Appeal 6004081

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: i) Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the development plan policy and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) including the effect on openness; ii) The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; iii) Whether the location is appropriate for the development having regard to the countryside location and its accessibility by public transport; iv) If the development is inappropriate, whether the harm caused 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 development in the Green Belt.

The appeal site lies in the Green Belt and comprises land associated with [name] driving range and miniature golf course located adjacent to the A537 [site address] . It a roughly rectangular mown grassed area next to the access drive and existing golf facility car park. The appeal proposal is for three padel courts together with glass screens, lighting columns, and landscaping.

The Framework confirms that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and identifies openness as an essential characteristic. Unless the appeal site meets the Framework’s definition of Grey Belt, which has not been put to me by the main parties, development is inappropriate unless an exception applies.

Exceptions relevant to the appeal proposal are described in parts b) and g) of paragraph 154 of the Framework. Part b) includes the provision of appropriate facilities including buildings for outdoor sport and recreation as long as the facilities preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. Part g) refers to the redevelopment of previously developed land which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Turning first to paragraph 154(b), the proposal would provide facilities for outdoor sport, therefore the key question is whether it would preserve Green Belt openness. Openness can be both visual as well as spatial. The area containing the appeal site is currently open, flat, and undeveloped and strongly contributes to maintaining openness in the context of the existing golf centre development. Although the sides of the three padel courts would be constructed using glass and mesh, they would have an appreciable footprint within the appeal site. With the lighting columns and the engineered bund, they would introduce built form and landform change adding to the developed area in the vicinity and resulting in a significant loss of spatial openness which would not be mitigated by the screening to be provided by the bund and planting.

Visually, the open frontage allows long views across the site and beyond. The bund and landscaping may partially screen the proposed padel courts from some views, but the courts, floodlights and bund would interrupt some long views and read as engineered features in an otherwise open setting, including where viewed above or between new or existing planting. Even if partly set down, the enclosure and lighting columns would be substantial new structures in a currently open area which would reduce openness visually.

Accordingly, overall, the proposal would cause harm to openness. Therefore, Green Belt openness would not be preserved, and the appeal proposal does not gain support from paragraph 154b).

Paragraph 154g) refers to previously developed land (PDL). The Framework defines PDL as land that has been lawfully developed and is (or was) occupied by a permanent structure, together with any associated fixed surface infrastructure, and it can also include the curtilage of that developed land (but it should not be assumed that all land within the curtilage is developed).

In this context, “curtilage” is not simply the planning unit, ownership boundary, or the fact that land sits within the same perimeter fence. It is the land that is genuinely part and parcel of the developed area, typically the immediate land around the buildings and hardstanding that is closely related to them in layout and function (for example, access, circulation, servicing, or a clearly defined managed forecourt). Curtilage can include some undeveloped ground, where it is convincingly associated with the developed land, but it does not automatically sweep in all remaining open land within the same enclosure.

In this case, the driving range building, mini golf, and the car parking areas are the elements that plainly constitute previously developed land. By contrast, the extensive unused grassed area to the right of the access (opposite the car park) is open, flat ground with no permanent structures and no fixed surface infrastructure. Although it is mown and presented neatly, that management is not, of itself, physical development, and it does not have an obvious function related to the rest of the developed areas. Accordingly, on the evidence available, in my judgment, the open grassed area (including the proposed padel court location) is not previously developed land and so the appeal proposal does not benefit from this exception.

Green Belts are addressed in Policy PG3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (CELPS). It is broadly consistent with the Framework but predates the current version of the Framework so does not include the reference to buildings contained in paragraph 154b) in respect of the exception for facilities for outdoor sport. Furthermore, the wording in the CELPS in respect of limited infilling or redevelopment of previously developed land does not refer to a material change of use and its proviso about harm to the Green Belt has a lower bar than the substantial harm referred to in paragraph 154g) of the current Framework. However, as I have discussed above, I have found that neither of the exceptions apply for reasons not related to the differences between the Framework and the adopted local plan.

[name] have found that neither exception applies, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the development plan policy and the Framework, and it would have an adverse effect on openness.

The visual impact of the existing driving range building is mitigated by being significantly set back from the road by parking hardstanding and the open flat grassed area forming the appeal site. The appeal proposal’s box like glass and mesh enclosures, together with additional floodlighting, would appear visually incongruous in this location and would result in a harmful cumulative impact on the rural character of the area, creating a more developed and urbanised appearance. Although a bund and landscaping are proposed along the eastern and southern boundaries, the proposed padel courts would remain clearly visible from the west. Moreover, the bund would itself appear as an artificially discordant feature in the landscape in this location. Overall therefore, the appeal proposal would erode the rural setting of the existing facilities.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such it would conflict with policies SE1, SE4, and SD2 of the CELPS in respect of their requirements for developments to make a positive contribution to their surroundings, conserve the landscape character and quality, and contribute positively to an area’s character and identity creating or reinforcing local distinctiveness.

