Appeal 6002998

[name] and B are dismissed insofar as they relate to the proposed extension and the insertion of a doorway between the farmhouse and the proposed extension.

Appeal A is allowed insofar as it relates to the works to the outbuilding and the porch, and planning permission is granted for such works to alter the listed farmhouse and outbuilding at [site address] , Lancashire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 3/2025/0523 dated 4 July 2025, subject to the conditions set out in the Schedule attached to this decision.

Appeal B is allowed insofar as it relates to the works to the outbuilding and the porch, and listed building consent is granted for such works to alter the listed farmhouse and outbuilding at [site address] , Lancashire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 3/2025/0524 dated 4 July 2025, subject to the conditions set out in the Schedule attached to this decision.

The description of the proposals in the banner heading above is from the joint householder and listed building application form. Notwithstanding that the descriptions were amended by the Council, as shown on the decision notices, Appeal Decisions 6002998 and 6002999 because I have split my decisions, I have altered the descriptions in my formal decisions for accuracy and clarity. There are three discrete elements to the proposals: alterations to the existing porch; alterations to the outbuilding; and the construction of a single-storey extension on the eastern elevation of the farmhouse. The formal decisions reflect these descriptions.

Within the evidence reference was made to the site being within the [name] (IRZ) of Barn Gill Meadows Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). However, during the hearing the Council stated that the site was within the IRZ of an additional six SSSIs. Consequently, the Council was asked to provide information on these other SSSI’s, with a subsequent request for details of the assessment they had undertaken. These findings will be discussed later in the

Additional plans were submitted with the appeal which the Council has seen and had the opportunity to comment upon. As these do not alter the design of the proposal, I consider that no party has been prejudiced and so I have determined the appeal based on these revised plans.

Prior to the hearing, the appellants submitted details of an information board, proposed landscaping and additional imagery. The Council had seen this prior to the hearing and had no objection to this submission. Having considered this additional information and applying the principles established by ‘Holborn1’, I do not consider that any party has been prejudiced. Consequently, I have proceeded to determine the appeal based on the additional plans and information.

Under s79(1) of the 1990 Act and s22(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have the power to issue a split decision. This option was discussed at the hearing, with no objection from the parties, so there would be no injustice from me doing so.

As set out above, there are two appeals on this site, one for planning permission, and the other for listed building consent. Planning permission and listed building consent are under different legislation; however, I have dealt with both appeals together in my reasoning.

Therefore, as required by sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Act, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

The main issues are: • with regards to appeal A and appeal B: whether the works would preserve the listed building, or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses; and • with regards to appeal A: the effect of the proposal on the Forest of Bowland National Landscape (NL). 1 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin) Appeal Decisions 6002998 and 6002999

[address] Farmhouse is a grade II listed building2, which dates from the mid- 19th century. Next to it are some outbuildings, referred to as Outhouse 3, which are included in the application and is a curtilage listed building. To the rear of these are a smaller range of buildings, Outhouse 2, with, to the south, a large, stone, traditional two-storey farm building. Other buildings on the site are modern.

The farmhouse is two storeys in height, with three bays. It is built of sandstone with a stone slate roof, with stone stacks. The rear elevation, seen on the approach to the site, has four square windows with two over two sashes, which light upper and lower rooms and have painted stone surrounds. A tall, central sash window between them, lights the elegant staircase.

The front elevation, which overlooks a large garden and towards the surrounding landscape, has eight over eight sash windows, again with painted stone surrounds, and a central doorway. Whilst slightly asymmetrical, the farmhouse appears, from what I saw, to have been built with classical proportions in a symmetrical form.

The interest and significance of the farmhouse, insofar as it relates to this appeal, derive from its architectural, historic and archaeological interest. Whilst the current farmhouse is thought to date from 1849, a ‘Blakhous’, dating to 1538, is reputed to have been on the site, and Outhouse 2 has a datestone of 1711, although likely reused from another building.

