Appeal 6002075

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has drawn my attention to paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); however, this no longer relates to the rural economy. Where reference is made to the Framework in this decision, the paragraph numbers are those that appear in the latest version published in December 2024.

The main issues of this appeal are: • whether the appeal site is located within the open countryside; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and, • whether the proposed development would represent a sustainable form of development with regard to its location and development plan policy.

[site address] is located a significant distance from the built-up settlement of Langtoft, with a number of fields separating it from the village. During my site visit, I saw the road, which provides access to [site address] , had a number of traffic movements, predominantly from large trucks, which mainly drove into and out of the [name] quarry. The area immediately outside the site is largely open fields with a mix of tree-lined boundaries and fencing, beyond which are mainly open bodies of water with very few buildings.

I note that the appellant contends the Council’s description of the location of the appeal site may be overly simplistic. However, despite the appeal site advertising a [name] linked to a [name] and a number of quarries operating nearby, from my observations and the evidence before me, I have no doubt that the appeal site and its prevailing characteristics, including its immediate surroundings, are located within the open countryside.

[site address] comprises a largely single-storey residential property alongside a number of buildings, storage areas and paddocks associated with the appellant's equestrian business.

The appeal site is predominantly open and is separated from the main built form of [site address] by fields currently utilised as paddocks. Buildings within [address] are largely single-storey and clustered together on one side. Land levels are largely flat around the appeal site, and the boundary height to [address] was mostly low at the time of my site visit. These together provide clear views over the area of the appeal site towards the majority of buildings within [site address] and the tree belt beyond.

There are a number of lighting columns positioned around the paddocks. Whilst these were slender in their appearance, they were significantly taller than their immediate surroundings.

Policy DE1 of the South Kesteven District Council Local Plan 2011-2036 (Local Plan) relates to design and seeks, amongst other matters, for development to make a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness and character of the area and should be of an appropriate scale and material.

Section 12 of the Framework requires development to, amongst other things, function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; and be sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting.

The Council describe the proposed building as measuring approximately 23.7 metres in width by approximately 13.5 metres in depth, and it would have a mono-pitched roof with an overall height of approximately 7.6 metres. Submitted plans show that the exterior materials would comprise Tata profile cladding in shades of grey. Plans also show a covered outdoor working area to one side and a 3-metre-high sound-reducing fence located around the majority of the perimeter, which would enclose the building, the hardstanding and parking area from the wider site. Moreover, plans also show a dedicated area to the front elevation for signage, which would advertise the business.

The proposed building would be separated from all buildings associated with [address]. The building and associated sound-reducing fencing would be visible from approaches to [address] from [site address] and the single-track road which runs approximately at right angles to the appeal site. Even if the external colour of the building was green as suggested by the appellant, its overall size and position, which is shown to have the tallest elevation facing the main road, would appear isolated from the main uses of [address], and would introduce a significant mass where currently there is none.

Furthermore, the sound-reducing fence would be significantly taller than the current boundary. Even if it was positioned behind a natural boundary such as a hedge, as shown on submitted plans, its overall height would likely be considerably higher. Given its solid appearance and overall length, it would jar against the verdant surroundings. The presence of potential signage, as shown on submitted plans, would also exacerbate its dominant form.

On my way to the appeal site, I saw agricultural buildings. Whilst these were of similar materials to the appeal before me, they were mostly clustered together and had no obvious signage and, from my observations, appeared to be associated with an agricultural use.

Notwithstanding the above, the hard surfacing proposed would have little effect on the character of the area in this location given the limited extent of its visibility.

For the reasons above, the proposal would be visually discordant with the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to the location within the rural context. It would therefore conflict with Local Plan Policy DE1, which supports development of a design which makes a positive contribution to the local character and is of an appropriate scale. It would also conflict with the aims of the Framework which requires development to be sympathetic to local character and its landscape setting.

Following on from my findings above with regard to the location, the appeal site comprises an open field separated from the main buildings associated with [address].

Local Plan Policy SP5 relates to development in the open countryside and seeks to limit development to that which has an essential need. In such instances, it sets out types of development which would be supported, criteria a. to d of which criterion d. relates to rural diversification projects.

I note that the relocation of the business from its current location in Oundle would result in a rural business. However, I have limited evidence before me to demonstrate that it would constitute a rural diversification project and, moreover, even if I were to conclude that it would be a rural diversification project, I have nothing to persuade me that there is an essential need within the open countryside.

Local Plan Policy E7 relates to the rural economy and lists the types of small business schemes that will be supported, provided that the business will help support or regenerate the rural economy. This list includes, amongst other things, rural enterprise and a set of criteria a. to d. which development must meet.

The Council does not provide a definition of a "rural enterprise". However, even if I were to conclude that the proposed use was a rural enterprise, I have found that the proposed development would fail to be of a scale which is appropriate to its location. I have also found that I have limited evidence to persuade me that the use is necessary in the rural location.

The appellant has drawn my attention to [address] [name] ([name]), which they contend demonstrates that rural commercial and industrial uses have been established. During my site visit, I drove past [name]. I saw that it appeared to be a purpose-built and contained a number of units of varying sizes. [name] do not have anything that demonstrates its origins, given its scale and variety of uses contained within it, it is significantly different from the proposed development before me in that it is not a stand-alone commercial unit within the open countryside. This example is therefore not comparable, and I attach little weight to the appellant's suggestion.

The appellant has also shown that there are no available sites within 5 miles of the appeal site which they consider suitable for this type of development. I have nothing to explain the rationale behind the 5-mile radius, or to demonstrate that there are no suitable and available sites beyond 5 miles. Furthermore, I saw signage immediately outside [name] stating there were Industrial units to let.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of appeals1 to support their case. With regards to [address], Manthorpe, this relates to the erection of a timber frame carport/garage and conversion of a detached outbuilding for which the appellant contends the Council refused planning permission on design and amenity grounds. [name] acknowledge that the appeal was allowed, I have nothing before me to demonstrate that this site is within the open countryside, which is the case in the appeal before me. Furthermore, with regard to The Old Post Office, Barrowby and Woolsthorpe by Belvoir, these relate to an appeal against conditions, with planning permission having been granted. This is not the case with the appeal before me. Consequently, I do not consider these suggested appeals to be comparable to the proposal before me, which I have assessed on its own planning merits.

For the reasons given above, it has not been demonstrated that there is an essential need for the proposed development in the rural location. As such, the proposal would conflict with Local Plan Policies SP5 and E7.

The appellant contends that the existing facilities are insufficient and do not safely and effectively accommodate the tools, materials and specialist workflow associated with heritage masonry. Even if this is the case, I have little before me to demonstrate how the proposed development outweighs the conflict with Local Plan Policy SP5.

The appeal site is currently void of any structure, and whilst I sympathise with the appellant that the livery works have not recovered since the pandemic, I have nothing before me which demonstrates that there is an essential need for the proposed business in the open countryside. I also have nothing to persuade me that the proposed building and fencing would not appear incongruent in its context.

[name] acknowledge that the nature of the business helps preserve historic structures across Lincolnshire and would support local employment, the location of the proposed development outside of a settlement and without demonstrating essential need would undermine the Council’s plan-led approach in seeking development to be sustainably located. These matters attract significant weight and outweigh the benefits associated with the proposed development.

The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan, and there are no other considerations, including the Framework, that outweigh this conflict. For the 1 APP/E2530/W/24/3347487 at Woolsthorpe by Belvoir, APP/E2530/W/24/3348778 at The Old Post Office, Barrowby, APP/E2530/D/24/3351960 at [address], Manthorpe. reasons given above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed.