Appeal 6001335

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Peak District National Park Authority. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The Authority’s Appeal Statement was received two working days after the deadline for submission and PINs procedural guidance1 details that sticking to the timetable is important for appeals to proceed quickly and fairly. However, from the information before me it appears that this late submission was due to technical difficulties experienced when uploading the document through the portal, and this only became apparent once the [name] contacted the Authority after the submission deadline had passed.

The Authority subsequently provided its Appeal Statement, and supporting documents, via email upon request of the [name]. This information was forwarded onto the appellant who was then given a two-week period to provide any final comments in response to the Authority’s submissions.

[name] note the appellant’s concerns in respect of this matter, I do not find the submission of the Authority’s Appeal Statement two working days after the deadline, due to unforeseen technical difficulties, disrupted the appeal timetable. Nor was the appellant prejudiced by the acceptance of the Authority’s Appeal Statement after the deadline.

A Noise Impact Assessment, as well as odour measurements, have been submitted with the appeal in response to the Council’s reason for refusal. The procedural guidance explains that it is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the LPA and by interested parties at the application stage. However, in this case, I find it is reasonable for the appellant to provide evidence to address the reason for refusal and I have therefore taken these submissions into consideration in my 1 Planning Inspectorate Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals – England (updated 13 September 2023) determination of this appeal. The Council has commented on these submissions, and I have taken its comments into account in my decision.

As part of their appeal submission the appellant has also included alternative site location and block plans which substantially extend the site edged red for the proposed development. The revised plans, and amended site edged red, would include a significant number of farm buildings and associated external areas, as well as the field to the west of the appeal building.

Having regard to the Wheatcroft2 and Holborn3 principles, as well as the procedural guidance, given the substantial increase in size of the proposed site edge red, I find these alternative plans represent a “substantial difference” or a “fundamental change” to the application. I therefore conclude that it would not be reasonable to determine the appeal against these alternative plans. As such I have determined the appeal against the plans as submitted to, and considered by, the Authority when it made its decision.

The appeal relates to a stone-built, outbuilding situated on a working farm known as Ryebrook. The two-storey building is located at the western end of the farmstead and has an elevation facing into the farm’s central courtyard area. The building has an opening at ground floor level which creates an underpass, providing vehicular access to the farm’s courtyard, the main farmhouse and numerous agricultural buildings.

The submission details that the farm consists of 212 acres of land and is predominantly a sheep farming enterprise comprising 260no. commercial ewes within 150 acres of pastureland, and 62 acres of meadow. Furthermore, the submission states that over the winter 10-12no. calves are raised in a shed located at the northern end of the farmstead. These calves are sold before lambing season begins in February.

The appellant states that the building subject to the appeal was a former stable, with a hayloft. However, the parties agree that the appeal building is no longer considered suitable for modern agricultural use, and I observed on site that it was not currently in any active use.

[name] 2023 planning permission4 was granted for “Conversion of outbuilding for ancillary residential use” and condition No. 6 on the Decision Notice states “The accommodation hereby approved shall be ancillary to Ryebrook and shall not be occupied as an independent dwelling.” This permission remains extant.

However, the appellant states that work has not commenced on the conversion as they are currently unable to obtain a mortgage for ancillary use. Consequently, a planning application was submitted to convert this outbuilding for independent residential use, without any ancillary tie to Ryebrook. This application was refused by the Authority on the grounds that the proposed development would give rise to undue adverse amenity impacts for future occupiers of the proposed dwelling due to its close and integral relationship to the working farm. This refused application is the subject of this appeal. 2 Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL 1982 P37] 3 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin) 4 Authority Ref: NP/SM/0623/0625

In view of the above, the main issue is whether the proposed use of the appeal property as an independent dwelling would provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to noise and disturbance; odours; privacy and safety from farm vehicles.

The appellant’s statement of case is accompanied by a [name] Assessment5 (NIA), which considers the main potential sources of noise would be from road traffic on [site address] ; farm activities; and rural sounds, such as birdsong and other animals.

The NIA recorded external ambient noise levels of 42dB during the day (16 hrs) and 33dB during the night (8 hrs) adjacent to the appeal building. Whilst the appeal proposal does not include any outdoor amenity space for future occupiers, it is noted that the readings taken would be below the 50 - 55dBA figure recommended for external areas within the BS 8233: 2014 standards6.

The NIA goes on to explain how if the proposed dwelling was constructed using the methodology described in [name] 12354-3:2000 “Building Acoustics-Estimation of [name] in buildings from the performance of elements. Part 3 Airborne sound Insulation against outdoor sound”, this would equate to a 31dB reduction for internal levels, in comparison to external noise levels.

The NIA therefore concludes that subject to noise control measures being implemented, including habitable windows being fitted with double glazing, and acoustic trickle ventilation, appropriate noise levels within the property could be achieved, even with windows partially open at night.

Whilst there is no substantive evidence before me to question the recordings provided within the submitted NIA, I note that it was only carried out over a 24-hr period7. I appreciate the appellant states that this was a typical agricultural day, however limited detailed information has been provided as to what agricultural activities took place during the survey period.

I note the appellant states that as this is a one-man farm, and therefore only one vehicle can be driven at the farm at any time. It is also detailed that using the total standard man day calculation, based on the size of the flock, the work at the farm equates to 0.56 equivalent full-time worker. The appellant does however add that this is an underestimation as foraging isn’t fully mechanised. Nevertheless, the submission also details that as many as three other people assist on the farm during certain periods, suggesting that there will be occasions where more than one person would be working on the farm and the level of activities taking place can vary.

The evidence before me does not however detail who or how many people were working on the farm, or what they were doing, during the 24-hour period when the NIA 5 Prepared by [name]: E22512 6 BS 8233:2014 Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings 7 31st July 2025 – 1st August [address] and therefore, I cannot be sure that it is a true reflection of noise generated at the farm.

During my visit I observed that background noise levels were relatively low, with the most audible sounds being the wind and the occasional noise / cries from a small number of sheep that were being kept in the field directly adjacent to the appeal building. However, I also observed very minimal farming activities taking place during my visit and therefore it was not possible for me to ascertain the noise levels that could be generated by farming activities that take place on this site.

I note the appellant contends that the majority of farming activities take place to the north and east of the farmstead, and therefore away from the appeal building. However, as mentioned, I did observe some sheep in the field directly to the west of the appeal building. Furthermore, I observed a number of surrounding buildings contain doors facing into the courtyard area where the appeal building is located, and also trailers and vehicles were parked within this courtyard area.

As such, given the proximity of the appeal building to this courtyard area, and the main vehicular access into the farmstead from [site address] , as well as my observation of some sheep being kept in the adjacent field, I find that there will inevitably be some farming activities and associated noise occurring in close proximity to the proposed dwelling. These activities would inevitably create some noise from machinery, vehicular movements, animal sounds, doors opening and closing, or even people talking.

Furthermore, I find the siting of a bedroom directly above the underpass providing vehicle access into the farmstead could also give rise to significant noise and disturbance for future occupiers of the proposed dwelling. The submitted NIA does not detail how many, or what types of vehicles, passed through this access during the recording period or how occupiers of this bedroom would be affected by larger farm vehicles passing directly beneath.

As such, whilst I acknowledge the findings of the submitted NIA in relation to the ambient noise levels over longer periods of time, I am concerned that there may be specific and occasional noisy events that could take place near the proposed dwelling, which would cause a disturbance to future occupiers. Such examples include a large vehicle, such as a tractor, passing through the underpass beneath the bedroom, or a worker(s) accessing a nearby building to remove equipment close to the proposed dwelling.

Given the nature of the business as a working farm, such activities could take place at unsociable hours. It is those types of noises, albeit they maybe infrequent in nature, which could nevertheless cause an unacceptable disturbance to occupiers of the proposed dwelling.

In view of all the above, given that the NIA was carried out over a 24-hour period only, and limited information has been provided as to what activities were taking place during that period, I find the submitted evidence does not satisfactorily demonstrate that activities at the farm would not adversely affect the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed dwelling by way of noise and disturbance.