Therefore, the site is likely to have evolved over several centuries, with the existing buildings potentially being on the site of earlier ones, and indeed, likely built with previously used materials. Although there have been some alterations internally to the farmhouse, the plan form is clearly discernible and the stone flag floors throughout the ground floor are an important surviving feature.

Architecturally, the classically designed farmhouse, because of its height, materials and features, such as overhanging eaves with bargeboards and its window patterns, has a solidity and presence in the landscape. Despite the high stone wall connecting the farmhouse to the curtilage listed Outhouse 3, the farmhouse appears visually separate to the outbuildings. However, the close distance across the small yard between the two, demonstrates the connectivity between the buildings, with evidence of Outhouse 3 being used as a wash house and possibly a dairy.

The outbuildings, agricultural in character and with a functional use, add to the character of the holding. The space around the house and the fields and landscape surrounding it, including the stone walls, make an important contribution to the setting of the farmhouse and outbuildings.

Therefore, the significance of the site derives from a well-preserved upland farmhouse of mid-19th century date, set apart from, but amongst a group of farm 2 [name]: 1362268 Appeal Decisions 6002998 and 6002999 buildings of likely different periods and uses. These are all within a landscape that reflects the local materials and farming practices over many generations. Effect on the listed buildings

At the hearing, the appellants contended, with additional imagery 3 to illustrate this, that an extension on the eastern elevation of the farmhouse would minimise the visual impact on the building and the wider landscape. The eastern elevation is a plain, substantial elevation of random stone, with sizeable quoins. Diagonal stonework suggests the siting of a chimney, with the chimney breast and fireplace having been removed internally.

I appreciate that the proposed extension is a simple design in traditional materials, sited where there has already been internal disturbance to the building fabric. However, despite the limited size of the connecting doorway between the house and the proposed extension, it would result in the removal of historic fabric. Moreover, even if the plan form of the ground floor has seen some alterations, the existing layout does demonstrate a clear arrangement of rooms with a rear central staircase. Adding a large addition on the side elevation would harm the legibility of the historic plan form of the farmhouse.

The appellants referred to the extension being positioned to minimise its effect on the principal elevations of the building and not detract from the farmhouse. However, whilst the proposed extension would be set in from both the front and rear elevations of the house by 2.2 metres, it would be orientated away from the farmstead rather than towards it. It would visually disturb the clear lines and solidity of the simple form which characterises the building. This would undermine the hierarchy of its elevations which reflect the historical arrangement of spaces within.

At 4.9 metres in height, the apex of the roof of the extension would be only a short distance below the height of the eaves of the house. Whilst the appellants consider that viewed in 3D the existing house remains dominant, an extension of this size, compared to the footprint of the existing farmhouse, would be uncharacteristically large and prominent given the size and status of the rest of the house. This would disrupt the balance and simplicity of its classically influenced arrangement of openings in the south elevation. It would result in a symmetrical extension which would appear as a large single-phase addition, lacking the smaller, more incremental character typical of the multi-phase farmstead.

Farmsteads and the buildings within them, have always historically evolved. Whilst the outbuildings to the west nestle into the site and maintain the primacy of the farmhouse, the extension would be obtrusive and highly visible when approaching the farmhouse along the lane. The garden area, which is open and visually merges into the surrounding landscape, makes an important contribution to the setting of the farmhouse and outbuildings. Therefore, extending the built form into this area with an extension of this height and massing would be harmful to the setting.

Other design options for an extension in this location, but with a mono-pitched roof, were presented by the appellants, following previous discussions with the 3 Appendix B Appeal Decisions 6002998 and 6002999 Council. At the hearing, options B and C were discounted by the main parties as not providing the required space, physically covering more of the eastern gable, and the design harming the significance of the listed building. However, these options are not part of the application.

Examples of single storey extensions constructed on the side elevation of local historic buildings were presented in the evidence. Photo 14 suggests that, unlike the appeal site, the buildings are integral to, and part of, the farmyard. The photographs of [name] farmhouse and the property at [address] provide only limited views which do not allow me to understand the context of these sites.

