Appeal 6006237

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for agricultural storage shed with access track at land adjacent to [site address] , [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/FUL/2025/03942, subject to the following conditions:

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 PP-14106040v1; and BVN-1.

No external lighting shall be erected within the application site identified by the red line on the approved drawings without a lighting scheme having first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter, the development must be carried out in accordance with any such agreed details.

The description of development in the formal decision above has been used as it removes superfluous language from that provided in the application form.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), which is a designated National Landscape (NL). The statutory purposes of the NL are to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, and it is necessary to seek to further these purposes in decision making. Furthermore, in such areas the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) attaches great weight to conserving and enhancing its scenic beauty.

Unlike the more expansive surrounding field patterns, the appeal site comprises a smaller, broadly triangular shaped parcel of land near woodland that is within the Bride Valley. It nevertheless lies within a wider landscape that is characterised by its undeveloped and tranquil qualities. Agricultural uses are also an integral part of this setting. Built form is generally limited and typically associated with established farmsteads or groups of structures. Within that context, it is of note that a large agricultural building is visible within the backdrop to the appeal site. This, together with its unusual shape close to woodland, reduces the sense the site is within an uninterrupted panoramic. It is acknowledged though that the appeal field is close to but somewhat separated from the main rural enterprise.

Even so, the proposed building would be modest in scale and would adopt a simple agricultural form using recessive timber cladding with a corrugated roof. Rather than being contrived or stark, as the Council put it, its features reflect the vernacular of rural buildings, and it would integrate well, appearing appropriate in this agricultural context. This demonstrates a willingness on the part of the appellant to further the purposes of the NL. The access track and area of hardstanding would introduce new engineered elements into an otherwise undeveloped field. However, such features are commonplace within working agricultural landscapes, and the chosen surfacing material laid over a short section of the site would not be incongruous. Furthermore, its appearance would be likely to soften in time.

In terms of siting, the building would be located toward the far end of the field, set away from [site address] which would not interrupt wider panoramic views across the valley. Even in the absence of possible future hedgerows, the development’s siting would also limit its prominence from localised public views, particularly on approach from the south. Additionally, I did observe there to be a good amount of planting within the appeal site that is likely to mature into additional, but not fundamentally necessary, screening. Over time, this would filter views of the building. For the reasons given, the eye would not be drawn to the development as a harmful incursion.

I am mindful of the contribution a nearby oak provides to the character and appearance of the area. Notwithstanding the tree officer comments, the Council conclude that it is however located a good distance from the appeal building. Moreover, it is on the far side of a boundary hedge, and, given the scale and nature of the proposal, I find no strong reason to disagree with the Council’s conclusions on this matter.

Taking all of these factors into account, I conclude that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, it would comply with policies ENV1, ENV10, and ENV12 of the [name], Weymouth and Portland Local Plan. Together in this respect, and amongst other things, these seek to protect the AONB, including its uninterrupted panoramic views and a sense of tranquillity by supporting well sited and designed buildings that respect the site’s characteristics.

The Council has suggested a number of conditions which I have considered against the tests set out in the Framework and PPG. I have made such amendments and omissions as necessary to comply with those documents.

I have imposed a plans condition in the interest of clarity. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, it is necessary to impose a condition that restricts external lighting.

The suggested parking, turning and manoeuvring condition is unlikely to pass the tests of enforceability as these features are not shown on the plans. Moreover, it has not been demonstrated that these elements are necessary to make this development acceptable in planning terms. The plans show a very generous set back from the lane. This, together with a large verge means that it is very unlikely drivers of emerging vehicles would not see or be seen by other road users. Consequently, the suggested visibility splay condition is not needed.

The suggested biodiversity conditions are noted, though the Council may only approve a biodiversity gain plan if it is satisfied that the biodiversity gain objective is met. There is no reason why the Council could not, if necessary, attach conditions when approving the plan. As such, the conditions are not necessary. That said, due to the provisions of Schedule 7 of the 1990 Act and as none of the statutory exemptions apply in this case, the development may not be begun unless a biodiversity gain plan has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

For the reasons given, the appeal is allowed.