Appeal 6002515

The appeal is dismissed.

At time of my site visit, an area of hardstanding had been laid at the location of the proposed car parking shown on the submitted drawings. The proposed development has therefore commenced. This weighs neither for nor against the proposal which I have determined on the basis of the submitted plans. I have also had regard to the revised plans which correct typographical errors, but do not materially change the scale or nature of the proposal.

The main issues in this appeal are: • Whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location, having regard to the local development strategy; and • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site forms part of an agricultural field, situated to the south of [address]. The site is outside any settlement and is in a rural, countryside location.

The proposal seeks the change of use of the land to a dog walking area. Policy SP3 of the Ashford Local Plan 2019 (ALP) promotes rural employment opportunities in sustainable locations in accordance with other ALP policies. At paragraph 2.97, the ALP suggests opportunities for development of rural enterprise which capitalise on quality of life and accessibility will be supported. Within this context, a sustainable location for rural employment includes sites which offer good accessibility.

ALP Policy EMP5 sets out criteria for employment development on new sites in the countryside, including criterion (a) which supports development only where it is essential to be located in the countryside. Paragraph 7.30 of the ALP advises that new employment premises in the countryside will not be permitted unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated to set aside the normal presumption against such developments. Such circumstances may include the functional need for a countryside location, and new employment sites in the countryside will need to have regard to the need to protect countryside sites with specific landscape, biodiversity or historic qualities.

The proposal requires use of open land which, by definition, is of more limited availability in built-up areas. However, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate the proposal could not be accommodated in nearby settlements. The appellant suggests the use of land in built-up areas may impact amenity and raise safety concerns. However, subject to a suitable design and appropriate security measures, I have no reason to consider that such a use would be incompatible in a built-up area. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed use would have a functional need for a countryside location.

The Planning Statement asserts the proposed use would enable the farm to diversify and complement the existing farm operations. However, it is unclear how the use would support the farm’s diversification and operations, and therefore the proposal does not demonstrate the use would be essential in this location.

There are existing settlements in the area, including new development at Chilmington Green which is less than a three-minute drive from the site. However, [address] is a rural road flanked by grass verges. It offers no pedestrian footways or street lighting, and there are no nearby bus stops. Due to the distance from any settlement and the absence of sustainable transport infrastructure there would be very limited opportunity to access the site by means other than a private vehicle.

The scale and intensity of the proposed development would be relatively modest with one customer per hour during daylight hours, managed by a booking system. The proposed use would therefore be expected to generate low volumes of traffic of around two vehicle movements per hour. The harmful effects associated with the site’s poor accessibility would be tempered by the low volume of traffic arising from the development. However, the low intensity of use does not in itself justify development in this location for the purposes of Policy SP3 which directs rural employment opportunities to sustainable locations.

Paragraph 88(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises decisions should enable the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses. At paragraph 89, the Framework requires decisions recognise that sites to meet local business and community needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements and in locations that are not well served by public transport.

Whilst the Framework supports agricultural diversification and other land-based rural businesses, as discussed above the proposal’s role in agricultural diversification has not been demonstrated. Consequently, it is unclear how the proposal would meet a local business need, and siting of the proposed use in a rural area that is not well-served by public transport would not be justified. Therefore, the provisions of the Framework do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan.

The appellant suggests the Council has identified the neighbouring depot site as suitable for redevelopment. However, I have assessed the proposal against ALP Policy EMP5 since the proposal concerns a new site in the countryside for employment development. Therefore, the policy context for the appeal site and existing employment site would materially differ, and the suitability of an existing employment site is of limited relevance in my decision.

For these reasons, the proposal fails to demonstrate that it would be essential to locate the proposed use in the countryside and due to its limited accessibility, the site would not offer a sustainable location for development. Having regard to the local development strategy, the proposed development would not be in a suitable location. The proposal would conflict with [name] SP3 and EMP5.

The appeal site comprises a part of an agricultural field. There is a low hedge along the site’s front boundary to the highway which reduces in height and density to the west of the access, with intermittent gaps providing an open feel to the site’s frontage. The western edge of the site is open to the wider field. The site therefore has an open, spacious, rural character.

To the east and south is a former paper recycling depot. A tree belt along the eastern and southern boundaries provides separation and screening from the depot. However, there are glimpsed views of the depot’s buildings and therefore the surrounding area contains some existing development. In addition, there are other vertical features in the landscape, including telegraph poles, and wire fencing at the depot and beside the rail line to the north.

Opposite the appeal site, the northern side of [address] is vegetated with mature trees and hedges. Hedgerows and tree belts form distinctive features that contribute to the pattern and composition of the landscape.

The existing tree belt generally screens views of the site on approaching from the east. However, from the west, the site’s rising topography and open character affords clear views into the site from the public highway of [address]. The site therefore occupies a visually prominent position in the landscape.

The dog walking area and hardstanding would be enclosed by 1.9-metre-high wire fencing. Whilst the wire mesh would be visually permeable, the proposed fencing would be tall and extensive in length which, without mitigation, would appear excessively dominant, particularly in views from the west. The proposed fencing would have a functional, utilitarian appearance which would be unsympathetic to the vegetated field boundaries and open countryside character of the area.

The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & [name] (Baseline) Assessment (PEA & BNG Assessment) recommends the planting of a double row native hedgerow along the western site boundary to increase habitat connectivity around the site, with a total minimum width of 1.5m and a minimum height of 1.5m. This would provide a natural edge to the site which would appear in keeping with the appearance of field boundaries within the surrounding landscape.

The proposed fencing would be set back behind the hedgerow which, once established i.e. in the medium and long term, would screen long distance views of the proposed fence and mitigate its visual impact on the landscape.

At the site’s frontage, the fence would be set back two metres behind the existing hedgerow. This separation from the highway, along with the element of screening offered by the boundary vegetation, would perform a role in reducing the visual impact of the proposed fencing. Therefore, once the planting is established, views of the fence would be localised to the site’s frontage and would be experienced by users of passing vehicles. In addition, these views of the proposed fencing would be experienced in the context of other existing development such as the nearby depot site, and other vertical features in the landscape.

However, the proposed hedgerow would take time to mature and therefore, in the short term, the effectiveness of the visual mitigation would be more limited. Consequently, taking into account the site’s context and the proposed mitigation, the proposal would have a moderate harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, particularly in long distance views from the west, which would reduce to a modest or neutral visual impact, as the proposed hedgerow matures over the medium and long term.

ALP Policy SP1 seeks to conserve the borough’s landscapes and ALP Policy SP6 and Policy ENV3a require proposals demonstrate consideration of and respond positively to character, distinctiveness and sense of place and have regard to landscape characteristics. Furthermore, ALP Policy EMP5 supports new employment development on sites in the countryside where development can be integrated sensitively into its context to respect the landscape setting’s character. Whilst acknowledging the short-term harm identified above, the proposal would sensitively integrate into its context through mitigation of its visual impacts and thus demonstrates consideration of the landscape’s characteristics. Consequently, the proposal would comply with the aforementioned policies.

The proposal would offer a form of local recreation through providing space for dog-walking, and the proposed rural enterprise would provide economic benefits and employment. In addition, subject to applying the recommendations of the PEA & BNG Assessment, the proposal would provide a significant uplift of the site’s biodiversity value. However, due to the low intensity of the proposed use and small scale of the site, these modest benefits would not outweigh the conflict with the development plan in respect of the suitability of the location.

[name] have identified that harms to character and appearance would be mitigated by proposed planting, as discussed above, the proposed development would not be in a suitable location. The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given the appeal should be dismissed.