Appeal 6005305

As set out above there are two appeals on this site for two separate agricultural buildings. They differ only in that one would be used for hay/feed storage (Appeal A) and the other for general agricultural storage (Appeal B). The appellant has clarified that neither would be used for housing livestock and I have considered the appeals on this basis. I have also considered each proposal on its individual merits. However, as both raise very similar issues and to avoid duplication, I have dealt with the two schemes together, except where otherwise indicated.

The addresses given on the application forms for both appeals only provided grid reference numbers. Therefore, for clarity and completeness I have used the addresses provided on the appeal forms in the banner heading and my formal decisions. I have also taken the description given on the appeal form for Appeal A as this better reflects the development proposed by the appellant. However, I have made minor amendments to both descriptions in my formal decisions above in the interests of clarity and to omit elements that do not relate to an act of development.

The appeals are made against the failure of the Council to reach a decision on the applications within the relevant statutory timeframe. The Council has submitted an appeal statement which confirms that, had it been in a position to do so, it would have approved the applications subject to several planning conditions. Therefore, from the evidence before me, there are no substantive grounds of dispute between the appellant and the Council, and both consider the appeals should be allowed.

However, a number of representations have been made by interested parties which raise a broad range of issues. Having regard to these comments, the main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); • whether there is any other harm that would give rise to conflict with the development plan; and • if the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development.

The appeal sites relate to part of a larger agricultural field on the eastern side of [address], which is within the Green Belt. The Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Certain forms of development are, however, not inappropriate and are listed as specific exceptions. Policy DM6 of the Chelmsford Local Plan (2020) (CLP) takes a broadly consistent approach to the Framework and similarly lists exceptions to inappropriate development. One such exception, which is also listed at paragraph 154(a) of the Framework, is buildings for agricultural and forestry use.

Both barns are proposed to serve the appellant’s wider agricultural operations which include the management of a herd of cows. It is understood that the barns are proposed to ensure animal feed and general agricultural equipment are stored close to the existing barns on the site to improve operational efficiency. I note concerns raised in relation to the history of the existing barns on the wider field; however, as these fall outside of the appeal sites, they do not form part of my consideration in this appeal. The Council has not raised any concerns in relation to the use of the proposed barns and based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to come to a different conclusion.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposed developments would meet one of the listed exceptions at paragraph 154(a) of the Framework and Policy DM6 of the CLP and thus would not comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This complies with Policy DM6 of the CLP and Chapter 13 of the Framework insofar as they seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

For the avoidance of doubt, paragraph 154(a) does not expressly require a separate assessment of the development’s effect on the openness of the Green Belt as this is inherent within the exception. In accordance with national policy and case law, development that is not inappropriate in the Green Belt is not considered to be harmful to its openness or to the purposes of including land within it for Green Belt policy purposes. Furthermore, as I have concluded that the proposals would not amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, it is not necessary for me to consider other considerations and whether these would amount to very special circumstances either.

In addition to matters addressed above, interested parties have raised concerns in relation to several other matters including the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, living conditions of existing occupiers, highway safety, ecology and drainage.

The appeal sites are part of a wider field which is largely enclosed by hedgerows and contains an area of hardstanding with four agricultural barns in the south-eastern corner. The proposed barns would be clustered with the existing development within the field and longer-range views are likely to be filtered by existing landscaping. However, any achievable views would be of two barns within a cluster of similar development that would be functional in form and of a typical scale and appearance, reflecting agricultural buildings commonly found in the countryside and surrounding area. Concerns raised refer to the effects of external lighting; however, no lighting is proposed as part of this appeal.

While the appeal scheme would result in a cluster of six large barns, the majority of the field would remain undeveloped and thus there would not be a perception of overdevelopment of the land. The Council has not raised any concerns with the scale of the buildings in relation to their intended uses and I have not been directed to any specific local or national policy requirement for the appellant to demonstrate a need for the buildings. The scheme also proposes to reduce the level of vehicle movements on the wider highway network by consolidating storage capacity on the site. Accordingly, there would be no adverse effects on the character and appearance of the area, either through the buildings themselves or through any atypical vehicle movements.

