Green Belt and, in accordance with paragraph 153 of the Framework, I attach substantial weight to the harm caused.

Overall, I conclude on this main issue that the development is inappropriate development because it does not comply with the exceptions set out in paragraph 154 of the Framework and fails to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. It therefore conflicts with Policy GB1 of the Bath and North East Somerset Placemaking Plan (2017) (PP) and Policy CP8 of the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan [name] (2023) (LPPU) which aim to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

Policy RE7 of the PP only permits new build visitor accommodation where, amongst other things, it is in a sustainable location (criterion a) and there are no other buildings available and suitable for conversion (criterion c). The appeal site is in the open countryside accessed via a narrow country lane and is not on a bus or cycle route. Consequently, visitors will be reliant on private transport. The appeal site is not therefore in a sustainable location. In relation to criterion c) no evidence has been provided indicating that there were no other buildings available or suitable for conversion.

I note that the scheme provides a rental income for the farm, but the farm diversification policy, Policy RE3 of the PP, requires the re-use of buildings and only allows new buildings where they are required for uses directly related to the use of, or products from, the associated land holding. A holiday let would not fall into such a category. Overall, I conclude on this main issue that the development conflicts with Policy RE7 of the PP and Policies ST1 and ST7 of the LPPU in that there is no evidence to demonstrate that there were no buildings suitable for re-use and the development is not located where there are a range of travel alternatives to the private car.

Prior to the installation of the container the appeal site was an area of hardstanding on the edge of a field boundary next to a track. The land was not cultivated and even if it had been the site is so small that any loss of agricultural land would have been negligible. Overall, I conclude on this main issue that the development does not conflict with the objectives of Policies RE3 and RE5 of the PP, insofar as they seek to protect high grade agricultural land. Appeal Decision: 6001113

Policy NE3 of the LPPU states that harm to biodiversity must be avoided and minimised and Policy NE3a encourages biodiversity improvements on sites that are exempted from statutory BNG requirements, such as retrospective applications. Given that the appeal site was an area of hardstanding prior to the installation of the container, I would expect that biodiversity would have been very low and thus any harm caused by the development is minimal and insignificant.

The appellant has submitted a landscape plan which includes planting native hedgerow in front of the decking and trees either side of it and installing a bat box. The Council maintain that an ecological survey is necessary to determine the site’s biodiversity value prior to its development, to assess whether the proposed landscaping scheme would provide biodiversity improvements. However, given the site’s previous use, I am satisfied that the proposed measures would be an improvement. In any case, the Council’s recommended planning condition in its SoC would adequately address this issue such that the requirements of Policies NE3 and NE3a are capable of being met.

The container is located close to the top of a ridge with land falling away to the north. Despite its relatively exposed position it is seen against the backdrop of substantial farm buildings to the side and rear, which have external lighting and are internally lit during certain farm operations. It is also relatively close to the existing farmstead to the northeast. Therefore, the site is neither in an undeveloped location nor an area of dark hill side, as the Council suggest.

There will be some light spill, albeit seen in the context of the existing barns, but not to an extent that it will harm the landscape or appear out of character in the context of the buildings around it. The appellant’s proposed landscaping scheme and agreement to a condition limiting lighting levels would further reduce any impact. Therefore, notwithstanding my conclusions regarding the effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt, I do not consider the development conflicts with Policy NE2 of the LPPU, which seeks to conserve the landscape, to an extent that would justify withholding planning permission on this issue.

The Council has questioned whether the scheme is linked to the operation of the farm. A statement from the farm tenants, [name], seems to confirm that it is operated separately by their son who pays a monthly rent for it to be located there. Under these circumstances and given the identified conflict with the Development Plan’s farm diversification and visitor accommodation policies, I accord the financial benefits of the scheme and its contribution to rural tourism minor weight.

As required by paragraph 153 of the Framework, I have given substantial weight to the Green Belt harm arising through the scheme being inappropriate and harming openness. I find that the other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. The Appeal Decision: 6001113 development does not accord with the development plan and there are no other material considerations to outweigh that finding. Therefore, for the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.