Appeal 6005658

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant submitted late evidence of the grant of a Certificate of Lawfulness to ‘install five EV charging upstands within the five parking spaces identified on the site plan’ on the appeal site. The Council issued the Certificate of Lawfulness and commented on the Certificate in their Statement of Case. I am therefore satisfied that by taking account of the late evidence in my decision, no parties would be prejudiced.

The main issues are:

Whether the appeal site is grey belt land and whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt (having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies).

The effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt.

The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and the setting of the locally listed building which is a non-designated heritage asset.

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 comprises an area of grassed land to the front of a McDonalds restaurant. It is common ground the building should be treated as a non-designated heritage asset. The site lies between the A23 and the McDonalds car park and is within the Green Belt.

The proposal is for six new car parking spaces and six fast [name] (EV) chargers along with two auxiliary units. The charging units would be utilitarian in nature and of a similar size to a standard petrol pump.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework states that commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate development where all the following apply: a. 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; b. There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed; c. The development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework;

Grey belt is defined in the Framework glossary as: ‘land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143. ‘Grey belt’ excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.’

Paragraph 143 (a) seeks to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; Paragraph 143 (b) seeks to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another and Paragraph 143 (d) seeks to preserve the setting the special character of historic towns. The appeal site comprises ‘other land’ that does not strongly contribute towards any of these purposes.

There is development on three sides of the site and the site forms part of the built-up area. Development on the site would not constitute unrestricted urban sprawl, neither would it facilitate neighbouring towns merging or affect an historic town. The site would not be in an area where the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development. Consequently, I am satisfied that the appeal site would comprise grey belt land.

The appellant has provided evidence of the Government’s intention to increase the supply of EV charging facilities in order to meet demand and reassure members of the public that supply can match demand. Although the appellant has not provided location specific evidence of need for this facility, the proposal would promote sustainable transport modes in line with the Framework.

The appeal site is set amongst residential development and on a main road. For the type of facility proposed, I consider the site to be located in a sustainable location.

In conclusion, the proposal would be located on grey belt land and meets the other criteria in paragraph 155 of the Framework. The proposal would not therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

[name] have found that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt under Paragraph 155 of the Framework, I do not need to consider the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt. Character and appearance of the area and the setting of the non-designated heritage asset

Policy DES1 of the Reigate & Banstead Local Plan Development Management Plan (DMP) expects new development to be of a high-quality design that makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of its surroundings. DES1.1 is of particular relevance requiring new development to promote and reinforce local distinctiveness and respect the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including positive physical characteristics or local neighbourhoods and the visual appearance of the immediate street scene.

I note the utilitarian and functional design of the proposed EV charger units and that the nature of the proposal would limit the contribution it could make to enhancing the character of the area. However, the site comprises open green space with additional open areas of green space to the south which provide a verdant approach to the site. The proposal must be assessed against this wider backdrop.

The site of the proposed development forms part of the setting of the locally listed building, a [name] building understood to have been built in the 1820’s with a portico of that period. The top of the stone building was later clad in weatherboarding and the ground floor sashes replaced with larger bays in the 20th Century. Immediately surrounding the building is car parking for the McDonalds. The open and undeveloped nature of the site allows views of the principal façade of the non-designated heritage asset.

Policy NHE9 of the DMP requires all planning applications that affect non-designated heritage assets to be supported by a clear understanding of the significance, character and setting of the heritage asset.

No heritage assessment of the building has been provided to accompany the appeal or address how the proposal would affect the asset’s significance. The Council has also directed me towards previous permissions that sought to ensure the character, historic interest and setting of the locally listed building was retained, including taking enforcement action to reinstate the grass which had been replaced with bark chippings.

The area of land for the proposed development currently affords a view across the site towards the locally listed building and forms part of the green and verdant setting for the building. I acknowledge the presence of existing infrastructure on the outer edge of the site in the form of lampposts and signage, however, these are largely unobtrusive in the street scene.

The appellant has directed me towards their fallback position which would be to install five EV charging points on the five parking spaces directly in front of the locally listed building. Whilst these would be directly in front of the locally listed building and would harm the setting of the building by virtue of their utilitarian design, bulk and mass, they would be viewed within the context of built development. It has also been brought to my attention that were the fallback position to be implemented, the depth of the spaces to the front of the building would need to be increased to allow two way traffic which would increase the likelihood of additional hardstanding to the front of the site being required which may make the fallback position impractical to carry out. The appellant has also not submitted details of any ancillary equipment required to support the EV chargers and this may require planning consent, causing doubt as to the ability of the appellant to implement the fallback position without further permission.

The proposed location for the EV chargers, ancillary structures and additional hardstanding in this appeal would be visually more dominant than the fallback position being located on an undeveloped area of open grassland and would obstruct views towards the locally listed building from the A23. Any proposed planting to the front of the site to hide the proposal would not retain the open views of the locally listed building across the site or ameliorate the harm to the character of the area. In this context, although the appellant has a fallback position, I consider the proposal would be visually more dominant within the street scene and eye catching when travelling along the A23, and the fallback position may require further permissions to be able to be implemented.

In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, in accordance with Paragraph 216 of the Framework, I am required to make a balanced judgement having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

Whilst such structures are not uncommon within a car park, the proposal would be located outside the existing car park and the scale, quantum and positioning of the development would mean that the overall development would represent a visually intrusive introduction into the street scene and in turn cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area and the setting of the adjacent locally listed building.

The appellant has set out the benefits arising from the fact the Government has a strategy to expand the EV charging infrastructure nationwide in order to lessen the reliance on fossil fuel powered vehicles, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality. The Framework supports development that enables charging of plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles in safe, accessible and convenient locations. As such, the contribution of electric vehicle charging stations towards the local and national charging infrastructure is significant. I also note the appellant’s comments regarding the commercial roadside context and that the appeal scheme would be reversible as the EV chargers can be removed, but I attach modest weight to these matters.

However, I have not been provided with sufficient information to demonstrate that the benefits of the scheme cannot be achieved through the installation of the proposed infrastructure in a location within the car park that causes less harm to the locally listed building or the character and appearance of the area. I therefore find insufficient benefits arising from the proposal to offset the identified harm to the locally listed building to which I attach significant weight.

In conclusion, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and the setting of the locally listed building and would conflict with policies DES1 and NHE9 of the DMP.

The proposal would not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, however, I have identified conflict with policies DES1 and NHE9 of the DMP. These policies are consistent with the Framework insofar as they require development to promote and reinforce local distinctiveness and respect the character of the surrounding area, including the visual appearance of the immediate street scene. The conflict with the development plan carries substantial weight in the decision. These are the relevant development plan policies for determining this appeal and as such the tilted balance is not engaged.

I also consider the appeal scheme would be more harmful than the fallback in terms of the effect on the wider character. Having regard to this, the benefits arising from the scheme are reduced and are outweighed by the development plan conflict.

For the reasons given above, the proposed development would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. As such, the appeal should be dismissed.