Appeal 6003420

The appeal is dismissed.

This appeal relates to the siting of a static caravan that is currently located on the appeal site. As the application is therefore retrospective, I have considered the appeal accordingly.

The main issues are: (i) whether the development is inappropriate in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; including the effect upon the openness of the Green Belt; (ii) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. (iii) if inappropriate, is the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the ‘very special circumstances’ necessary to justify the proposal?

The appeal site lies within the Green Belt. Paragraph 154 of the Framework sets out the forms of development that may be regarded as not inappropriate in the Green Belt, provided specified criteria are met. New buildings constitute inappropriate development unless they fall within one of the exceptions set out in criteria (a) to (h). Whilst a static caravan may not fall within the strict definition of a ‘building’, its presence nevertheless constitutes development.

The appellant has not clearly identified which, if any, of these exceptions (a to h) the proposal is considered to satisfy in order for it to be regarded as not inappropriate development. It is contended that the development is associated with, and ancillary to, the established equestrian activity on the site. It is also argued that the site comprises previously developed land and that the proposal amounts to limited infilling.

Taken together, these submissions appear to seek to rely on criterion (b), relating to the provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport and recreation, and criterion (g), which concerns the redevelopment of previously developed land. The extent to which the proposal satisfies the relevant tests within these provisions is addressed below. I have also considered criterion (h)(v.), relating to material changes in the use of land (such as changes of use for outdoor sport or recreation, or for cemeteries and burial grounds); provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it

The provision of sleeping accommodation for visitors to the equestrian activity does not, in my view, represent appropriate facilities for outdoor sport and recreation. No substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that such accommodation is necessary in the context of the existing activity. Whilst reference is made to animal welfare, there is no clear explanation as to why visitor accommodation of the form proposed is required to meet those needs, or why such needs could not be addressed by other means. I therefore find that the proposal does not comply with the requirements of criterion (b). Consequently, it is not necessary to consider openness in the context of this provision. This is notwithstanding the disagreement between the parties as to the lawfulness of the commercial equestrian use; that matter is not before me in this appeal.

Paragraph 154(g) of the Framework states that the redevelopment of previously developed land is not inappropriate in the Green Belt, provided it would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The appellant asserts that the appeal site is previously developed land as defined in the Framework, and this is not disputed by the Council. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to disagree.

A fundamental aim of Green Belt policy, as set out in paragraph 142 of the Framework, is to keep land permanently open. Openness has both spatial and visual dimensions.

The appeal site is located within a loose cluster of development in the open countryside, comprising a dwelling and associated equestrian buildings. The visibility of the static caravan from the surrounding area is limited to a significant degree by screening from surrounding structures. As such, the harm to visual openness of the Green Belt is very limited.

I have not been provided with evidence to demonstrate that the static caravan replaces a comparable existing structure. Therefore, by reason of its footprint, bulk and position between the dwelling and outbuildings, it consolidates and extends the built form within the cluster, introducing additional development into the Green Belt. This results in a reduction in overall spatial openness. However, I find that the degree of harm to spatial openness is limited given its location and modest scale.. It does not materially extend built development into otherwise open land, nor does it result in a disproportionate spread of development across the site

Taking these factors together, whilst the development results in some limited harm to the openness of the Green Belt, I find that this harm does not amount to substantial harm. Accordingly, the proposal satisfies the openness test set out in paragraph 154(g), and in this respect does not constitute inappropriate development.

The proposal does not comply with criterion (h)(v.) because as identified above, there will be some limited harm to the openness of the Green Belt which means openness is not preserved.

Drawing these matters together, and having regard to the above, I conclude that the development does not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. and there is no requirement to assess whether there are any very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. It does not conflict with Policies ST1 and ST8 of the Northumberland Local Plan or Section 13 of the Framework insofar as these relate to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The prevailing character of the wider area surrounding the small development cluster is rural in nature, comprising open countryside. This is reflected in the design, form and materials of surrounding buildings, which are typical of this setting and include stone, brick, timber and neutral render. Buildings in the immediate vicinity are likewise characteristic of rural construction and generally integrate well with their surroundings.

