Appeal 6002575

The appeal is dismissed.

The evidence submitted by the appellant states that the development has been completed. I was able to see this during my site visit. The Council determined the planning application on this basis. I have therefore considered this appeal on the basis that development has already taken place. In the interests of clarity, I have removed the word ‘retrospective’ from the description above, as it is not an act of development.

Both parties are agreed that the shepherd’s hut meets the statutory definition of a caravan. This appeal, therefore, seeks planning permission for the use of the land to allow for the siting of a mobile structure and access track.

The main issues are: • whether the development would conserve and enhance the landscape, character and scenic beauty of the Peak District National Park (PDNP); and • whether the site is an appropriate location for the siting of a shepherd’s hut, having regard to any relevant development plan policies on farm diversification.

The appeal site is located in the open countryside, accessed from [site address] . It is a sloped site, with elevations falling away from the road towards a watercourse. There are open views over the valley below. The shepherd’s hut has no immediate neighbouring properties, but there are isolated dwellings and farms visible in the landscape.

The PDNP contains a range of attractive landscapes, the scenic beauty of which is of national significance and attracts the highest status of protection. Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks.

Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 requires me to seek to further the statutory purposes of protected landscapes. These are to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area and to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities by the public.

The appeal site lies within a landscape identified in the Authority’s Landscape Strategy as an [name] landscape character type. It is within the wider [name] landscape character area. This is an upland pastoral landscape with a traditional dispersed pattern of gritstone farmsteads and village settlements. Drystone walls and some hedgerows enclose permanent pasture. Whilst a relatively small site, its undeveloped and verdant character make a positive contribution to the quality of the wider surrounding area, reinforcing its scenic and natural beauty. In doing so, the site makes a positive contribution to the landscape quality of the area.

The site is located in isolation from most other structures. It is near to a ruin of a small stone structure and has limited screening on one side from a small number of trees. From some viewpoints it may be seen within the context of other buildings, however, these are on the opposite side of [site address] . Whilst narrow, the lane clearly separates the shepherd’s hut from these buildings.

The shepherd’s hut is visible over the stone boundary wall from various viewpoints along [site address] . It is screened along some sections due to the topography, however, where it is visible, these are for sustained views. It is also visible from various viewpoints along the Public Right of Way that crosses the site. Whilst this is against the backdrop of rising land for the most part, it is again, clearly visible for sustained views. As a result, the development appears as an isolated, prominent incursion in an otherwise high quality landscape, harmfully altering the appearance of the site and eroding its open and verdant landscape character.

I accept that the shepherd’s hut is small and made from natural materials, and that this could be secured via a planning condition. However, it is an uncharacteristic form of development, which unacceptably detracts from the established character of the area. Its appearance may be less intrusive than white campervans, tents or touring caravans. However, these are transient in nature and therefore not permanent additions to the landscape. On this basis, they are not comparable to the shepherd’s hut.

To conclude, the development does not conserve and enhance the landscape, character and scenic beauty of the PDNP. It is not compatible with the purposes of the PDNP and would conflict with the duty to seek to further the statutory purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of a National Park. It is contrary to PDNP Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted 2011) ([name]) policies GSP1, GSP3 and L1; and Part 2 of the Local Plan for the PDNP Development Management Policies (adopted 2019) (Local Plan) Policy DMC3. Collectively, these policies seek to protect and enhance the natural beauty, quality and visual amenity of the landscape.

The appeal site is within the ownership of The Glen. The dwelling is located on the opposite side of [site address] to the shepherd’s hut. A small sloping field and mature trees separate it from the lane.

Development plan policies limit the development of new sites for uses such as this shepherd’s hut in the open countryside. Local Plan Policy DME2 supports proposals where the new business use will remain ancillary to the agricultural operation of the farm business.

The appellant contends that agricultural activities are taking place on the site and that the land has an agricultural holding number. I was able to confirm the agricultural activities during my site visit. However, I have not been provided with evidence to confirm that this is an operating farm business.

Exceptionally, Local Plan Policy DMR1 permits a single shepherd’s hut located in close proximity to the facilities of a farmstead. The supporting text of the policy states that this close proximity is to allow existing access, parking and facilities to be utilised. Whilst access to the site is via an existing entrance to the land, works are required to make it suitable for visitors to the shepherd’s hut.

The appellant contends that, in the absence of a precise definition for ‘close proximity’ in Policy DMR1, the location of the shepherd’s hut meets this criterion, describing it as a short distance of approximately 100 metres. [site address] and landscape features result in a clear visual break between The Glen and the shepherd’s hut. Consequently, the shepherd’s hut does not relate visually to The Glen.

To utilise any facilities at The Glen, guests would need to walk up the sloped access road from the shepherd’s hut, cross [site address] and walk along the access road to The Glen. At the time of my visit, there appeared to be minimal lighting in place. On this basis, sharing facilities would be impractical, particularly if guests arrive in darkness. This has resulted in the creation of a new parking area and small structure to provide a toilet at the site, which adds to the visual impact of the development.

Local Plan Policy DMR1 also requires the siting of a single shepherd’s hut to be without harm to the natural landscape. As detailed in the first issue above, the development harms the landscape and so conflicts with this element of the policy. In addition, it has not been demonstrated to me that the shepherd’s hut could not have been sited closer to The Glen, in a less harmful location.

For the reasons highlighted above, the development has not been evidenced to represent farm diversification, neither does it meet the Local Plan exceptions where a single shepherd’s hut may be permitted. I therefore conclude that the site is not an appropriate location for the siting of a shepherd’s hut. The development conflicts with Core Strategy Policy RT3, and the aims of Local Plan policies DMR1 and DME2, which, amongst other things, collectively seek to limit development of tourism accommodation to sites which support farm diversification and protect the landscape.

I acknowledge that this development is not an intensive use of the site, supports the local economy and provides tourism accommodation without the loss of established residential accommodation. The development may also improve highway and community safety in a rural setting. However, whilst I have afforded weight to these benefits, they do not outweigh the harm that I have identified above to the landscape character and scenic qualities of the PDNP and the conflict with the development plan in relation to the siting of the development.

The Parish Council has made reference to a recent appeal decision at [address]. Based on the limited details before me it appears that this appeal did not relate to whether the site was an appropriate location for the siting of the development. Thus, based on the evidence before me, it does not appear to be comparable to the appeal proposal. I therefore afford this decision limited weight.

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