Opirim Agala Planning Inspectorate

Tel. 0118 974 6690 Email: [email protected] Date: 2 January 2018 Council Ref: Simon Taylor – 172323 Appeal Ref: APP/X0360/C/17/3190455 Development Management P.O. Box 157 Opirim Agala Shute End, Wokingham Planning Inspectorate Berkshire RG40 1WR Room 3B Eagle Wing Tel: (0118) 974 6000 Temple Quay House Minicom No: (0118) 974 6991 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN [email protected] Statement of Case – Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) LPA Reference: 172323 Appeal Reference: APP/X0360/W/17/3190455 and APP/X0360/C/18/3201167 Appellant Name: David and Lyn Ormandy Site Address: Davlin Farm, Worleys Lane, Cockpole Green, Wargrave RG10 8NT Planning Proposal: Full application for the use of land for the stationing of a mobile home for residential use Enforcement Notice: Unauthorised formation of earth bunds Appeal Start Date: 21 November 2018 1. Statement Authors 1.1. This statement consolidates the work of the Council’s Enforcement Manager, Senior Highways Officer and Agricultural Consultant. 2. Application History 1.2. The planning application (172323) involved the erection of a single storey mobile home with a footprint of 28m2, height of 4m and comprising of two bedrooms, a bathroom and an open plan living area with kitchen. The home is intended as a rural worker’s dwelling, providing on-site accommodation for a key worker to manage the alpaca breeding enterprise. The farming operations include the sale of stock, livery, stud and fleece and other alpaca products. 1.3. Additional unauthorised works were also undertaken on the site, and these comprised the formation of two earth bunds along the southern and eastern edges of the buildings. 1.4. The planning application was made valid on 11 August 2017. It was refused on 17 October 2017, where it was retrospective in nature, for the following reasons: 1 1. There is not an essential need for the mobile home on the site in the Metropolitan Green Belt and countryside. The proposal represents inappropriate development which is therefore, by definition, harmful to the openness of the Green Belt contrary to policy CP1, CP3, CP11 and CP12 of the Core Strategy, TB01 of the MDD and the principles of the Borough Design Guide and Paragraphs 55, 89 and 90 of the NPPF. 2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the Council’s satisfaction that the site is sustainable with regards to its location and access to services. Due to the isolated location the proposed development is not within an acceptable walking distance of local facilities, public transport, amenities and schools. This will result in a high level of car dependency contrary to the sustainable transport goals of the NPPF and Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3 and CP6. 1.5. An Enforcement Notice was issued on 24 April 2018 for the following alleged breaches of planning control: i) Without planning permission, the formation of an earth bund the approximate position of which is shown in solid blue on the plan attached to this notice annotated ‘Bund 1’ ii) Without planning permission, the formation of an earth bund the approximate position of which is shown in solid blue on the plan attached to this notice, annotated ‘Bund 2’. iii) Without planning permission, the material change of use of the Land from agriculture to a mixed use of agriculture and the siting of a caravan for human habitation 1.6. The reasons cited in the Enforcement Notice were that: i) It appears to the Council that the above breaches of planning control specified at 3(i) and 3(ii) have occurred within the last four years and the alleged breach of planning control specified at 3(iii) above, has occurred within the last ten years. ii) There is no essential need for the caravan on the site in the Metropolitan Greenbelt, Area of Special Landscape Importance and countryside. The use and development represents inappropriate development which is therefore, by definition, harmful to the openness of the Green Belt contrary to policies CP1, CP3, CP11 and CP12 of the Adopted Core Strategy Development Plan Document and CC01, CC02, CC03, TB01 and TB21 of the Adopted Managing Development Delivery Local Plan. iii) The site is not sustainable with regards to its location and access to services. Due to the isolated location the use is not within an acceptable walking distance of local facilities, public transport, amenities and schools. This will result in a high level of car dependency contrary to the sustainable transport goals of the NPPF and Adopted Core Strategy Development Plan Document policies CP1, CP3 and CP6; and CC01 and CC02 of the Adopted Managing Development Delivery Local Plan. iv) The two bunds are alien incongruous features in this Green Belt and Area of Special Landscape Importance (ASLI). They have an adverse impact on the character and visual amenity of the Green Belt and ASLI location. They represent inappropriate development and are therefore contrary to policies 2 CP1, CP3, CP11 and CP12 of the Adopted Core Strategy Development Plan Document and CC01, CC02, CC03, TB01 and TB21 of the Adopted Managing Development Delivery Local Plan. 1.7. WBC’s case for dismissing the appeal against the refusal of the planning application is largely outlined in the officer report and the consultation response from the Council’s Agricultural Consultant (Appendix 1), with additional relevant information contained herein. WBC’s case for dismissing the appeal against the enforcement notice is contained within the expediency report, which forms Appendix 2 to this statement. 