Appeal 6004656

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues of the appeal are: • whether the proposed development would be inappropriate in the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed development on the openness and the purposes of including land within the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the [name] and Fringes Special Landscape Area (the SLA); and • whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm so as to amount to very special circumstances.

Policy GB1 of the Calderdale Local Plan1 (LP), indicates that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate development within the Green Belt except in specified circumstances. This includes the provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor recreation. The Policy goes onto explain that other forms of development are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, including engineering operations. In both cases this is subject to the proposal preserving the openness of the Green Belt and not conflicting with the purposes of including land within it

These aspects of LP Policy GB1 are consistent and largely replicate sections of paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Accordingly, full weight is ascribed to these aspects of the Policy. 1 Calderdale Local Plan 2018/19-2032/33, [name], [name] 2023

The proposed holiday lodges would be buildings which are used as tourist accommodation, providing access to the nearby fishing lake, tennis court, and network of public footpaths and cycle routes. As such, they would be buildings used as appropriate facilities for outdoor recreation.

Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 defines engineering operations as including the formation or laying out of a means of access to highways. The creation of the proposed access and car parking area would constitute engineering operations.

I therefore consider that the proposed development may not be inappropriate within the Green Belt, subject to it preserving the openness of the Green Belt and not conflicting with the purposes of including land within it.

The concept of openness of the Green Belt has both a spatial aspect and a visual aspect. Spatially, the proposal would result in the construction of a moderate amount of built development within the appeal site, which is largely undeveloped. Also, the proposal would introduce a tourist use to the appeal site. Although the proposed tourist accommodation would be small scale, it would result in an increase in activity within the site. Consequently, in spatial terms, the proposal would have a significantly harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt.

The appeal site is located in an area of woodland, within an undulating landscape. As such, long distance views of the proposed development would be limited. Following a recent storm event several trees were damaged. The appellant has subsequently removed some trees but has planted over 200 new trees. Once these trees mature, long distance views into the site would be further screened.

The proposal could be supported by a landscaping scheme, which could be secured by condition. Additional planting would further improve the screening of the proposed development. Moreover, the proposed holiday lodges would be modest in size, the car parking area would be finished with Grasscrete, and the access track would be finished with a porous hardcore. These aspects would further reduce the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt in visual terms.

I acknowledge that the appellant has applied to divert the public right of way (PROW) which runs through the appeal site. Until that application has been determined, only limited weight can be ascribed to the proposed amended route. Nonetheless the proposed holiday lodges and car parking area would be well screened in views from the proposed amended route, but the proposed access track would be highly visible.

Notwithstanding the above, during my site visit I observed that the existing route of the PROW is essentially impassable due to the presence of a stream and trees. Accordingly, views of the proposed development from the existing route of the PROW are unlikely to be experienced. Therefore, when assessing the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, in visual terms, the weight I ascribe to views from the existing route of the PROW is reduced.

In visual terms, the proposal would have a limited but harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt. Nonetheless, when considering both the spatial and visual aspects, the proposal would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt.

One of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. As above, the proposal would result in the construction of a moderate amount of development within a largely undeveloped site. It should also be noted that the appeal site is not within a settlement. Consequently, the proposal would result in the encroachment of development into the countryside. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.

The LP predates the latest version of the Framework, which introduced the concept of grey belt land. Therefore, the LP does not consider the exception to inappropriate development specified within paragraph 155 of the Framework. Paragraph 155 explains that development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate subject to certain criteria. This includes where the development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes, taken together, of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan.

The definition of grey belt land within the Framework includes land that does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b) or (d) in paragraph 143 of the Framework. It also excludes land where the application of the policies relating to areas or assets in footnote 7, excluding Green Belt, would provide a strong reason for refusing development.

As set out above, the appeal site is within the countryside and is not within a settlement. Therefore, it does not contribute to checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up area. The appeal site is close to Halifax but is a significant distance from any other town. As such, it does not contribute to preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another. Also, given its separation from Halifax, the appeal site does not contribute to preserving the setting and special character of an historic town. Furthermore, the policies relating to areas and assets specified in footnote 7 of the Framework, other than the Green Belt, do not provide a strong reason for refusing development. I therefore consider that the appeal site comprises of grey belt land.

