Appeal 6003311

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission has been sought retrospectively. At my site visit I noted that an area of paving has been laid but that the bin and bikes stores have not been erected. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the submitted drawings.

The main issues are:  whether the appeal site would be an appropriate location for the proposal, having regard to the Council’s spatial strategy, access to services and facilities and the use of sustainable transport;  the effect of the proposal on the provision of agricultural and equestrian facilities within the district;  the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the Hatfield Forest Site of Special Scientific Interest and National Nature Reserve; and  the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area;

Policy DPS2 of the East Hertfordshire District Plan 2018 (DP) sets out a broad hierarchy for development, directing development to sustainable brownfield sites in the first instance followed by sites in urban areas, urban extensions and then within villages. Policy GBR2 seeks to protect rural areas as a valued resource and restricts the type of development within these areas. One type of development permitted is the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL), in sustainable locations, where appropriate to the character, appearance and setting of the site and/or surrounding area.

[name] have concluded below, the site comprises an agricultural use. Therefore, in line with the definition set out by the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), whilst part of the appeal site is PDL, the barn and its associated land cannot be considered as such.

The appeal site is located some distance from the limited services and facilities provided within the local area, including a church, a pub, a village hall. The bus service within the area is extremely limited. Although the future residents of the proposal may contribute to the vitality and viability of this rural community, the contribution that a single dwelling would make would be modest. Harlow is the nearest settlement which would cater for key day-to-day services, facilities and employment and is approximately 1.5 miles away. The route to Harlow comprises large portions of narrow, unlit roads with no dedicated pedestrian footways.

Whilst the traffic generation associated with one additional dwelling would be modest, the likelihood of journeys using sustainable modes of transport would be reduced due to the distances involved and desirability of the routes. Sustainable transport solutions vary between urban and rural areas, however, there would be a over reliance on private motor vehicles for even the most basic day-to-day requirements.

I note the comprehensive plan for the wider Gilston Area as set out by Policy GA1. However, the evidence before me indicates that it will be a number of years before the strategic plan as envisioned will begin to be implemented. As such, while the appeal site may become well connected in the future, in the absence of any certainty regarding the delivery of the strategic plan, this matter is of limited relevance in my consideration of this appeal.

The Framework allows for the development of isolated homes in the countryside where the proposal would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance the immediate setting. However, the proposal before me is not for an isolated home, I have no substantiated evidence to suggest that the garage is redundant or disused and as concluded below, the proposal would only conserve the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above, the appeal site is not an appropriate location for the proposal, having regard to the Council’s spatial strategy, access to services and facilities and the use of sustainable transport. It conflicts with policies INT1, DPS2, GBR2 and TRA1 of the DP and the Framework where they seek to protect the countryside and direct new development to areas with good access to services and facilities, with a range of sustainable transport options.

Aside from the garage subject of this appeal, the site comprises a barn and a stable. The Council considers these buildings to be in agricultural and equestrian use respectively. The appellant claims that the site is not within either agricultural or equestrian use, however, they also state that the land forms part of a small holding with the ponies who occupy the adjacent field within the blue line boundary used solely to keep the grass down. At the time of my site visit I noted both the aforementioned buildings as well as a variety of domestic and agricultural items, including a tractor.

The appellant states the site does not operate as a commercial enterprise and the presence of ponies does not in itself indicate an equestrian use. Nevertheless, due to the presence of a barn and stables and the site forming part of a small holding, I consider that the appeal site does comprise agricultural and equestrian uses.

The proposal would change the use of the barn and stable, resulting in the loss of agricultural and equestrian facilities. Regardless of whether the facilities form part of a functioning business, contribute to local employment or generate income, [name] ED2 and CFLR6, seek to protect such facilities and require that proposals that result in the loss of agricultural or equestrian facilities can demonstrate that the current use is no longer needed or viable. I have not been provided with any substantive evidence as to the provision of facilities within the area and whether the barn or stables on the appeal site are still required to satisfy local need.

As such, I must take a precautionary approach and conclude that the proposal would harm the provision of agricultural and equestrian facilities within the district. The proposal would conflict with [name] ED2 and CFLR6 as outlined above.

