Appeal 6001332

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacement of existing ancillary structures on site with a single storey building containing administration office, tea room and wcs/shower facilities and single storey storage building, in connection with the existing use of land for outdoor recreation at [site address] , Upminster, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0689.24, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The description in the banner heading is taken from the planning application form. However, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the more precise description shown in paragraph 1 which provides more detail of what the buildings would be used for and makes clear that the proposed buildings would replace existing structures. This description was specified on the decision notice issued by the Council. Correspondence indicates that the appellant agreed to this change of description during the validation of the planning application.

The main issues are: i) Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework; ii) The effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; and iii) Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The site currently comprises a number of container-like structures and hard standing used as car parking associated with fishing lakes. The lakes have a number of platforms surrounding them enabling anglers to fish. The appellant’s statement indicates that the lakes and the site are used by 150 anglers with up to 40 anglers fishing at one time.

Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the exceptions listed in the criteria which follows it applies. Criterion (b) provides an exception for the provision of appropriate facilities (in connection with the existing use of land or a change of use), including buildings, for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation, cemeteries and burial grounds and allotments; as long as the facilities preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

The proposed development involves the construction of a single storey building which would provide facilities including an administration office, equipment store, fridge, self-serve tea bar, utility room and w/c and showers. At the entrance to the building is an area of decking which is intended to reduce the transfer of hardstanding into the facility. Next to this, a further single-storey building is proposed which is intended to store a weed boat and mower. From the evidence provided, I conclude that such facilities are necessary to the operation of the fishery. The space proposed for these uses do not appear excessive for the size of the fishery.

However, the Council have stated that the appellant has not demonstrated that the use of the land and the land surrounding the proposed development as a fishery is lawful and have raised concern that the lakes are not included within the red line of the proposal and as such considered that the proposed development is on a stand-alone piece of land not linked to a recreational use.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that a red line on a location plan should include all the land necessary to carry out the proposed development. The land covering the lakes is not needed to carry out the proposed development and therefore does not need to be included within the red line. The PPG goes on to state that a blue line should be drawn around other land owned by the applicant which is close or adjoining the site. The site location plan clearly shows the lakes within the blue line of the appellant’s ownership. From my observations on site and the evidence submitted with the appeal, the site within the red line is currently being used in connection with the lakes within the blue line as a fishery.

I have not been made aware of any specific planning permission for the use of the land as a fishery or a certificate of lawful use. However, the appellant has provided evidence seeking to demonstrate that the site has been in continuous and uninterrupted use as a fishery for more than 10 years. This includes statutory declarations, correspondence from previous owners, correspondence from a solicitor, a ‘Fish Movements Site Permit’ and screenshots from a social media account illustrating posts about the operation of the site.

Within the context of an appeal under section 78, it is not within my remit to formally determine whether the fishery use of the site and the lakes within the appellant’s ownership is lawful. However, I shall consider the evidence as to whether the use is lawful, so far as is material to the appeal. If the appellant wishes to formally ascertain whether elements are lawful, they may make an application for a certificate of lawful use or development.

On the basis of the evidence before me, and in the absence of any substantive evidence from the Council to demonstrate that the use is unlawful, I conclude that the proposed development would provide appropriate facilities for an outdoor recreational use. Effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt

Having established that the proposed development would provide appropriate facilities for outdoor recreation, in order to establish whether it is inappropriate development or not it is necessary to assess whether it would preserve the openness of the Green Belt and whether it would conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

Whilst the development proposed is in the form of permanent buildings, the scale of the proposed buildings is modest in the context of the surrounding lakes and the existing hard standing where they would be positioned. The buildings are single storey with hipped and pitched roofs, the heights of which is subservient to the surrounding established vegetation. The proposed decking has a low profile and is not excessive in the context of the proposed building and surrounding hardstanding. As such the proposed buildings would not have an urbanising effect on the area.

The buildings would have limited visibility from public vantage points and are well-screened from [site address] by the existing mature hedgerow which comprises of numerous trees. On entering the site, only a narrow side elevation of the larger of the two buildings would be visible. The positioning of the buildings adjacent to the hedgerow means that open views across the lakes and wider countryside would be unaffected by the proposed development.

