Appeal 6001366

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for an award of costs has been made by [name] and [name] against Bassetlaw District Council; this is the subject of a separate decision.

The appeal was initially scheduled to be determined by way of a Hearing. However, within the revised Statement of [name] (SoCG) between the main parties (signed by the appellants on 10 March 2026 and by the Council on 11 March 2026), the Council withdrew reasons for refusal no’s: 1 (relating to the essential need for the proposed temporary dwelling); 2 (in regard to conflict with Policy 7 of the Clarborough & Welham Neighbourhood Plan made February 2017 (NP)), and no. 4 (in regard to highway safety). After which, the appellants suggested that the appeal be determined by [name] in regard to the remaining reason for refusal (no.3 – character and appearance), the Council concurred with this approach. The procedure was then changed accordingly, as there was no need for a hearing to test or question evidence on the disputed matters, and all parties were notified of these changes and given the opportunity to make any final comments in writing, in the interests of fairness.

I have been made aware that a caravan has been sited at the appeal site, which is said to be occupied by the appellants and their family. I observed on my site inspection the presence of the caravan, which differed in both appearance and siting to the proposed log cabin the subject of this appeal. I have therefore assessed the appeal, in respect of the temporary workers dwelling, on the basis of the proposed plans before me.

In addition, I did not observe any livestock at the appeal site during my site inspection, although I observe that works to the new access track had commenced and planting around part of the perimeter had been undertaken. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

Reference is made to a structure to house chickens within the submitted documentation. However, this is not part of the proposed operational development before me and has not been considered in my decision.

The appellants submitted with their appeal: a revised site location plan and ownership certificate; additional details of the proposed polytunnel; a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA); 3 no. plans relating to highway safety information along with confirmation that no eggs are to be sold at the site entrance and details of intended vehicle movements; confirmation of there being no suitable housing available nearby; along with information that 2 no donkeys are to graze at the appeal site. The Council objected to the introduction of this new information.

The new site location plan and certificate reflect the ownership and rental arrangements of the land under the appellants control, following an error identified from the application stage. It is a procedural requirement that must be accurate and would not increase the size of the appeal site or relate to any new land not already part of the planning application, nor would there be any unfairness by me accepting this amendment.

The additional highway plans contain limited additional information, they were already provided at application stage, but the Council did not consult or consider them. It is also clear within the Council’s report, it knew the egg sales part of the proposal had been withdrawn prior to making its decision, and both the housing availability and vehicle movement information is limited and related to the matters that were in dispute. The FRA provides additional information regarding the site-specific risks, which are not contested. The image and details of the polytunnel is in addition to the plans, to add context to how it would appear. Finally, grazing 2 no. donkeys on the appeal site was said not to be a material change of use. As part of the appeal process, this new information has been the subject of consultation with interested parties. I have accepted all the new information and consider there would be no unfairness to any party by this course of action, the appeal has been determined on this basis.

Accordingly, the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is in the countryside near to Clarborough, it extends to some 4 hectares (with approximately 3 hectares of adjoining land rented by the appellants with the option to purchase in 2028) and includes land for an access track from the A620, between [address] and [address] Cottage. The appeal site comprises mainly undeveloped agricultural land with hedges around most of its perimeter. I saw on my site inspection that there are views of the appeal site from the A620 when travelling to or from [name]; from the public footpath that runs part way through the appeal site nearest to Clarborough; from the A620 on the approach from Welham; and from various viewpoints on nearby [address]. The land rises significantly when travelling from Clarborough towards the appeal site in the direction of [name], resulting in it having a raised position in relation to the village.

I saw that most agricultural buildings and farmsteads nearby comprise close groups of buildings, often near to the highway network and field boundaries. The nearest properties are also positioned close to the A620, and the associated buildings at [address] and [address] Services form a group, which limits their impact on the landscape.

