Appeal 6005318

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form indicates that the development has been completed. However, while I observed some surfacing has been undertaken on the appeal site, this did not reflect the proposed plans. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the plans before me.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the scheme constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the effect upon the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and • if the scheme 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 site relates to a broadly L-shaped portion of a wider paddock which lies to the rear of the [address] and properties on [name]. Towards the southern boundary, the land contains two buildings understood to be a stable block and cart shed, which have an area of concrete hardstanding between them. To the north and west of these buildings, an area has been surfaced in an unbound material. Past this surfaced area is the remainder of the grassed paddock with an open field beyond. The appeal site and the surrounding land 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. However, certain forms of development are not inappropriate, and several exceptions are listed in the Framework. Policy DM4 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011-2033 (the LP) takes a broadly consistent approach to the Framework and similarly lists exceptions to inappropriate development.

The appellant has not indicated which exception the appeal scheme should be assessed against. Instead, they accept that the appeal scheme would not meet any of the exceptions listed in Policy DM4 or paragraphs 154 or 155 of the Framework. Based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to come to a different conclusion and therefore consider that the scheme represents inappropriate development.

Turning to the effect upon the openness and purposes of the Green Belt, openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt and is capable of having both spatial and visual aspects. The PPG1 also explains that other matters such as the duration of the development, its remediability and the degree of activity likely to be generated can also be taken into account.

The evidence indicates that the area that has been surfaced was formerly grassland, free from any development and essentially part of the wider paddock. While the plans show this area of surfacing would be reduced to an area that the Council estimates is approximately 190sqm, the surfacing of this area with a dark coloured material does not have a similar appearance to grass. Even though no new buildings have been erected and the surfaced area is adjacent to existing buildings, spatially, this introduction of development into land that was formerly grassed would have a clear and demonstrable effect on the openness of the Green Belt. It would also represent encroachment of development into the undeveloped countryside, which would be contrary to the purposes that the Green Belt serves and to the purposes of including land within it.

Given its siting, visibility of this land from the public realm is limited and I note that the paddock is contained by existing boundaries from the open fields beyond. However, the openness of the Green Belt and its rural characteristics are nevertheless still evident in the surrounding area, and some glimpsed views of the development may be achievable from nearby residential properties. Whilst landscaping is proposed on the northern side of the site which may reduce visibility further, the encroachment of development into this paddock would nevertheless remain evident and would not overcome its spatial effects, leading to a reduction in the openness of the Green Belt.

The development would also result in a level of associated activity on the land. The appellant states that only the area between the existing buildings is used for parking their truck and trailer and the new surfaced area would only be used for manoeuvring within the site. They also contend that vehicle movements on the land would occur irrespective of the installation of the surfacing and that a condition could be imposed to prevent parking on the surfaced area. However, irrespective of ownership, the Council questions whether the lawful use of the appeal site extends to residential use and provides for the parking of domestic vehicles. I have no substantive evidence before 1 Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 013 [name]: 64-[phone] me to enable me to come to a different conclusion. The appeal scheme would therefore result in a level of daily activity on the land associated with the parking of these vehicles which would have an effect on openness, and it is unclear whether this would be comparable to the lawful use of the land. I am also not persuaded that a condition to restrict parking on the newly surfaced area would be enforceable and should this take place, this would have an additional effect on openness.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the development would fai to meet any of the listed exceptions and thus would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Moreover, when the spatial and visual effects are taken together, the appeal scheme would also result in harm to the openness and purposes of the Green Belt. Given the scale of the development and degree of visibility, this harm would be moderate, but amounts to harm nonetheless, and would fail to preserve openness. This is contrary to Policies SP5 and DM4 and of the LP which, insofar as they are consistent with the Framework, together and amongst other things require the Green Belt and its openness to be protected from inappropriate development.

In accordance with paragraph 153 of the Framework, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. These are considered below.

The appeal site is part of a larger, open paddock that is separate from the residential properties and public house to the east. Due to its location and screening provided by existing vegetation along the eastern boundary, views into the site from the public realm are limited. However, glimpsed views of the site are likely to be achievable to varying degrees from nearby residential properties.

