Appeal 6003160

The appeal is dismissed.

The development has already been carried out, and I have dealt with the appeal accordingly. This has had no bearing on my assessment of the merits of the appeal scheme.

The Council’s second reason for refusal refers to the proposal failing to demonstrate how it is served by an acceptable and appropriate means of access from the public highway. I saw during my site visit that the existing business, whose car park the appeal scheme seeks to extend, is accessed from [address] via a hard surfaced access track which runs alongside the group of residential and commercial buildings shown within the appellant’s ownership on the application drawing.

The Council’s appeal statement confirms that its second reason for refusal is a technical point as the access is not shown within the application site red line boundary or the appellant’s land ownership blue line boundary on the planning application location plan. The Council has not raised any technical concerns about the appropriateness of the access having regard to matters such as its Green Belt location, character and appearance and highway safety. Moreover, its lawfulness has not been challenged, and it is not included within the description of development of the appeal scheme.

As such, having regard to the above and the evidence before me, I am satisfied that there is no need for me to consider this matter any further as part of my determination of this appeal.

The site lies within the Green Belt and so the main issues are: • Whether or not the development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • 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; and • If the development is inappropriate, whether harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would this amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development.

The appeal site lies in a rural location to the northwest of Lymington within the South West Hampshire Green Belt (the SWHGB). It comprises a rectangular shaped strip of land measuring approximately 23m by 5m. It forms part of a wider parcel of land within the appellant’s ownership which includes a commercial car storage business immediately adjacent to the front of the site and an agricultural field to the rear. There are also two residential properties within this area of land.

The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It confirms that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. It goes on to state that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraphs 154 and 155 explicitly set out which forms of development are considered not to be inappropriate in the Green Belt.

Policy ENV2 of the New Forest District outside the New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016-2036 [name]: Planning Strategy (6 July 2020) (the LPP1) affirms that the openness and permanence of the SWHGB will be preserved with particular regard to its stated purposes and national Green Belt policy and that development proposals in the Green Belt will be determined in accordance with national planning policy. As such, this policy conforms with the provisions of the Framework and I afford it weight in my decision.

The information before me is that permission was allowed in May 2013, via an enforcement appeal decision1 for the use of the adjacent land and former barn to the west of the appeal site for the ‘storage of motor vehicles prior to sale or otherwise only....’ I saw during my site visit that this use is currently operating from the site.

The appeal scheme extends the commercial car storage use land beyond that permitted by the May 2013 appeal and into agricultural land to the rear. I saw during my site visit that this has taken place. The ground in question has been gravelled and is used for the parking of cars, and a post and wire fence has been erected to enclose it.

Whilst not precisely defined in Section 336 of the 1990 Act, the changes to the physical nature of the land involved in the appeal scheme mean that it can 1 [name] 13/10129 reasonably be considered to comprise an ‘engineering operation’, for the purposes of considering Green Belt impact.

Paragraph 154 h) ii) of the Framework establishes that engineering operations do not comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt, provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

Openness in terms of the Green Belt can have a spatial as well as a visual aspect, and a consideration of openness is essentially a matter for the decision-maker on a case-by-case basis.

The appeal site comprises an area of approximately 115 sqm. As such, it only relates to a small area of land in relation to the overall size of the agricultural field of which it originally formed a part. However, notwithstanding this, the appeal scheme results in a loss of spatial openness of the appeal site because of the laying of the gravel/hoggin hardstanding surface and the placing and manoeuvring of cars thereon.

Visually, the development would be screened in views from the west and in wider views from the public realm due to its set back position from [address] behind the existing buildings on the appellant’s land. However, it would be visible in views from the undeveloped remaining agricultural land within the appellant’s ownership and from neighbouring land to the south of the site.

The appeal scheme extends built development into grassed land which is notably flat and open. As such, there is a visual impact on Green Belt openness arising from the three-dimensional aspect of the proposal comprising the positioning of cars on the land.

Moreover, impacts upon the openness of the appeal site also arise because of noise and activity associated with the extended commercial car parking area involving staff and customer presence as well as the manoeuvring and parking of vehicles.

The appellant states that the additional area of hardstanding is needed to replace a parking and turning area which was displaced because of the construction of a canopy to the rear of the former farm building. However, I saw during my site visit that vehicles were parked under this open canopy structure.

Moreover, the information before me is that this structure was granted planning permission in April 20242 subject to it remaining open-sided in the interests of protecting the openness of the SWHGB. As such, and in the absence of detailed parking and manoeuvring layout plans showing the arrangements before and after the building of the canopy, I am not persuaded that the existence of the canopy justifies the appeal scheme, having regard to Green Belt openness impacts.

