Appeal 6001266

The appeal is dismissed.

The application was refused for three reasons. Broadly, the first pertained to the visual effect of the proposed development on the landscape, the second to ecological matters, and the third to drainage. The appellant has supplied additional documents relating to all three issues. The Council has asked that I not accept them.

The new information includes a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) prepared by Harper Landscape Architecture LLP dated September 2025. The LVIA is largely a response to the Council’s first reason for refusal. I do not see that it contains anything the Council did not know when reaching, or which would have altered, its decision.

As such, I am content that including it in the appeal would not make a substantial difference or fundamental change to the application, nor cause procedural unfairness.

In respect of ecology and drainage, I shall address the implications of my possibly accepting the supplied new information within my reasoning below.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on; • the character and appearance of the area, including the High Weald National Landscape (the NL); • ecology; and • drainage.

The appeal site is part of a farm which, in combination with other land nearby, amounts to some 278 acres. It includes a collection of existing buildings arranged in two separate elements. These are positioned alongside an access track that forms an area approximating to a linear yard.

It is proposed to erect a new cattle barn (the barn) for around 60 cows. The base of the barn would measure some 36m by 18m, and it would be just under 7m tall. The Council is content that given its shape, form, and external materials, the appearance of the barn itself would be in keeping with the rural character of the area. I see no reason to take a different view.

The barn would be located just east of the existing buildings and accessed through the gap between them. It would be served by a hardsurfaced area projecting beyond the barn on two sides. Much of the development would be on newly raised ground. This combination of features is central to the first reason for refusal.

The site is in the NL. As such, Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended) requires that I seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the NL. In addition, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that I give great weight to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in NLs, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues.

The Planning Practice Guidance sets out the relevance of management plans for NLs; Whilst not part of the development plan, they help set out the strategic context for development and provide evidence of the value and special qualities of these areas. The High Weald AONB Management Plan (2024-29) (the NLMP) is therefore a material consideration.

The NLMP lists the core character components of the NL’s natural beauty as including its aesthetic and perceptual qualities. Within this are the notion of a quintessential English pastoral landscape, and a sense of history and timelessness. The latter is cited as arising from an ancient countryside with a human-scale agricultural tapestry, and a resultant homely, pastoral feel. As a result, Objective PQ2 of the NLMP includes protecting the unspoilt rural landscape with its intrinsic sense of naturalness.

The yard and existing buildings occupy the highest part of the site, above an open field which slopes away to the east and south. As such, the existing buildings are visually prominent. Whilst belts of woodlands screen views of the site from the north and west, the buildings have a notable presence in the landscape when viewed from the south and east. This includes from the fields nearby, from a public right of way (PRoW) running south of the site, and from areas along the A271, including where it meets the PRoW. Indeed, the site is a central element in westward vistas from the junction of the PRoW and the road.

In these views, the wider area is seen as a rolling, bucolic landscape. It appears entirely natural insofar as if any significant manmade alterations to its shape or levels have occurred, they are not immediately evident. The site is no different; It is part of a gentle, natural rise in the land, and the existing buildings, along with the nearby farmhouse and associated structures, appear to be part of a traditional farmstead set on or near something of a natural ridge or plateau.

The existing buildings include reasonably large structures made using modern methods and materials. Even from a distance they have a utilitarian appearance. Nevertheless, the buildings are at a human scale insofar as their location, position, and extent appear dictated by the land’s natural topography, rather than from any changes to it. That is to say, they are accommodated within a quintessential English pastoral landscape which has not evidently altered over time. As such, the site adheres and contributes to the identified aesthetic and perceptual qualities that are a core character component of the NL.

The extent of land raising required as part of the appeal scheme, and the degree to which it would alter the level of the site, would be significant, and readily apparent given the views described above. The change in the shape of the land would be striking, with the natural, gentle slope overlaid with a flat surface area and steep banks, the pitch of which would signify a notable work of engineering, even once planting had established there.

The significant degree to which this would be at odds with the rural naturality, timelessness, and human scale of the landscape would be exacerbated by the localised nature of the operation; The original gentle slope of the land would be visible alongside the raised area, emphasising its presence and extent, as well as drawing attention to the projection outwards of new development upon it. In all these respects, the scheme would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the NL.

Whilst there are references within the LVIA to the new barn obscuring views of the existing buildings, the detailed findings of the assessment appear to be based on those buildings being removed; Not only are existing photographic views of the site described as including “dilapidated barns to be replaced” but the surmised “Magnitude of Visual impact at completion” from various viewpoints appear largely predicated on the existing buildings being replaced by the barn.

As that is not a feature of the scheme, I cannot confidently accept the LVIA’s findings that the impacts of development would largely be “[name]” or “[name]” as presented, or that the apparently resultant estimated degree of “[name]/[name]/Significance”, purported as ranging from minor to slightly beneficial, is reliable.