The degree of activity on the site associated with the proposed development is unlikely to change significantly, given the buildings are proposed to serve the existing fishery.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposed development would preserve the openness of the Green Belt.

Turning to the purposes of the Green Belt, the development is not in close proximity to any existing built-up area and therefore would not contribute to urban sprawl or neighbouring towns merging into one another and would have no effect on the setting and special character of historic towns.

Given its distance from existing built development, the rural character of the proposed design and the small-scale nature of the proposal, the proposed development would not amount to a level of encroachment into the countryside, contrary to the purpose of the Green Belt.

I have not been made aware of any suitably located derelict or other urban land which could accommodate the proposed development and serve the fishery. Accordingly, the proposal would not be prejudicial to the recycling of derelict or other urban land.

Given the above, the proposed development would not conflict with the purposes of including the land within the Green Belt.

In conclusion the proposed development would preserve the openness of the Green Belt and would not conflict with the purposes of including the land within the Green Belt. Given the conclusions under Matter 1, the proposed development would therefore not be inappropriate development. Accordingly, I do not find conflict with Policy G2 of the London Plan (adopted March 2021) which amongst other matters seeks to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development. Similarly, I conclude that the proposed development would not be in conflict with Section 13 of the Framework.

[name] have found that the proposed development is not inappropriate development, it is not necessary for me to consider further whether very special circumstances exist to justify the proposal.

In addition to the standard time limit for the commencement of the development, a condition is required for the development to take place in accordance with the submitted plans in relation to access arrangements for certainty. A condition requiring further details of materials to be used is necessary for certainty and to ensure the proposed development does not harm the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings in accordance with Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (adopted November 2021) (HLP).

Conditions requiring a precautionary method statement, biodiversity enhancement strategy and details of lighting are necessary to safeguard species and habitats and enhance biodiversity. The condition requiring a precautionary method statement is a pre-commencement condition as the harm would arise from when works on the site commence.

It is necessary to impose a condition requiring the submission of, and compliance with, a tree protection plan and an arboricultural method statement, due to the proximity of the proposed development to existing trees and to avoid harm to the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings in accordance with Policy 26 of the HLP. The condition is a pre-commencement condition as the harm would arise from when works on the site commence.

The Council’s officer report referred to a need for a condition requiring ground gas migration information. However, in absence of further evidence explaining why this is necessary and what the condition would need to cover, there is insufficient justification to impose this condition.

Comments from both parties were sought on the conditions. Both parties confirmed their agreement with the conditions. The appellant has agreed to the pre-commencement conditions.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would accord with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations, including the Framework do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the

Having regard to all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: • Site Location Plan: 2024-887/01 • Site Location Plan as Proposed: 2024-887/03 • Site Block Plan as Proposed: 2024-887/04 • Proposed Plan: 2024-887/05 • Proposed Plan: 2024-887/06 • [name]: 2024-887/07

No development above ground level shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the installation of external lighting, full details including height, design, location and intensity shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The lighting installation shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No development above ground level shall take place until a biodiversity enhancement strategy in line with the recommendations of the Ecological Assessment ([name], 29th November) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The content of the strategy shall include the following: i) Purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed enhancement measures; ii) Detailed designs or product descriptions to achieve the stated objectives; iii) Locations of the proposed enhancement measures indicated on a plan (where relevant) iv) Persons responsible for implementing the enhancement measures; and v) Details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance (where relevant). The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved strategy prior to the occupation of the development and shall be maintained in that manner thereafter.

No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until a [name] has been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The statement should include measures to prevent protected and priority species from being injured or killed during the construction phase and prevent damage to the existing hedge during the construction phase. The approved statement shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period.

No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until a scheme for the protection of the retained trees (the tree protection plan) and the appropriate working methods (the arboricultural method statement) in accordance with paragraphs 5.5 and 6.1 of [name] 5837: Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations (or in an equivalent [name] if replaced) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme for the protection of the retained trees shall be carried out as approved.