Appeal 6000900

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site lies within open countryside, approximately 3 miles from Addingham and 6.5 miles from Skipton. There are no safe walking or cycling routes and no public transport links from the site, so occupiers would be heavily reliant on the private car for day-to-day needs. In these circumstances, the site can reasonably be regarded as isolated for the purposes of paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The planning history includes an unimplemented permission for a bungalow in 1978, renewed in 1987 but lapsed in 1992. A later appeal for a bungalow was dismissed in 1998. The existing structure is a disused railway carriage in a dilapidated condition. At the hearing, it was agreed that the proposal is not for a replacement dwelling. Accordingly, the Authority’s second refusal reason does not fall to be considered.

The emerging Yorkshire Dales National Park Local Plan 2025–2040 is at examination stage. While it is fairly advanced, it does not materially alter the approach of relevant adopted policies in this appeal and may still be subject to change. I have therefore determined the appeal primarily against the current Yorkshire Dales National Park Local Plan 2015–2030 (LP).

In light of the above, the main issues are: • Whether there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at the site so as to justify an isolated dwelling in the countryside; and • The effect of the development on the scenic beauty and intrinsic character of the Yorkshire Dales National Park.

Policies SP2, SP3 and SP4 of the LP require development to further the National Park purposes, follow the spatial strategy, and achieve high-quality design. Policy C3 sets out strict criteria for rural workers’ housing in the countryside. Paragraph 84 of the Framework states that isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided unless one of the limited exceptions applies, including an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work. Paragraph 189 of the Framework requires great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks.

The appellant is employed as head gamekeeper on the [name], a sporting estate of around 4,000 acres. They currently occupy a dwelling at [address] provided by the estate, while the under-gamekeeper resides in a smaller unit. The appeal site is privately owned by the appellant and does not form part of the estate.

The appellant explains that the proposed dwelling would allow them to remain close to the estate while training their successor and, in due course, retire locally. A letter from the employer confirms the expectation that [address] will be needed for the successor during and after an extended handover period.

Policy C3 requires clear, enterprise-based evidence that a full-time worker must live at [address]. No such evidence has been provided. Although the appellant asserts that no suitable dwellings or convertible buildings exist within the estate, no schedule of properties or documented analysis of availability and suitability has been provided, nor any consideration of temporary accommodation or subsidised rental arrangements. While gamekeeping can involve unsocial hours and unpredictable events, the functional need of the estate is already met by existing accommodation and will continue to be so. The case advanced rests largely on future succession planning and personal circumstances rather than an immediate operational necessity for the enterprise.

Moreover, the application was submitted in a private capacity, not by the estate. This further undermines the claim that the dwelling is required to meet the functional needs of the enterprise. In the absence of robust evidence and a documented appraisal of alternatives, it has not been demonstrated that a full-time worker must live at [address].

An occupancy condition has been suggested, but conditions must be enforceable and reasonable. Here, the dwelling would be on land owned personally by the appellant while the enterprise is owned by a separate entity. That separation would seriously weaken enforceability over time and could result in an unrestricted dwelling in the countryside, contrary to the spatial strategy. No other legal mechanism to secure the link is before me.

The site is also visually and physically separate from other buildings, with a separation of about 18 metres from the nearest boundary and over 40 metres from the nearest building. It is therefore not within or adjoining an existing group of buildings, as required by criterion d) of Policy C3. The failure to meet this mandatory requirement is sufficient reason alone to find conflict with Policy C3.

For these reasons, an essential need for a rural worker to live at [address]. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies SP3 and C3 of the LP and paragraph 84 of the Framework, which seek to avoid isolated dwellings unless justified by an essential need.

The appeal site lies within the Yorkshire Dales National Park, which has the highest status of protection for landscape and scenic beauty. The statutory purposes of National Parks are to conserve and enhance natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, and to promote opportunities for understanding and enjoyment of their special qualities.

The surrounding landscape is typical of the Park’s special qualities, comprising attractive open pasture enclosed by drystone walls. The site itself is a walled enclosure containing a derelict railway carriage, which detracts from the scene but does not justify harmful development.

The proposal would introduce a permanent dwelling, curtilage, lighting and domestic activity into an undeveloped area. Although the dwelling would be positioned on the lowest part of the site, it would remain entirely visible in close-range views from the adjacent road and public right of way, and particularly from the elevated ground to the north where the whole dwelling and curtilage would be clearly seen. The topography would therefore provide only limited screening and would not prevent the dwelling appearing prominent in those views. Boundary planting may soften the impact but would not remove the perception of a new residential incursion and could itself appear discordant. The effect would be to erode the openness and pastoral character that underpin local distinctiveness. Great weight must be given to conserving these qualities.

Furthermore, multiple rooflights and a wide horizontal window on the rear elevation would not accord with guidance in the Yorkshire Dales Design Guide, which seeks simple, uncluttered roofs and modest, vertically proportioned openings. These elements would introduce a contemporary emphasis at odds with the restrained vernacular character expected in this setting. While the appellant indicated that these elements could be reduced in size and number, that is not the scheme before me.

Although the removal of the railway carriage would be a visual benefit, it is not dependent on the development and carries very limited weight.

Overall, the proposal would harm the scenic beauty and intrinsic character of the National Park, contrary to Policies SP2 and SP4 of the LP and paragraph 189 of the Framework, which require great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty.

The Grade I listed [name] lies approximately 43 metres from the site, separated by a field and a tall boundary wall. Although not raised as a concern by the Authority, Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting. Given the separation and intervening features, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that the proposal would preserve the setting of the listed building and its significance as a heritage asset.

There is no evidence that the railway carriage has any historic or architectural interest that would elevate it to the status of a non-designated heritage asset. Its potential restoration and re-siting elsewhere therefore carries very little weight in favour of the proposal.

The incorporation of energy efficiency measures would be consistent with sustainable development principles, but attract only limited weight and would not overcome the fundamental policy conflict and harm identified.

References to other cases and appeal decisions carry little weight as they relate to different circumstances and do not alter my findings on this case.

For the reasons given, the proposal conflicts with Policies SP2, SP3, SP4 and C3 of the Local Plan, and with the Framework’s objectives to avoid isolated homes and to give great weight to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of National Parks. These conflicts and the associated harm attract substantial weight. The personal circumstances of the appellant and the very limited benefits of the scheme do not outweigh this harm. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.