Appeal 6002773

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for installation of an air source heat pump system and associated infrastructure at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application reference: EPF/1595/25 and subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 50905-VE-SW-XX-DR-A-XX01/PA2; 50905-VE-SW-XX-E-A- XX02/PA1; 50905-VE-SW-XX-DR-A-XX03/PA1; 50905-VE-SW-XX-DR-A- XX04/PA1; and, SHF3043015-ENZ-XX-XX-DR-L-0001/PL01.

Prior to the commencement of above ground works, details of materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted landscaping details, ecology report and Noise Impact Assessment.

As the appeal site forms part of the setting of a listed building, I have had special regard to section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would preserve the setting of a nearby listed building; • 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; • the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; and, • if the proposal is inappropriate development, would the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development.

[site address] is a [name]* listed building (Ref: 1165605), which dates back to the 16th century. The building was originally used as a hunt standing, where hunts were viewed. The building was extended in the 18th century to form an inn and then converted to a dwelling in the early 19th century.

The north elevation of the building is split into three bays and has a near symmetrical façade; however, the entrance door is offset within the central bay. The building features French windows at ground floor level and six over six sash windows on the first floor. There is a string course separating the two storeys. The building sits in an elevated position with long distance views available over the surrounding countryside. Accordingly, the historic function of the building as a former hunt standing remains legible today. The rear of the building has been extended and altered and does not display the same level of special interest as the front elevation.

Based on the evidence before me and my site visit, I find that the special interest of the listed building derives from its historic and architectural interests as a former 16th century hunt standing, which has evolved over the centuries. The building’s grand stature, its pleasing architectural style and design, use of traditional materials and its elevated position in the landscape make important contributions in these regards.

The building’s special interest stems, in part, from its setting. The open vistas to the north of the building and the surrounding woodland make a positive contribution to the special interest of the heritage asset and reinforce its status as a [name]* listed building.

The appeal site and the listed building lie within [site address] Complex, which provides the administrative headquarters and operational hub for the City of [name] management of [site address] . The site includes offices, staff facilities, operational services, maintenance, ecological monitoring and land stewardship activities. The proposal seeks to install an air source heat pump system (ASHP) and associated pipework and electrical infrastructure. The ASHP units would be sited on a concrete plinth on an area of grassland adjacent to some existing barns and a service yard. The proposed ASHP system would be enclosed by an acoustic fence.

The proposal would be sited some distance away from the rear of the listed building and would be physically separated from it by existing built form and soft landscaping. The proposal by reason of its nature and size would be clearly read as an ancillary structure associated with the adjacent barns. Given the size, design, siting and intervening built form/soft landscaping, I find that the proposal would preserve the setting of the [name]* listed building.

The Council’s Officer Report states that there are a number of historic ancillary structures to the south of the listed building, which are likely to be curtilage listed. I observed the surrounding buildings on my site visit. The Council has not raised any concerns in respect to the curtilage listed buildings in their submission. Based on the evidence before me and my site visit, I find that the proposal would also preserve the setting of historic ancillary structures.

Overall, I find that the proposal would preserve the setting of the [name]* listed building. The proposal would comply with Policies DM7 and DM9 of the [site address] District Local Plan 2011 – 2033, adopted March 2023 (the Local Plan). These policies among other things require that development proposals preserve and, wherever possible, enhance the significance of heritage assets having regard to the special architectural or historic interest of its character, appearance and the contribution made by its setting.

The appeal site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Substantial weight should be given to any harm, and very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The Framework states that development within the Green Belt is inappropriate, unless it falls within one of the listed exceptions. Paragraph 155 of the Framework states that the development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate development where it meets certain criteria. The appeal site does not perform a strategic function in preventing urban sprawl, settlement coalescence or in preserving the setting of a historic town. In this case, the appeal site lies adjacent to an existing complex of buildings and does not contribute strongly to purposes a), b) or d), as set out at paragraph 143 of the Framework.

The glossary to the Framework is clear that grey belt land excludes land where the application of the policies relating to areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting the development. In this case, I find that the proposal would preserve the setting of the [name]* listed building. As a result, the application of the policies relating to assets of particular importance do not provide a strong reason for refusing the development. Given the above, I find that the appeal site can be classed as grey belt land and that the development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. Accordingly, the proposal would meet criterion a) of paragraph 155 of the Framework.

The proposal would replace the existing gas fired boilers and domestic hot water system for the site, which is currently housed in the adjacent building. The appellant advises that the ASHP system would fully serve the site’s heating and hot water requirements, which would reduce carbon emissions and contribute to the government’s aim of achieving net zero. Given the pressing need to mitigate against climate change and to achieve the government’s goal of net zero, there is a demonstrable unmet need for the proposed development. As a result, the proposal would accord with criterion b) of paragraph 155 of the Framework.

The development would be located adjacent to the existing boiler house, which would provide an energy-efficient connection to the current heating and hot water systems via a heat exchanger. Once operational, the proposal would not result in any increase in vehicular traffic or have any impact on the transport network. Accordingly, I find that the proposal would comply with criterion c) of paragraph 155 of the Framework. The ‘[name] set out at criterion d) are not applicable to this appeal.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. As a result, it is not necessary for me to consider the impact of the proposal on openness. The proposal would therefore accord with Policy DM4 of the Local Plan, which seeks to protect the purposes of the Green Belt and prevent inappropriate development within the Green Belt.

A large part of the [site address] is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The [site address] SAC has been designated primarily for its value in respect of beech trees and wet and dry heaths and for its population of stag beetle. As an internationally important site it is afforded the highest level of protection due to its habitats and species that are vulnerable or rare within an international context.

The Council has identified two main issues that are adversely affecting the [site address] SAC. The first is recreational pressure and the second is atmospheric pollution caused by vehicles travelling on roads in close proximity to the forest and emitting pollutants. The appeal proposal is not residential development and given its nature, it would not result in any recreational pressures to the SAC. The Council confirms that the level of trips generated to construct and maintain the proposal would be negligible. Accordingly, there would be no atmospheric impacts on the SAC. Overall, I find that the proposal would not have a likely significant effect, either alone or in combination on the specific qualifying features of the SAC.

The appeal scheme seeks to provide a 1,645.86% biodiversity net gain, through off-site habitat creation, new species rich grassland, mixed scrub and tree planting immediately adjoining the site and the provision of bird and bat boxes. Due to the provisions of Schedule 7A, Part 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act), and as none of the statutory exemptions apply in this case, the development may not be begun unless a Biodiversity Gain Plan has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The submitted Biodiversity Gain Plan must demonstrate compliance with Part 1 of Schedule 7A of the Act. It is not necessary for this decision to replicate the statutory Biodiversity Gain Plan condition.

[name] note that the Town Council have objected to the proposal, this does not alter my findings set out above.

In addition to the standard time limit condition and in the interests of certainty, I have included a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. To ensure an acceptable appearance of the development, details of external materials will be required by condition. In the interests of visual amenity, biodiversity and to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted landscaping details, ecology report and Noise Impact Assessment is necessary.

For the reasons given above, having regard to the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, subject to conditions.