Appeal 6001179

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are whether the proposal would be appropriate development in this open countryside location.

The appeal site is close to a number of existing dwellings located at the end of [site address] and is therefore not physically or geographically isolated. It does however lie outside of a defined settlement boundary and is within the open countryside. It is a parcel of land accessed from the modern and new residential estate of [site address] , containing a large shed and stable building and menage surrounded by typical ranch style enclosure. The site is entirely surrounded to the east by grazing fields and overall exhibits a rural characteristic.

The appellant intends to demolish the existing buildings on site in order to erect a new four bedroom dwelling designed in a style similar to a Y shape with the appearance akin to a large modern agricultural barn.

Policy HO 2 of the Carlisle District Local Plan 2015-2030 (the CDP) states, amongst other things, that windfall housing development is acceptable on the edge of settlements provided the site is well contained within existing landscape features, is physically connected, and integrates with the settlement and does not lead to an unacceptable intrusion into the open countryside.

Policy HO 6 also reinforces that new housing in the open countryside would not be permitted unless the proposal meets one of the exceptions set out within the policy pertaining to an essential need for new housing for a rural worker; replacement dwellings; and conversion of structurally sound redundant or disused buildings. Given that the proposal seeks the demolition of the existing barns to facilitate the new build, the proposed development falls outside the scope of all those exceptions listed.

In this location, there is a very tight boundary to the countryside edge with the settlement of Cumwhinton. The gardens of residential houses along [site address] back onto the open fields on this side and forms a strongly consistent boundary edge. The appeal site currently sits outside the village boundary edge as it is positioned behind residential The Nook but is part of the open countryside. The rural vernacular of the buildings on site and surrounding effects reads as part and parcel of the countryside and not the modern housing development. It therefore blends with the rural characteristic beyond.

A new dwelling in this location would appear as an anomaly as the tight settlement boundary would be punctuated into the open countryside by virtue of a new residential dwelling, extending the village settlement into the open countryside. It would appear as a standalone dwelling visually exposed here given the openness of the surrounding grazing fields and limited existing landscaping. In this position it would fail to integrate into the built-up settlement.

The surrounding houses are laid out in a very planned order, some in large plots that the proposal is intended to emulate. The floor area of the new dwelling would be larger than the existing floor area of the buildings on site however. These are utilitarian in design and single storey. Although the design is intended to appear as a rural barn taking design cues from agricultural buildings, it would introduce a large contemporary style of dwelling of an irregular shape that would neither conform to a typical barn nor resemble the layout of dwellings seen in close quarters.

In this location at a scale and mass and design using considerable glazing and irregular roof formation, there would be no getting away from the fact that it would be a building for residential habitation. Landscaping to the scheme would not negate the fact that both a dwelling and the associated domestic paraphernalia would encroach into the countryside causing unacceptable intrusion into the open countryside. The National Planning Policy Framework recognised the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. It would not be upheld in this regard.

To conclude on this main issue, for the reasons given above, the site would not be an appropriate location for the proposed development. It would therefore not accord with [name] 2 and HO 6 which collectively seek to protect the open countryside from encroachment. I find no direct relevance to Policy SP2 as this is a strategic growth policy that identifies housing growth through land allocation as well as city centre retail and leisure provision.

In terms of benefits arising from the proposal, it would increase the local housing supply by one dwelling; it would support local economy and village facilities; it is physically well connected to the village with no adverse impacts on highway and pedestrian safety brought to my attention by the Council. It would be built to green credentials with landscaping enhancements and would provide an adaptable family home for the appellant and meet their functional needs. Residential living conditions of adjacent occupants would not be compromised by the proposal.

These things considered I apply only a very limited amount of weight to the fact that a new dwelling would be provided and the impact on the wider housing supply. There would be some local economic gain arising from local spend and its contribution to sustaining local facilities. However, these are small as a whole. As it would be designed to reduce carbon emissions and an integrated landscaping scheme I apportion only a small amount of weight to this benefit. It is well connected to the local village which I apply only minor weight. The lack of harmful effects of the proposal on the living conditions of local residents and highway safety implications and its overall design to adapt to family living are neutral in the overall scheme of things and neither weighs for or against the proposal.

These things considered, the benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm arising to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

The proposed development would lead to conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.