1.8. For the purposes of clarity, the reasons can be summarised as being: a) Lack of demonstrated need for a rural worker’s dwelling, which by extension renders the proposed works as inappropriate development and harmful to the openness and character of the Countryside and Green Belt b) Poor sustainability credentials 1.9. Since the refusal of this application and submission of this appeal, prior approval application 173366 granted permission for an agricultural track from the roadway to the existing barn. It was allowed under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class B of the GPDO. 3. Relevant Policies 3.1. Inappropriate Development within the Green Belt 3.2. The site is outside of the settlement limits and is located in the Green Belt and Countryside. As such, new dwellings are ordinarily resisted. The relevant policies include a) Paragraph 79 of the NPPF notes that new isolated dwellings should be avoided, unless it can be demonstrated that there is an essential need for a rural worker, including those taking majority control of a farm business, to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside b) Paragraphs 143-146 of the NPPF state that new buildings in the Green Belt are inappropriate, unless it involves buildings for agriculture or forestry amongst several other exceptions c) Policy CP12 of the Core Strategy and Policy TB01 of the MDD Local Plan state that development must maintain the openness of and not conflict with or harm the purposes of the Green Belt d) Policy CP11 of the Core Strategy states that development outside of development limits is not permitted, unless it involves a sustainable rural or recreational enterprise, where it does not lead to excessive expansion away from the original building and is contained within a building suitable for conversion, amongst other exceptions 3.3. Policy CP11 of the Core Strategy is applicable insofar as it follows the intent of the national policy that applied at the time. Paragraph 4.58 states that agricultural workers dwellings will need to demonstrate compliance with PPS7. 3 3.4. With limited guidance in the NPPF, it has become generally well established that applications for a rural worker’s dwelling need to be considered against the following criteria: a) Whether there is an essential need for a rural worker to live on site b) Whether that need can be met by existing accommodation c) Whether the enterprise is financially viable or sustainable d) Whether other relevant considerations, such as siting and size, are acceptable 3.5. Failure to satisfy the above policies renders the development also contrary to the following policies relating to character impacts. 3.6. Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy seeks to ensure that development (1) maintains or enhances the high quality of the environment; and (7) avoids areas of best and most versatile agricultural land. 3.7. Policy CP3 of the Core Strategy states that development (a) must be appropriate in terms of its scale, mass, layout, built form, height and character of the area and must be of high quality design; (c) does not have a detrimental impact upon important…landscape features; and (f) contributes to a sense of place in the buildings and spaces themselves and in the way they integrate with their surroundings. 3.8. Policy CC02 of the MDD Local Plan states that development at the edge of settlements is acceptable where it is demonstrated that it is within development limits and respects the transition between the built up area and the open countryside by taking account of the character of the adjacent countryside and landscape. 3.9. Policy CC03 of the MDD Local Plan aims to protect green infrastructure networks, promote linkages between public open space and the countryside, retain existing trees and establish appropriate landscaping and Policy TB21 requires consideration of the landscape character. 3.10. R1 and RD1 of the Borough Design Guide SPD require that development contribute positively towards and be compatible with the historic or underlying character and quality of the local area. 3.11. Paragraph 170(b) of the NPPF requires that planning applications enhance the natural and local environment by ‘recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland.’ 3.12.

Load more