Appeal 6002123

The appeal is allowed, and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A.2.(2)(a)(i) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), for the erection of two agricultural buildings, on land to the north of [address], Elton, Herefordshire [postcode] , in accordance with the application No 251628, and the details submitted with it.

In the above Order, Class A of Part 6 provides a right of ‘permitted development’ for agricultural development on a holding of more than 5 hectares. The right is subject to various exclusions and conditions, as set out in paragraphs A.1 and A.2. Where the development would involve the erection of buildings, [name].2(2) requires a determination as to whether prior approval is required as to its siting, design and external appearance; and if so, whether such approval is granted.

In the present case, the Council agrees that the proposal meets the requirements under paragraph A.1, and is therefore permitted development. The Council also raises no objection to the proposed design or appearance. The sole issue in the appeal relates to the siting of the development and its effects on the character and beauty of the landscape.

On my visit, I saw that the area around the appeal site comprises an area of attractive, hilly country, with a mixture of mainly arable farming on the lower ground and woodland on the upper slopes. The appeal site itself lies within a well-defined natural bowl, between the long, steep escarpment which runs nearby to the south and east, and another tall ridge that rises a couple of miles to the north. Within this area of lower, flatter ground, the field pattern is one of small to medium-sized, irregularly shaped parcels, divided by well-maintained hedgerows, and crossed by streams with scattered trees along their banks. The area is encircled by [address] and [address], which are both minor country lanes, and is traversed by a network of public footpaths.

The two buildings that are now proposed would be moderately large, each measuring just over 18m x 15m, with a ridge height of about 6m. They would also be fully enclosed, with green timber boarded walls and grey cement sheeted roofs, giving them a solid appearance. The development would be set close to [address], but well away from any other buildings. The site is contained on two sides by existing trees and hedges, but on the other two sides the boundaries are currently unmarked.

Given the high quality of the surrounding landscape, I can well understand the Council’s concern to ensure that any development should be sited so as to limit its visual impact, and minimise harm to its intrinsic qualities. In this context, I note that, in the adopted Core Strategy1 (the CS), Policy LD1 seeks to protect landscape character and scenic beauty, and Policy SS6 aims to conserve environmental assets, including local distinctiveness. However, these policy aims have to be balanced against the desirability of supporting the needs of agriculture and the rural economy, as recognised in paragraph 88 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF).

In this case the appellant states that the development is needed to securely store agricultural machinery, equipment, seed and fertilisers for use on the land, and harvested crops that have been produced on it, all of which currently have to be stored off site. The farm holding is not particularly large, but is said to be well established as an independent enterprise. The land is also said to be owned by the business. There is no evidence to challenge any of these submissions. I see no reason to doubt that the development now proposed is needed, nor that it would benefit the operation of the farm unit. I also note that, over the last four years, three previous applications for larger storage buildings in different positions on the holding have all been refused.

In the present scheme, the new storage buildings now proposed would be visible from a section of [address], and from limited viewpoints on [address], and also from the two nearest public footpaths, which leave [address] heading north-west and north-east respectively, in the vicinity of the site. From all of these points, I agree that the development would appear somewhat isolated. But nevertheless, the buildings would be recognisably agricultural in their design and function. The colouring of the walls and roofs would blend with the rural surroundings. The existing field boundary hedging and trees would soften the impact. And from all directions, the development would be seen against the backdrop of the wooded hillsides that largely surround the site. In this context, it seems to me that any resulting visual harm would be limited, and would be outweighed by the benefits to the farming enterprise and to the local economy.

I note that the Council would have preferred an alternative location, closer to the existing building group around [address]. I agree that a location in that area would have some merits, but it would also have the potential to raise additional issues, in terms of the proximity to existing residential properties including [address] and [address]. In any event, the appellant states that the access to 1 The Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy, adopted October 2105 this part of the site from [address] is outside the farm’s ownership. This would appear to be corroborated by the position of the blue ownership boundary on the submitted plans. Without the use of the [address] access, the Council’s alternative site would make it necessary to construct a very long access road across the holding, which to my mind would negate any advantages.

Based on all the evidence available therefore, I conclude that the siting, design and appearance of the development, as now proposed, are acceptable.

It follows from the above that prior approval should be granted.

Where such approval is granted, the conditions set out in paragraph A.2 of the Order are applicable. These include provisions relating to the timescale for carrying out the works, and for notification of commencement and completion, plus a requirement to carry out the works in accordance with the approved details, and provisions for the removal of the building if the use ceases.

On this basis, the appeal is allowed.