Appeal 6001908

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council has adopted the Pendle Local Plan Fourth Edition 2021-2040 (2025) (LP) since making its decision. Consequently, the Policies referenced within the reason for refusal have been superseded. I am required to determine this appeal on the basis of the development plan that is in force at the time of my decision. Therefore, the main parties were given the opportunity to comment on any relevant implications for the appeal. In reaching my decision, I have taken into account the comments made in relation to this matter.

The appeal site lies within the Green Belt. Based on the information presented, the scheme would not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt as it would fall within the provisions of paragraph 154 a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). This position is agreed by the main parties. Accordingly, the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the setting of the nearby [name] listed building [name].

The appeal site comprises part of an open grassed, undeveloped parcel of land. It is located within the setting of [name], which is a [name] listed building. I have therefore had special regard to section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act). The listed farmhouse’s significance derives from its architectural and historic interest as a traditional stone built rural dwelling. Its elevations are constructed from relatively regular stone blocks, with large quoins, under a slate roof, and it features mullioned windows.

[name] is situated within a well-established cluster of former agricultural buildings. This cluster of buildings forms part of the setting of the listed building, and is known as [name] hamlet. [name] dates from the 17th century, and the hamlet, as a whole, was well established by the late 18th century. The broad pattern of buildings has remained largely unchanged since that time. Whilst some of these buildings contain modern features, extensions and alterations associated with their conversion to residential use, which have incrementally changed the setting of the listed building over time, they retain much of their historic and organic layout. Architecturally, the listed farmhouse is the principal building within the former farmstead, but due to the proximity of the surrounding buildings and its relative height, the farmhouse is not significantly more prominent than the other buildings.

The verdant and open qualities of the appeal site form an important part of the setting of the listed building and contribute positively to its special interest. The surrounding open, agricultural land reinforces the building’s historic rural context, its relative isolation, and the ability to appreciate its functional relationship with the associated former agricultural buildings. More widely, the listed building sits within a dispersed pattern of traditional farmsteads set in a rural, agricultural landscape that has evolved incrementally in response to changing farming practices.

On my site visit I observed that the proposed building and the listed building would be seen in combination from the Public Right of Way1 (PROW). The distance between the proposed and listed buildings would create some separation, and the existing cluster of buildings is also visible from this view. Nonetheless, the proposal would still be perceived within the same general view as the heritage asset.

Looking from the appeal site towards the listed building, its gable end, including the stepped external chimney stack, is visible. The listed building’s principal elevation is not apparent from this position. Intervening buildings interrupt the view and weaken the visual relationship between the appeal site and the gable end of the listed building. The roof of a long polytunnel, in the grounds of [address], is also visible from this viewpoint. Although contrasting with the traditional group of buildings, the polytunnel is low in height.

An agricultural building would not be an unusual form of development within this rural landscape. Nonetheless, the proposal would introduce a large, modern structure into a field that is currently open and undeveloped, and which makes a positive contribution to the listed building’s setting.

Although its materials would weather over time, the proposed building’s height, footprint and utilitarian design would contrast sharply with the traditional built form of the listed farmhouse, and cluster of buildings. Whilst the associated hardstanding would be partly screened by existing buildings, boundary features and landscaping, it would nonetheless represent a sizeable area. Together, the building and hardstanding would diminish the openness of the site and erode characteristics that contribute to the farmhouse’s significance, including its historic relationship with the surrounding agricultural land.

Overall, the proposal would result in the loss of the verdant, undeveloped qualities of the site that make a positive and important contribution to the setting of the 1 Shown as FP1312038 on the site plan listed building. The combined siting, scale, design and associated hardstanding would introduce development that detracts from the farmhouse’s traditional rural setting and erodes the agricultural character that contributes to its heritage significance. These harmful effects would be appreciable, particularly from the nearby PROW. For these reasons, I find that the proposal would fail to preserve the special interest of the [name] listed building.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework advises that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 further advises that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification.

Given the distance between the proposed building and listed building, together with the proposed landscaping, and the fact that the hardstanding would not be overly prominent, I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance. Within the less than substantial categorisation, the amount of harm would be at the lower end of the spectrum. Nonetheless, mindful of my statutory duties, this is a matter to which I attach considerable importance and weight. Under such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

No substantive public benefits have been put forward by the appellant. [name] acknowledge that there would be some limited public benefits, such as economic activity during construction, these would be modest in scale. The public benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified to the listed building’s significance.

Drawing the above together, I conclude that, on balance, the proposal would fail to preserve the special historic interest setting of the [name] listed [name]. Consequently, the proposal would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, paragraph 215 of the Framework and would conflict with Policies DM18 and SP11 of the LP. [name] state, amongst other things, that the Council will support proposals which conserve and enhance Pendle’s historic environment. As a result, the proposal would conflict with the development plan.

The Council states that the cluster of former agricultural buildings are non-designated heritage assets (NDHA’s). The process by which the Council has reached this conclusion is not wholly transparent. Nonetheless, the reason for refusal does not reference the NDHA’s and whether they are NDHA’s does not overall affect my findings above. I have therefore not considered this matter further as it would not be determinative to my decision.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other material considerations, the appeal does not succeed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR