Appeal 6001438

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies; • the effect on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area; • the effect on an oak tree; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The appeal site is an open field, which is currently used for grazing. It adjoins the car park of a public house to the west and has a frontage on the A454 [site address] , with open fields on the opposite side of the road and to the east of the site. The adjoining field to the north includes fenced paddocks and several stable buildings.

The Framework states that an exception to inappropriate development in the Green Belt is the provision of appropriate facilities, including buildings, for outdoor sport and recreation, as long as the facilities preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it1. Although it refers to appropriate small-scale facilities, Policy GB1 of the South Staffordshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2012) otherwise reflects the provisions of the current Framework.

The facilities included in the proposal comprise a feed and tack barn to the rear north-east corner of the site, and four separate stable buildings, each with an associated fenced paddock. Two additional paddocks would be sited adjacent to the eastern and western boundaries. The areas next to the stables and towards the rear of the site, which includes vehicle parking, would comprise an ‘unbound surface’ in the form of permeable stone, with some smaller grassed areas.

The Framework states that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence2, while the Planning Practice Guidance indicates that Green Belt openness is capable of having both spatial and visual aspects3.

The unbound surfaces and fencing would have a limited effect on spatial openness due to their low level. Similarly, the proposed buildings would not be of sufficient scale or mass that they would result in material harm to the spatial openness of the Green Belt in this location.

The five buildings, unbound surfaces and sub-division of the site into paddocks would, however, result in a significant visual effect on the currently open, undeveloped field. The buildings and hard surfacing, together with parked vehicles, would be positioned within the middle and rear part of the site, resulting in a concentrated developed area. The combined effect of this extent of development relative to the size of the site would not preserve its openness.

Although there is some screening to the road frontage, in views from the adjacent public house car park and from land to the north, the effects of this extent of development would be readily apparent. I have considered whether boundary landscaping required by condition could help to reduce the visual effects of the proposal, but the necessary height and extent of this to conceal the site would of itself be incongruous and would harm the openness of the setting. The proposal would not, however, conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.

Accordingly, based on these findings, I conclude that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt as the proposed facilities would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt. Consequently, it is contrary to both Policy GB1 of the [name] and the Framework.

The surrounding area is characterised by open fields with boundary hedges, reflecting a largely rural setting with the public house to the west of the appeal site an exception to this.

The proposed use of the land for equine purposes is in keeping with the character of the area. However, the effect of the amount of development in terms of buildings 1 Paragraph 154b). 2 Paragraph 142. 3 Green Belt, paragraph: 013. 2 and surfacing, together with its concentration within a limited area and the presence of parked vehicles, would result in an overly intensive form of development that would not respect the rural, open character and appearance of the site and its setting.

I note that the size of the paddocks does not conform to the recommended [name] ratio for permanent grazing. This fact supports the finding that the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site, which would harmfully affect its character and appearance and that of the surrounding area.

Therefore, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. Consequently, it is contrary to Policy EQ4 of the [name], which requires the maintenance of rural character and local distinctiveness; and to Policy EV7, also of the [name], which requires that the design and siting of equine related development is sympathetic to the rural character of the area.

The appeal site includes a mature oak tree on the northern boundary that is a prominent feature, and which has considerable amenity value. The submitted plans indicate that loose aggregate would be laid on a no-dig base within the tree’s root protection area (RPA). I am not aware that further details are provided with regard to the proposed groundworks with the tree’s RPA. The appellant asserts that the access has been moved away from the tree, but this does not address the approach to groundworks within the RPA and any associated use of this area. As such, I share the Council’s concern that it is possible that harm could result to the tree from these works and use of this area.

Given the findings on the other main issues, this matter is not determinative for the appeal. Nonetheless, in the absence of further details of the proposed works around the tree, their possible effects and any mitigation measures, I must conclude that the proposal fails to demonstrate adequately that it would not result in material harm to the tree. Consequently, the proposal is contrary to Policy EQ4 of the [name], which requires that trees should be protected from damage.

The appellant draws attention to the fact that permission was given for use of the field to the north of the appeal site for stables. However, this development which has been undertaken is less visible than the appeal site, as it is set back from the road frontage with the hedgerow forming the appeal site’s northern boundary screening it. Furthermore, the largest building is positioned behind the public house. As such, the effects of this neighbouring development are not directly comparable to the current proposal and, therefore, it attracts limited weight.

Comparison is made to the scale of agricultural development that might be possible in this location and that the fencing proposed would be permitted development. However, as a matter of fact the proposal does not involve an agricultural use and the fencing must be considered as part of the submitted proposal as a whole. 3 These matters cannot, therefore, be given substantive weight for the purposes of this appeal.

The proposal would represent inappropriate development, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. The Framework requires that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. The proposal would also result in unacceptable harm to character and appearance. The other considerations raised in support of the development do not outweigh the harm identified to the Green Belt and the other harm and, therefore, very special circumstances do not exist.

The proposal is contrary to the development plan and to the Framework and there are no other considerations that outweigh this conflict. Accordingly, for the reasons given, it is concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.