The appeal building is located on a working farm and consequently there is a risk that future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be subject to odours associated with agricultural activities. Such sources could generally include, but are not limited to, livestock and poultry housing, silage clamps, manure storage and the application of muck and slurry to fields. The appellant has confirmed that there are no intensive poultry units or silage clamps at the farm, and no fertiliser or slurry is applied to the fields close to the appeal building because of a nearby stream.

Furthermore, the submission details that ewes at the farm generally lamb outdoors, with a small number of ewes lambed in two sheds which are situated to the north and east of the appeal building. Additionally, in winter 10 – 12no. weaned calves are raised in the shed to the north. The appellant confirms that the courtyard area adjacent to the appeal building is not used for any livestock handling.

The appellant details that smells arising at the farm are most noticeable when the calves have been removed and the soiled bedding is cleaned out from the shed they are housed in. As such, an odour assessment, measuring the levels of ammonia, was undertaken during and after the clearing out of this shed used to house calves.

This assessment took measurements inside the shed during and after the clearing out process, as well as measurements inside and adjacent to the appeal building four days after the clearing out process.

The results of this assessment show that the ammonia reading adjacent to the appeal building was 1.3 parts per million (ppm), and 1.0 ppm inside the appeal building (time weighted average over 8 hours), four days after the clearing out process had taken place.

The appellant states that the reading of 1.3 ppm adjacent to the building was a background reading and is comparable to the general rural environment, and that the measurement of 1.0 ppm within the building is likely the background level associated with the historic use as a stable. It is claimed that once converted and internal finishes applied, the background ammonia level is likely to be undetectable. There is however limited substantive evidence before me to support these claims, including that the reading of 1.3 ppm is comparable to a typical rural environment.

I note the appellant has drawn my attention to guidance in relation to workplace and public health exposure to air pollutants, and I acknowledge that the levels at the appeal site would not exceed those. However, the issue here is not whether the levels would meet workplace standards or public health exposure levels, rather it is whether the levels would be harmful to the living conditions of future occupiers.

In this regard, the appellant’s submission details that the level at which humans can detect ammonia varies from individual to individual, with the smell becoming noticeable to most people at concentrations above 5 ppm, although some individuals can detect ammonia at concentrations of 1 ppm. As such, the recorded levels of 1.3 ppm adjacent to the proposed dwelling, and 1.0 ppm inside, which the appellant states are background levels, could therefore be detectable to some potential future occupants of the proposed dwelling.

Furthermore, I am unclear why readings adjacent to, and within the appeal building, were only taken four days after the clearing out process had taken place. The appellant admits that the smelliest operation at the farm occurs when the bedding is cleaned out and the measurements recorded within the shed during, and shortly after, the clearing out process show that the levels of ammonia are higher during these periods, when compared to four days later.

[name] acknowledge that the readings taken within the shed do show a reduction after the cleaning out process has taken place, no readings have been provided to demonstrate the levels of ammonia inside and adjacent to the appeal building during, or shortly after, the cleaning out process. As such, I have no information before me to demonstrate what the ammonia levels were inside and adjacent to the proposed dwelling until four days after the clearing out process had taken place.

In the absence of this information, I cannot be sure that the levels of ammonia inside and adjacent to the proposed dwelling would not be noticeably higher during the clearing out process, and during the period up to four days later, than the purported background levels.

In view of all the above, I am not satisfied from the evidence before me that future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would not be subjected to odours from activities at the farm which would have a harmful impact upon their living conditions.

The Authority’s Appeal Statement confirms that the proposed dwelling would share an acceptable relationship with the existing farmhouse in respect of separation distances between windows and overshadowing. Based on my observations on site I see no reason to disagree.

The east facing elevation of the proposed converted dwelling would however front and face directly into the farm’s courtyard area and the proposal includes no details of any physical separation or delineation between this elevation and the farm’s courtyard area. The sole access into the proposed dwelling would be via a door in this east facing elevation into the courtyard and therefore future occupants of the dwelling would clearly have to move through a section of the farm’s courtyard area on a frequent basis. I find this arrangement to be far from ideal.

Furthermore, and as mentioned, I observed on site that trailers and vehicles were parked in the courtyard area close to the proposed dwelling, with one trailer positioned directly outside the external door. As such, based on my observations during my visit, activities associated with the farm’s agricultural use do currently take place within this courtyard area, and very close to the eastern elevation of the proposed dwelling. I find that this would be potentially uncomfortable for any occupiers that have no connection to the farm and/or its workers.

