Appeal 6001246

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken on an unaccompanied basis. On arrival at the site, weather conditions had deteriorated significantly. Reasonable steps were taken to locate a representative at the farmhouse and yard. However, this necessitated crossing the A53 and, in the prevailing conditions, it was necessary to undertake a dynamic risk assessment and proceed with the site visit at the earliest safe opportunity, earlier than anticipated. The site was viewed from publicly accessible vantage points, including the roadside and nearby public footpaths, which provided sufficient opportunity to assess the site and its surroundings. As the merits of the proposal are not discussed during site visits, this was undertaken in the interests of safety and to ensure completion of the visit rather than abandon it.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the landscape of the Peak District National Park (“the PDNP”).

The appeal site forms part of an existing pasture field located to the east of the A53, on the opposite side of the main farm buildings associated with [site address] . The farm operates primarily as a dairy enterprise, supporting a herd of approximately 22 [name] cattle for calving, with land use focused on grazing and fodder production. The A53 bisects the holding, with the majority of usable grazing land located to the east on more gently sloping terrain. The appeal site reads as part of a vast expanse of open land, largely free from built development and substantive vegetation or tree belts.

The Peak District National Park Local Development Framework Core Strategy adopted 2011 (“the CS”) and Development Management Policies Part 2 Local Plan adopted May 2019 (“The DMP”) establishes a framework that gives primacy to conserving and enhancing landscape character and scenic beauty within the PDNP. The policies also recognise agriculture as an essential land‐based activity within a living, working landscape. The overarching aim of these policies is therefore to achieve a proportionate balance between supporting functional agricultural needs and conserving landscape character.

National Parks have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The two purposes of National Parks are to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area; and to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of their special qualities by the public. In accordance with Framework Paragraph 189, I attach great weight to the conservation and enhancement of the landscape and scenic beauty in the PDNP as well as the enhancement of its wildlife and cultural heritage.

The appeal site is located within the ‘Densely enclosed gritstone upland’ in the Authority’s core policy document ‘[name].’ Land use is dominated by extensive livestock grazing, primarily sheep and cattle, with some dairying on lower land. Settlements are sparse and dispersed. The appeal site’s landscape qualities in terms of its role and function in the locality contribute in a positive way to the natural beauty and cultural heritage of the National Park.

It is common ground between the parties that the proposal satisfies [name] of Policy DME1, which seeks to ensure that new agricultural and forestry buildings are only permitted where they are genuinely necessary and proportionate to the needs of the holding, and where that need is clearly evidenced by the applicant. The Council’s objection instead relates to [name] of the policy, with the Authority concluding that the development fails to meet the locational and landscape protection criteria, in particular the preference for new buildings to relate closely to existing farmsteads and to avoid isolated siting within the open countryside.

The site is not wholly devoid of mitigating landscape features, including established field boundaries, drystone walls providing continuity with the surrounding agricultural setting. In wider views, particularly from the south and south-east, the separating influence of the A53 is not as readily perceived and the development would read as more closely associated with the existing farmstead. Furthermore, rising land to the west, together with established roadside landscape features, would provide a backdrop that would help to visually contain the building and limit its prominence within the broader landscape. The proposals utilitarian form and use of typical agricultural materials, including pre‐cast concrete panels and subdued cladding, would reinforce its agricultural character and would assist in assimilating it into its rural surroundings.

However, from close and mid-range views it is clearly separated both physically and visually from the established group of buildings. The introduction of a new agricultural structure in this location would therefore extend development beyond the defined farmstead into an area presently perceived as undeveloped. In these circumstances, the proposal would appear as an isolated encroachment into the countryside and would have a high level of visibility.

The proposed siting and orientation of the building reflect a clear response to operational requirements, with the south-facing doors intended to reduce exposure to prevailing winds and limit the ingress of wind-driven rain and snow. However, this arrangement necessitates the provision of access and manoeuvring space around the more open and visually exposed northern side of the building. This in turn requires a substantial extent of hardstanding in an area that is readily visible in both immediate and wider views, introducing a conspicuous and engineered feature into the landscape.

