Appeal 6005207

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council have highlighted that there was a typographical error on the decision notice in that it should have said Policy RUR10 not RUR1 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (adopted December 2022) (SADPD). Conformity or otherwise with Policy RUR10 is considered in the appellant’s statement, and the appellant also had the opportunity to make any comments on the implications of this at [name] stage. I therefore consider that nobody would be prejudiced by my taking this policy into account in my determination of the appeal.

The main issues in the appeal are • Whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the likely long term effect on protected trees; and • Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The appeal site is located in the Green Belt as designated by Policy PG3 of the [site address] Local Plan Strategy (adopted July 2017) (CELPS). This policy indicates that the construction of new buildings in the Gren Belt is inappropriate unless it is for one of a number of exceptions listed in the policy. It also states that inappropriate development in the Green Belt will only be granted in very special circumstances.

Paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework also set out the forms of development that are not considered to be inappropriate in the Green Belt. As the CELPS predates the publication of the most recent Framework, the forms of development set out in Policy PG3 do not include development on grey belt, and some wording does not fully accord with national policy. The Framework indicates that due weight should be given to development plan policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. I have therefore given greater weight to the Framework in my consideration of whether or not the proposal is inappropriate development.

Paragraph 154 g) of the Framework indicates that one of the forms of development that is not inappropriate relates to the re-use of previously developed land, with previously developed land being defined in the glossary.

The appeal site is largely cleared land surrounded by woodland. The ground comprises a mix of soil with broken fragments of brick and stone and there are various piles of soil, gravel, and rubble on the site.

The planning history of the site shows that in the 1980s the site formed part of a former sand quarry, with a number of applications being approved related to this use at this time. Plans dating from those permissions show the site containing a number of ponds rather than any building or being an operational part of the quarry. No planning permissions have been granted since that time, including the two more recent applications for a hay/fodder shelter.

A statement of truth was submitted by the appellant from the former owners which indicated they used the site from 2014 - 2024 as an overflow storage yard for their waste management business and that the site was cleared in 2019 and a hardstanding laid. Whilst a [name] image provided in this statement dated 2019 shows the site to be cleared, a similar image supplied by the Council and dated 2021 shows the site to be vegetated.

Whilst the evidence before me in that respect is inconclusive, even if the site was used in this way, planning permission for this use or for the creation of a hardstanding have not been granted, nor has any lawful development certificate been issued to show that the use or a hardstanding has been lawfully implemented.

Moreover, irrespective of how it may have been described in some of the technical reports submitted by the appellant, soil mixed with broken fragments of bricks and stone, as I saw on my site visit as did the Council Officer, does not in my opinion represent fixed surface infrastructure or an area of hardstanding. It is not permanent nor fixed to the surface. However, even if it was considered to be hardstanding or fixed surface infrastructure, it has not been lawfully developed as such.

Therefore, the site does not comply with the definition of previously developed land in the Framework, which only relates to land that has been lawfully developed for fixed surface infrastructure and hardstanding. Given this, the proposal cannot be considered under paragraph 154g) of the Framework.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework indicates that subject to meeting various criteria the development of grey belt land may also not be inappropriate. It is not disputed by the parties that the site comprises grey belt land, and that it complies with criterion a) of the paragraph. [name] have seen or read leads me to conclude differently in this respect. Furthermore, given the type of development criterion d) of this paragraph is not relevant.

To support his case in respect of there being a demonstrable unmet need for a rural storage building the appellant has provided a number of statements from local estate agents. Whilst these mainly focus on the availability of rural storage buildings for sale, rather than rental properties as well, they indicate there is a high demand and limited supply for such buildings for sale in the area.

However, it is unclear why the appellant needs the storage building to be in a rural location. Whilst it is stated that the site provides good access to both north and south Cheshire and south Manchester where the majority of the firm’s work is undertaken, this does not justify a rural location. There are towns and urban areas which similarly provide good access to these areas, and no evidence has been provided to show the supply and demand of storage buildings in these locations.

Consequently, without a clear justification for why the storage building has to have a rural location, I am not persuaded that there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of building proposed.

The site is some distance from the nearest settlements, and there are limited services and facilities in the vicinity. It is within cycling distance of some settlements, although few of the roads linking the site to them have dedicated cycling lanes. [address], which leads to the site is a single track road with no footway or lighting and limited verge space for pedestrians to move onto should they meet a vehicle.

