Appeal 6001861

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Installation of private agricultural access road with associated works at [site address] , [address], Westerleigh, [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P25/00721/F, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition:

Unless within 3 months of the date of this decision a scheme for the bound surface treatment at the driveway entrance has been implemented in accordance with details approved by the local planning authority, the use of the access road shall cease until such time as a scheme is approved and implemented.

The private access road and associated works have been completed. I am therefore considering this appeal retrospectively and have removed the wording that refers to the development being part retrospective from the description of the development in the banner heading above.

The appellant’s statement of case (SoC) refers to a gravel yard adjacent to a converted barn at the end of the access road which is the subject of a separate enforcement appeal which includes the access road. However, the yard is not within the redline boundary on the location plan, or in the description of the development, and therefore does not form part of the development considered by the Council when determining the planning application. I have not, therefore, considered it as part of this appeal.

The Council is no longer pursuing reasons for refusal 1 and 3 in its decision notice, relating to biodiversity net gain and the ecological impact of the development, because the application is retrospective and on agricultural land without any ecological designation. Therefore, I have not had regard to these issues in determining this appeal. Appeal Decision: 6001861

The main issues are: • whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies, and the effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt; and • the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is located within the Bristol/Bath Green Belt. Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Development in the Green Belt is considered inappropriate unless it falls within specified exceptions.

An exception identified in paragraph 154 h) of the Framework is for engineering operations, which would preserve the openness of the Green Belt and not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

The development comprises a gated private gravel surfaced access with stone pillars either side at the entrance. It crosses 2 fields and links to a gravel yard adjacent to a converted barn in residential use. It is edged by narrow kerbstones from the gate along either side of the visibility splay to where it meets [address], the adjoining unclassified road. The development constitutes engineering works for the purposes of paragraph 154 h) of the Framework.

Paragraph 143 of the Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The access road crosses fields that had no previous access tracks and is approximately 200m long and 4m wide. It therefore encroaches into the countryside but, in the context of the Green Belt area as a whole, to a negligible degree. Nonetheless it has a spatial impact on openness, albeit very minor.

However, the development has not led to urban sprawl. The road allows access to fields which are in agricultural use, as evidenced by sheep held in a fenced off section of one field and from correspondence from local farmers indicating that they cut the grass for haylage. It leads to an existing hardstanding behind which there are converted barns which are lawful. Whilst the hardstanding is the subject of an enforcement appeal, I see no reason why the access road would lead to further development which would prevent the land from remaining permanently open. In any case, such development would be subject to planning control if it required planning permission or planning enforcement if carried out unlawfully.

Although the land adjacent to the access road and the buildings where it terminates are on lower ground than much of the surrounding landscape, they are surrounded by a patchwork of fields bounded by mature hedgerows and trees which screen the access road from the wider area, even without the additional planting along its southern edge. Intervening field boundaries also prevents the access road being Appeal Decision: 6001861 seen together with the original farm track to the north which served the farmstead prior to its being subdivided.

The access road visibility splay is partially visible when approaching the site along [address] in either direction, because hedgerows either side of it are set back from the road edge. However, there are no footways along [address] and consequently views of it from passing traffic are transitory. Furthermore, I note that the Council’s Landscape Officer had no objection to the development, and the Council had previously agreed that a field access was reasonably necessary for agricultural purposes, albeit that did not include a track. The development provides access to existing activities, as described above, and has not therefore led to additional traffic or activity that could impact on openness. Notwithstanding the minor spatial impact, on balance I consider that the development has preserved rather than caused any harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

I conclude on this main issue that the development is not inappropriate development and thus accords with the objectives of the Framework and Policies CS5 and CS34 of the [site address] Local Plan: [name] (2013) (CS) and the Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document (2007) which seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

[address] is a narrow country lane lined with mature hedgerows and trees for much of its length. There is sporadic housing, including farms, on both sides of the road. Some are set back and not visible from it, others are closer to the road with their gardens abutting the road edge.

The properties closest to the appeal site are [address] and [address] which are not visible from [address] but are accessed via substantial wrought iron gates with tall ornate stone pillars and a curving stone wall either side, and a terrace of three houses fronting onto the road with the side garden and yard at the nearest house accessed by a large wooden gate and gravel drive. Elsewhere along the road there is a mix of traditional metal farm gates and tarmac access roads, and wooden gates with walls or ornamental hedges either side and post boxes and name plaques giving them a domestic appearance. The area around the appeal site is therefore rural with a mix of residential and agricultural uses.

The type of gravel used on the appeal scheme along with the stone pillars, slate name plaques, gates and security camera and keypad have a domestic rather than agricultural appearance. It was also clear from my site visit that the converted barns are no longer accessible from the original access to the south because walls and fences, whether authorised or not, have blocked off access. Therefore, it appears that despite the description of development being for an agricultural access road, its principal purpose is to serve the converted residential properties. However, as I have already noted, it also provides access to fields to the north which are still used for agricultural purposes.

In the context of the mixed residential and agricultural character of the area and the appeal site, the private access road and associated structures at the entrance to it do not appear out of character or unsympathetic.

Overall, I conclude that the development accords with Policy CS1 of the CS which requires development to respect the character of the site and its context. Policy Appeal Decision: 6001861 PSP29 of the [site address] Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (2017) (LP), referred to in the reason for refusal, specifically refers to agricultural buildings and is not in my view relevant.

The Council’s transportation department recommended that the appellant consider a bound surface treatment at the access entrance to avoid stones being dragged onto the road which could cause braking cars to skid and thereby reduce highway safety. According to the appellant, a permeable resin has been applied to bind the gravel. However, there was loose gravel where I parked at the access entrance and some on the road. I am not therefore convinced that the mitigation measures have adequately addressed highway safety concerns. Nonetheless, both parties have agreed that the issue can be addressed by a planning condition.

Concerns were also raised over the visibility splay but not cited in the reasons for refusing the application. [address] is narrow and consequently traffic will generally travel at relatively low speeds, and the visibility splay can be seen from it when approaching the access road entrance. In my opinion, cars pulling out of the access will be seen from a safe braking distance and cars leaving the site will have sufficient line of site towards approaching traffic to ensure they can exit the access road safely. Therefore, subject to a planning condition regarding the surface treatment at the road entrance, I am satisfied that the development does not conflict with Policy CS8 of the CS and Policy PSP11 of the LP which require development to provide safe access and maintain highway safety.

The appellant contends that the development is permitted development (PD). However, as I am allowing the appeal I do not consider it necessary to assess whether the scheme is PD or accord the matter any weight.

For the reasons set out above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

Planning permission is sought retrospectively, therefore no time limit for commencement is required and there is no need to specify the plans to be followed. A condition requiring the entrance to be resurfaced with bound treatment is necessary to ensure road safety.