Appeal 6004704

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use of land from residential use to agricultural use and the construction of a storage barn to store equipment associated with the use of wider agricultural land at [site address] , [site address] , Godalming [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/01763, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

For clarity, I have formatted the appellants’ names as indicated above rather than as shown on the application form. I have taken the postcode of the site from the appellants’ supporting documents rather than their application form, as the latter contained an incorrect postcode.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and development plan policies; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area with particular reference to the Surrey Hills National Landscape and Area of [name]; and • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [site address] with particular reference to setting and disturbance.

The development plan and accompanying policies map identify the appeal site as lying within the Metropolitan Green Belt. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the land falls within an area of grey belt as defined in Annex 2 of the Framework or that it is subject to a proposal to remove it from the Green Belt through plan-making. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis that the site lies within the established Green Belt and that paragraph 155 of the Framework does not apply.

The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The Framework further establishes that development in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, subject to a number of exceptions set out in paragraph 154.

The proposal is for a single agricultural building (a storage barn) to store machinery and equipment used for the management of the adjoining agricultural field. I am satisfied, on the basis of the evidence about the nature of the wider holding and the intended use, that the building would be used for agricultural purposes and would not form part of the domestic curtilage of the dwelling. It therefore falls within the category of 'buildings for agriculture and forestry' in paragraph 154(a) of the Framework.

A bungalow on the appellants’ land has recently been completed and occupied, replacing two agricultural/commercial buildings. A third agricultural building, which is still standing, is required to be demolished by a condition attached to that planning permission1. The proposal would replace this building. The fact that the barn would be sited on land intended to be incorporated into the garden of the bungalow under the terms of the planning permission does not alter my finding that the proposal falls within paragraph 154(a) of the Framework.

Consequently, the proposal satisfies paragraph 154(a) of the Framework, and is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the policies in the Framework. The proposal complies with Policy RE2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 1: [name] and [name] 2018 (LPP1) and Policy DM14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (LPP2) because it would be in the same use and not materially larger than the existing building, and thus accord with the Green Belt strategy set out in the development plan.

Policy TD1 of the LPP1 is not a Green Belt policy but relates to townscape and design; I therefore consider its implications in the context of character, appearance and living conditions in the following sections.

The appeal site is situated within the [name], which is designated as a National Landscape (NL) and an Area of [name] (AGLV). The Framework identifies that NLs have the highest status of protection and that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing their landscape and scenic 1 LPA reference WA/2023/01152 beauty. Policy RE3 of the LPP1 identifies that the protection of the AGLV will reflect its status as a local landscape designation, with the same principles of protection being applied as those for the NL. In applying Policy RE3, I have also had regard to Policy P3 of the Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan as a material consideration. Policy RE3 establishes the level of protection for the NL and AGLV in the development plan, while Policy P3 provides more detailed guidance on achieving high quality design and landscape enhancement within the [name].

The Surrey Hills comprise hills and valleys which contain extensive woodland and scrub together with chalk grassland and heathland, overlaid with a historic settlement pattern of market towns, villages and farmsteads. The immediate area of the appeal site is characterised by small fields, linear woodland, and the hamlet of [site address] . The appeal site forms part of a small cluster of buildings located on the edge of the settlement. The largest of the buildings, a former agricultural building occupied by Natural England, screens the appeal site and the bungalow from [site address] , whilst the appeal site’s boundary with the adjacent field is marked by a hedgerow.

Compared with the situation once the existing building had been demolished, which is a requirement of the planning permission for the bungalow, the proposal would introduce new built form onto the site. The fact that the appellants offered the existing building for demolition as part of the planning permission does not in itself mean that the proposal would harm the rural landscape. Because it would be located between the Natural England building and the bungalow, the proposed barn would not encroach into the surrounding countryside.

The barn would be smaller and of a higher quality design than the existing building, and would be seen in the context of the existing cluster of buildings, so it would not appear out of character. The barn would be partially visible from the adjacent field and beyond once the field access, which is currently overgrown, is opened up, but in the context of the Natural England building and the bungalow, it would not appear intrusive.

The proposal is for a single storey barn with a pitched roof, to be constructed of timber with a tiled roof. It would be smaller than the building it would replace, and of modest scale compared with the Natural England building. Additional landscaping could be secured by condition if needed. The proposal would thus satisfy the requirements of Policy P3 of the Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan 2020-2035 for development proposals to be of high quality design, to respect local distinctiveness and be complementary in form, setting and scale with their surroundings, and to take any opportunities to enhance their setting.

The barn would be used to store machinery and equipment for maintaining the field, including a tractor, harrows, grass cutters and tools, which are currently stored in the building scheduled for demolition. I have no reason to doubt the long term need for the barn or that its size is appropriate for the equipment to be stored in it. The Council has suggested that there is a possible alternative location for the barn within land owned by the appellants, but as I have not been advised of this location, I cannot meaningfully compare it with the proposal.

