Appeal 6000920

The appeal is dismissed.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development, having regard to local planning policies.

The appeal site is outside a defined settlement. It relates to a section of land within a wider agricultural holding which wraps around an existing groundworks business consisting of several large commercial buildings and areas of open storage that extend south from [site address] .

The wider surrounding area is rural in character comprising an agricultural landscape with gently undulating improved pasture and arable fields which extend to the south to the outskirts of the settlement of Hambleton. While there are some trees and hedgerows on field boundaries and distant views of new housing, the area is distinctly open in its character and appearance.

Although in a different use to the industrial buildings nearby, the proposed agricultural building would measure some 30m in length and 5.6m to the ridge of the roof and would be sited parallel to the boundary of the far open storage area. Consequently, it would appear as a significant extension of the built form and hardstanding of the groundworks business, projecting over 16m into farmland and the open countryside.

There would only be glimpsed views of the proposed building from [site address] to the east through gaps in the mature hedgerow. However, due to the topography, the proposed building would be visible from various nearby points within the surrounding farmland. Furthermore, there would be longer views from the footpath which runs south from [site address] . The building would appear of a considerable size and would be an unduly dominant, urbanising feature in these views. This would be to the detriment of the open and rural character of the countryside which is recognised in Policy SP4 of the Wyre Local Plan (2011-2031) (2023) (WLP) for its intrinsic character and beauty.

The appellant’s evidence is that the building would house a small herd of breeding Hereford and Charolais cattle over the winter months. While the proposed ground floor plan identifies loose housing for 20 cattle within two of the five bays of the building, a larger bedding and feed area is also shown, as well as a separate alleyway for feeding and a large area for storage. The total number of livestock that would be housed and grazed on the landholding is thus unclear. I also have very little evidence before me to demonstrate that the size of the building (around 500m2) is based on recognised stocking densities, over wintering requirements, or what is reasonably needed in terms of storage and access by farm machinery.

The appellant has suggested that details of the storage of livestock waste could be controlled by a suitably worded pre-commencement condition. However, without any certainty of the total number of cattle, the dimensions, or its proposed location, I cannot be satisfied that such a condition would ensure the storage would be acceptable in this open, countryside location. It would likely add to the harmful size of the proposed development.

The appellant’s evidence refers to a ‘Report on a proposed new agricultural livestock and storage building’ (the ‘[name]) which was commissioned by the Council in August 2024 in respect of a previous planning application1 for a new agricultural livestock and storage building on a different part of the landholding. [name] was not submitted with the planning application to which this appeal relates. It was for a different proposal, on a different site and related to a larger agricultural landholding of around 6.5ha.

I acknowledge that the amendments recommended in the [name] have been taken into account in the proposal before me, including a reduction in floor area. Nevertheless, the information before me in respect of the total number of cattle proposed, and the operation of the agricultural business or landholding, does not adequately demonstrate that there is a need for such as substantial size of building, in such a prominent open countryside position. I therefore conclude that 1 [name]: 24/00492/FUL the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.

WLP Policy SP4 states that development which adversely impacts on the open and rural character of the countryside will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that the harm to the open and rural character is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm. Paragraph 88 of the Framework states that decisions should enable the development of agricultural businesses. [name] afford this moderate weight, it would not be of such a public benefit in this case to outweigh the harm I have found to the character and appearance of the area. No other public benefits have been advanced by the appellant.

In addition to the conflict with WLP Policy SP4, the proposal would conflict with WLP Policy CDMP3 which requires all development to be designed to respect or enhance the character of the area, having regard to issues including siting, height and scale.

The application form describes the development as the ‘erection of an agricultural cattle building’ and the plans before me show a building of typical agrarian appearance and materials, comprising a five bay portal steel framed building finished with metal sheeting above a concrete block wall with a cement fibre roof. The proposed floor plan shows separate areas for loose housing, straw bedding and feeding, a cattle crush and storage, accessed from three openings on the south elevation of the building.

The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) defines “agriculture” as including ‘the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land).’ On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the proposed building would be used to house livestock (cattle), which is a recognised agricultural purpose. Therefore, it falls within one of the purposes (2.a)) set out in WLP Policy SP4, where planning permission will be granted for new development within countryside areas. The purpose at WLP Policy SP4 2.a) is without qualification. It does not set out other matters which must be demonstrated or satisfied, such as an agricultural need or justification.

However, where development is within one of the purposes, WLP Policy SP4 also states that planning permission will only be granted where the requirements of the Core Development Management Policies (CDMP) are met. For the reasons given above in respect of the first main issue, the proposed development would conflict with WLP Policy CDMP3. Accordingly, there would be a conflict with WLP Policy SP4 and with WLP Policy SP1 which directs new built development to locations within defined settlement boundaries, unless development in countryside areas is supported by another policy.

Given the location of the appeal site, the development has potential to have effects on the zone of influence of the Morecambe Bay Special Protection Area and Ramsar site. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) require that, where a project is likely to have a significant effect on a European site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, the competent authority must, before any grant of permission in principle, make an appropriate assessment of the project’s implications in view of the relevant conservation objectives. [name] have found the appeal proposal to be unacceptable for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to undertake an appropriate assessment, or to consider this matter further.

While the proposal may use locally sourced, high quality and energy efficient materials, compliance with energy efficiency aims is a neutral matter rather than one that carries positive weight for the development.

I appreciate the frustration that a second report from an agricultural consultant was not commissioned by the Council and if found necessary, I acknowledge that the appellant would have provided further information or clarification. However, this has not had a bearing on my assessment of the appeal proposal, which I have considered solely on its planning merits and on the evidence that is before me.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.