Appeal 6004041

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: - • whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area; • potential risks to the proposal arising from past mining activity; • the effect of the proposal on highway and pedestrian safety; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

The appeal site comprises an area of land close to the built up area along [address]. [address] is a Public Right of Way (PROW), an unmade Bridleway off [address]. The appeal site is accessed from [address]. The lane also serves an access to [address], [address] and another dwelling further down [address] plus stables.

The proposal is retrospective in so far as the detached lodge has been partly built and the two metal containers are on site. The lodge is not completed and not occupied and the alpaca farm has not commenced. Included in the appeal site is a row of aged garages and structures along the boundary with the PROW.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) explains that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It makes it clear that development is considered inappropriate unless it satisfies one of the exceptions cited in paragraphs 154 or 155. This is reflected in Local Plan Core Strategy Policy1 CS 4 and Local Plan Sites and Policies2 Policy SP 2. The proposal does not meet any of the cited exceptions and both parties agree that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. I agree with this.

For the above reasons, I conclude the proposal does not fall within the scope of the exceptions listed in paragraphs 154 or 155 of the Framework and therefore represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would be at odds with Local Plan Core Strategy Policy CS 4 and Policy SP 2 of Local Plan Sites and Policies and the Framework in this regard.

The Framework indicates that openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt with a key objective being to keep land permanently open. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) identifies factors which can be taken into consideration when assessing the impact of a development on Green Belt openness. It states that openness is capable of both spatial and visual aspects.

The appeal site is at a lower level than the houses on [address] with the land falling away further to the fields to the south-west. The lodge would be single storey in height and located close to [address] so that from the south, it and the containers, sited close by, are set against the backdrop of the built-up area which lessens their visual impact. Nevertheless, the effect on openness is not just about the degree to which a new building or structure would be visible to the public realm but it is also concerned about the spatial aspect of encroachment on openness.

Other than the existing garages and structures referred to above, I have no evidence as to what exactly was on the site prior to the siting of the containers and the commencement of the lodge. In particular, I have no evidence that there were any other structures on the land. The lodge would be a substantial four bedroom dwelling and the containers are large. The lodge and the containers extend beyond the rear gardens of the houses nearby and intrude into the open countryside. Therefore, they spread the urban form into the countryside by introducing substantial structures where previously there were none.

At the Hearing the appellant referred to clearing the site and improving its appearance, although this did not necessarily mean removing the garages. Work ceased on the advice of the Council’s Enforcement Officer. However, the bulk, massing and totality of the development would be substantial it would have a harmful impact on openness due to its spatial characteristics. 1 Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council – Rotherham Local Plan Core Strategy 2013 – 2028, [name] 2014. 2 Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council – Rotherham Local Plan Sites and Policies, [name] 2018.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the development results in moderate loss of openness to the Green Belt. As such, it is contrary to the requirements of the Framework.

The appeal site is on the edge of the rural and built-up areas. The residential properties along [address] mostly follow a linear pattern with the countryside characterised by its open fields and rolling landscape. The land falls away southwards down [address] and this rural bridleway demarks a change in the character of the surrounding area from urban to rural. The appeal site is within the rural area.

The appellant aims to improve the appearance of the site and is clearly willing to incorporate materials and landscaping in order to ensure it is as attractive as possible. I do not doubt these intentions and conditions could be imposed to secure appropriate materials and landscaping. However, the residential lodge would be a substantial four bedroomed structure and although simple in design and low in height due to it being flat roofed, it would be utilitarian in appearance and due to the elevated position in relation to the fields to the south-west and its proximity to the PROW, it would be visually intrusive. The steel containers are large and unattractive and although their appearance could be improved, they would still be visually intrusive in the rural area due to their size and combined massing.

For the reasons above, I conclude the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy SP 55 of the Local Plan Sites and Policies. This sets out general design principles aimed at ensuring development contributes positively to local character and distinctiveness and includes setting, size, scale and mass, amongst other things.

The Coal Authority’s consultation response to the planning application raises a fundamental concern about the proposal as the appeal site falls within a defined Development High Risk Area. It states that its records indicate three mine entries/shafts within the site with their potential zone of influence covering much of the site.

The Council and the appellant both consider that this is a technical matter that can be dealt with by condition although the Council indicate that further consultation with the Coal Authority would be necessary. Conditions have been suggested to address this issue which were discussed at the Hearing. This would involve site investigations and a declaration from a suitably qualified person confirming the site is, or has been made, safe prior to the occupation of the dwelling.

However, the response from the Coal Authority is strongly worded and the parties agree that past mining activity is a characteristic of the surrounding area, indeed for much of Rotherham. The depths of the entries/shafts referred to is unknown although the appellant’s local knowledge suggests that these are not deep mining shafts but represent open cast or shallow mining typical of the area.