I therefore conclude that, having regard to the scale and nature of the development, the car park element of the appeal scheme has a localised and modest impact upon the openness of the Green Belt in both spatial and visual terms. 2 [name] 23/10486 Lean-to canopy – Granted 15 April 2024

The fencing part of the appeal scheme does not fall within any of the exceptions listed in Paragraph 154 of the Framework and therefore comprises inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The Council considers that, having regard to the New Forest District Green Belt Study (2016) (the GBS), and pending the carrying out of a new up-to-date GBS, the appeal site may lie within ‘grey belt’ land, having regard to the definition of such in Annexe 2 of the Framework.

Even if this were to be the case, the commercial development does not meet criterion b of Paragraph 155 of the Framework, as there is no cogent evidence before me that there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. As such, as there is a requirement to meet all the criteria of Paragraph 155, the appeal scheme cannot be regarded as not being inappropriate having regard to that paragraph of the Framework.

For the above reasons, the appeal scheme would be contrary to LPP1 Policy ENV2. It would not comprise an exception to inappropriate development when assessed against Paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework. It fails to safeguard the countryside from encroachment, one of the Framework’s stated 5 purposes of the Green Belt and does not comply with the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.

The post and wire boundary fencing to the extended parking area is similar in design to that which bounded the eastern edge of the car park prior to the implementation of the appeal scheme. This design of fencing is commonplace and appropriate within a countryside environment. Moreover, as the scheme involves the repositioning of a similar form of enclosure to within approximately 5 m of the original fencing, I am satisfied that this element of the appeal scheme does not materially harm the rural character of the area.

In allowing the enforcement appeal in May 2013 and granting permission for motor vehicle storage on the appellant’s land, the appeal Inspector acknowledged that hardstanding with vehicles stored on it comprised a visually harmful feature within the context of the surrounding fields and that a reduction in its extent would be beneficial and ensure that the commercial use could not become more extensive externally.

Prior to the implementation of the appeal scheme, the eastern boundary of the hard surfaced commercial parking area aligned with the rear boundary of the residential curtilage of the adjacent dwelling. As such, there was a compact layout of built development which did not extend eastwards beyond the easternmost part of the adjacent residential site.

The appeal scheme noticeably extends beyond this line forming a visually incongruous projection of commercial development into the open flat fields which wrap around the rear-most parts of the residential and car storage sites. The protrusion of hardstanding with vehicles stored thereon, represents a significant visual intrusion into the undeveloped green and open character of the field, which forms an integral part of the prevailing agrarian landscape. The result is an urbanising encroachment into rural grassland which harmfully erodes the green and open nature of the field which forms part of the intrinsic landscape character of the countryside within which the appeal site lies.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the appeal scheme results in material harm to the intrinsic rural character and appearance of the countryside. As such, it is contrary to LPP1 Policies ENV3 and ENV4, and Policy DM22 of the New Forest District outside the National Park Local Plan Part 2: Sites and Development Management (2014). These policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure that new development comprises a high quality design that contributes positively to local distinctiveness and successfully integrates into the local landscape context, and that rural employment/business development should not be harmful to the rural character of the area by reason of visual impact.

For similar reasons, the appeal scheme is also contrary to Chapters 12 and 15 of the Framework which seek to achieve well-designed places and conserve and enhance the natural environment.

The extended car park is used in connection with, and contributes to the operation of, the existing car storage business. Whilst the appellant states that the appeal scheme is required to replace displaced parking and turning space because of the construction of the rear canopy extension to the building, no substantive evidence has been submitted in respect of any associated resulting economic benefits such as sustaining or expanding the existing business or creating new jobs.

As such and noting that cars are still parked under the canopy structure, which is an addition to the building that the appellant chose to construct, I attach minimal weight to any economic benefits resulting from the appeal scheme.

The appellant suggests the imposition of either a ‘temporary’ condition limiting the duration of the permission, or a ‘personal’ condition limiting the duration of the permission to the period that it is required by the appellant. However, no specific justification is provided by the appellant for either condition.

Moreover, there is no evidence before me that the appeal scheme meets any of the circumstances considered by the Planning Practice Guidance to justify the appropriateness of such conditions3. As such, and having regard to Paragraph 56 of the Framework, I do not find that such conditions would overcome the harm I have identified. Nor do I consider that they would be necessary and reasonable having regard to the tests set out in Paragraph 57.

The appeal scheme represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined by the Framework. The Framework indicates that this is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Moreover, the development results in a modest loss of spatial and visual openness, thereby adversely impacting upon one of its main purposes of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. I have also found harm to the character and appearance of the area. I attach moderate weight to this harm, having regard to the modest area of land involved. 3 Paragraph: 014 [name]: 21a-[phone] and Paragraph: 015 [name]: 21a-[phone]

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. Government policy dictates that, in carrying out the balancing exercise, substantial weight is to be given to any harm caused to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness.

I conclude that economic benefits associated with the appeal scheme, to which I have attributed minimal weight based on the evidence before me, do not clearly outweigh the substantial harm that the development causes to the Green Belt. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. As such, the development conflicts with LPP1 Policy ENV2 and Chapter 13 of the Framework which aim to protect Green Belt land against in appropriate development.

The development conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, to suggest that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.