In more general terms, whilst I accept that the new barn may obscure views of the existing buildings, the benefits of this seem modest at best. Firstly, in views from the north or south the barn could only obscure one or other element of the buildings, leaving the other in the foreground. Secondly, it would not obscure either of them in views from the east. Thirdly, I am informed that the existing buildings are to be retained and used, leaving me with no obvious reason to find that they would remain “dilapidating”, as the appellant quite reasonably describes them.

Moreover, I have described above how the existing buildings, unremarkable as they are and even in their current condition, nevertheless adhere in a very simple way to the characteristics of the NL and of the area. Even if they were not renovated at all, obscuring them is therefore a modest benefit at best. It would weigh very little against the harmful visual effects of the proposal as described above.

I recognise that the barn would be seen in the context of, and as an addition to, the existing buildings. In that respect it would not appear incongruously located. I also recognise that new planting would take place along the northern edge of the site. Given that the northern backdrop is already largely comprised of dense woodland and the landscape is generally attractive, this is a very modest benefit.

Overall, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the NL, and that the mitigations and benefits outlined do not outweigh that harm. The appeal scheme conflicts with Policies DEN1 and DEN2 of the Rother Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (2019) (the LP) and Policies EN1 and EN3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) (the CS), which require development to maintain and reinforce natural and built landscape character, conserve and seek to enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the NL, and contribute positively to the character of the site and surroundings. It would not conserve or enhance landscape and scenic beauty in the NL and would not further the purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the NL. Biology; Drainage

The appeal scheme would involve the importation of a significant quantity of material to build up the ground under the barn. I recognise there is a risk that any invasive non-native species and pollutants introduced may act to the detriment of the adjacent ancient woodland and waterbodies.

The Council cites insufficient information as to the type of material to be imported. The same concern is advanced regarding the type of badger setts potentially affected and any mitigation, and of new planting required for its biodiversity value. Notwithstanding a rainwater harvesting scheme, the Council also considers the application insufficient to demonstrate adequate drainage arrangements.

LP Policy DEN4 and CS Policy EN5 require development to conserve and enhance [name] and Species, and [name], and for developers to integrate biodiversity into development schemes. LP Policy DEN5 requires drainage to be considered as an integral part of the development design process, and that applicants demonstrate arrangements are in place for ongoing maintenance.

These policies, along with CS Policy EN7, are in accordance with broader objectives in the Framework, and the appellant takes no issue with having to satisfy them. There does not appear, however, any explicit requirement in the policies that full details be provided from the outset.

I appreciate that in cases where site circumstances make new planting, species mitigation, or adequate drainage arrangements difficult to achieve, it is appropriate that full details be provided at the outset. I have little, however, from the Council as to why the appeal site and circumstances mean these matters could not, in this particular case, be addressed satisfactorily using pre-commencement conditions.

Given the above, even without considering the new information supplied by the appellant in respect of these issues I see little reason to think that the makeup and handling of imported material, the assessment and mitigation of badger setts, the provision of new planting, and the details of a drainage system could not each be addressed using pre-commencement conditions, or that appropriate consultation could not occur as part of that process. I therefore find no conflict with the aforementioned policies in respect of these issues.

The site is near to [name], designated as a [name] listed building1. I have therefore had regard to the statutory duty referred to in Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Given the reasonable separation distance, and presence between the site and the Listed Building of mature greenery, I am content that the setting of the Farmhouse would be preserved, and the proposal would not detract from it.

CS Policy RA2 sets out that the Council’s overarching strategy for the countryside is to maintain the farming capacity of the district, and to support agricultural industry, including diversification within farming. Policy RA3 states that proposals for development in the countryside will be determined on the basis of supporting new agricultural buildings needed to support farming that are of appropriate size, siting and design and materials, and directly related to the agricultural enterprise.

The Council acknowledges that the appeal scheme has the support of strategic policies and is acceptable in principle. The appellant has outlined the details of the agricultural venture the barn would enable. There is no suggestion from the Council that the barn is any larger than the venture requires, and I see no reason to think it is.

The appellant informs me that the proposal is fundamental to the continuation of the farm business and has provided an explanation as to why the barn could not be accommodated elsewhere on the appeal site. Almost no evidence is supplied in support of the former point. Evidence supplied in relation to the latter point is so succinct as to be somewhat unconvincing as an exhaustive exercise in discounting less harmful options.

Moreover, even if I were to accept the need for the barn, and that there are no practicable alternative configurations at the appeal site, I have little to show me that the barn could not go elsewhere on the wider farm. Whilst the appellant states that many location options have been considered in recent years, I am provided with no details of them, or why they were discounted. Overall, the weight I can attach to the need the appellant has for the barn is limited by these factors.

Given the great weight the Framework requires me to give to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of the NL, the above does not outweigh the identified harms. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

The appeal is dismissed.