Appeal 6003401

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the site address from the appeal submission. For clarity, I have had regard to the submitted location plan and note that the proposed development is located in the field north of the A632 [site address] , opposite [address] and The Poplars.

The main issues are: - Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; - The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and landscape; - The effect of the proposal on highway safety with regards to access; - The effect of the proposal on trees; and - Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would this amount to very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

Policy SS10 of North East Derbyshire Local Plan (NEDLP) relates to development in the Green Belt. Point 2. of Policy SS10 states “the construction of new buildings will be regarded as inappropriate development and will not be permitted. Exceptions to this... are: a. buildings for the purposes of agriculture or forestry.” This policy reflects the wording in paragraph 154 a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The Councils objections to the proposed agricultural building is that it is isolated from the main group of farm buildings and that there is insufficient evidence to indicate whether the building is necessary. There is no requirement in Policy SS10 of the NEDLP or paragraph 154 a) of the Framework for an agricultural proposal to prove necessity. A proposal should generally be determined as applied for, unless the evidence firmly indicates that the proposal would not be a building for agriculture. The proposed plans indicate that the building would be an agricultural style structure and there does not appear to be any dispute that the building would form part of an existing farm. The location of the building may be isolated however, there is minimal evidence before me to suggest that the development would not be for agricultural purposes. I find that the proposed building would be a building for the purposes of agriculture and would not be contrary to Policy SS10 point 2a. of the NEDLP and paragraph 154 a) of the Framework.

Point 3 of Policy SS10 states that “other forms of development which may be appropriate in the Green Belt, provided it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with its purposes include: b. engineering operations.” This policy reflects the wording in paragraph 154 h) ii. of the Framework.

The proposed development includes an access track and a hardstanding area adjacent to the proposed agricultural building. Policy SS10 point 2a. of the NEDLP and paragraph 154 a) of the Framework are specific to “buildings” for agriculture. Access tracks and hardstanding areas are not buildings and are therefore engineering operations that form part of the proposal that need to be assessed with regards to Point 3b of the NEDLP and paragraph 154 h) ii. of the Framework. These elements therefore need to be assessed as to whether they preserve the openness of the Green Belt. In spatial terms, the laying of an access track and hardstanding adjacent to the building would not have a great impact on the openness of the site and the Green Belt.

Visual impacts also form part of the concept of openness of the Green Belt. The access track and hardstanding area would be a combination of compacted stone and tarmac, and this would be visually different from the existing field. The site is directly adjacent to a highway, and even with landscape screening, the access track and the hardstanding area, given its proposed materials, would be visibly prominent within the surrounding area. The access track and hardstanding area would also introduce vehicle movements to and from the proposed agricultural building and possibly the storage of vehicles or other agricultural items on the hardstanding area. It is noted that there is an existing building on the site which may have vehicles coming and going from it, however, these would be less noticeable given the size of the existing building and location of the existing access to this building. Due to the size and length of the proposed access and hardstanding area, access to the site would be more formalised and vehicle movements to and from the proposed building would be highly visible. The access track and hardstanding area would therefore have an intense visual impact on the openness of the site and the Green Belt.

In visual terms, the proposed engineering operations of the access track and the hardstanding area would have a greater impact on openness. The proposed development, on the whole, would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The proposal conflicts with Point 3b. of Policy SS10 of the NEDLP and paragraph 154 h) ii. of the Framework which seeks to safeguard the Green Belt from inappropriate development and impacts on openness.

The appeal site sits within open countryside designated as a Primary Area of [name] (AMES), which is an area identified as being the most sensitive areas of landscape within the District, and which is most likely to be negatively affected by change or development.

The area surrounding the appeal site is rural in character with agricultural fields being the predominant feature. The surrounding area, particularly along [site address] , does have a scattering of residential properties as well as some modest sized agricultural buildings. It is this rural environment of fields with a scattering of built development that contributes positively to the character of the area and surrounding landscape.

Whilst agricultural buildings are not uncommon features in active farming landscapes, the size of the proposed building would be excessive and a visual intrusion that would not be in keeping with the surrounding built development. The proposal would have a utilitarian form that would appear as an incongruous feature within the surrounding landscape. The amount of hardstanding required for the access track and the area immediately adjacent to the building would also be excessive and discordant features.

I have had regard to the appellants photomontage and viewpoints position plan, and I note that planting and landscape mitigation are proposed. However, given the scale, style and massing of the proposed development, this would not completely screen the development, and the proposal would be a detrimental intrusion into the landscape.

Accordingly, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and landscape. The proposal would not accord with Policies SS9 and SDC3 of the NEDLP and NE1 of the Holymoorside and Walton Parish Neighbourhood Plan (HWPNE) which seeks development to respect the form, scale and character of the landscape; and be sympathetic and not significantly detract from the distinctive landscape areas.

The appellant has made reference to other appeal decisions within [name] which indicate that agricultural buildings can be acceptable within AMES areas. Minimal evidence has been provided with regards to these other appeal decisions, and I cannot be sure that they are directly comparable to the appeal proposal, particularly with regards to location, development plan policies and specific development proposals. In any case, I have determined this appeal on its own merits.

The proposed development would include a new vehicular access from the public highway that would be for vehicles including modern articulated grain lorries and HGVs. The new access point would link to the established main farm access which is directly adjacent to the public highway.

At the junction where the access proposes to join the existing highway, there are differences in ground levels, with the highway being at a higher level than where the access is proposed. There is also an existing stone wall to the east of the junction as well as existing trees close to the junction that could interfere with visibility especially given the difference in ground levels.

Due to the type of vehicles that are proposed to be using the access, and from the evidence before me, I am not convinced that the proposed access is acceptable and would not cause undue harm to highway safety of road users.

The proposed development would have a harmful effect on highway safety in respect of the access. The proposal would be contrary to Policy ID3 of the NEDLP which seeks permission to be refused on transport grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

Trees along the south and west boundary of the site are covered by Tree Preservation Orders (TPO). Whilst the appellant indicates that the proposed access has been designed to avoid the root protection areas of the protected trees, there is no specific evidence which details specifically the extent of the tree roots. There are also trees that appear to be in the location where the proposed access meets the junction with the highway. There is no indication as to whether these trees are required to be removed.

The trees to the west of the appeal site appear to be extremely close to the existing building on the site, and therefore would also be close to the location of the proposed building. There is no compelling evidence which indicates how the demolition of the existing building and the construction of the proposed structure would affect the trees that are covered by TPOs.

From the evidence before me, I am not convinced that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on trees in the area. The proposal would be contrary to Policy SDC2 of the NEDLP and NE3 of the HWPNE which seeks development to provide protection for existing trees.

The proposed development would be the expansion of an existing rural enterprise with the appellants indicating there is a functional need by describing the arable farming production. A Biodiversity Net Gain scheme was submitted which forms an integral part of the proposal and secures both ecological enhancement and long-term landscape mitigation.

The appellant has expressed frustration with how the Council have engaged during and prior to the application stage. This includes not allowing time for additional information to be provided in relation to highways and trees during the application, and also the lack of a response to a post-decision pre-application submission. These matters however are not material planning considerations and they do not alter my findings above.

Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt and that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The proposal would be the expansion of a rural enterprise and there would be some ecological and landscape enhancements through the [name] scheme. These benefits, given the scale of the development, I attribute moderate weight. These benefits would not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified above, particularly given the importance the government gives to the protection of the Green Belt as reflected in the Framework.

For the reasons outlined above, therefore, other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm. Consequently, the very special circumstances needed to justify the development do not exist.

I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.