Taking the above into account, the proposal would utilise grey belt land and there is no evidence to suggest that the development of a small parcel of the Green Belt would undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across Calderdale. As such, the proposal would comply with part (a) of paragraph 155 of the Framework.

Part (b) of paragraph 155 of the Framework requires there to be a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed for it to not be inappropriate in the Green Belt. [name] provided a neutral response to the planning application where they highlighted the economic benefits provided by overnight visitors. It went on to state that their research and records show that the local accommodation market is far from saturated. These comments do not demonstrate there is an unmet need for the proposed development. Similarly, the presence of LP policies supporting tourist accommodation does not indicate there is an unmet need for it. Accordingly, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would comply with part (b) of paragraph 155 of the Framework.

Part (c) of paragraph 155 of the Framework indicates that the proposed development would need to be in a sustainable location, for it to not be inappropriate in the Green Belt.

There are limited services and facilities in proximity to the appeal site which would support tourists’ day-to-day needs. For example, the nearest food shops are within Halifax. To walk or cycle to these shops, future occupiers of the accommodation would have to travel a moderate distance along narrow, unlit, rural roads which do not have a continuous footpath. The topography of the area is also undulating, so parts of these journeys would include travelling significantly uphill. At night or during inclement weather this journey would, at best, be unpleasant and, at worst, it would be unsafe. Furthermore, I note that the appeal site is in proximity to a network of footpaths and cycle routes, but they would largely be recreational routes and would not offer a suitable alternative to accessing Halifax from the appeal site.

The Framework advises that decisions should enable the sustainable growth of all types of businesses in rural areas, and that sites to meet local business needs in rural areas may be in locations that are not well served by public transport. It goes on to explain that in these circumstances opportunities to make a location more sustainable should be exploited, and the use of previously developed land and sites physically well-related to existing settlements should be encouraged. The Framework also states that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas.

The appeal site is not in proximity to any public transport, and, beyond cycle storage, the proposal does not include any measures to make the location more sustainable. Moreover, the appeal site is not previously developed land and is not physically well related to an existing settlement. Given the appeal site’s location and the character of the surrounding road network, I consider that future occupiers would be largely reliant on the use of private motor vehicles. Although the rural location is fundamental to the tourist accommodation’s attraction, it has not been demonstrated that similar accommodation could not be more sustainably located.

The appellant has highlighted a previous appeal decision2 where the inspector considered that tourists on a rural holiday may be more prepared to contemplate walking or cycling to visit surrounding areas. This is a reasonable conclusion to make and one I agree with. However, in this instance it does not alter my overall assessment that the appeal site is not sustainably located. Taking the above into account, the proposal would not comply with paragraph 155 of the Framework, as it would be contrary to parts (b) and (c).

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would be inappropriate in the Green Belt, and it would have a harmful effect on the openness and the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. 2 Appeal Ref. APP/A4710/W/20/3246395

The appeal site is within the SLA. It is characterised as an upland environment with valley settlements and large tracts of heather and grass moorlands. Moreover, the appeal site is within the Thornton/Queensbury Landscape Character Area (LCA) and has a [name]/[name] Type (LCT). These areas partially comprise of fringe land on the edge of Halifax. Mature trees are a common feature in these areas. Scattered farmsteads with buildings of a traditional local stone vernacular are also characteristic of these areas, and boundary treatments usually comprise of stone walls, wire fences, or hedgerows.

The appeal site is a low lying area of grassland enclosed by wire fencing. As explained above, following a recent storm the appellant had to remove several trees but has planted a substantial number of new trees. Regardless the appeal site still accommodates a large number of mature trees which combined to provide a verdant and sylvan character. In its current form, the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the SLA, LCA and LCT.

Notwithstanding this, in proximity to the appeal site is a fishing lake, tennis court, and golf course. There is also several residential properties and tourist accommodation with expansive formal grounds nearby. Therefore, the wider area is not entirely characteristic of the SLA, LCA and LCT.

The proposal would introduce four holiday lodges to a largely undeveloped site. The lodges would be spread across the site and would include terraces. Nonetheless, the proposed lodges would be modest in size and timber clad. Without the terraces, the proposed lodges would have an agricultural appearance. Furthermore, the spread of the lodges across the appeal site would mean they would appear less formal than if they were grouped together.