Whilst a bus stop is located on the A34 close to the junction with [address], the distance and nature of the road to it means it would not be an attractive or a particularly safe route to walk. Whilst the Framework does recognise that sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, in my opinion, the site’s location means that sustainable modes of transport have not been prioritised, especially as the need for the development to be in a rural location has not been justified.

[name] note that the ‘Glasshouse’, which appears to be a high-specification office location near Alderley Park may be located between the site and [name], I do not consider this materially affects the sustainability of the site’s location.

Therefore, having particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework, I consider that the site would not be in a sustainable location.

So overall the proposal would not accord with criteria b) and c) of the Framework paragraph 155. Given it also does not accord with any of the exceptions listed in paragraph 154 of the Framework, it would be inappropriate development, which according to paragraph 153 of the Framework is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should only be approved in very special circumstances.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. It can be taken as the absence of buildings and development and has both a visual and spatial element. The appeal site is currently an open site, devoid of buildings or structures. The appeal scheme would introduce a building where previously there was none. At approximately 24m long, 15m deep and 6.9m high, it would be a significant size. Spatially this would impact on the openness of the Green Belt, although due to woodland around the boundaries of the site, the visual impact on openness would be more limited.

Although the loss of openness caused would be small, nonetheless there is a degree of harm arising from this, in addition to that arising from the inappropriate nature of the development.

The woodland around the site is protected and makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the lane. The proposed building would be set on land that contains no trees. The application was accompanied by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) which assessed the potential impact of the proposed construction on the existing trees, sets out tree protection measures and contains an [name].

The AIA confirms that it is proposed to retain all the trees on the site and indicates that no encroachment would take place into the root protection area (RPA) of the trees as the building would be sited well away from the [name]. However, the plans provided do not show the RPAs to confirm this.

Moreover, the AIA focusses on the construction period. However, the operation of the proposed development would be likely to result in an intensification in the use of the access, with vehicles coming regularly to the site to collect and return equipment. The access is flanked by two trees and the impact on them of this does not appear to have been considered in the AIA. Without this information the likely long term impact on the trees has not been fully assessed and I am not satisfied that this is information that can be left to be provided as part of a condition.

As a result, sufficient information has not been provided to assess the long term impacts of the development on the protected trees and the subsequent effect the proposal would have on the character and appearance of the area. Therefore the proposal would be contrary to Policies SE5, SD1 and SD2 of CELPS which require that developments should not result in the loss or threat to the continued health and life expectancy of trees that provide a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the area and should seek to protect the natural environment and an area’s character and identity.

The appellant has indicated that without the proposal the business would be in financial difficulties due to rental costs on the building where the equipment is currently stored. It is stated that the proposal would therefore safeguard a rural business and local employment. However, no information has been provided to support this claim for example in terms of where the existing storage is now, the financial unsustainability of continuing to rent the current premises, the number of people employed and that they are local to the area.

Policy PG6 of the CELPS seeks to restrict development in the open countryside, unless it meets one of a number of criteria which includes development that is essential in the open countryside. Policy RUR10 of the SADPD provides details on when employment development may be appropriate in a rural area. This requires it to be shown that the nature of the business means that a countryside location is essential.

The business is a forestry and landscaping firm. Whilst the appeal site may be close to some of the sites the firm manages and works on, there is no evidence to show that it is essential for the firm to be located in the countryside or that the storage of its equipment has to have a rural location. The proposal would therefore not accord with these policies which seek to support appropriate employment development in the countryside.

In the light of this, and the limited information provided to show how the proposal would safeguard a local business and employment, I do not consider this weighs in favour of the proposal.

[name] note the support for the proposal from some local people the application also attracted letters of objection to it, albeit fewer in number.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is harmful by definition. In addition, there is a degree of harm arising from the loss of openness. In accordance with paragraph 153 of the Framework, I attach substantial weight to the harm to the Green Belt. In addition, insufficient evidence has been provided to show that the proposal would not have long term adverse impact on protected trees and the character and appearance of the area. Overall, I consider that the benefits cited in the scheme’s favour do not clearly outweigh the harm it would cause. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. As a result, it would be contrary to Policy PG3 of the CELPS and the Framework. Therefore, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.