The proposed development relates to the siting of a temporary agricultural worker’s dwelling in the form of a log cabin (said by the appellants to be classed as a caravan), with a floor area of some [address] metres (19.7 metres by 6.5 metres), with a maximum height of 4 metres. Along with a proposed polytunnel to be used for housing livestock and storage, it is said to measure approximately 10 metres by 10 metres covered with a heavy-duty PVC fabric and be 4 metres at its highest point. The new access track leads from the A620 around adjoining third party land that has a frontage onto the A620, to a mid-point within a field behind, where the log cabin and polytunnel would be sited along with a parking area. There would be considerable distance between the log cabin and the polytunnel.

The Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment, prepared by Bassetlaw District Council, dated August 2009 (LCA) identifies the appeal site within Policy Zone 04: Clarborough, with a policy objective of conserving the landscape. The LCA says the landform is strongly undulating with several high points and has views that are relatively open to the surrounding landscape. It adds that rolling arable land is dominant with some large woodland blocks and plantations, within a mixed agricultural landscape, and with hedgerows forming field boundaries. The landscape is said to have few detracting features and a high landscape sensitivity. One of the LCA’s objectives is to conserve its open rural character by concentrating new development in and around settlements, including Clarborough and to respect the area’s brick vernacular. Whilst the LCA was undertaken some 16 years ago there is no evidence to indicate that its findings are not equally applicable now.

Whilst the proposed log cabin would have natural timber cladding and be single storey, it would have a significant length and includes unusually positioned and sized openings on its sides. It would also be sited centrally in what is an expansive open field, in an exposed and prominent location. The caravan already at the appeal site is near to where the proposed log cabin would be sited (although orientated differently), which I was able to see from various surrounding public viewpoints. Although it was not visible from the public right of way that extends through the appeal site due to the change in levels, and it is likely that none of the proposed development would also not be seen from that public right of way.

Given the raised land and appeal site’s separation to Clarborough, the proposed development would not be seen as part of that settlement or allied to it. The siting and appearance of the proposed log cabin, polytunnel, and new hard surfaced access track, would appear stark and incongruous in this mostly natural and open landscape. The appearance of the proposed development and the associated domestic use, including parked vehicles and domestic curtilage, would introduce discordant features that harm the character and appearance of the undeveloped land and the surrounding area. The harm identified is exacerbated by the log cabin’s siting, elongated shape, and appearance, the length of the access track, and the significant separation between it and the proposed polytunnel, creating an uncoordinated and illegible form of development, not generally typical of agricultural buildings and farmsteads in the surrounding area. Furthermore, it would also introduce a form of development that was inconsistent with the distinctive qualities of the landscape as set out above.

Planting has been proposed, and also undertaken along some of the field boundaries, and whilst that will likely grow and become established, tall field hedges would not be typical of this immediate area, and they would take some time to establish screening for the proposed development. Furthermore, planting within a central part of the field, around the proposed log cabin would appear wholly at odds with the established field boundaries and would be alien and harmful to the character and appearance of the landscape.

It is noted that the proposed siting of the log cabin would be for a temporary period, but the proposed polytunnel, new access track, and hard surfacing would be permanent, and permitting them, would likely lead to any future proposals being focussed on that part of the appeal site for operational reasons. It is unclear why such a separation between the proposed log cabin and the polytunnel is necessary, and whether any less conspicuous locations would be available, within the land under the control of the appellants, to achieve a tighter group of structures and minimise landscape impact. In the absence of such supporting information, it is not certain that the proposed development and its identified harmful effects, would be the only option available to achieve the appellants requirements.

Although the appellants have argued there would be no harmful effects to the character and appearance of the area from the proposed development, this is at odds with my own findings, and there is no Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment submitted to support their opinions. Whilst some farmers could use permitted development rights for new buildings, I am not aware that such rights would be available to the appellants, so there is no legitimate fall-back position in that respect. I also accept that conditions could be imposed to ensure the external materials for the proposed development were either dark coloured or had a suitably stained finish, and that permitted development rights could be withdrawn for domestic alterations and extensions. Nevertheless, they would not address the above identified harm.

