Appeal 6003009

The appeal is dismissed.

The development has already taken place, and the mobile home lodge has been sited. I do not have the precise dimensions to confirm that it meets the statutory definition of a caravan, but while on site, it appeared to me that it was in two parts. I have dealt with the appeal on the basis that it is for the change of use of the land for the siting of a caravan. If it transpires that the dimensions are not compliant, then it is a matter for the Council and the appellant.

The Council’s Delegated Decision Report and Statement of Case refer to the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan. However, the appeal site is outside of this plan area. The Council clarified the matter during the appeal process, and the appellant was given the opportunity to comment.

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

The appeal site is part of [site address] , a small cluster of buildings in the open countryside, including a main dwelling, holiday let, barn and a mobile home lodge, which is the subject of this appeal. The lodge is located on a corner of an area of hardstanding. Fields adjoin the lodge to two sides, with some mature trees forming part of the hedgerows in the fields. The site is accessed via [site address] and a Public Right of Way crosses through [site address] .

The High Peak Landscape Character Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) identifies that the site is located in the Settled Valley Pastures Landscape Character Type. This type features an enclosed and settled rural landscape, containing scattered farmsteads, associated agricultural buildings, small irregular fields, mixed hedgerows, tree belts and views filtered by vegetation. Farmsteads are scattered and made from stone with dark slate or stone tile roofs. [site address] contributes positively to this landscape, due to the traditional materials used.

The SPD requires new development to contribute towards the landscape character of the area. Whilst it does not require new development to be wholly screened, it should fit in with the surroundings. Materials, colours and textures should reflect local traditional buildings and be contained in low gritstone walls.

High Peak Local Plan (2016) (Local Plan) policies E6 and E7 apply to development such as this lodge. They require development to be located so as not to be prominent or impact on the character or appearance of the landscape. Development should be well screened by existing landscape features.

Whilst the lodge is comparatively small in size and therefore the subsequent visual change is low, during my site visit, I observed that the development was clearly visible from various viewpoints. This included along the Public Right of Way crossing through [site address] and beyond. Whilst this was intermittent at times due to vegetation and landforms, it was visible from some distance away, due to the open fields adjoining the site.

When approaching along [site address] , the lodge was clearly visible, as there is little vegetation to screen this elevation. It was also visible from viewpoints on higher ground above [site address] . Although not visible in the skyline, I could clearly see the lodge from long-distance viewpoints across the valley in the vicinity of [name]. It was screened to some extent by existing vegetation; however, this was sparse and even with the backdrop of existing buildings, the lodge remained clearly visible. As a result, the development is a prominent addition, which jars with the landscape.

The lodge is sited in a prominent location on the hardstanding. This hardstanding is existing and may be lawful, however, the visual impact of this hardstanding alone compared to having a structure on would differ, as the lodge would be more intrusive in the landscape.

The development is a small structure and is seen in the context of existing buildings from certain viewpoints. However, these are constructed from traditional stone. The timber materials of the lodge are an uncharacteristic form of development in the area. As a result, it appears at odds in the landscape and detracts from the established character of the area. I am mindful that an alternative structure could be sited here, however, these too would appear at odds due to the prominent location on the hardstanding.

There is some tree cover that offers screening; however, this is limited and the lodge remains visually prominent from many viewpoints. Whilst visibility does not necessarily equal harm, the lodge is an incongruent addition in both the local and wider landscape.

The Baseline Landscape and [name] report provided by the appellant identifies that the site has medium landscape sensitivity overall. It recommends mitigation measures, which include reinforcement of the depleted hedgerow boundaries; new native tree and shrub planting along east and south site boundaries; create a visual buffer to soften cross valley views; and a muted, natural finish to the timber of the lodge.

These measures would introduce new features to the east and south boundaries of the site and the wider landscape, which conflicts with the criteria in Local Plan Policy E7. There is no guarantee that this new landscaping would achieve the desired level of screening within a reasonable timeframe. Consequently, I cannot be certain that the harm to the landscape that I have identified would be mitigated to a satisfactory level.

Historic field patterns are not impacted and neither is there any alteration to landforms. The lodge provides various benefits including economic, social and health-related and would provide adapted accommodation for disabled visitors. However, these do not outweigh the harm identified above.

The Public Right of Way leads to [name], a grade II listed building. I have a statutory duty, as set out in s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting. Its significance, in part, is from its architectural style of traditional gritstone and slate roof construction. Due to the distance between it and the appeal site, the development is unlikely to impact the setting of this building.

The appellant has made reference to two appeal decisions. The first, [address], [address], [site address] (Ref: APP/H1033/W/21/3273578) is for glamping pods. The Inspector concluded that due to their small size and low key appearance, contained behind stone walling, and set into the slope, they would not appear out of place in the landscape. This differs to this as the lodge is a larger structure and is not set into the slope. Consequently, this appeal is not comparable.

The second appeal referred to, Land off [address], Chapel-en-le-Frith (Ref: APP/H1033/W/24/3348508), is for glamping pods located close to the settlement edge. The character and backdrop of the area is therefore different to this appeal site and as a result, is not comparable. In any case, I am required to determine each appeal on the basis of its own merits.

To conclude, the change of use causes harm to the character and appearance of the area. It conflicts with Local Plan policies EQ2 and EQ6, which collectively seek to protect, enhance and / or restore the landscape character of the area. It also conflicts with Local Plan policies E6 and E7, which seek to prevent prominent and adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the landscape and requires sites such as this to be screened by existing landscape features.

The proposal 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.