Appeal 6002665

The appeal is dismissed.

The word retrospective does not refer to an act of development, so I have removed it from the description of development above. I have therefore treated the appeal as a proposal for the erection of timber boundary treatment at a height of 1.2m, forming a subdivided plot of land subject to a title split and erection of a 10' wide steel gate facing [site address] , to facilitate access to the site for ongoing maintenance and grass cutting

I am aware that the Council’s emerging local plan is undergoing independent examination. Nonetheless, whilst the plan is going through examination it has not been found sound. As such I attach limited weight to its policies.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of development plan policy and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); • The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of development on highway safety; and • if the development is inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

The Framework sets out that the development in the Green Belt is inappropriate subject to a number of exceptions. Fences and gates are not in the list of exceptions at paragraph 154 of the Framework. The Council’s policy on Green Belt set out in [name] policy GB1 does not deal with fences differently. Therefore, unless it meets the definition of Grey Belt, which is not suggested in this case, the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of development plan policy and the Framework and accordingly is harmful by definition. As such it would be in conflict with [name] policy GB1 and the Framework.

The site comprises an open plot of grassland adjacent to [site address] in the West Midlands Green Belt. The proposed fencing would enclose and subdivide the site into three areas with a steel access gate onto [site address] , which has already been installed.

There is existing fencing across the field further along [site address] . However, due to the topography of the ground rising away from the site in that direction, only the nearest metal wire and timber stake fencing is visible from the site. That fencing has a limited effect on openness and therefore the site and the area immediately around it retains its sense of openness.

The introduction of the metal five bar gate as an access through existing fencing and hedgerow does not materially affect openness visually or spatially. However extensive lengths of timber fencing around and subdividing the site would significantly change the current open field in this location and would have an adverse effect on openness spatially and visually compared to the present expansively open nature of the site. For these reasons, the development would have an adverse effect on the openness of the Green Belt.

The site forms part of a wider open field with a rural, largely unenclosed character. Although post‐and‐wire field fencing is visible, it lies outside the site, is visually permeable, and does not materially affect its character or appearance. More substantial wooden rail fencing further along [site address] is not visible from the site. The roadside hedgerow with mature trees and intermittent gaps, allows views across the field to the woodland beyond. Accordingly, the site makes a clear contribution to the open character of this stretch of [site address] .

The proposal would introduce continuous perimeter fencing and subdivide the land into long, narrow parcels. While the existing agricultural gate in the hedged gap is not incongruous, the extent and regimented pattern of new fencing would be apparent through gaps in the hedgerow, increasing enclosure and imposing a more managed character. This would interrupt characteristic views and the open field pattern, appearing discordant with the rural qualities of this stretch of [site address] . It would therefore fail to respect local character and distinctiveness, contrary to Core Strategy Policy EQ11, and would harm the character and appearance of the area.

The access gate is now in place. The access crosses the ditch and has been surfaced in loose mixed material. The gate is not set back by the minimum distance of five metres the Council says is required. However, it is not immediately adjacent to the carriageway edge and is capable of opening inwards. As such, a vehicle could pull off the carriageway while the gates are opened in a manner that would not cause an adverse impact on highway safety.

The speed limit on [site address] is sixty miles per hour, therefore appropriate visibility splays would be required unless reduced based on an evidence-based speed survey, which has not been provided. There is no evidence before me that the required visibility splays could be achieved within the highway or on land under the appellant’s control which means I am unable to conclude there would be a safe and suitable access. As such there would be an adverse effect on highway safety in conflict with the Framework.

As a fallback, lower fencing could be erected as permitted development. The appellant accepts this would cause less harm to Green Belt openness. It would also be slightly less harmful to character and appearance. No robust evidence demonstrates how a modest increase in height would deliver a meaningful benefit. I therefore attach very little weight to this consideration.

The stated need to mark land ownership following title subdivision may justify a perimeter, but the further subdivision of the site into long, narrow parcels is unexplained on the evidence before me. In the absence of a clear functional justification, the extent and regimented pattern of fencing is unnecessary and weighs against the proposal.

The appellant seeks access for land management and maintenance. There is no physical impediment to using the existing access, although the appellant states they no longer have a legal right following the title split. While a new access here would be more convenient, the limited activity associated with paddock use means the benefit would be modest and I afford this only moderate weight.

For the reasons set out above I conclude that the fencing and access gate are inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is by definition harmful. Substantial weight should be attached to any harm to the Green Belt. The fencing would also result in a limited reduction in openness and would harm the character and appearance of the area. In addition, the new gated access results in harm to highway safety.

Taking the other considerations discussed above together, the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is not clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Moreover, the proposal is contrary to policies GB1 and EQ1 of the [name] and therefore the development plan as a whole, and the Framework.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.