Of the additional examples presented at [address], [name] and Keasden, only one of these buildings is listed, and the photographs show only a portion of the building, with no analysis of their history and development. Therefore, without the full circumstances of these cases, I am unaware as to whether they are directly comparable to the appeal site. Consequently, I have determined the appeal on its own merits, based on the evidence before me.

Given the above, I conclude that the proposed extension would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building as well as its setting. This would harm the significance of the designated heritage asset. Consequently, I give this harm considerable importance and weight in the planning balance of these appeals.

A porch on the western elevation is first shown on an [name] map of

The existing structure is rectangular and built of stone, with a flat, concrete roof. It is currently suffering from water ingress which is causing damp. It is proposed to replace the roof with a mono-pitched, stone slate roof. Whilst this would increase its visibility above the adjoining garden wall, it would be of a traditional form and in materials appropriate to the farmhouse. This would therefore enhance the appearance of the porch, and subject to appropriately worded conditions with regards to materials, it would preserve the listed building.

The outbuilding, referred to as Outhouse 3 5, has a curved wall to the north, where it is incorporated into the garden wall. It is likely to have been built from reused material from earlier buildings and is probably contemporary with the farmhouse. The walls are now of varying condition. The substantial quoins at the junction with the store to the south, indicates that the building is likely to have been built with two rooms, with the coal store to the south added on later. The middle room was likely to have been a wash house. Both the store and attached building have wooden plank and batten doors, in varying condition, with that on the store appearing to have been re-used from elsewhere. There are two existing windows in this range, W2, a six-pane casement, and W3, a two-pane casement with broken glass.

The outbuilding is in poor condition, with slipped slates, holes in the roof and vegetation growing through the building. Floors, in part covered by concrete, are breaking up, dividing walls are coming away, and the buildings are not effective for their current use of storing freezers, food, and providing washing facilities. The 4 Design and [name] 5 Survey Site Plan – Drawing o1 Appeal Decisions 6002998 and 6002999 later coal store has significant cracking on the outer wall, and modern brickwork has been inserted in one corner.

Whilst the statements refer to the potential use of the outbuilding for guests, the internal space is very limited. At the hearing, the appellants said a likely multi-purpose use is proposed for the building, including a coat and boot room and for the storage of food.

The structural inspection report6 has identified those parts of the building that require localised rebuilding, including the wall between area 1 and 2, repairs to the northern elevation, and the replacement of the profile roof over area 3. Guttering and appropriate drainage is required for all elevations. Where existing lintels are not stone, they would be replaced with stone ones, plus the repair or replacement of cills, jambs and quoins where necessary. A suitably worded condition would enable an assessment of where this is required, subject to appropriate details.

At the hearing, works proposed to upgrade the building with a breathable lining system for the walls and roof, and the replacement of the concrete flooring with limecrete, were discussed. Suitably worded conditions, detailing the products and their installation, could secure the sensitivity of the proposed works, and provide a new use and secure future for the building.

The condition of doors, including the survival of historic fittings, and full details of the condition of windows was not included within the evidence. These were, however, examined on site. The tongue and groove doors and their ironmongery are potentially 19th century in date. Whilst the door in area 1 may be beyond renovation, following conservation repairs, it may be possible to re-use the door in area 2. There is a likelihood that metal fittings could be re-used. Suitably worded conditions, including a detailed assessment of the condition of the fittings, and what needs to be replaced or re-used, could ensure the conservation of original features or, where absolutely unavoidable, a suitable replacement.

Therefore, based on my findings above, I conclude that the proposed works to Outhouse 3 would conserve and find new uses for the building. This would preserve the curtilage listed building and its setting.

The proposal seeks to rebuild the walls that surround the garden area7, which are attached to the listed building. I saw at the site visit, their poor condition, although one section had fine, triangular, coping stones. Rebuilding these traditional walls would provide a clear boundary to the garden area, which provides a physical and visual separation from the residential part of the site and the farm buildings and yards. It would also delineate the site from the surrounding fields and boundaries. Consequently, these works would enhance the setting of the listed farmhouse.

