Appeal 6001411

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the header is from the planning application form. The Council’s decision notice describes the proposal as also including the “change of use of land to residential curtilage”. The appellants’ appeal statement seems to support this revision as it describes the proposal as including a “minor extension to associated curtilage”. Therefore, it would seem the development includes not just the replacement of a caravan but also the change of use of land.

The word “curtilage” does not describe a land use. From the submissions it is evident the appeal seeks permission for the residential use of the appeal site, including a garden area around the proposed twin-unit caravan. As such, I have assessed the appeal on the basis of the proposal being “replacement of a single-unit caravan with a twin-unit caravan, change of use of land to residential use and associated works”. Adopting this approach would cause no injustice to any party.

I am referred to appeal reference number APP/R1845/W/24/3350223 that relates to a proposal to store an unoccupied caravan on land adjoining the appeal site. On my visit, I saw a caravan positioned on this land. This appeal (hereafter referred to as the previous appeal) was dismissed and so it seems that the siting of a caravan on the land adjacent to the appeal site is unauthorised. The submitted plans indicate the caravan from this land would be located onto the appeal site as part of the proposal. I have borne this context in mind in my assessment.

The main issues are (i) biodiversity net gain (BNG), and (ii) whether the proposal would accord with policies from the Wyre Forest District Local Plan 2022 (the LP) in respect of caravan sites and having regard to its effects on the character and appearance of the area.

Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) introduces a statutory framework for BNG. There is an exemption to the normal requirement to secure BNG if the proposed development would have a de minimis effect by impacting less than 25m2 of onsite habitat. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) includes a section on BNG with advice on exemptions.

As well as the existing caravan, the site contains an area of mowed grass. It seems likely the open lawn would be attributed a habitat value under the terms of the statutory biodiversity metric. The current caravan sits on concrete pads and the appellants advise these will be re-positioned as required within the lawn area to accommodate the chassis of the replacement twin-unit caravan. It is claimed that re-using the pads would ensure the development does not impact on more than 25m2 of onsite habitat.

In respect of the de minimis exemption, the PPG states that onsite habitat is impacted by a development not just if it is lost but also if it is degraded in terms of its biodiversity value1. To my mind, the installation of the twin-unit caravan would not just impact land where supporting concrete pads would be laid. It would also affect any part of the grassed lawn underneath the proposed caravan that is not covered by the existing caravan. The appellants accept that the footprint of the proposed twin-unit would be larger than the single-unit currently on the site. However, no floor area details have been provided on the footprint of either the existing or proposed caravans. Consequently, I am unable to ascertain whether the area of onsite habitat impacted by the development would be less than 25m2.

The PPG advises when applicants and appellants are claiming a de minimis exemption they should provide sufficient evidence to support their justification. Where it is not clear, applicants and appellants are strongly encouraged to provide a completed metric for the pre-development and post-development biodiversity value of the site. This should be supported by plans identifying the pre-development onsite habitat and how much of this would be impacted by the proposal. No such information has been submitted.

Also, the minimum information requirements as set out under Article 7(1A) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 (as amended) have not been met. Without such information there is significant uncertainty over whether the proposal would meet the BNG aim. Accordingly, I conclude that insufficient information has been provided to show the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the biodiversity value of the site. LP policies and the effect on character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site forms part of a wider caravan park. Near to the access there is a house and single storey outbuildings surrounding a parking area. A drive through a gap between the buildings leads to the main part of the appeal site where the single-unit caravan is positioned. The appeal site includes roughly half of the grassed area in front of the caravan. Whilst near to the village of Far Forest, the area around the caravan park is rural in nature with hedgerows, trees and fields. 1 PPG, Biodiversity net gain section, paragraph: 004 [name]: 74-004-20240214

LP policy DM.30 identifies mobile home and caravan sites as being one of the biggest development pressures in the rural parts of the Wyre Forest District. Accordingly, the policy seeks to limit new caravan, mobile home and chalet developments and it sets restrictions on the types of development considered acceptable for existing sites. Part 5 of LP policy DM.30 states that replacement of chalets should be on a like for like basis in terms of size and materials and that they should result in a reduction in the visual impact on the landscape.

The appellants accept the proposal would lead to a caravan on the site with a larger footprint than the existing. The proposed caravan would be in a similar position and of comparable width to the existing but it would extend further forward in the plot. Like the existing, the proposed caravan would only be glimpsed from the road through the access gap. However, the proposal would not lead to a reduction in the visual impact as required under LP policy DM.30 due to the increase in the size of the caravan and the associated residential land.

The appellants suggest the proposed caravan would enhance the appearance of the site through higher-quality external materials and better integration with its surroundings. However, the existing caravan appears in keeping with the park context and it has a fairly low-key visual effect given its modest scale and position next to a hedge. Therefore, the proposal would not result in any meaningful improvement in the appearance of the site.

Under the terms of LP policy DM.30, extensions to existing chalets are not precluded provided they are subservient and enhance the appearance of the building. However, this part of the policy is not relevant as the proposal is for a replacement of the existing caravan and not an extension.

The appeal development would not appear out of character given its location within a caravan park where other similar residential uses exist. Also, it would have less visual effect compared to the scheme for the temporary siting of an additional caravan considered under the previous appeal. Given the localised visual effect, the development would have only a limited impact on the wider landscape.

Nonetheless, the proposal would result in a larger caravan being on the site and as a result it would not lead to a reduction in the visual impact on the landscape. Therefore, it would not accord with LP policy DM.30. Also, it would not meet the requirements under LP policies SP.20 and SP.22 for development to protect and make a positive addition to the landscape.

The Council’s refusal reasons also refer to LP policy SP.2. This is not relevant to this main issue as it sets out principles that form the basis for the LP’s spatial development strategy and a settlement hierarchy. I find no conflict with LP policies SP.20 and DM.24 as the development would integrate effectively with its caravan park surroundings. Other issues and planning balance.

The proposal would provide a more spacious and comfortable living environment for residents of the plot. However, it is unclear from the limited information submitted as to the standard of the living environment within the single-unit caravan and how the development would address any shortcomings. Therefore, this factor attracts only modest support to allowing the appeal.

It is claimed the twin-unit caravan would provide better insulation and energy efficiency compared to the existing situation. There is no technical information to substantiate this suggestion and I fail to see why any such improvements require a larger caravan on the site. Also, the proposal would not lead to an extra residential unit and so it would not be a more efficient or beneficial use of the land as advocated under the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). These factors attract limited weight in favour of allowing the appeal.

There are no provisions within the Framework that restrict development at caravan parks similar to those under LP policy DM.30. However, it does not follow that the policy is inconsistent with the Framework. It is evident from the policy and its justification that the purpose is to deal with a particular development pressure associated within the rural areas in Wyre Forest District. Therefore, I find no reason to attach reduced weight to the identified conflict with LP policy DM.30 and the aim to strictly control development at caravan sites.

The proposal would be contrary to LP policies. Also, there is insufficient evidence to show the proposal would be exempt from the statutory biodiversity gain condition or how BNG would be achieved. Overall, the development would cause only a minor level of harm but nevertheless I find there is insufficient grounds to allow the appeal contrary to development plan policies and the aim of the statutory BNG provisions.

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