Appeal 6001965

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing storage building and erection of replacement forestry storage building at [site address] , Knowle, Solihull, Warwickshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/0407, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs has been made by [name] against Warwick District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

I have used the development description given in the Council’s acknowledgement letter on the submitted application in the banner heading above and my formal decision, as it better describes the nature of the proposed development.

The appeal relates to a planning application that was not determined by the Council within the prescribed period. The Council states that a recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to conditions, would have been referred to its Planning Committee.

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

A single storey, flat roof structure in a dilapidated condition is located on the appeal site, positioned to the corner of a larger parcel of land, which I saw contained saplings that had been planted around tracks and a centrally positioned pond. I also observed 2 single storey buildings being used for the storage of machinery and equipment, as well as an office, which appeared to be associated with the land. To the north of these were polytunnels that contained potted saplings. The proposed development would see the replacement of the existing structure with a brick/block and tiled single storey building for the secure storage of, amongst other things, fertilisers, drainage pipes and irrigation pipework. The location of the new building would be slightly to the east of the existing structure.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The Framework states that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Policy DS18 of the Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029 (WDLP) states that the Council will apply national planning policy to proposals within the Green Belt. As such there is consistency with the Framework.

Several exceptions are given in paragraph 154 of the Framework where development would be regarded as not inappropriate. The appellant has identified that paragraph 154 d) applies as the proposal represents the replacement of a building that is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. The Council has not challenged the relevance of paragraph 154 d) to the proposed development.

Concerns have been raised by interested parties relating to the existing use of the structure, a lack of justification for a permanent building for the intended use and claims that there is sufficient space elsewhere to meet storage requirements. However, my attention has been drawn to a Certificate of Lawful Development1 relating to the existing structure, which is a material consideration. This identifies that ‘the siting of a portacabin used in association with the forestry use of the site’ is lawful. Based on the evidence before me, my own observations on site, and in the absence of substantiated evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that the replacement building would be in the same use as the existing structure, which was treated as a building for the purpose of the Certificate of Lawful Development.

Neither justification for the replacement building nor consideration of alternative storage space being available elsewhere are a requirement under paragraph 154 d).

The replacement building would have a similar footprint to the existing structure, and the pitched roof would result in a very modest increase in its overall height. Consequently, the new building would not be materially larger than the one it replaces. 1 Council Ref: W/24/1576

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development meets the requirement of paragraph 154 d) of the Framework and would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Moreover, it would be in accordance with WDLP Policy DS18.

There are views of the existing structure from [address] at the access points that lead to the appeal site. These views are across open fields that are enclosed by timber post and rail fencing, with some incorporating low level vegetation. A public footpath, running in a broadly north-south direction, is located to the west of the appeal site, offering close-up views of the existing structure. These views all encompass the surrounding, generally open, landscape including the nearby single storey buildings and polytunnels, as well as what appears to be a barn conversion to the opposite side of the public footpath, which all contribute to the site’s context. The predominant character and appearance of the existing buildings in the locality is not reflected in the existing structure.

The proposed development would locate the replacement building a short distance away from the existing structure, and the public footpath. Its appearance, including its external materials, would better reflect those used on the nearby single storey buildings than the existing structure, and it would not dominate the landscape.

For these reasons, the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area would be acceptable. Accordingly, there would be no conflict with WDLP Policy BE1, which seeks new development that positively contributes to the character and quality of its environment through good layout and design, including respecting surrounding buildings in terms of scale, height, form and massing.

I have taken into account all of the other matters and concerns raised in the submissions by interested parties, which include but are not limited to, impact on traffic, the existing condition of road surfaces and the public footpath, and harm to wildlife as well as alleged unauthorised developments.

The Council has not raised any concerns regarding an increase in traffic as a result of the proposed development. In light of the small scale of the proposed building to replace a lawful structure in the same use and of a similar footprint, I see no reason to come to a different conclusion.

Moreover, there is no compelling evidence before me to demonstrate that the proposal would result in an unacceptable effect on any of the other matters raised. This includes no convincing evidence that there is a reasonable likelihood of protected species being affected by the proposal. Consequently, they do not lead me to a different overall conclusion that the appeal should be allowed.

Matters raised in respect to any potential unauthorised developments on the wider site do not form part of the appeal before me. In any event, this would be an enforcement matter for the Council and does not provide a reason to alter my judgement.

Reference has been made to a previously refused application on the site. However, I do not have full details of that proposal and whether the circumstances are comparable to the appeal scheme. As such a comparison is of limited relevance in this instance. I have therefore considered the appeal before me on its individual planning merits.

The Council did not submit a list of suggested conditions in the event that the appeal was allowed. I have had regard to the tests in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance.

In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans as this provides clarity.

I have attached a condition relating to external materials to safeguard the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed development clearly indicates the demolition of the existing structure and a condition requiring its removal is necessary to maintain the openness of the Green Belt.

For the above reasons, the proposed development would not conflict with the development plan or the Framework. I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos. 01, 02 and 03.

No development above ground level shall take place until details of all external facing materials 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 first use of the development hereby permitted, the existing structure on the site shall be removed and all materials resulting from the demolition shall be removed from the land in its entirety. **END OF SCHEDULE*