National Landscapes are designated for the purposes of conserving and enhancing natural beauty. Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 places a duty upon me to seek to further the statutory purposes of protected landscapes in this decision. 6 Noriker Consulting Engineers Ltd, 14 August 2025 7 Drawing 10 Appeal Decisions 6002998 and 6002999

[name] EN2 of the Ribble Valley Local Plan Core Strategy 2008-2028, adopted 2014, (LP) requires the landscape and character of the NL to be protected, conserved and enhanced. Amongst a number of considerations, development is expected to reflect the character and vernacular of the area.

The site is in the [name] Area8 of the NL. This is an open landscape characterised by rolling upland farmland, delineated by dry-stone walls and hedgerows containing pasture and meadows, in an area that has been shaped by sheep grazing. Dotted around are isolated farmsteads and barns built in the local limestone or gritstone, with roofs often of sandstone flags. The site is close to the Gisburn Forest.

[site address] is one of numerous farmsteads that are dotted around this upland farmland and contribute to its landscape character. The traditional roof proposed to the porch would enhance the appearance of the farmhouse. The works to Outhouse 3, which are in poor condition, and at risk of collapse, would ensure that the building is preserved and has a future use by the occupiers of the farmhouse.

[name] 3 and the porch, because of their location next to the farmhouse and behind the northern boundary wall, are of limited height and have limited visibility in the NL. Notwithstanding this, the proposed works to these buildings, of historic interest, would retain and enhance their appearance and condition, which contributes to the character of the NL. Additionally, rebuilding the garden walls around the house would conserve and enhance the NL.

The proposed extension to the farmhouse, however, would be sizeable, located within the open garden, and beyond the building envelope of the existing cluster of buildings. Based on my earlier findings, it would appear incongruous and would result, insofar as the NL is concerned, in harm to is scenic beauty, albeit to a small degree. Nonetheless, the Framework requires in paragraph 189 that great weight be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues.

I therefore conclude on this issue that the proposed extension would result in a small degree of harm to the NL, whilst the works to Outhouse 3, the porch and garden walls, would conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the NL.

Consequently, the proposed extension would not accord with Policy EN2 of LP, as set out above, and would conflict with the statutory purpose of the protected NL and paragraph 189 of the Framework.

However, the works to Outhouse 3 and the existing porch would accord with Policy EN2 of LP and the Framework in this respect.

The site is within the [name] (IRZ) of seven Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). These are: [name], [address] Pasture, [name], [name], [name], [name] and [name]. The Council provided details of these sites based on the Multi- 8 NCA34, Landscape Character Assessment, July 2025 Appeal Decisions 6002998 and 6002999 Agency Geographic Information9 database which provides information about the natural environment and where consultation is required with Natural England.

The nature of the proposed works is small-scale and affecting existing buildings within the envelope of the farmstead. Therefore, based on the submitted information, I conclude that the proposed development is unlikely to damage the special interest of the SSSIs, and Natural England does not need to be consulted. Consequently, I do not need to consider this further.

Public Right of Way, FP 14, Easington, runs between the farmhouse and Outhouse 3. The appellants explained at the hearing, and I saw on site, that this official route was rarely used, with an unofficial footpath to the east of the farmhouse which crosses the fields, being the most frequently used route. Notwithstanding this, the proposed works to Outhouse 3 and the porch would not affect the use of the official route.

Proposed works, including breathable insulated lime plaster being applied to the walls of the future dining room, works to update the boiler and changes to the water supply, which were discussed at the hearing, were not included in the planning and listed building applications. Therefore, I have had no reason to consider these works.

I understand the commitment of the appellants to the site and the preservation of the buildings. Furthermore, they have demonstrated their ongoing stewardship of the surrounding landscape through the rebuilding of over 2000m of drystone walls, the planting of 25,000 trees and the management of hay meadows, one of which is an SSSI. Being part of the [name] project and a donor site for establishing other wildflower areas, shows the appellants care of the farm and the wider NL. The appellants have said that they would be prepared to install an information board on the history of [site address] , with input from the local archive. This would provide some limited benefits in favour of the appeal

Paragraph 212 of the Framework advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets and that such harm should have clear and convincing justification.