The appellants have submitted appeal decisions in support of their appeal. Only one of those decisions had a main issue relating to character and appearance: Park Field, [address], Bonington, Ashford. In that case the inspector found no unacceptable harm to the landscape. Although it has some similarities to this appeal proposal, the description of the landscape in that case was not entirely comparable to that where the appeal site is located, nor was the development proposed identical, as that scheme was arranged as a farmyard. Furthermore, that appeal proposal was assessed against different planning policies and guidance. I therefore attach limited weight to it in my decision, and it has not led me to conclude differently regarding the harm identified in this case.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and there would be conflict with policies ST33 and ST35 of the Bassetlaw Local Plan 2020-2038, adopted May 2024 (BLP) that amongst other things require high quality development that protects, conserves, and enhances the distinctive qualities, forms and features of the landscape, as set out in the LCA. In addition, the proposed development would be in conflict with paragraphs 135 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) insofar as they require development to add to the overall quality of the area, be sympathetic to local character and landscape setting, along with ensuring decisions contribute to, and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, along with recognising the intrinsic beauty of the countryside.

An interested party has referred to the effect of the proposed development on their intended dog kennels development on a neighbouring property. The kennels are said to have been granted planning permission but not built, and a licence application for them is understood to have been made to the Council. I have no precise details of the kennels, including where they would be sited, or their orientation.

The interested party’s main objection relates to whether alpacas (part of the proposed development) and dogs can coexist next to one another, in particular the effect from multiple barking dogs, and offences said to have been created in new laws regarding dogs harming and worrying livestock. I note the opinion of the interested party that they cannot coexist; however, this is disputed by the appellants who do not consider barking to be an issue for alpacas, and without any substantive and compelling evidence to demonstrate that they cannot be kept on adjoining sites, I am unable to come to the same view as the interested party. Moreover, even if the alpacas were to graze near to the boundary with that site, I am content suitable boundary treatment could adequately mitigate any intervisibility, which could have been a condition had I allowed the appeal. I note the Council did not have any concerns in this respect, and I also concur based on the information before me I have insufficient evidence to find harmful effects from the coexistence of dogs and alpacas in this case.

In support of the proposed development the appellants have said it represents sustainable development; that it would generate at least 1 no. full time job along with knock-on benefits for the rural economy; that it would positively contribute through biodiversity net gain and the wildflower meadows to environmental benefits; enable the appellants and their family to live at [address] and start their business; that there are no objections in principle to the part development of the agricultural land; that it could help tackle rural crime, and that there are no harmful effects on living conditions; or unacceptable drainage matters. [name] cannot agree that the proposed development would be sustainable development in view of the harm identified above, the benefits raised in favour of the proposed development are acknowledged, however, even taking them collectively, they do not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

I acknowledge the comments about works said to have taken place at the appeal property to date, including the works to the access track referred to above. The caravan at the appeal site, which is understood to be occupied by the appellants and their family, is different to this proposed development for the reasons set out above, and any breaches of planning control in that respect would be a separate enforcement matter for the Council.

The comments about the Council’s handling of the planning application are noted, and whilst I can appreciate the appellants comments, these are largely matters between the main parties. In my decision I have focussed on the relevant planning merits of the appeal proposal.

In addition, I also note the other comments raised by interested parties, including, but not limited to; whether it conflicts with policies of the NP and the BLP regarding the principle of the proposed development; comments about the appellants intentions with the appeal site; effects on wildlife; highway safety and the effect on the public right of way through the appeal site. In the revised SoCG, the Council, subject to conditions as may be appropriate, did not identify any harm in respect of these matters, and I see no reason to disagree.

Although it is agreed that highway safety impacts can be adequately controlled by conditions, along with there being no dispute regarding the need for the proposed temporary dwelling, and that it would support the appellants intended agricultural enterprise and livestock requirements, I find the siting and appearance of the proposed log cabin, polytunnel and access track would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. I therefore conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and there are no other considerations including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh that conflict. For the reasons outlined above, the appeal should be dismissed.