The proposal also includes the construction of an access track and a car parking area. The appellant has indicated that these would be finished with a porous hardcore and Grasscrete, respectively. The creation of an access track would not be uncommon in a rural area, but the creation of a car parking area would be. Nevertheless, the use of Grasscrete would minimise the harm to the appearance of the site.

There would be further harm caused by increased activity at the appeal site, including through car usage. External lighting may also cause further harm. However, a sensitive lighting scheme could be secured as part of a condition attached to a planning permission.

For the reasons set out above, the existing route of the PROW is essentially impassable but only limited weight can be ascribed to the proposed amended route. Whilst long distance views of the proposed development would be well screened by existing vegetation, it would be prominent in views from the existing route of the PROW and would be present in some views from the proposed amended route.

The Landscape Strategy3 identifies an area of the appeal site where further tree planting would take place. Also, a detailed landscaping scheme could be secured 3 [name], drawing No 00596-URB-ZZ-00-DR-L-00401 Rev. P01 by condition which could enhance the tree planting already undertaken by the appellant. The proposal would also retain the traditional boundary treatments which are characteristic of the LCA and LCT.

There would be aspects of the proposal which would have a harmful, urbanising effect on the appeal site. This includes the terraces of the holiday lodges, the creation of a car parking area and through increased tourist activity at the appeal site. However, the weight ascribed to this harm is limited when assessed against the context of the wider area, which is heavily influenced by the surrounding development. The retention of traditional boundary treatments would be a positive of the proposal. Also, the proposed increased tree coverage and a comprehensive landscaping scheme would improve the verdant and sylvan character of the site. As it would take a while for the landscaping scheme to mature, the benefit of the scheme would be negligible initially but could increase to a moderate benefit once fully matured.

Accordingly, with regard to the proposal’s effect on the character and appearance of the area, in the short term there would be limited harm, but this could be off set in the medium and long term.

When considered as a whole, I conclude that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the SLA. The proposal would comply with LP policies BT1 and GN4, where they indicate that proposals within a SLA will only be supported if they do not adversely affect the scenic quality of the SLA, amongst other matters.

The proposal would provide economic benefits through the creation of new tourist accommodation which could lead to more overnight visitors in the area. The submitted evidence demonstrates that overnight visitors spend much more than day visitors. These economic benefits would boost the vitality of rural businesses. The proposal would also help achieve the aims of the [name]. Moreover, there would be economic benefits through the construction of the proposed development.

There would be environmental benefits associated with the provision of a biodiversity net gain and once matured, from the improved landscaping. There would be social benefits through the provision of rural tourist accommodation which could provide an escape from urban life.

However, the proposal is modest in scale. Whilst the evidence indicates that the market for local accommodation is not saturated, there is no substantive evidence that there is an unmet need for this type of accommodation in this location. I therefore ascribe moderate weight to these considerations in favour of the appeal proposal.

Paragraph 153 of the Framework indicates substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. I therefore ascribe substantial weight to the finding that the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would harm the openness of it. As the proposal would also be harmful to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, I ascribe further weight to the totality of the harm.

Consequently, the moderate weight ascribed to the other considerations in favour of the appeal would not clearly outweigh the substantial harm. As such, very special circumstances do not exist in this instance. The proposal would be contrary to LP Policy GB1 as it does not comprise of one of the exceptions to inappropriate development specified in the Policy and very special circumstances do not exist. The proposal would also conflict with LP Policy EE2 due to its interdependency with LP Policy GB1.

It is unclear from the [name] whether the Council has assessed the proposed holiday lodges as dwellings. Within the ‘Assessment of Proposal’ section, the Council acknowledge that it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land.

[name] were to consider that the holiday lodges were dwellings, the Council’s housing land supply position would be a material consideration. The Council’s housing land supply would result in the policies which are most important for determining the application being deemed out-of-date. In this scenario, permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

Footnote 7 of the Framework lists the areas and assets that are of particular importance. This list includes the Green Belt. As the proposal would be harmful to the Green Belt, policies in the Framework provide a strong reason for refusing the development. Even if I were to conclude that the proposal would contribute toward the Council’s supply of deliverable housing land, I would still dismiss the appeal due to the harm to the Green Belt.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.