Having seen the site, and all the evidence, I agree that the harm would be less than substantial from the proposed works to Outbuilding 3 and the farmhouse. Based on the current condition of Outbuilding 3, the harm would be at the lower end of that scale, as the proposed works would sustain and enhance the building, providing it with a new use. The works to the porch would enhance and not harm the listed building. However, the proposed extension to the farmhouse would result in a moderate level of harm, because it would harm the symmetry and form of the building and its classically designed architecture, as described above.

Where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm 9 MAGIC Appeal Decisions 6002998 and 6002999 should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

The appellants have set out the benefits of restoring and repairing the outbuildings and that works to the porch would visually enhance the character and appearance of the listed building. Further benefits would result from the repair and restoration of drystone walls. These benefits I do not disagree with, which, in addition, would conserve and enhance the NL.

The construction of the extension is considered by the appellants as improving the well-being and quality of family life, by adapting the house to modern requirements and providing additional living space. Reference was made to the other improvements that they have already made to the property.

The Planning Practice Guidance sets out what may be regarded as public benefits, such as works to a listed private dwelling which secures its future as a designated heritage asset. Although the existing kitchen is in poor condition, the proposal is not the only option available for improvements to the living space within the farmhouse, which already has an optimum viable use as a dwelling. The proposed works would provide some economic benefits during the build and restoration; however, these would be limited and short-term. Moreover, although the management of their landholding make significant contributions to the landscape and environment, these are not public benefits that directly benefit the listed building.

Therefore, the benefits set out are largely private and limited, and as such are not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified from the proposed construction of the extension to the listed building.

Given the above and in the absence of only limited public benefits from the construction of the extension, I conclude that, on balance, the extension would fail to preserve the special historic interest and setting of the grade II listed building. This would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, and paragraph 212 of the Framework.

It would conflict with LP policies EN5 and DME4, which together have a presumption for the conservation and enhancement of heritage assets and their settings, and LP policy DMG1 which requires development that is sympathetic and does not harm visual appearance. As a result, the proposed extension would not be in accordance with the development plan.

The works to Outbuilding 3 and the existing porch would preserve the special historic interest and setting of the grade II listed building. These works would satisfy the requirements of the Act, and paragraph 212 of the Framework. Moreover, they would accord with LP policies EN5, DME4 and DMG1 and therefore be in accordance with the development plan.

Additionally, I have found that the proposed extension would not accord with Policy EN2 of the LP and would conflict with the statutory purpose of the protected NL and paragraph 189 of the Framework.

I have considered the suggested conditions put forward by the Council and that were discussed at the hearing. With regards to Appeal A, in addition to the Appeal Decisions 6002998 and 6002999 standard time limit, a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the plans, is necessary to ensure that the proposals are implemented as approved.

Condition 3 is required to ensure that any lighting does not disturb protected species and condition 4, compliance with the bat report. Whilst a condition for a programme of archaeological works was suggested, as there would be no ground disturbance next to the east elevation, this is not required. However, condition 5 enables the historic recording of the outbuildings prior to their change of use.

Based on the size of Outhouse 3 which is already used for many of the purposes outlined in the proposal, I consider that it is not reasonable or necessary to condition it to be used as incidental to [site address] .

In Appeal B, the standard time limit is required. Details of materials are needed to ensure the significance of the listed building is preserved, therefore, condition 2 requires details of new roof slates, condition 5, rainwater goods, condition 7, details of natural stone and the mortar mix.

Condition 3 requires a condition survey of all windows, doors and their fittings of Outhouse 3, and condition 4, drawings and details of their replacements or re-use. Retaining or repairing existing lintels and cills, where appropriate, is necessary for preserving the significance of the building, therefore, condition 6 requires details to be provided.