In coming to this view, I note that the open plan lounge, kitchen and dining room area would be sited at first floor level, and the window and door in the ground floor of the eastern elevation would serve the bathroom and entrance hallway, meaning they could be obscurely glazed. Nevertheless, I still find that the potential for those working at the farm to be doing so close to the proposed dwelling’s only external access point, and its ground floor bathroom window, would have a harmful impact upon the privacy of future occupiers.

In view of the above, given the close relationship between the proposed dwelling and this working farm’s courtyard area, I find that future occupiers would not be provided with an acceptable level of privacy from activities and workers at the farm.

The parking area for the proposed dwelling would be sited directly to the west of the building and vehicles associated with the proposed dwelling would therefore not have to travel through the underpass.

The County Highway Officer has raised no objection to the proposed development on highway safety grounds. However, the Authority have raised concerns over residents having to walk through the archway to access the proposed dwelling, and the poor visibility of approaching traffic coming through the underpass.

I observed on site that visibility of approaching vehicles when walking through the archway was sufficient in both directions, so as not to cause a safety issue for pedestrians. However, I noted that visibility of approaching traffic coming through the underpass from the courtyard would be restricted for vehicles parked within the proposed spaces to the west of the appeal building.

Nevertheless, I find it likely that vehicles driving through this underpass would be doing so at a relatively low speed and occupiers of the proposed dwelling would take extra care when setting off to make sure nothing is coming through the underpass.

Moreover, there is an extant permission for use of the appeal building as ancillary residential accommodation. [name] have not been provided with all the plans / details of that approved application, the appellant states that it is an identical scheme to the appeal before me, save for its ancillary use, and this has not been disputed by the Authority. As such, and from the information before me, I can only assume that the extant permission also includes parking provision to the west of the appeal building and pedestrian access via the door in the east elevation.

With this in mind, I find there would be no discernible difference in the risk to the safety of future occupiers of the proposed dwelling from vehicles using the underpass, regardless of whether it is used as independent accommodation or ancillary accommodation.

In view of the above, I find that the proposed independent residential use would not cause any greater risk to safety from vehicles for future occupiers than the approved ancillary residential use.

I have found that the proposed independent use of the proposed dwelling would not cause any greater risk to safety from vehicles for future occupiers than the approved ancillary residential use.

However, I find that given the close relationship between the proposed dwelling and farm’s courtyard area, future occupiers would not be provided with an acceptable level of privacy. Furthermore, I find that the submitted evidence does not satisfactorily demonstrate that activities at the farm would not adversely affect the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed dwelling by way of noise and disturbance, and that future occupiers would not be subjected to odours from activities at the farm which would have a harmful impact upon their living conditions.

Additionally, I find the submitted evidence by the appellant is reliant on their being no change or intensification of the activities that take place at Ryebrook. Given that agricultural uses do not constitute development under s55 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), the Council would not have control over potential future intensification of the agricultural use of the site and/or the buildings close to the appeal building. Any further intensification of use at the farm in the future could have an even greater harmful impact upon the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed dwelling.

I am also cognisant to the appellant’s suggestion that the proposed independent use would have no greater impact on the living conditions of future occupiers than the approved use as ancillary accommodation. However, whilst I have found that the Authority’s safety concerns in relation to farm vehicles would in essence be the same regardless of the use of the property as ancillary or independent use, I find that matters relating to noise, odour and privacy are not directly comparable.

This is because any ancillary use would be tied to the main farm / farmhouse and therefore ancillary occupants of the property would be required to have some association or relationship with the occupants of Ryebrook. Occupants of the main farmhouse, and ancillary accommodation, would likely be more tolerant of matters relating to noise, odour and privacy in comparison to use of the appeal building as an independent dwelling with no restriction on occupancy or with no tie to the farm at Ryebrook. I therefore find that the proposed residential use of the dwelling, independent from Ryebrook, would likely give rise to greater potential for complaints in respect of the concerns raised when compared to its use as ancillary accommodation.

