Appeal 6006198

The appeal is dismissed.

The above site address and description of development are taken from the application form. Although the Council has used a different address and development description on its decision notice, there is no evidence that this was formally agreed. The address and description of development used by the appellant are sufficiently accurate to identify the location of the site and the development proposed. However, I have removed wording that contains detail and narrative that does not relate to the operative part of the development.

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 (2024) (the Framework); • the effect of the proposed development upon the openness of the Green Belt; • whether the development would be acceptable with regard to farm diversification and the loss of a building in agricultural use; and • if the proposal is found to be 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 building which is currently in agricultural use, as stated on the application form. It forms part of a collection of buildings within a wider site known as [address]. The appeal site adjoins open fields to the south of the site which are within the ownership of the appellant.

The site falls within land defined as Green Belt. The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 154 of the Framework indicates that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate subject to a number of exceptions. Policy CP8 of the Bath and [name] Part 1 of the Local Plan (2014) (CS), states that the openness of the Green Belt will be protected from inappropriate development in accordance with national planning policy.

From the limited evidence provided, which includes the design and access statement, the appellant contends that the proposal is acceptable in the Green Belt as it is a replacement building which does not consist of a large increase in size compared to the existing building. As such, paragraph 154 d) of the Framework is of relevance.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework, exceptions criteria d) states the ‘replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces’. Whilst it is noted that the footprint of the proposed development is of a similar size to the existing building, the height would increase significantly by around 2.85m, thereby resulting in a materially larger building. Additionally, the proposal is for a change of use, from an agricultural use to storage/ workshop space which is stated in the design and access statement to function as a commercial building.

Consequently, the proposed development would not meet the exceptions criteria of paragraph 154 d) of the Framework. The Council has concluded that the proposal fails to meet all of the criteria set out in paragraph 155 of the Framework, and I have no evidence before me to reach a different conclusion. In particular, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the development would utilise Grey Belt land or that there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. Whilst the site may be within a sustainable location, the proposal does not constitute major development such that the [name] would apply.

For the above reasons, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would be contrary to Policy CP8 of the CS, which requires that the openness of the Green Belt is protected from inappropriate development in accordance with national planning policy.

Paragraph 142 of the Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Openness is the essential characteristic of the Green Belt and is capable of having both spatial and visual aspects.

The footprint of the proposed building would be similar to that of the existing structure, and there are other buildings located nearby within the wider farm site. However, the overall volume of development would be greater than the existing building, as the height would increase significantly by around 2.85m. This additional height would increase the overall bulk and scale of development within [address], resulting in a loss of spatial openness.

Whilst the existing plans of the building show an enclosed building, I noted at my site visit that the existing building is open on all four sides maintaining a high degree of transparency. In contrast, the proposed building would be enclosed on three sides. The introduction of solid walls coupled with the proposed additional height would create substantial visual mass and enclosure when compared to the existing structure. [name] acknowledge that the proposed buildings would sit near to other structures, given the open character of the land to the south, the building would be highly visible in long- and short-range views. Consequently, the proposal would result in a more urbanised appearance that would harm the visual openness of the Green Belt.

Consequently, taking the above factors into account, there would be no more than a moderately harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt. Nevertheless, paragraph 153 of the Framework requires that any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness, should be given substantial weight.

Overall, in terms of Green Belt, the proposal would conflict with Policy CP8 of the CS which states that the openness of the Green Belt will be protected from inappropriate development in accordance with national planning policy.

Whilst there is agreement between the parties that there is no conflict with Policy ED2B of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan [name] and Placemaking Plan incorporating the Local Plan Partial Update, Volume 1 District- Wide Strategy and Policies (2023), (CSPP) which relates to non-strategic industrial sites, the Council considers that the proposal conflicts with Policy RE3 of the CSPP. The policy sets out that where existing agricultural buildings cannot be reused, new buildings will only be permitted where they are required for uses directly related to the use of, or products from the associated land holding.

Having regard to the limited evidence provided, the proposal constitutes a change of use from an agricultural use to a commercial use including storage and a workshop. With reference to Policy RE3 of the CSPP, the Council say that the proposed use has been described as a 'general workshop and commercial storage use' but that no detail has been given about what will be stored or what the workshop will be for and that the application submission does not indicate that the proposed use will be associated with the agricultural function or products from the existing farm.

The appellant has not provided any evidence to contradict the above claim and there is little other evidence before me that the commercial use of the building proposed meets the requirements of Policy RE3 of the CSPP which seeks to support appropriate farm diversification where it would not have an adverse effect on existing agricultural uses and therefore the economic viability of rural areas.

For the above reasons, I therefore find that the proposal is not for farm diversification and would result in the loss of an agricultural building contrary to the objective of ensuring appropriate farm diversification as set out in Policy RE3 of the CSPP.

I note that planning permission has been granted for a commercial use of a neighbouring replacement building1 within the wider farm site. The Council’s position is that the lawful use of that building as a commercial use had been established through a previous certificate of lawful use2. Thus, the development was considered acceptable with regard to the provisions of criteria 154 d) and therefore, the two schemes are not directly comparable.

Whilst the appellant states that the proposal would deliver a commercial business at the site, there is little evidence before me about the proposed use, and little before me to demonstrate that the proposal would provide economic or other benefits.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined in the Framework. There would be moderate harm to openness, in both spatial and visual terms. There would also be harm associated with the loss of an agricultural building contrary to the objective of ensuring appropriate farm diversification. The Framework states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt including harm to its openness. Very special circumstances will not exist unless that harm, and any other harm resulting from the development, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

I have little evidence of any benefits associated with the proposal and the adjacent building referenced by the appellant is not comparable for the reasons I have set out; therefore, there are no other considerations to justify the substantial harm to the Green Belt. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole and material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.