The appeal site is in a countryside location being about one kilometre from Ollerton and 2.3 kilometres from Chelford. The nearest public transport option is a bus service between Macclesfield and Knutsford from a bus stop within theoretical walking distance approximately one kilometre away in Ollerton. The route to the bus stop is described as a footway but is, in practice, a narrow tarmac margin adjacent to the highway, at times reduced to little more than a grass verge. While a kerb is present, the limited available width and inconsistent surfacing alongside a the A537 with a fifty miles per hour speed limit mean its attractiveness as a walking route is materially diminished.

Although there is a train station in Chelford, this is 2.3 kilometres away, and while it possible that some customers of the proposed facility may choose to cycle and use the train or cycle from nearby settlements, to do so would require cycling along a class A road with no dedicated cycle lane. Accordingly, while sustainable transport options exist, future users of the padel courts would not perceive them to be readily accessible as required by policy SC2 of the CELPS and realistically most trips would be made by private motor vehicle.

Locating the proposed padel courts next to existing golfing facilities, may enable some linked trips to be made. However, the two sports are not closely related, and there is no clear evidence before me to indicate the projected numbers of customers of one facility who would stay and use the other.

The appellant refers to a scheme for housing1located approximately 250 metres east of the appeal site which was found by the Council to be a sustainable site for housing having regard to its accessibility to transport, services, and facilities. I have had regard to this, but its relevance is limited because it related to residential development where the assessment about sustainability has a broader context considering accessibility to a variety of services for day to day living, and national policy to significantly boost housing supply.

While the countryside location was considered acceptable for a golf facility, the appeal proposal is for an unrelated sport which requires significantly less space. I acknowledge the appellant’s contention that there are limited opportunities for development for recreational uses within urban areas due to the demand for land outside the Green Belt land for residential uses. Nevertheless, this does not demonstrate that a countryside location is necessary for the appeal proposal.

Using the existing golf facility’s buildings, utilities, parking, and access would reduce the extent of additional built development, hardstanding and servicing works that would otherwise be required for a standalone facility. Nonetheless, this does not outweigh the conflict with planning policy for outdoor sports facilities outside settlement boundaries.

Therefore, I conclude that the location is not appropriate for the development proposed having regard to the countryside location and its accessibility by public transport. It would conflict with policy RUR6 of the Cheshire East Site Allocations and Development Policies Document ([name]), and policy SC2 of the CELPS with regard to their requirements for outdoor sports facilities to be readily accessible by public transport, walking and cycling, to demonstrate that a countryside location is necessary and to not unacceptably affect the amenity and character of the surrounding area or landscape.

The appellant has cited a recent permission at [name] Club2 as a comparable scheme which is therefore material to the appeal proposal. The evidence available to me indicates that the Adlington application was materially different to the appeal proposal. In that case, the padel courts would be largely screened from external views, were closely associated with existing buildings and benefitted from a location on the edge of a settlement with access to established 1 LPA reference: 22/0783M 2 LPA reference: 25/0979/FUL footpath and cycle networks. In contrast, the appeal proposal would be more exposed, visually prominent, and less sustainably located. As such, the I give the Adlington decision limited weight in my determination.

The Framework advises that once Green Belts have been defined, local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance their beneficial use, such as looking for opportunities to provide access, and for outdoor sport and recreation. The appeal proposal would provide an additional outdoor facility for participation in a growing sport on a site adjacent to existing sports facilities, the principle of which is supported by Sport England in their consultation response. This weighs strongly in favour of the proposal.

Furthermore, the appeal proposal would allow an existing business to expand. The Framework supports development enabling economic growth, in particular the sustainable expansion of all types of business in rural areas including leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside. Given my findings on the appeal proposal’s sustainability and its effects on the character and appearance of the area, this weighs in its favour but only moderately.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is by definition harmful. Substantial weight should be attached to any harm to the Green Belt. The appeal proposal would result in harm to Green Belt openness, would harm the character and appearance of the area, and would not be an appropriate location for the development having regard to the local plan policies concerning development of sports facilities in the countryside and accessibility by sustainable transport.

Taking the other considerations discussed above together, the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is not clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify development in the Green Belt. Moreover, the proposal is contrary to the Framework and to policies PG3, SE1, SE4, SD2 and SC2 of the CELPS and policy RUR6 of the [name] and therefore the development plan as a whole.

Accordingly, for the reasons given above, I dismiss the appeal.