In view of all the above, I conclude that the proposed use of the appeal property as an independent dwelling would not provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy DMC3 of the Peak District National Park Development [name] (2019) (DMP) where it requires particular attention to be paid to the amenity and privacy of the development. The proposed independent residential use would also be contrary to paragraph 135(f) of the Framework which seeks to ensure developments provide a high standard of amenity for future users.

I note the appellant states that the proposed conversion would still be occupied by the same person as originally intended when it was permitted as ancillary accommodation to Ryebrook. However, there would be no mechanism to ensure that this would be the case and therefore I must assess the appeal proposal on the basis that the proposed conversion would be occupied independently, and with no connection to Ryebrook.

I also acknowledge the appellant’s comment that it would be the buyers’ responsibility to consider the relationship with the farm. However, this would not prevent any potential future occupiers of the appeal proposal from making complaints against activities taking place at the farm, particularly those relating to noise, disturbance and odours, if such activities were having a harmful impact upon their living conditions. Furthermore, and as mentioned, activities at the farm could intensify in the future beyond those experienced at the time that any future occupier purchased the property.

The appeal site is located within the Peak District National Park (PDNP). Under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (the National Parks Act), the two purposes of National Parks are to: • conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage; and • promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of them by the public.

The National Parks Act requires me to seek to further these purposes. Government guidance8 states that the duty means, amongst other factors, that as far as is reasonably practical, relevant authorities should seek to avoid harm and contribute to the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, special qualities, and key characteristics of [name].

Paragraph 189 of the Framework states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in the National Parks, the Broads and National Landscapes which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues.

I am satisfied that the proposed development would leave the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the PDNP unharmed, and would conserve the special qualities of the PDNP. Thus, the proposal would not conflict with the purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the PDNP.

I have found that the proposed development would not provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers, and this attracts significant weight. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy DMC3 of the DMP and paragraph 135 (f) of the Framework.

The Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of homes. However, I attribute limited weight to the provision of one additional dwelling.

Economic benefits would arise from the proposal, including contributions to the local economy during the construction phase of the development. These however would be short term benefits. Further economic benefits would also arise from additional spending in the wider area, by future occupants of the dwelling. Cumulatively, given the scale of development the economic support to the area arising from the appeal proposal would be relatively small. I therefore attach limited weight in respect of the economic benefits.

The proposal would also provide the opportunity to increase biodiversity on the appeal site. However, again given the scale of the development site, I attribute the environmental benefits limited weight in favour of the proposal.

The parties agree that the appeal property is a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) and I am content, following my site visit, that it can be treated as such. The significance of the building as a NDHA and its contribution to the landscape character of the area, largely derives from its 19th Century vernacular construction, 8 Guidance for relevant authorities on seeking to further the purposes of [name] – Dec 2024 its traditional stone appearance and its association with the area’s agricultural history.

The Framework, at paragraph 210, states that the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation should be taken into account when determining applications. At paragraph 216 the Framework also sets out that, in weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

Furthermore, Paragraph 221 of the Framework requires an assessment to be made as to whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from these policies.

In this regard, I observed on site that the building appeared to be of sound construction. However, the parties agree that the building is not suitable for modern farming needs and without a viable long-term use the condition of the building will deteriorate. It is therefore acknowledged that a conversion is required to secure its long-term conservation.

I have very limited information before me in respect of any other uses that have been considered for the appeal building. However, there appears to be agreement between the parties that there is little prospect of another use (other than residential) being viable and acceptable given the buildings location.

As mentioned, the building does have an extant permission for conversion into ancillary residential accommodation associated with the farm at Ryebrook and this would secure its long-term use. However, the appellant contends that they are unable to obtain a mortgage for ancillary use and has provided a letter from a [name] explaining the difficulties in attaining a mortgage for ancillary residential use. I therefore give the conservation of this NDHA, through its conversion to independent residential use, moderate weight in favour of the appeal proposal.

Be that as it may, when taken together, I find that the benefits arising from the future conservation of this NDHA, as well as the other above-mentioned benefits, would not outweigh the significant harm I have identified to the living conditions of future occupiers if the appeal property was to be occupied as an independent dwelling.

I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.