Appeal 6005367

The appeal is dismissed.

The draft Local Plan 2041 (draft LP) is currently undergoing examination, and consultation on the [name] commenced on 13 April 2026. The draft LP is therefore at an advanced stage of preparation, and it is a relevant consideration in this appeal. However, the draft LP has not yet been adopted, and it could be subject to change. I have, therefore, primarily considered the proposal against the statutory development plan. However, I have also had regard to the policies in the draft LP insofar as they are relevant to this appeal.

The main issues are:  whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; 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 lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt, where emerging Policy LG5 of the draft LP requires proposals to be assessed in accordance with national policy. In that regard, paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate other than in a few exceptions.

Policy 1 of the City and District of St Albans District Local Plan [name] 30 November 1994 [name] (LPR) also seeks to restrict development in the Green Belt. The policy is not entirely consistent with the Framework in terms of the types of development that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt and the matters to be taken into account when considering inappropriateness. Therefore, I have had regard to Policy 1 of the LPR insofar as it is consistent with the Framework.

Paragraph 154 h) of the Framework lists some forms of development that would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, provided they would preserve the openness of the Green Belt and would not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

Paragraph 154 h) iv. refers to the re-use of buildings that are of permanent and substantial construction. It is common ground that the building on the appeal site is of permanent and substantial construction and, having regard to the submitted Structural Assessment Report, I have no reason to take a different view. No external changes to the building are proposed, which would retain its existing height, width, depth, and footprint. Consequently, this part of the proposal would preserve the openness of the Green Belt and would not conflict with the purposes set out in paragraph 143 of the Framework.

It follows that the change of use of the agricultural building to an office would fall within the exception to Green Belt policy listed at paragraph 154 h) iv. and this part of the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Paragraph 154 h) v. refers to material changes in the use of land (such as changes of use for outdoor sport or recreation, or for cemeteries and burial grounds). Whilst the uses listed in the brackets in paragraph 154 h) v. do not form a closed list, the words ‘such as’ indicate that the uses that would fall within this category should take their flavour or extent from the examples given. The proposed use of the land for distribution and storage would, in my judgement, be significantly different in its flavour and extent to the uses described in paragraph 154 h) v. and, therefore, it would not fall within its scope. However, even if the proposed use would be a change of use captured by paragraph 154 h) v., it would only be not inappropriate development if it preserved the openness of the Green Belt and did not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

Openness has both visual and spatial dimensions. The site currently comprises an area of hardstanding and I observed storage containers and some small piles of material being stored on the site. The appellant states that the site and the containers could currently be used for the storage of agricultural vehicles and machinery. However, in the absence of detailed information about the nature of the materials that are proposed to be stored on the site, their siting, and the duration for which the items would be stored, I have no basis upon which to conclude that the storage and distribution yard proposed would be similar in visual and spatial terms to the storage of agricultural vehicles and machinery. Moreover, it is stated in the evidence that the site is no longer required for agricultural purposes, which limits the likelihood of it being used to store agricultural vehicles and machinery. For this reason, I ascribe limited weight to the fallback position associated with the use of the site for agriculture.

Even if the storage height were restricted to 3 metres, as is proposed by the appellant, stored materials could occupy a large area of ground and airspace that is currently open in character. Furthermore, in the absence of definitive information to the contrary, materials could be stored indefinitely. Consequently, there would be an enduring loss of openness in spatial terms.

The site has a good degree of visual containment from the south, east, and north due to the well-established boundary vegetation and the adjacent buildings. However, there is an absence of screening along the site’s western boundary, which, from my observations, would allow for views of the stored materials and moving plant and vehicles to be gained through hedgerow gaps on [site address] and from the adjacent fields. These views could, to some extent, be screened by additional planting which could be secured through a condition. However, I am not persuaded that there is sufficient space on the site for planting of the necessary depth and height to become established without impeding vehicular access to and circulation within the site. Therefore, even if the number of vehicle movements, operating hours, and lighting were restricted, the storage and distribution yard proposed would lead to a loss of openness in visual terms.

It follows that the storage and distribution yard would fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. Consequently, the proposal does not fall within the exception to Green Belt policy set out in paragraph 154 h) v. of the Framework.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework states that, where specific circumstances apply, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate 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. It is common ground that the site comprises grey belt land and that the development would not undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt in the plan area. Based on the evidence, and my own observations, I see no reason to take a different view.

