Appeal 6002921

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site address above is that given on the original planning permission Council ref. W/22/02586/CU, as allowed on appeal, ref. APP/H1840/W/24/3351881.

While the application determined by the Council, ref W/25/00906/CCO, related to both conditions 7 and 8 of the original permission, the appellant is only disputing the decision made in relation to condition 7 for the purposes of this appeal. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

Since the decisions were made on the original permission and the condition application, the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (March 2026) (SWDPR) has been adopted. Accordingly, I have determined the appeal on the basis of this recently adopted development plan, including Policies SWDPR22 and SWDPR34 of the SWDPR. The appellant was given opportunity to comment on this as part of the appeal process.

At the time of my site visit there were 3 static caravans at the appeal site, which all appeared to be occupied. However, the lawfulness or otherwise of the appeal development, including whether the original permission has been lawfully implemented, are not matters for my consideration as part of this appeal.

The main issue is whether the submitted details satisfy the requirements of condition 7, having regard to the effect on the character and appearance of the area and in the interests of certainty.

A condition should be construed in conjunction with the reason for its imposition so that its purpose and meaning can be properly understood. Condition 7 requires: Before the first use/occupation of the development hereby permitted details of site levels and slab levels 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.

While the wording of condition 7 does not specify that existing and proposed site levels are required to satisfy its requirements, the Inspector’s decision at paragraph 38 sets out that, as the proposed plans for the development did not stipulate alterations to ground levels and that, he could not be sure at the time of his site visit whether the site levels and concrete bases installed would accord with the proposed plans. Subsequently, the Inspector stated that condition 7 is necessary in the interests of certainty and the character and appearance of the area.

Based on the details submitted pursuant to condition 7, as shown on drawing ref. 22_1234 011 Rev 02, it is not demonstrated that the proposed site and slab levels would accord with the approved plans for the development, in that there would be no increase in levels.

From my reading of the Inspector’s decision, I am not persuaded that the works that had been or were being carried out on site prior to or during his consideration of the original proposal, whether lawfully or unlawfully, were deemed to be acceptable by him. Furthermore, I am not persuaded that such works and any alterations to the levels carried out in relation to a previous permission for holiday-let accommodation or for any other purposes, clarified or defined the then existing levels of the site and that, such levels were approved as part of the original permission.

Therefore, the details submitted for the purposes of condition 7 does not remove any ambiguity about the site and slab levels when compared to the previous or original site levels. Furthermore, a condition cannot be used to regularise or permit further development.

Without any evidence to the contrary, I have assessed the proposals on the basis that the levels details shown on the submitted plan are those which are currently in situ. The appeal site is within the open countryside, set within the [name] character area, which includes an open pastoral landscape, with land gently rising up from the river towards the A44 and beyond.

From my site observations, the existing appeal site levels and slab levels of the static caravans are set at a higher level than the surrounding field level. There is a notable sudden change in levels with an embankment around the existing hardstanding edge, which has planting and steps set into it. Additionally, there is a stable block and associated hardstanding to one side of the appeal site, which is at an appreciably lower ground level than the appeal site. Therefore, from my site observations together with the evidence provided, including the site history and Council’s photographs of the site before any development took place, it is likely that the appeal site levels have changed compared to what previously existed before any development took place.

When compared to the lower surrounding land levels along the riverbank and the gently rising landscape character, the sudden elevated site and slab levels makes the static caravans appear overly prominent and intrusive within the otherwise open, low lying rural landscape, particularly from the direction of the riverbank and certain viewpoints along nearby public footpaths.

Furthermore, even if a nearby business premises is visually dominant in the landscape and there is other development along the A44, this does not reduce the visual prominence of the appeal development within the landscape, due to its site and slab levels. As a result, the development appears overly dominant within the surrounding landscape, harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The judgement in Cathie, R (On the Application Of) v [name] and Chester Borough Council [2022] EWHC 2148 (Admin) relates to odour management matters rather than levels and so, is different to this appeal condition matter. However, even if the Council’s reasons for refusing the condition go beyond reasonable requirements, in this instance it is not unreasonable to require more information to satisfy the requirements of condition 7, in order to clarify the levels of the development and ensure no undue harm is caused to the character and appearance of the area.

In view of the above, the submitted details do not satisfy the requirements of condition 7, having regard to the reasons for the condition. The proposed details do not provide certainty about the levels and the development has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with Policies SWDPR22 and SWDPR34 of the SWDPR, whereby Part ii, bullet point 4 of Policy SWDPR22 requires all new gypsy sites to have no significant visual impact on the landscape that cannot be mitigated with the use of appropriate planting. Also, amongst other matters, Policy SWDPR34 requires development proposals to be appropriate to and integrate with the character of the landscape setting.

The actions or intentions of the Council do not affect my findings on the main issue. Although, in dismissing this appeal, the original permission for the two gypsy and traveller pitches would not be affected or revoked.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.