My attention has been drawn to an appeal at Orchard Cottage2 which concerned a proposal to retain an existing dwelling that was re quired to be demolished in 2 PINS reference APP/R3650/W/23/3331714 and 3346623 connection with planning permission for a replacement dwelling. The Inspector in that case found the proposal to be unacceptable in principle and harmful to Green Belt openness and the appearance of a NL. In the current instance, however, considerable demolition has already occurred, and the proposal is to demolish and replace the last remaining agricultural building. Compared with this, the retention of a dwelling could be expected to have significantly greater landscape implications. However, I have not been supplied with sufficient detail of the [address] scheme to be able to make a meaningful comparison between its visual impact and that of the current proposal. I therefore afford it limited weight.

Taking account of all these matters, I find that the proposal would further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the NL, and therefore the AGLV, by providing a building of high design quality which would allow the adjacent field to be properly maintained. The proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would therefore accord with policies TD1 and RE3 of the LPP1 and policies DM1 and DM4 of the LPP2. Taken together, these policies seek to protect and enhance the character and qualities of the [name] and AGLV, and to ensure that new development is of high quality design, appropriately sited and scaled, and respects the distinctive local character of the area.

The proposed barn would be located to the side of the bungalow and therefore not visible from its principal front and rear elevations, but it would be seen from the main bedroom. It would be well designed and modest in scale, and sited a reasonable distance from the bungalow where it would partially screen the large utilitarian Natural England building. From my observations, the current garden of the bungalow, which excludes the land occupied by the building to be demolished, provides adequate outdoor space for occupiers of the dwelling. Overall, I find that the barn would not harm the setting of the bungalow, and would offer a potential enhancement to its outlook.

The proposal would result in a moderate amount of activity associated with the maintenance of the adjacent field, which could involve potentially noisy machinery going in and out of the barn. The barn’s rear entrance would directly face the field, meaning that machinery and equipment would not need to pass in front of the bungalow. Given the size of the field, the related activities are unlikely to be intensive, and furthermore this is a location where farming activities are to be expected as part of everyday life. Whilst part of the bungalow’s garden would be adjacent to the barn, there would be no openings in this side of the barn; moreover, substantial areas of the garden, onto which the main living areas face, would be far enough away from the barn to provide quiet areas of relaxation.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would preserve the setting of the bungalow and would not disturb its occupiers, thereby protecting their living conditions. In this respect, and having regard also to my earlier conclusions on design and character, the proposal accords with Policy TD1 of the LPP1 and Policy DM5 of the LPP2, which together seek to secure high quality design and to maximise opportunities to improve the quality of life, health and well-being of residents while avoiding harm to amenity.

S66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) places a statutory duty on decision makers to have special regard to preserving the setting of listed buildings. The Grade II listed [address] is located adjacent to the appeal site. It is a sixteenth century timber-framed house, subsequently altered and extended, which uses traditional construction methods and local materials. It would have been part of a small farmstead and is illustrative of the history of farming and settlement in the countryside.

The proposed barn would be of traditional appearance and would have an agricultural purpose, both of which are appropriate in the vicinity of [address]. It would be separated from [address] by a substantial hedgerow which would prevent intervisibility. The proposal would therefore preserve the setting of the listed building and would not harm the significance of this designated heritage asset.

The appeal site abuts the boundary of [site address] Conservation Area, a hamlet comprising a small number of dwellings dating from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries located around a village green. Its significance derives from its origins as an agricultural community, which are exemplified in its layout and appearance. Although the appeal site lies outside the conservation area, its former agricultural use reinforces the character of the hamlet. The proposal for a barn of traditional design and materials is respectful of the setting of the conservation area.

The Framework sets out that conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. I have assessed the suggested list of conditions on this basis.

It is necessary to confirm the standard time limit for the development, and to specify the approved plans and drawings, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of certainty.

In the interests of the appearance of the NL and AGLV, external materials and boundary treatments should be submitted for approval.

Because the barn’s agricultural use means that it is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, it is necessary to limit its use to agricultural purposes only in the interests of the openness of the Green Belt.

To protect the appearance of the NL and AGLV, permitted development rights for agricultural development, including extensions, alterations and hard surfaces, should be removed. It is not necessary to remove permitted development rights for fencing, as this would duplicate the condition that requires approval of boundary treatments.

For the above reasons, the proposal accords with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2507HE_000 Location Plan 2507HE_001 Block Plan 2507HE_200 Ground Floor Plan and Elevations

No development above ground level shall take place until samples of all external facing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved sample details.

No development above ground level shall take place until details of all boundary treatments have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to first occupation and thereafter retained.

The building hereby permitted shall be used solely for the storage of agricultural equipment associated with the maintenance of the land within the wider holding (as shown on the application plans) and for no other purpose, including any commercial, industrial or residential use.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by virtue of [name] or B of Part 6 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be undertaken without express planning permission. End of schedule