However, the proposal must meet all of the relevant criteria in paragraph 155 of the Framework in order to qualify as not inappropriate development due to its siting on grey belt land. This includes criteria c. which requires the development to be in a sustainable location. Paragraph 89 of the Framework recognises that sites to meet local business needs in rural areas may have to be found beyond existing settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport. However, in considering whether the proposal against the tests in paragraph 155, the Framework requires particular reference to be had to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. Those paragraphs, taken together and amongst other things, seek to safeguard the transport network and to focus development on locations which are or can be made sustainable by limiting the need to travel, offering a genuine choice of transport modes, and prioritising sustainable transport modes.

It is stated that the proposed use would be linked to the appellant’s existing business at the [name] complex, thus there could be reduced travel to and from the site due to the co-location of these facilities. However, there is no mechanism before me through which this could be secured and, given that planning permission normally runs with the land, there would be no impediment to the site being used independently of the other operations nearby in the future. Moreover, there is evidence before me to indicate that the storage and distribution use alone could generate several vehicle movements per day, including on Saturdays and Sundays. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, this would be a significant increase in vehicular traffic associated with the appeal site.

From my observations, the A5183 road connecting the site with Redbourn and [name] is largely unlit and the footpath alongside the road is inconsistent and involves crossing the road in several locations. These conditions, combined with the distances to the nearest settlements, would make the route unattractive for future employees or customers to walk or cycle to the site particularly during hours of darkness or in inclement weather. There is no evidence before me of a regular bus serving the site. Overall, these factors point to the site being in a location that would necessitate a need to travel, where there would not be a genuine choice of transport modes, and where sustainable transport could not be prioritised.

It follows that the site would not be in a sustainable location with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. That being the case, the proposal would not benefit from the provisions of paragraph 155 of the Framework even if I were to find that the [name] (September 2024) provides evidence of a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and there would be conflict with the Framework and Policy 1 of the LPR which seek to resist inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The building and the land are no longer needed for agricultural purposes and are stated in the evidence to be redundant. There would, therefore, be economic benefits associated with bringing the site into an economically productive use and, thereby, making more efficient use of the land and the building. Indeed, the proposed reuse of the building on the site would carry some support from Policy RED2 of the Redbourn Neighbourhood Plan 2020-38 (January 2023) (NP), which supports small-scale commercial development through the conversion of existing buildings.

The Framework also supports the growth and expansion of business in rural areas, including storage and distribution operations, and notes that locations for these businesses may have to be found outside of existing settlements on sites that lack public transport provision. In this case, the proposal is advanced as one that would support the growth and efficiency of existing commercial operations at [name], and it would also be likely to contribute more widely to the rural economy through supply chain effects and through providing local employment opportunities. The proposal carries support from the Framework in these respects. It is also relevant that emerging policy SP5 of the draft LP supports a prosperous rural economy and provides in principle support for the sustainable growth of rural businesses, which would include the appeal proposal.

The site lies within the setting of the [name] listed buildings known as [name] Farmhouse1 (the farmhouse) and Barn at [address], 100 Metres of Farmhouse, [name] Wall2 (the barn). Both the farmhouse and the barn derive some significance from their age, architecture, and past functions, which collectively reveal information about the periods in which the buildings were constructed and the agricultural history of the area. The Council notes that the settings of these listed buildings already have commercial characters and finds 1 List entry number 1347228 2 List entry number 1102942 there would be no harm caused through the additional commercial development proposed. Based on the evidence and my observations and having regard to my duty under Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended), I see no reason to form a different conclusion.

No harm has been identified in relation to highway safety matters, ecology, trees or flooding, and the character of the development would reflect the commercial use of other buildings and land at the [name] complex. Furthermore, no objections to the proposal have been advanced by residents or the Parish Council. The absence of harm is a neutral factor that does not carry positive weight.

The site lies within the zone of influence of the Chiltern Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC), which is a European site as defined by The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). I note that the Council does not consider the proposal would result in adverse effects on the SAC because there would be no increase in the residents. [name] am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to undertake an Appropriate Assessment or to consider this matter further.

The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It also says that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances, which will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

There are other considerations in this case, including those associated with the rural economy and the growth of rural enterprise, that carry weight in favour of the scheme. However, the Framework is clear that substantial weight must be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm caused through inappropriateness. Therefore, the other considerations are not sufficient to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. It follows that the very special circumstances necessary to justify this inappropriate development do not exist.

The proposal would conflict with the Framework and Policy 1 of the LPR, which resist inappropriate development in the Green Belt except in very special circumstances. There would also be conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. The material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.