Appeal 6001148

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are:

the suitability of the location of the site for the proposed development;

the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and

whether the proposed development would make adequate provision of safe access arrangements.

The site is a grassy field located within the open countryside approximately 0.7 miles south of the village of [site address] . The site is predominantly surrounded by large agricultural fields. Access to the site is gained from a road running north of the site. To the south the site is adjacent to the A1307, a busy dual carriageway road. The Rideaway, a road and associated banks providing access to slips onto the A1307 via a bridge, abut the western boundary of the site. Beyond the A1307 to the south are commercial premises.

Reflecting the National Planning Policy Framework’s (the Framework) overarching principles of sustainable development, the Council’s strategy for development is set out in Policy LP2 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (May 2019, the Plan), which seeks to concentrate development in sustainable locations which provide the most comprehensive range of services and facilities whilst also providing communities with opportunities to achieve local development aspirations for employment, and supporting a rural economy. As a rural location, distant from settlements and associated services and facilities, the appeal site is in a location which the Council’s growth strategy would consider to be unsustainable.

Policy LP10 seeks to direct development within the countryside to lower grade agricultural land, avoiding the irreversible loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 1 to 3a). While the site is identified as Grade 3 agricultural land, I concur with the Council that the proposed development would constitute only a small-scale loss of Grade 3 land that is not currently in use as agricultural land, resulting in no conflict with Policy LP10 in this regard.

Policy LP10 of the Plan restricts development in the countryside to the limited and specific opportunities as provided for in other policies in the Plan. This would include Policy LP19, which outlines when business development in the countryside would be considered acceptable relating to new business development, the expansion of an existing business, and farm diversification.

In relation to new business development, the proposed development would not be in or directly adjoining an Established Employment Area, involve the reuse of land in use or last used for business uses, or reuse or replace existing buildings. It would therefore fail to meet the new business development requirements of Policy LP19.

The appellant suggests that the proposal should be assessed against the requirements of Policy LP19 relating to the expansion of an existing business. However, Policy LP19 only supports the expansion of rural businesses in the open countryside. While the appellant suggests that the proposed development is for a rural business, I have not been provided with any evidence to demonstrate why the proposed development is required to take place within the countryside and at this specific location, and I am not aware that the proposed use has any connections with surrounding agricultural uses.

Where the storage of the materials for the business has no site-specific locational requirements relating to uses in the countryside, there is no legitimate reason why the proposed use needs to be located within the countryside. As such, the business intending to occupy the proposed development is not a rural business as defined by Policy LP19, and the proposal should not therefore be assessed against the requirements of Policy LP19 relating to the expansion of an existing business.

Although referred to in the Council’s reason for refusal on the location of development, Policy LP17 of the Plan relates to the provision of parking for vehicles and cycles. Access arrangements for the appeal site are considered below.

Policy LP18 presents the Council's approach to managing development taking place in and adjacent to [name] allocated throughout the district. The proposed development is not located within or adjacent to an Established Employment Area, therefore Policy LP18 is not directly relevant in this instance.

To demonstrate the need for the proposed development, the appellant has provided the [name] and [name] 2025 and subsequent further statement summarising enquiries to local estates and farms. While the submission of this information may have previously been suggested through the Council’s pre-application process, I have not been made aware of any development plan policies which require the availability of alternative locations or premises to be a consideration within the decision-making process for new development in the countryside. The availability of alternative locations or premises for the proposed storage use is therefore not determinative for this appeal.

The appeal site is not in a suitable location for the proposed development. Therefore, it would conflict with Policies LP2, LP10, and LP19 of the Plan, and overarching principles of sustainable development set out within the Framework.

The site is bordered by road infrastructure and raised banks which have a significant effect on the character of the site, and limit views onto the site from the west and north. The location of the site next to the raised Rideaway bridge over the A1307 reduces its visibility from the surrounding area, and would reduce the visual impact of any development on the site.

The design of the proposed development would have an agricultural appearance, and would therefore be consistent in design, character, and appearance with surrounding existing developments. Existing commercial units to the south are visible from the site, including buildings of a similar design to those included within the proposed development. In addition, a large agricultural barn is visible within the landscape from the road north of the site. Given the proximity of and consistency in design to surrounding existing developments, the proposed development would have a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would therefore not conflict with Policies LP10, LP11, and LP12 of the Plan, which seek to protect the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and manage the effects of new development on the character and appearance of the area.

With regard to the provision of visibility splays, an updated block plan ([name].103) has been submitted showing visibility splays. However, the updated block plan does not demonstrate that appropriate visibility splays can be achieved to the east without relying on views across neighbouring land. Safe access from the site cannot be guaranteed where visibility splays are reliant on land outside of the appeal site. In this instance, there are no conditions which could be applied to make the access arrangements acceptable.

The proposed development would not demonstrate safe access arrangements, and would therefore be contrary to Policy LP17 of the Plan, which requires new development proposals to incorporate appropriate space for vehicle movements, taking account of highway safety and access to and from the site.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.