Natural England (NE) has advised the Council that visitor activity is having an adverse effect on the Hatfield Forest Site of Special Scientific Interest and National Nature Reserve (Forest) and that visits from future residents from new developments would exacerbate this.

Policy NE1 of the DP is consistent with the Framework and sets out that proposals which are likely to have a detrimental impact which adversely affects the integrity of a designated site will not be permitted unless there are material considerations which clearly outweigh the need to safeguard the nature conservation value of the site.

The site lies within the relevant Zone of Influence, and the development would increase the number of dwellings within the district, and so the development would, when considered in combination with other development, result in a likely significant effect on the integrity of the Forest as a result of recreational pressures.

A Strategic Access Management and [name] (SAMM) has been adopted by the Council which incorporates strategic mitigation measures to be delivered to avoid adverse impacts where appropriate. This provides a strategic approach to mitigating recreational pressures on the Forest through the securing of financial contributions for access management schemes and monitoring proposals. As this is an agreed approach with NE the proposed development can be assessed within the context of the SAMM. On this basis I consider that this is an appropriate approach to mitigating identified harms.

Whilst the appellant states that a planning obligation can be provided prior to the determination of the appeal to secure the required SAMM contribution, I do not have such an obligation before me. The appellant also suggests that the required planning obligation could be secured via condition, however a suitable condition has not been suggested, and I am not satisfied that such a condition would be enforceable. As such, the necessary mitigation measures in relation to recreational pressures have not been secured.

Therefore, I must take a precautionary approach and conclude that the proposal would harm the integrity of the Forest. It would conflict with Policy NE1 of the DP and the Framework which amongst other things requires development to avoid impacts on sites of nature conservation value wherever possible and provide mitigation measures where adverse impacts are unavoidable.

The area is rural, with sporadic development, made up of small groups of dwellings with verdant gardens or large individual properties within substantial plots, all of which are separated by fields or areas of woodland. The appeal site comprises a yard associated with [site address] containing a garage, barn and stable. There are raised beds and a greenhouse as well as a variety of domestic and agricultural items, including garden furniture, a car and a tractor. The site is enclosed by a mixture of post and rail fencing and mature planting.

Despite the rural location, the appeal site has a strong visual connection with [site address] and although visible from [site address] to the north, is distinct from the surrounding countryside. I note the Councils concerns regarding the addition of areas of hardstanding, the creation of a garden, the presence of vehicles and the incorporation of domestic paraphernalia. However, the site currently incorporates such items alongside those of an agricultural character.

No external changes are proposed to the garage with access arrangements already in place. Future development could be controlled via the removal of permitted development rights and appropriate landscaping could be secured via condition. As such the proposal would not result in further encroachment into the countryside, conserving the rural character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. It would accord with policies HOU12, GBR2, DES2 and DES4 where amongst other things, collectively they require that development to be of a high standard, conserving the character and appearance of the of the area and the districts landscape and not involve a harmful incursion into the countryside. It would also accord with the Framework where it requires development to protect valued landscape, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

The Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply as set out in the Framework. A previous appeal1 concluded that the Council could only demonstrate between 4.2 and 4.49 years. The Council now claim 4.42-4.72 years housing land supply can be demonstrated whereas the appellant suggests that the figure is as low as 3.4-3.7 years.

The development would provide an additional dwelling, efficiently reusing an existing building with a reduced environmental impact compared to a new build 1 Appeal Reference: APP/J1915/W/24/3340497 development. Whilst the Framework seeks to boost the supply of housing, the social and economic benefits of one dwelling would be limited.

The appeal site lies within the setting of the adjacent [name] listed [name]. In so far as is relevant to this appeal, its significance is derived from its historic interest and architectural character. As the scheme would not alter the external appearance of the appeal property, it would preserve the significance of the listed asset. In addition, there would be no harm to highway safety or the living conditions of neighbouring residents. Nevertheless, this would be expected of any well-designed scheme and are therefore neutral matters which neither weigh in favour of nor against the proposal.

The fact that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply triggers the circumstances in paragraph 11 d) of the Framework. However, in this case, the application of policies in the Framework that protect Sites of Special Scientific Interest provide a clear reason for refusing the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 11d)(i). As such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework and the benefits of the proposal, that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.