Appeal 6001461

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant’s planning application forms, and Design, Access and Planning Statement, the Council’s decision notice and Officer report, and the appellant’s and Council’s appeal statements all refer to the appeal site being to the south west of [site address] . However, the land in question is to the south east of said road and I have therefore amended the description in the banner heading above accordingly.

The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area and within the wider landscape of which it forms part.

The appeal site comprises part of an uncultivated, arable field presently demarcated from [site address] by a field hedge, ditch and highway verge. The field slopes upwards in a broadly south easterly direction with the proposal shown to be located on the lower ground behind the hedgerow.

The proposal comprises a new vehicular access and gateway across the verge and associated track to a parking and turning area; and the erection of 1.6m high timber post and stock fencing to form a square shaped dog exercise paddock. In addition, the submitted drawings show that a small timber shed, solar PV panel mounted upon a post and a gatepost mounted CCTV camera would also be provided as part of the scheme.

The appellant’s statement also makes reference to the fencing-off of the access drive and parking area with 1m high post and stock fencing (likely to be permitted development, but not shown on the drawing) and paraphernalia associated with the dog exercise business including a water tap, instruction sign board, wash-down facility and 2no moveable bins. In addition, whilst not constituting development, the scheme also proposes to plant new native trees to infill gaps in the existing native hedges and for the western quarter of the wider field to be managed as agricultural grassland.

Policy EP4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011 – 2029) adopted May 2016 (BDLP) stipulates that to support the rural economy, development proposals for economic uses in the countryside will be permitted where they meet a number of criteria which includes where they are for a small-scale new business, provided it is not in an isolated location. The Council has stated that the proposal would not be in an isolated location, therefore there is no objection to the principle of the proposed development subject to an assessment of all material planning considerations.

BDLP Policy EP4 goes on to state that all development proposals must be well designed and of a use and scale that is appropriate to the site and location when considering, amongst other things, landscape, heritage and environmental impacts (criterion f)). The National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) in paragraph (para.) 88 highlights that planning decisions should enable the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas, both through the conversion of existing buildings and well-designed, new buildings. However, whilst planning policies seek to promote rural development and encourage the growth of the rural economy, that is not at all costs.

The submitted Landscape and [name] (LVA) states that the lack of main roads and major development means that the study area generally presents as an intimate and largely tranquil rural landscape, but considers that the [name] & Son commercial yard to the north of the site has an urbanising influence on the southern approach to [site address] . I noted on my site visit that the [name] yard itself is set well back from the road behind an existing paddock and whilst there were some lorry trailers situated adjacent to the access into that site, and it does constitute an urban fringe typology on the north-western side of [site address] , it appears to have been in existence for many years. The proposed access is opposite that of the haulage yard, however, conversely the appeal site is within an area of undeveloped open countryside.

Pursuant to LVA paragraph 4.4.3 I agree that the site’s value is mainly derived from its contribution to the rural landscape setting of [site address] and its associated Conservation Area, and pursuant to its paragraph 4.4.5 I concur that the overall value of the landscape is high-medium with there being several aspects of the landscape resource that elevate the value of the area above that of typical rural countryside. The LVA does highlight that in some places the landscape quality has been notably weakened as a result of the clear fragmentation of hedgerows, as well as a lack of management of roadside verges, including alongside [site address] . However, as has been highlighted by the appellant, such improvements do not constitute development and therefore whilst it is acknowledged that the landscaping scheme forms part of the proposal before me, nonetheless these are measures that could be implemented to enhance the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside in any case, without associated operational development as proposed.

The LVA also states that the scheme seeks to partially replicate an historic field pattern whereby the proposed development and the surrounding agricultural grassland form part of the most southerly former allotment garden along [site address] . However, evidence of these allotments on the ground has long since passed and the proposed dog exercise paddock is in no way related to the domestic production of food, therefore respectfully, I consider this association to be rather tenuous.

Notwithstanding the findings of the LVA, I cannot agree that the feeling of open countryside would be retained by the proposal as there would clearly be an incursion of built development i.e. the aforementioned fencing, shed, solar panel installation and other paraphernalia associated with the scheme in what amounts to an undeveloped field.

I consider that the siting of the paddock, along with the associated parking and turning area to be contrived, with no clear explanation as to why this location was chosen and which would conflict with the character of the open arable landscape as described within the Basingstoke and Deane Landscape Character Area 18: Tunworth and [site address] Down (LCA).

Whilst in itself the fencing could be deemed to be permitted development, nonetheless, it forms part and parcel of the proposal; and the sole reason for its erection is in order to contain the dog paddock. I consider that the fenced compound would appear as an arbitrary feature that would cause harm to the character of the countryside, along with the parking and turning area which would both be visible through the proposed gateway, in spite of the soft landscaping scheme to the boundaries of the wider field.

The scheme would erode the present agrarian character of the appeal site through providing what I consider to be an incongruous development unrelated to any other development on the south eastern side of [site address] . I say this notwithstanding that the restoration and management of the hedgerows would be a benefit. Furthermore, the very fact that a development would in part be screened by vegetation does not automatically render it as appropriate and ultimately this scheme would erode the local agrarian character with the subdivision of an otherwise open landscape that would be uncharacteristic of the area.

The gates could be erected under Permitted Development as they are shown to be no higher than 1m, however planning permission would be required in order to provide the access thereto, in addition to the hardstanding, parking and turning area beyond. The appellant has not demonstrated how the hardstanding would constitute permitted development, with it quite clearly forming an engineering operation for which planning permission would be required. In totality I give the agreed permitted development elements of the scheme limited weight as a fall-back as the fences are only required to facilitate the core reasoning behind the scheme, ie. to provide an area for the exercise of dogs; and without such a change of use being permitted I am not convinced that the fencing would be erected.

I note the slight discrepancies within the Council’s submissions with regard to the impacts of the fencing upon the rural character of the area. The design of the fencing per se would be appropriate to a rural area, however, the randomly placed paddock in the location proposed would appear as an alien feature within the rural landscape, notwithstanding that the LVA demonstrates that visual effects would be localised and during the late spring, summer and early autumn months, would be relatively well screened from a number of public vantage points. Nonetheless there would still remain a harmful visual effect to users of [site address] itself where presently there is a complete absence of development. Consequently, I am not convinced that the location proposed is an appropriate one, notwithstanding that there has been no objection to similar such facilities in other locations within the District by the Council.

Combined with the arbitrarily located paddock area and the other associated paraphernalia the proposal would constitute an alien feature that would be contrary to the open character of the local countryside of which the appeal site and the wider arable field form part.

On balance, I consider that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would have a detrimental effect upon the local landscape, contrary to [name] EM1 and EM10 which together only permit development where it can be demonstrated that proposals are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned and that they respect, enhance and not be detrimental to the character or visual amenity of the landscape likely to be affected; whilst positively contributing to local distinctiveness and the sense of place. I also find conflict between the proposal and BDLP Policy EP4 that whilst supporting the rural economy, by virtue of its siting would not be well designed, having localised detrimental landscape effects; along with Framework para. 187 b) which stipulates that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, inter alia, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, including those from third parties in support of the scheme, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed.