Appeal 6002195

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Cumberland Council. This is the subject of a separate Decision.

As part of their appeal submission, the appellant has provided a Visibility Report1. The parties in the appeal have had an opportunity to comment on this document through the appeal process. It does not fundamentally alter the appeal proposal, and my consideration of it would not give rise to procedural unfairness. I have thus had regard to this document in my decision.

The second reason for refusal concerns the effect of the development on the River Eden Special Area of Conservation (SAC) from additional nutrients entering the SAC. However, on 5 February 2026, Natural England issued updated guidance on the requirements for nutrient neutrality in the [name] catchment. As a result of forthcoming upgrades to water infrastructure, the geographic extent of the nutrient neutrality catchment area has been reduced and no longer includes the appeal site. The Council has confirmed that nutrient neutrality is therefore not required, and this refusal reason is no longer relevant.

The main issues are therefore: • The effect of the proposal on highway safety; and • Whether the site is an appropriate location for housing with regard to the spatial strategy and the effect on the character and appearance of the area. 1 [name], iRIS Sustainable Planning, November 2025

The appeal site is accessed along an existing narrow vehicular track off the A689 that is shared with several other dwellings. Visibility at the junction between the track and the A689 is restricted due to the road alignment, local topography, and the adjacent dry-stone wall and vegetation.

The Local Highway Authority (LHA) commented at application stage that no visibility details had been provided, and that it considered clear visibility cannot be achieved along the public highway in both directions. As a result, the LHA concluded that intensification of the use of the access would be prejudicial to highway safety.

The speed limit through Milton is 30mph. The submitted [name] found that the 85th percentile speed for vehicles travelling eastbound was 28.2mph and for vehicles travelling westbound it was 28mph. At these speeds, the report advises that visibility splays in both directions of 2.4m x 42m are desirable.

However, the [name] recognises that the dry-stone wall adjacent to the junction is overgrown, contributes to lowering visibility and that a visibility of 2.4m x 42m is not achievable at the access point. While adequate maintenance may improve visibility at the carriageway edge, this land is beyond the appellant’s control and there is no mechanism before me by which this could be secured.

The Visibility Report highlights the safety record of the junction, finding there to have been no injury accidents in the vicinity of the site in the past 5 years. This does not however demonstrate that there would not be any accidents in future following intensification of the use of the junction. The report also notes that, in a previous planning application2, the LHA found the wall had little to no impact on visibility to the east. This was however several years ago, and it is not clear what condition the wall and the vegetation were in at that time. This does not therefore demonstrate that visibility at the junction in its current condition is acceptable or in accordance with current guidance.

While additional traffic generation may be modest, any intensification of the use of the junction is likely to have a harmful impact on highway safety given the identified constraints. The proposal would conflict with Policy IP2 of the Carlisle District Local Plan 2015-2030 (CDLP). This policy, among other provisions, seeks to ensure that development is assessed against its impact upon the transport network and resisted where it will cause severe issues that cannot be mitigated.

It would also conflict with paragraphs 115-117 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). These paragraphs, among other provisions, seek to ensure that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users, developments create places which minimise the scope for conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles and those that would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety are prevented or refused.

While the proposal would also be contrary to Policies LD7 and LD8 of the Local Transport Plan for similar reasons, the status of this document is unclear from the evidence before me. 2 Council Ref 21/0328

Policy HO2 of the CDLP provides support for new housing within or on the edge of villages within the rural area provided that it does not prejudice the delivery of the spatial strategy of the Local Plan and meets the listed criteria.

The site comprises a parcel of [site address] . It is situated adjacent to an area of woodland to the north-east of Milton. The district centre of Brampton is a short car journey from the site, and the closest railway station is reasonably accessible on foot or by bike.

I agree with the Council that a proposal of this scale would not prejudice other rural housing allocations. The Council recognises that housing in Milton helps to support existing services in Hallbankgate and Brampton; and that the proposal would contribute to the housing mix and maintain the local community. Likewise, no concerns have been raised regarding compatibility with adjacent land users. Nothing in the evidence would lead me to a different conclusion on these matters.

Whether the proposal is compliant with Policy HO2 thus hinges on whether its scale and design is appropriate to the scale, form, function and character of the existing settlement; and whether the site is well contained within existing landscape features, is physically connected and integrates with the settlement, and does not lead to an unacceptable intrusion into open countryside.

Policy GI1 of the Local Plan further states that development will be assessed against the criteria presented within the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (the Toolkit). The evidence indicates that the site lies within the drumlins landscape, which in this area is characterised by regular knolls and ridges, pasture, irregular field patterns and significant amounts of woodland.

The Toolkit seeks to ensure the landscape will be conserved and enhanced. It highlights that traditional vernacular villages are sensitive to unsympathetic expansion, and states that small-scale development will be carefully sited and landscaped to exploit the natural potential for visual containment.

Milton has a largely linear layout, albeit with several spurs extending development further beyond the main road. There are gaps in the street frontage and between buildings in places. The appeal site sits on a spur off the main road, which provides access to several properties. The gap between the site and the next dwelling along the lane to the south-west is fairly modest, with a degree of intervisibility between the two. [name] and the neighbouring dwelling at [address] are located to the north-west of the site. There is a rail line to the south-east, beyond which there is a further collection of dwellings.

The age, design and scale of other dwellings in the surrounding area varies. There are several traditional buildings on the approach to the site, but the adjacent bungalow is largely contemporary in appearance. There are other examples of recent development elsewhere in the village and close to the site, much of which has been sensitively designed and successfully integrated.

The proposed dwelling would be situated in the southern corner of the wider field, closest to Milton. I saw on my visit that the adjacent woodland along with additional tree and shrub planting around the perimeter of the field provide a considerable degree of screening that limits views into the site, particularly from the north-east and south-east. The north-west boundary of the wider field is more exposed, albeit the ground rises beyond it, which somewhat curtails long distance views.

While details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the development would be assessed at reserved matters stage, there is no compelling reason for me to conclude that an appropriate scheme sympathetic to the existing settlement could not be achieved. Moreover, the site is not isolated but is reasonably related to the established structure of the village. The development would be well contained within existing landscape features, and I am satisfied that it would be sufficiently connected to and integrated with the settlement, thereby preventing unacceptable intrusion into open countryside.

The site would therefore be an appropriate location for housing with regard to the spatial strategy and the effect on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would accord with Policies SP2, HO2, HO6 and GI1 of the Local Plan. Among other provisions, these policies seek to: ensure that objectively assessed development needs are met, and met in the most sustainable manner; enable rural communities to thrive; support windfall housing development within or on the edge of villages within the rural area; limit new housing in the open countryside; and protect landscapes from excessive, harmful or inappropriate development.

[name] have found that the site would be an appropriate location for housing with regard to the spatial strategy and the effect on the character and appearance of the area, this does not overcome the harm and development plan conflict arising from its effect on highway safety.

The development would thus conflict with the development plan, taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Consequently, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.