Appeal 6002513

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the Council made its decision, the Pendle Local Plan Fourth Edition (2021-

(LP) has been adopted. The Council has identified several policies in the LP which replace Policy ENV2 of the [name] (2015) cited on the Decision Notice. However, only a conflict with LP policies DM16, DM21, DM26 and DM45 is alleged in the evidence. Appeal decisions must be based on the policies from the development plan prevailing at the time of determination. I have considered the appeal on this basis, and the appellant has had the opportunity to comment on the implications of the change in policy through the appeal process.

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

The appeal site comprises a parcel of land off [site address] and [address] which is located outside of the settlement boundary of Colne. It is proposed to site a ‘log cabin’ along the south-west boundary of the appeal site on an area of levelled hardstanding. It would be used as a holiday let.

The land rises from the southern edge of Colne and [name], and I observed that there are wide, long and open views to the south from the end of [address] and from the footway which runs across the front of dwellings on [address]. From here, although in the distance with industrial buildings in the foreground, the caravan and Portaloo which are currently sited on the appeal site are clearly visible. Together with the dilapidated sheds and buildings on land to the south-west, these appear a discordant form of development in the otherwise predominantly open, verdant and semi-rural landscape.

Although orientated with its narrower, flank elevation facing toward Colne, the log cabin, including much of its roof, would be prominent from this elevated position. This would be despite the muted colours of the proposed materials. I acknowledge that buildings in the surrounding area comprise a variety of forms, but they are typically constructed in natural stone or brick. In contrast, the log cabin would have an engineered finish, clad in a composite timber with a grey metal composite roof. Consequently, it would appear as a continuation of the low-quality and poorly designed sheds and buildings which adjoin the appeal site.

In combination with the surrounding hardstanding and parking, the log cabin would introduce a further conspicuous, discordant building in an otherwise semi-rural landscape, eroding the open character and appearance of the countryside. [name] observed that the static caravans sited at [address] are visible in the wider landscape, these are located further to the south along [site address] and would be more distant and less jarring in these long views than the appeal proposal.

The plans show proposed tree planting along one edge of the hardstanding which could be secured by a suitably worded condition. However, I have little evidence before me to demonstrate that such planting would be effective in screening the log cabin in elevated views from the north, notably at times of year when trees would not be in full leaf. Furthermore, the planting would be unlikely to mature for some time and, in any event, cannot be relied upon in perpetuity to hide development that would otherwise be harmful.

The immediate surrounding land slopes steeply to the north and north-west from the plateau of the appeal site, and consequently the proposed log cabin would not be visible from the terrace of dwellings off [address] or from the lane and footpath along [name] beyond [address]. Furthermore, because of its modest height and its siting alongside an existing corrugated shed, the log cabin would not be visible from [site address] , even when looking back down the hill.

Nevertheless, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would conflict with LP policies DM16 and DM21 which, together, require high-quality design which considers the context of the site and surroundings, promotes local character and distinctiveness and makes a positive contribution to the built and natural environment, promoting quality of place.

It would further conflict with LP Policy DM45 in so far as it requires that proposals for tourism accommodation (including short term lets) conserve and where possible enhance the natural, historic and built environment.

LP Policy DM26 relates to development for new housing outside a defined settlement boundary. The proposal is for the siting of a log cabin to be used as a holiday let, and its occupation could be limited as such by condition. Accordingly, I do not find LP Policy DM26 to be determinative in this case.

The proposal would make a very modest contribution to the supply of holiday accommodation in an area which the appellant asserts is well placed to take advantage of walking routes and the [name]. It is also in a location accessible to goods and services in Colne, and visitor spend would result in modest local economic benefits. Further, the proposal may mitigate the loss of similar holiday accommodation at [address], albeit to a very small degree. Whilst these are benefits of the proposal, they are not sufficient to outweigh the harm I have found to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would provide cycle storage, and no other objections have been raised by the Council in respect of traffic, car parking or adverse impacts to neighbouring properties. These are neutral matters which weigh neither for nor against the proposal.

Finally, the appellant asserts that a planning permission described only as ‘an adjoining scheme of 10 residential dwellings’1 highlights the suitability of the area for development. However, in the absence of full details, including its location, it has not been possible for me to ascertain whether any comparisons can be drawn with the appeal proposal or whether this historic permission lends support to it.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.