Appeal 6006427

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are: • Whether the size of the proposed building is reasonably required for the purposes of agriculture at the site, and the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the local area, and • The effect of the proposal on highway safety.

The appeal site relates to a long and narrow parcel of greenfield land within the open countryside. It is lies between the A352 to the south-west and the [name] to the north-east. There is an existing field gate from the A352, although this access was overgrown at the time of my site visit, and did not appear to be in regular use. There is a public right of way, Footpath S14/17 that runs through [site address] and into the countryside to the north of the proposed agricultural building and appeal site and on higher land.

The proposal is for the construction of a new vehicular access from the A352 which would lead to a large parking and turning area to serve a 3 bay agricultural unit with 2 enclosed bays and one open bay. Additional planting is proposed in the form of new trees and new native hedgerows.

Policy ECON9 of the [name], Weymouth & Portland Local Plan 2015 (Local Plan) states that the development of new agricultural buildings will be permitted where the development is necessary for the purposes of agriculture on the unit and where the landscape impact would be minimised.

I have taken into account the Appellant’s objectives for the land, including as set out in the business case. The Appellant states that the land forms a small agricultural holding currently used for grazing and land management, although no further information is provided, whereas the Council considers that the field has no current or existing agricultural use. There are also references by the Appellant to previous silage production and to the re-introduction of livestock to the land, but this is not further explained. The Council advises that aerial maps of the site over the last 20 years do not appear to show any agricultural use of the land as defined by Section 336 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

At the time of my site visit, there were some sheep grazing at the very north-western end of the site, although most of the site did not appear to be in use. However, the business case which has been presented by the Appellant does not refer to sheep farming but to cattle rearing and land management and it is not clear whether the sheep are there on a temporary or permanent basis. The business plan provides very scant information on the nature of the proposed enterprise; there is no information on numbers of cattle and therefore on the extent to which a building of the size proposed is required.

There are a number of references in the business plan to ensuring the maintenance of the land and riverbank for flood mitigation. It may be that some of these operations are already carried out to maintain the land and some machinery was parked in the field at the time of my site visit. However, and whilst potentially preferable, it is not clear to me, on the basis of my site visit and the information presented, that there is a need for such machinery to be permanently stored on the site to undertake these activities.

On the very limited information before me, some of which is conflicting, it is not clear to me that the existing site comprises an agricultural unit. Notwithstanding this finding, and whilst some information is provided under the business plan, there is furthermore insufficient detail to enable me to conclude that the size of the building proposed is reasonably required to serve agricultural purposes at the site.

The site lies within a landscape character area, Chalk Valley and Downland, Cerne and [name] and [name]. Whilst there is built development nearby, particularly at the village of [site address] to the north, the site forms part of an attractive landscape comprising largely open fields, divided by hedgerows. The field the subject of this appeal lies in the valley floor of the [name] with the natural topography rising fairly steeply on either side away from the valley floor. The appeal site, given its undeveloped nature bounded by tall hedgerows to the A352 and by the planting along the river Cerne, makes a positive contribution to the local landscape character of this countryside area.

Although sited towards the south-eastern corner of the site, the proposed building would be substantial in size in relation to the overall size of the site. The design of the building in terms of its scale, materials and use of large roller shutter doors on two of the bays would present an overly large building that would be visually incongruous in the open countryside location. The impact of the building would be intensified with the extensive area of hardstanding for parking and turning created outside of the building and leading off the A352.

From the public footpath on higher land there would be some views of the proposed building, as identified from my site visit, and there may be more views when there is less foliage on the trees along the footpath. At the current time the views available are primarily over the open countryside. With the proposed development in place, the front of the building, and its overall scale and massing, together with the large area of hardstanding would be clearly visible from parts of the footpath and would be visually discordant and intrusive and harmful to the open landscape of the surrounding countryside.

A landscaping scheme has been submitted to indicate the addition of four new trees and some additional native hedgerow planting but on the very limited information, I cannot be satisfied that these would secure the stated objectives to screen views of the proposed building together with the large hardstanding area. This proposal would not therefore overcome the harm to the landscape that I have identified.

I therefore conclude that the size of the proposed building is not reasonably required for the purposes of agriculture at the site and that the proposed development would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the local area. This would conflict with Policies ECON9, ENV1 and ENV10 of the Local Plan as well as the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) and in particular Sections 12 and 15, all of which amongst other things seek a high quality of design which respects the local context and the natural environment.

A new vehicular access would be created on to the A352 to serve the new development. The main road is subject to the national speed limit of 60mph. The proposal is accompanied by a visibility splay plan showing visibility splays in both directions of 43m. The Council’s Highways Officer raised concerns and has sought more information including a speed survey along the main road to assess the required visibility splays.

There has been a discussion about seeking this information through the imposition of a condition, and the Appellant has referred to revised drawings and technical notes, but none of this information is before me. Given that the access would be onto a main road which operates at the national speed limit, and the potentially slow speeds of some of the vehicles that would be using the access, I consider that this issue should be resolved prior to the grant of any planning permission, in order to ensure safe access arrangements and no harm to the free flow of traffic on the main road and highway safety.

On the basis of the information before me, I conclude that the proposed development would not provide safe access and would have an unacceptable harmful effect on the free flow of traffic on the A352 and highway safety by reason of inadequate visibility splays. This would conflict with Policy COM7 of the Local Plan and Paragraph 115 b) of the Framework, both of which seek to ensure that new development would create safe and convenient access for all users.

Furthermore, and dependent on the requirements for the visibility splays, there may be consequential effects on the works that would be required to the hedgerows along the frontage, which would have a further detrimental effect on the landscape character and appearance of the site and of the local area, in addition to my assessment above.

My attention has been drawn to an earlier refusal of planning permission for a new agricultural building, access and hardstanding at the appeal site, which was dismissed at appeal Ref: APP/D1265/W/25/3366970. Each proposal must be considered on its individual merits and that has been the basis of my assessment in this case. Nonetheless to the extent that I have been provided with information relating to that previous scheme I have taken it into account, including the reduction in height and that one of the bays would be open rather than enclosed. Notwithstanding the revisions and amendments and further information provided following on from the previous refusal, I am not persuaded that a comparison with the earlier scheme proposal leads me to a different conclusion.

The Appellant has contended that reduced weight should be given to policies in the Local Plan because of the age of the Plan, dating from 2015. However, paragraph 232 of the Framework is clear that existing policies should not be considered out of date simply because of their age. The relevant test is the degree of consistency with the policies in the Framework and in that regard, I am satisfied that the policies in the Local Plan that are most pertinent to this appeal are consistent with the objectives and policies in the Framework. Policy ECON9 sets out specific criteria in respect of new agricultural development and is generally consistent with the Framework in so far as this seeks to support a prosperous rural economy and together with Policies ENV1 and ENV10 of the Local Plan to seek the creation of high quality and sustainable development which protects and enhances the natural environment.

The Appellant has indicated that further revisions to the size and scale of the building could be considered as well as further information on the agricultural justification and in respect of the submitted landscaping proposals, as well as the proposed visibility splays for the new access, but I am required to consider the proposal on the basis of the information before me.

The Appellant has referred to a fall-back position for the storage of machinery and equipment associated with land management, but no further details have been provided of what might be considered. I am not able therefore to give weight to these contentions, and they do not persuade me to a different conclusion, given the harm I have concluded.

I have taken into account the environmental benefits proposed as a result of the proposed development, but they do not outweigh the harm I have concluded.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.