The barns would be relatively well separated from residential properties and are proposed to be used for storage purposes only. While noting reference to a 400m separation distance, this relates to agricultural development permitted under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO). As this appeal relates to applications for full planning permission the limitations of the GPDO do not apply. Nevertheless, the barns are not proposed to be used for the accommodation of livestock or for the storage of slurry or sewage sludge in any event. Moreover, given the proposed uses and distance to the nearest sensitive receptors, the Council concludes there would be no adverse effect on living conditions. Based on the evidence and my observations on site, I see no reason to come to a different

The noise and disruption associated with the construction of the barns would be relatively short and for a finite period such that it would not amount to harm to the living conditions of nearby occupiers. I also note concerns about odours and noise from the existing barns and cattle on the wider site. However, the appeal schemes must be considered on their own merits and are not required to address any pre-existing concerns in relation to the wider use of the land.

Interested parties have raised concerns regarding the effect of additional traffic on the highway network and the suitability of the site access. However, as the buildings seek to reduce movements between the appellant’s farming sites and provide on-site storage capacity instead, the developments are unlikely to result in any significant increase in traffic that would adversely affect the capacity of the highway network or safety of highway users. Moreover, the sites are served by an existing access onto the highway. I am not aware of any restrictions on the access that prohibit use by agricultural vehicles and note that these schemes seek to reduce overall movements off-site. Neither the Council nor the Highway Authority have raised concerns in relation to the suitability of the site access or the effects on the highway network and based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to come to a different conclusion.

In respect of ecology, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that the development would result in harm to protected species or their habitats, or that the construction of the barns on an existing sealed surface would necessitate the submission of ecological reports or the provision of [name]. Similarly, there is no substantive evidence that the proposal would exacerbate any existing drainage issues either.

Therefore, for the above reasons and having due regard to the representations made by interested parties, no other harm has been identified that would give rise to conflict with the development plan.

Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations) describes the developments and applicable thresholds and criteria for developments that should be screened as to whether they are EIA development. Part 1 of Schedule 2 describes various agriculture and aquaculture developments. However, the only relevant descriptions at parts 1(a) and (c) relate to intensive agricultural operations. The Council has confirmed that neither the proposed barns nor the wider site are to be used for intensive agricultural purposes. Therefore, as the developments would not be of a type listed in Schedule 2, EIA screening is not necessary in this case.

Concerns have also been raised in relation to alleged unauthorised development on the site. However, this falls outside of the scope of these appeals, and it would be open to the Council to consider enforcement action under [name] of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, independently to and irrespective of the outcomes of these appeals. In addition, while noting concerns relating to the potential for a change of use of the buildings to be sought in the future, any such applications would be considered on their own merits at the time.

Representations have also referred to recent appeal decisions for similar developments which are understood to have been dismissed due to the effects on the living conditions of existing occupiers. However, I have not been provided with any details of these cases or copies of the appeal decisions and thus cannot be certain how comparable they are to the schemes before me. Nevertheless, I note reference to the unacceptable effects of noise from farming activities and intensive livestock units. As these appeal schemes do not propose to accommodate livestock, they do not appear to be directly comparable and thus have not influenced my findings.

The Council has suggested several conditions which I have considered in light of the advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. Where appropriate, I have adjusted the wording of the conditions to improve precision and enforceability.

For both appeals, in addition to the standard three-year time limit condition for implementation, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty. To preserve the living conditions of nearby occupiers and ensure the developments are used for their intended purposes, conditions are also imposed prohibiting the occupation of the barns by livestock.

The Council has suggested a condition in relation to the surfacing material of the access. However, no alterations are proposed to the access as part of this appeal1 and the Council has not demonstrated how such a condition would be necessary to make the developments acceptable. I have therefore not imposed them. I have, however, imposed conditions to require the loading/unloading and the storage of materials during construction to be provided clear of the highway in the interest of highway safety. Conditions are also suggested to require the submission of details of external lighting prior to installation; however, as no external lighting is proposed, these conditions would be unnecessary and have not been imposed.

Representations from interested parties also request a condition to prevent mud from being deposited on the highway. However, this is a matter that is controlled by separate highway legislation and need not be duplicated through the imposition of planning conditions.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal schemes are considered to accord with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that decisions should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that appeals A and B should be allowed.

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 25/14/05, 25/14/07, 25/14/08 [name].

The development hereby permitted shall not be used for the accommodation of livestock.

During the construction of the development hereby permitted the loading, unloading and storage of building materials and manoeuvring of all vehicles shall be carried out clear of the highway.

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 25/14/01, 25/14/03, 25/14/04 [name].

The development hereby permitted shall not be used for the accommodation of livestock.

During the construction of the development hereby permitted the loading, unloading and storage of building materials and manoeuvring of all vehicles shall be carried out clear of the highway. ** END OF SCHEDULE **