To ensure that any rebuilding works to Outhouse 3 are necessary, condition 8 sets out that these shall be in accordance with the engineer’s report and condition 9 requires a submitted methodology for repair and rebuilding. Details of the mortar mix is required in condition 10 so that it is suitable for re-pointing and re-building the stonework. To ensure that works to the roof, floor and walls of the outbuilding are appropriate, conditions 11, 12 and 13 are required.

Condition 14 provides for details of the works to the existing porch to preserve the listed building. Condition 15 requires a method statement for the use of hand and power tools to ensure that the listed buildings are not damaged during their repair.

For the reasons given above, appeals A and B should be allowed in part and dismissed in part.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 00, 100, 04A, 05A, 06, 07, 09A, 10, 12, except in respect of the proposed side extension on the eastern elevation shown on plans 04A, 05A, 06, 07.

No external lighting shall be installed on Outhouse 3 hereby approved, or elsewhere within the site until details of any external ground mounted lighting/illumination, including luminance levels and a design to avoid light pollution and spillage and to minimise and mitigate the effect on wildlife habitats has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting installation shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations, proposed biodiversity net gain/precautionary method statement and reasonable avoidance measures – bats, of ‘Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment Report’ by [name], dated 23 June 2025.

No works to Outhouse 3, including any clearance/demolition or preparation works shall take place until a programme for the historic recording of the building has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The programme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Appeal B Ref: 6002999

The works authorised by this consent shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this consent.

Samples and details of all new roof slates to be used in the works hereby approved shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to their installation. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.

Prior to the removal of any windows and doors in Outhouse 3, a condition survey, including a photographic record of all windows, doors and all fixtures and fittings identifying which features are to be re-used or repaired and any justification for their replacement, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed condition survey.

Based on the condition survey required by condition 3), drawings, details and sections at no less than 1:20 of any new windows and doors, and their surrounds, which shall be in painted timber, and to include details of glazing, Appeal Decisions 6002998 and 6002999 moulding, method of opening, the method of fixing, position within the reveal, lintels and cills, and the use of new or re-used ironmongery, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works to the windows and doors. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.

Samples and specifications, including the method of fixing, of all new rainwater goods and their paint finish shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to their installation. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.

Details of all stone lintels and cills that are to be re-used or repaired, shall be shown on a drawing prior to their removal, which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.

Details, including the source of the natural stone, samples of the materials, and details of the mortar mix of any lintels, cills and surrounds and where they shall be located, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to their installation. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.

The works shall be in accordance with the rebuilding set out in the report, ‘Outbuilding at [site address] - structural inspection for planning’, Noriker Consulting Engineers Ltd, dated 14 August 2025.

Notwithstanding the rebuilding set out in the report ‘Outbuilding at [site address] - structural inspection for planning’, Noriker Consulting Engineers Ltd, dated 14 August 2025, a detailed methodology for the rebuilding and repair of the outbuilding shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the rebuilding. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.

Details of the mortar mix for the re-pointing and repair of stonework throughout the works shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any repairs and re-pointing. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.

Prior to any works to the roof of Outhouse 3, a method statement and drawings detailing works to the roof of Outhouse 3, including the stripping of existing materials, the repair or construction of new timbers, the proposed insulation and the re-laying of slate shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed method statement and drawings.

A method statement, drawings and specification for the removal of the existing floor of the outbuilding and the replacement new floor shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to any works to the floor of the outbuilding. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details. Appeal Decisions 6002998 and 6002999

Details and a specification for the insulation and finish of the walls within Outhouse 3 shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing to the walls. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.

A methodology for the removal of the roof on the existing porch and details and drawings of the new roof, including its materials and construction, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works to the porch. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.

A method statement shall set out where hand tools and powered tools shall be used for the works. This shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to any works allowed under these permissions. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details. END OF CONDITIONS APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Louise Leyland PWA Planning Emma Wells Heritage Potential Alexandra Fishpool [name] and Heritage Alistair McEntyre Appellant Anita McEntyre Appellant FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Ben Taylor Senior Planning Officer Bethan Frost Heritage and Conservation Officer, [name]