Notwithstanding the reduced area of surfacing proposed, the appeal scheme would result in development encroaching into the paddock. Due to the scale of the surfaced area and its dark material, this would have an urbanising effect that would detract from the character of the predominately rural landscape. I note the presence of the existing buildings and concrete surfacing; however, these are low profile buildings that are clustered together and typical of rural locations. The concrete surfacing is also mostly contained between the existing buildings which reduces any spatial and visual effects and prevents any encroachment into the wider undeveloped paddock.

In contrast, the appeal scheme proposes an extension of surfacing over an area that was formerly grassed, which would result in the sprawling of development into the undeveloped paddock. Even though the size of the area has been reduced, this incremental encroachment would result in harm to the formerly green and undeveloped nature of the site.

Additional landscaping may help to reduce the visibility of the turning area. However, this would not overcome the effects of the regular movements on the land associated with the parking of the appellant’s vehicle and trailer. It is unclear whether the level of vehicle movements would be comparable to the lawful fallback position. However, based on the evidence before me, the nature of the movements associated with the proposed use is likely to have a perceptible effect on the character and appearance of the area. Moreover, in the event that vehicles were to be parked on the appeal site, this would have an additional effect.

While there may be other instances of gravel surfacing used in the countryside, I have not been pointed to any specific examples which the appellant considers to be comparable to this appeal scheme which would alter my conclusions.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude the development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. Given the scale of the development and its degree of visibility, this harm would be moderate, but amounts to harm nonetheless. Consequently, the appeal scheme would conflict with Policies SP6 and DM3 of the LP which together, and amongst other things, seek to conserve and enhance the character and appearance of the countryside and ensure that developments are sensitive to their setting in the landscape.

Several other considerations have been put forward by the appellant. In addition to those addressed above, the appellant’s case is that the turning area would be the minimum necessary, would prevent their private vehicles being parked on the surrounding highway and would enable safer vehicle manoeuvres that would prevent uncontrolled soil degradation on the site. However, there is no substantive evidence before me which demonstrates that the parking of personal vehicles on the appeal site would be lawful. Nor has it been demonstrated that the area is subject to unacceptable levels of parking stress or that soil degradation could not be prevented by less harmful means. As such, these matters attract very limited weight.

The appellant refers to a right to access the land and buildings in their ownership. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that access to the site would be inhibited in the absence of this turning area. I also note that the appeal scheme has been reduced in response to advice previously given by the Council. However, this weighs neither in favour of nor against the scheme. The absence of other associated development such as fencing and lighting does not weigh in favour of the scheme either, as this seeks only to minimise the extent of development and potential harm.

An allotment area is proposed within the site in addition to tree planting and biodiversity enhancements which would deliver a [name] in excess of the 10% requirement. This would deliver environmental benefits and attracts moderate positive weight.

The appellant refers to the site as previously developed land (PDL) and the scheme being comparable to the parking of vehicles within the respective parking areas of nearby residential properties. However, I have no evidence before me which confirms that the lawful use of the land has changed. Nor do I have substantive evidence before me that the entirety of the appeal site would meet the definition of PDL. Therefore, I have not considered it as such.

Representations have been made in support of the appeal scheme; however, they do not lead me to a different conclusion on the main issues.

The development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt in that the appellant accepts that it would not fall under any of the listed exceptions set out in either local or national policy. The development would also result in a moderate level of harm to the openness of the Green Belt and would not assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, thus conflicting with the purposes of including land within it. Consequently, the scheme would constitute inappropriate development, which is harmful by definition. The Framework establishes that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and the development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations.

I have also found that the scheme would result in a moderate level of harm to the character and appearance of the area. This harm conflicts with the requirements of the Council’s abovementioned development plan policies and the Framework where it seeks the creation of well-designed places and recognition of the intrinsic beauty of the countryside. This conflict attracts significant weight.

Overall, when taken together, the abovementioned benefits of the scheme attract limited weight in favour of the proposal. Therefore, the other considerations in this case are not sufficient to clearly outweigh the totality of harm I have identified. Accordingly, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist and the development would be contrary to Policies SP5 and DM4 of the LP and the Framework insofar as they seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

The appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.