Whilst static caravans can be found in similar locations due to their semi-portable nature, this in itself does not justify development that fails to respect the character and appearance of the area. In this case, the static caravan is a flat-roofed structure, employing materials and a design that are markedly different from the surrounding built form.

By reason of its design, colour and construction materials, the static caravan contrasts with the established rural character of the area. This results in a form of development that appears uncharacteristic and not in keeping with its surroundings. Consequently, it fails to make a positive contribution to the rural setting and is harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

In addition, the static caravan introduces a more domestic appearance, which is materially at odds with the otherwise rural context. Activity associated with its use for short stays, including parking, the presence of domestic paraphernalia and the addition of a small terrace to the side of the static caravan, further reinforces this domestic character and adds to the overall visual harm.

Whilst the static caravan is screened to a significant degree by surrounding development, some views into the site remain from the surrounding area. Moreover, within the appeal site itself, the static caravan appears as a prominent and visually intrusive structure. In reaching this conclusion, I am satisfied that it is a well founded planning judgement rather than subjective aesthetic preference. This finding does not conflict with my conclusions on Green Belt, as openness is a distinct Green Belt concept concerned with the absence of built form, whereas character additionally relates to design, materials and the perception of domesticity.

For these reasons, the proposal conflicts with Policies QOP1 and QOP2 of the Northumberland Local Plan. These policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development makes a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness, maintains a harmonious relationship between built and natural features, and preserves the intrinsic character of the area.

It is stated that the static caravan is intended to serve the existing stables by providing short-stay accommodation directly linked to equestrian activity and animal welfare requirements. It is not intended for independent holiday letting or permanent occupation and is described as temporary in nature. However, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate why such accommodation is required. While the assertion that the equestrian use is materially constrained without on-site accommodation is acknowledged, no substantive justification has been submitted to indicate why this is harmful and measures to address this should therefore carry weight in favour of the development. I therefore attach this consideration limited weight.

The Design and [name] submitted with the application refers to the accommodation providing an “immersive experience” that allows guests to engage in feeding, grooming, and riding activities, thereby promoting equestrian tourism in a countryside setting. This suggests a focus on leisure and tourism rather than solely on animal welfare. In terms of promoting tourism, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate demand for this type of development. Whilst rural diversification is generally supported by Local Plan Policy STP 1, such support is contingent on proposals being sensitive to their surroundings. I attach limited weight to this consideration given the scale of the development and absence of identification of need.

The absence of harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, highway safety, and ecology does not represent a benefit of the development and is therefore afforded neutral weight in the planning balance. Similarly, the fact that the proposal relates to a static caravan and is therefore temporary in nature and capable of being removed with the site restored relatively easily, is also afforded neutral weight.

The imposition of a time-limited permission would not overcome the fundamental harm identified. The development results in harm to the character and appearance of the area, and this is not diminished by the temporary nature of the development for the period the development is in place. As such, a temporary permission would not address the policy conflict nor reduce the identified harm to an acceptable level.

I have considered whether the imposition of planning conditions could make the development acceptable. However, conditions would not overcome the fundamental in-principle objections to the proposal, namely the adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, any conditions seeking to restrict occupancy or tie the use to equestrian purposes would raise concerns regarding enforceability and precision. Paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that planning conditions must be necessary, relevant, enforceable, precise, and reasonable. In this case, I am not satisfied that such conditions could be framed to meet these tests or to adequately mitigate the identified harms.

While the development does not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, it does cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. This harm renders the proposal contrary to the development plan, and this consideration attracts significant weight.

The potential benefits of the development, as set out in the other considerations section, attract only limited weight in favour of the proposal. There is some personal benefit to the appellant in providing additional accommodation associated with the equestrian activity on the site. Whilst this may support a rural enterprise with links to the tourism and leisure sector and could be regarded as a form of rural diversification, only limited weight is attached to this consideration. No substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate a need for the development, including in relation to animal welfare requirements. Furthermore, the imposition of conditions, including any restriction on the duration of the permission, does not overcome the identified harm or the conflict with policy.

For these reasons, the other considerations in this case do not outweigh the harm identified.

The development conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, to suggest the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.