Given that the proposal is for a residential property and, even if the Coal Authority’s plans are not absolutely accurate, there are potentially three shafts on the site with the whole of the site being within a defined high risk area. Whilst the suggested conditions indicate that risk is assessed before the dwelling is occupied and safety assured, I find this matter of great concern and one that must be addressed before planning permission can be granted.

For the reasons above, I conclude that in the absence of any formal assessment to accompany the proposal, there are potential harmful risks from past coal mining activities. Consequently there is conflict with Policy SP 54 of the Local Plan Sites and Policies, which states, amongst other things, that where there are adverse ground conditions caused by unstable land, development proposals should demonstrate that there is no significant harm, or risk of harm, to human health; that adverse ground conditions have been properly identified and safely treated; and that the land is suitable for its proposed use.

As stated above the appeal site is accessed from [address], a PROW which drops in level from [address]. It is fairly wide at its entrance and no concerns about visibility splays have been raised although parked cars on [address] interfere with views from the road and lane junction. [address] narrows to a pinch point close to the access points for [address] and [address] but it then widens and the gates to the appeal site are set back from the lane.

The PROW provides an access to pedestrians and vehicles in association with the existing dwellings and the stables further along the lane as well as to the appeal site. As a bridleway and PROW it provides an access for a variety of users. Typically, there is no separate facilities for pedestrians but any vehicles would be slow moving due to the width of the lane and its rough unmade surface.

The appellant already has a right of access to the site. Access to the proposed residential lodge is unlikely to result in such an increase in numbers as to cause undue harm. Also, there is space at the site’s entrance to pull in and allow another vehicle to pass. The appellant states that this occurs now.

Nearby residents have referred to [address] being an accident hot spot but I have no substantial evidence to support this claim. The Council’s concern relates to conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles on [address] rather than access concerns on [address]. I shall discuss the proposed alpaca farm in further detail later but given the size of the site and the scale of the proposal before me, including the storage containers, I would envisage that vehicular activity would be modest.

Despite the pinch-point, the lane widens sufficiently to allow vehicles to stop and allow pedestrians to pass. Likewise, it would not involve complicated manoeuvres to allow another vehicle to pass. The access to the appeal site is fairly close to the junction of [address] with [address] and therefore there would be no need for vehicles associated with the appeal proposal to travel southwards down the narrowing lane. Instead, they are more likely to use the access at [address]. Whilst the narrowness of the lane further south would lead to conflict should vehicles and pedestrians wish to pass at the same time, the location of the appeal site is such that its use is not likely to lead to any such conflict.

Section 9 of the Framework seeks to promote sustainable transport and when considering development proposals, it advises that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users3. In this case, I do not consider that the proposal would conflict with this and no harm to pedestrian and highway safety would occur as a result of this proposal.

The appellant has explained that family members would occupy the lodge and run an alpaca farm and in the interests of animal welfare and security, it is essential that there is a dwelling on the site. The business has not yet commenced and so the submitted Business Plan is based on research and an analysis of the likely scale, operational needs and functioning of the farm. The appellant states that it would be the first alpaca farm in Rotherham.

The appeal site is approximately one acre in size (0.4 hectares), part of which would be taken up with the lodge and the storage containers together with an area for access and parking. A gravel area has been laid already and part of the site is fenced. The Council refer to The British Alpaca Society which suggests one acre of land could support four to six alpacas. The intention is to start the business with five alpacas and the appellant considers the site sufficient for this purpose. However, I disagree due to the small amount of remaining land and bearing in mind that although food would be brought in, there would be little land available for grazing. A shelter is not proposed at this time and the appellant confirmed one is not essential but one may be required at a later date.

The appellant states that additional land is available to rent from a nearby farmer, this would amount to two or possibly three fields which the appellant pointed out to me on site. However, other than a verbal agreement, there is nothing before me that confirms that additional land would be available, for how long and at what financial cost to the business, as it is not included in the Business Plan.

The alpaca farm would mainly involve breeding five female alpacas to start with, increasing to eight within three years. The herd would be built up by retaining one of the young alpacas (cria) each year. Income would be generated from the sale of cria, each alpaca would typically give birth to one cria a year, and also from wool and manure.

The scale, scope, nature and details of how the farm would operate were discussed at the Hearing. It is clear that the appellant’s family see the development of an alpaca farm as a small family business but also as a lifestyle with an important aim being to involve the children in the farming duties. The appellant also envisages working with the community as part of the overall enterprise. An example of this would be taking alpacas into schools or engaging with community groups. The appellant’s family has researched how this could work and although the details are still in its early stages, the family is confident that the farm could successfully prosper in business terms as well as providing a new lifestyle.