By contrast, the opposing side of the building benefits from existing access arrangements and a greater degree of enclosure arising from established nearby evergreen trees and the undulating landform. These features would afford a higher level of containment, both visually and, to some extent, shelter from prevailing conditions. The siting of extensive hardstanding on the more exposed side therefore appears neither the most landscape-sensitive nor the most functionally efficient solution. As a result, the proposal would reinforce the perception of encroachment into open countryside and materially increase the overall visual harm arising from the development.

The proposed planting is primarily located in areas where the building would already benefit from a degree of screening. Whilst quicker growing lower-level planting would assist in screening shorter-range views, I am not convinced the landscape scheme as submitted would effectively moderate the effects and that of the hardstanding area within the wider landscape. I have carefully considered whether an alternative landscape scheme could be conditioned but having regard to the Council’s Landscape Strategy in relation to the limited tree cover this would not mitigate the combination of harms arising from the building and hardstanding.

I therefore conclude that the development would result in harm to the landscape and scenic beauty of the PDNP, contrary to CS policies GSP1, GSP2, GSP3, DS1 and L1 and DMP policies DMC3 and DME1. Collectively, these policies require great weight to be given to landscape protection and to ensure agricultural buildings are sensitively sited and designed to minimise visual intrusion and respect local character. It would also be contrary to Framework Paragraph 189 which seeks the conservation and enhancement of the landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks.

In functional terms, the appeal site forms part of a single, albeit physically divided, agricultural holding. I observed that the A53 at this location is a main route characterised by fast-moving traffic, and that the farmstead and principal grazing land are separated by the carriageway. This arrangement necessitates the periodic movement of livestock and the appellant between the two land parcels.

The Council contends that less harmful alternative locations exist within the western farmyard, and I concur. However, no specific, feasible or evidenced alternative has been identified that would overcome the operational and safety issues arising from the need to move livestock across the A53, or whether an amended design could provide a less harmful solution.

I accept that such movements give rise to inherent risks to animal welfare, the personal safety of the appellant, and to highway users, particularly having regard to the nature of the road and the behaviour of livestock. However, the evidence before me does not establish the regularity, timing or scale of such crossings, nor whether they are confined to specific seasonal or management activities. In the absence of this detail, I am unable to conclude that the risks arising are so frequent or severe as to justify the extent of development proposed.

The Highway Authority was consulted but has provided no substantive response either to support or to refute the appellant’s case. [name] recognise that the existing arrangements have the potential to give rise to highway safety concerns, and that the proposed development would offer a clear and practical benefit in reducing the need for livestock crossings, there has been no substantive assessment of alternative measures which could address these risks. In particular, there is no evidence to demonstrate that other forms of mitigation, such as improved traffic warning systems, signage, or changes to management practices, would not represent a more proportionate response with materially less impact on the character and appearance of the landscape.

I have carefully considered the extent to which the proposed development would address the risks associated with moving livestock across the A53. [name] recognise that the proposal would provide a clear and practical benefit in reducing the need for such crossings, the evidence before me is insufficient to demonstrate that these movements occur with a frequency or regularity that would justify the effects of development proposed. I therefore attribute only moderate weight to the highway safety and operational benefits arising.

Set against this, I have found that the proposal would result in material harm to the character and appearance of the area, particularly having regard to its siting within open and exposed countryside in the PDNP and the extent of associated hardstanding. Great weight must be given to the conservation of landscape and scenic beauty in such designated areas. The introduction of a substantial agricultural building, together with its associated engineered surfaces, would erode these qualities and result in an unacceptable degree of visual harm.

I am not persuaded, on the basis of the evidence provided, that less harmful solutions, whether through alternative siting, design, or management measures, have been adequately explored. As such, the benefits identified, even taken together, do not clearly outweigh the identified harm.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.