Unfortunately, the evidence does not support the appellant’s expectations and I remain unconvinced that the appeal site is large enough to farm alpacas in any way other than a hobby. There is no substantial evidence that additional land will be available in the long term and despite the details put forward in the Business Plan, I find it flawed in terms of demonstrating a business that would be financially 3 Paragraph 115 of the Framework. viable. For example, the initial cost of purchasing the alpacas is not included as the appellant would fund these separately, and the appellant does not intend taking any kind of wage or salary. However, I accept that a new business may not be profitable straight away and it takes time to build one up.

The need for a dwelling on the site was discussed at the Hearing. The appellant is clear that the family needs to live on the site in the interests of the alpacas welfare and for security. No specific security issues were raised other than the appellant’s general comments that it is not safe to leave the site unsecured. A strong case for security was not put forward. More importantly to the appellant is that as the business would involve developing a breeding herd, ensuring healthy and successful births is essential. This specifically, the appellant states, requires an on-site presence at all times of the day and night.

The appellant states that he currently lives a couple of miles away but this is not close enough for on-site monitoring. The appellant’s family, who would mainly run the farm, also own a property a few miles away but they also consider that this too is not close enough. Also, the appeal site is very close to the residential area but the appellant states that properties do not come up for sale very often but in any case, the family has not looked at whether any would be available in the area. Regardless of the proximity of existing properties within the appellant’s and the family’s ownership and the potential for another property close by, all family members were adamant that none of these are or would be close enough and there would need to be living accommodation actually on the site itself.

The appellant has also not explored the option of a temporary structure that could easily be removed should the business be unsuccessful. Having said this, the timber lodge has not been set on a concrete slab and its foundations to date comprise concreting in timber supports. It does not include extensive foundations and the appellant states that it could be removed in the event of the business failing. However, the timber lodge is a substantial size and whilst I accept that it may be easier to demolish than a house made of bricks and mortar, it would still be a permanent structure. I consider that given the scale and nature of the lodge so far built and as proposed, a temporary permission would not be reasonable. A condition limiting the occupancy of the dwelling has been suggested and whilst this would tie the dwelling to the named occupants, the second part of the suggested condition would require its removal. I therefore consider that this restriction would fail the tests in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance, in particular on the basis of being sufficiently precise and reasonable.

Local Plan Sites and Policies Policy SP 3 is not referred to on the decision notice but both parties agreed at the Hearing that it is relevant. This relates to rural workers dwellings in the Green Belt and indicates that new houses in the Green Belt require special justification for planning permission to be granted. Such dwellings should relate to the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near to their place of work. The policy requires applicants to establish a functional need for a new dwelling to support rural business activity and provide evidence that the business is financially viable. The policy acknowledges that temporary accommodation may be given in the first instance until the business is established. Further advice is provided in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document for Development in the Green Belt4.

Notwithstanding my conclusions regarding the size of the proposed farming unit, I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently on the site. The evidence submitted is not sufficiently robust to meet the requirements of Local Plan Sites and Policies Policy SP 3 or the SPD.

In determining the planning application, the Council had accepted the appellant’s declaration that the proposal was exempt from [name] (BNG) as the application was a retrospective one. Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows planning applications for retrospective planning permission to be exempt from BNG. However, the proposal in this case is not entirely retrospective and although some of the site has been developed, some of it is vegetated and there is likely to be an ecological value.

The Council has raised the possibility of the proposal being exempt from BNG on the grounds that it would be a self-built/custom built dwelling. The Council suggests a condition to address this but during the discussion at the Hearing it was agreed that the condition was not sufficiently precise and a more appropriate mechanism for securing a self-build dwelling would be through a legal agreement. No legal agreement had been prepared. However, given my conclusions on my main issues, I do not intend to pursue this matter further.

The proposal would create a new dwelling for the appellant’s family and have benefits for their personal well-being and family life. The proposal would also enable the appellant to contribute to the local community by engaging with local schools and community groups with the animals. A dwelling here would also enable some family members to live and work on the site reducing the need to travel and reducing their carbon footprint. The appellant has utilised sustainable materials and expressed a willingness to incorporate sustainable measures into the dwelling for heating and power. However, most of these benefits are personal to the appellant’s family and those that are broader are very modest. For these reasons they can only be afforded limited weight.

The Framework makes it clear that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm, by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other circumstances.

Harm caused by inappropriateness carries substantial weight. I have also found moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt. I have also found other harm in terms of its effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the risk from past coal mining activity. I have not found harm in relation to highway and pedestrian safety and there would be benefits to the family and potentially the local community, although these would be limited. There is also a lack of other 4 Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council – Rotherham Local Plan Supplementary Planning [name].3 Development in the Green Belt July 2023 (SPD). identified harm but these would not outweigh the substantial weight caused by inappropriateness.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the very special circumstances required to clearly outweigh the harm caused by inappropriateness, and any other harm, do not exist. The scheme would conflict with the Framework and with Local Plan Core Strategy Policy CS 4, [name] 2, SP 3, SP54 and SP55 of the Local Plan Sites and Policies as well as the Council SPD Development in the Green Belt.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.