Appeal 6003243

The appeal is dismissed.

For clarity, the description of development has been taken from the Council’s decision notice and the appeal application form. The proposal was originally described as ‘an oak framed agricultural workers dwelling’.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on character and appearance with special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of heritage assets; • the effect of the proposed development on biodiversity; • whether there is an essential need for a dwelling to accommodate a rural worker; and • whether the proposed occupant’s personal circumstances would represent an appropriate need for that proposed.

The appeal site is part of [site address] (the Farm). It is a broadly triangular and sloped piece of land located away from the road beyond the main farmyard. To one side of the site is the Church of [name] (the Church), and to the other a pair of semi-detached houses known as [name]. Beyond the appeal site the land slopes down across large open fields towards the [name].

Access is via a track that runs from the road, between the farmyard and [name] itself, past the Church and appeal site and into the fields beyond. This track is a Public Right of Way (PRoW) which links with further paths across the fields, and also provides access to the [name] driveway, which runs between the farmyard and appeal site.

The farmyard itself has a mix of old and new farm buildings on it, including a brick barn (the Barn). On the opposite side of the road to the Farm is a number of other residential dwellings which look like converted single storey brick agricultural buildings, and on the other side of the Church is the brick-built village hall.

The appeal site is not currently in use and is very overgrown. However, it was previously partly used for silage pits related to the Farm and these structures where cut into the slope of the site creating a noticeable difference in levels across it.

3 heritage assets have been identified by the main parties. [name] is a grade II* listed building (reference 1037002) (the Hall) whilst the Barn (reference 1037004), and the Church (reference 1351606) are both grade II listed buildings1. Due to the proximity of the appeal site to 3 listed buildings, special regard to section 66(1) of the of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) must be had.

The Hall was originally built in the late 16th century but only the southern wing of the original house remains. The building was further extended and altered in the 17th and 18th century. This has created an impressive linear building which is positioned slightly away but clearly linked to the associated farmyard. Its significance is therefore not only related to its age and architectural merit but is inextricable linked to the farming heritage of the immediate area, and the physical and visual relationship with the farmyard and surrounding fields.

The Barn is an 18th century red brick building and located on the opposite side of the farmyard to the appeal site, near to the Hall. It is largely architecturally intact, notwithstanding its relatively recent conversion into a dwelling2, so is a good example of a vernacular barn.

The Church was also built in the 18th century, also of red brick. Although it was significantly altered and extended in the late 19th century. It is a lovely example of a rural ecclesiastical building, and its development aligns with the ebb and flow of religiosity throughout the later centuries.

The significance of the Barn and Church is not only linked to their architectural merits and age but also show the development and improvement of [site address] in the 18th century. Notably the Barn is linked to the prosperity and development of the Farm, and so its setting is limited to the farmyard and the Hall. Whereas the Church, positioned away from the road and at the edge of the slope before it begins to descend, is far more visible. Not just from the PRoW but it also provides a landmark in the wider landscape, across the fields and out to the river. The importance of the Church to the area is emphasised in the appellant’s Heritage Statement (HS) which states “It makes a significant contribution to the historic character of Longdon and its setting, and its preservation helps maintain the narrative continuity of the parish as both a historic and living community.”

Accordingly, when considering the significance of the setting for each of the 3 heritage assets, it is found that due to their physical and historical links to the 1 It is recognised that the appellant’s Statement of Case refers to the Church as [name], it has been assumed this is a typographical error. 2 Permitted by application TWC/2022/0896 and TWC/2022/0897 countryside surrounding them, the appeal site would be within the setting of both the Hall and the Church. However, due to the more confined positioning of the Barn, its setting is limited to the farmyard and space between it and the road. In combination with the intervening modern buildings, in this instance, it is not found that the appeal site would be within the setting of the Barn. Therefore, as it is desirable to preserve the setting of heritage assets, it is necessary to consider the impact of that proposed on both the Hall and the Church.

The proposed dwelling would be located broadly centrally within the appeal site and would be positioned across both the natural level of the site and the lower level of the disused slurry pits. It would constitute an oak-framed dwelling with a tiled roof. It would be approximately 30.5m long and vary in depth from approximately 6m to 22.5m. The proposal does not include any landscaping or any site layout details beyond the location of the proposed dwelling.

The oak frame design of the proposal is very distinct, and it is the appellant’s opinion that it would reflect the rural vernacular and establish a direct continuity with the materials historically used on agricultural buildings within the holding3. However, during the site visit no such buildings were observed either on the appeal site or in the surrounding area. The most common material for buildings was a red brick, as evidenced in the Hall, the Church, the Barn, and the surrounding buildings. More modern barns were completed in cladding.

Therefore, the proposed wood and glazed structure, of the size required by the [name] (PO), would be visually dominant. It would be at odds to the rural vernacular of the farmyard and nearby buildings and fail to blend into the existing built form which characterises the area. The incongruity of the proposal would be further exacerbated by the prominent location of the appeal site at the top of a brow beyond the current cluster of farmyard buildings and visible from the fields and PRoWs beyond.

As the appeal site is next to the Church and provides a transitional space between the Hall and the wider countryside, the proposal would have considerable impact on both heritage assets. It would visually compete with the Church and encroach on its countryside setting reducing its prominence as a landmark. The location of the proposed dwelling as well as its orientation, form and design would have an enclosing effect on the historically open transitional space between the Hall and fields, further reducing the interconnectivity between the Hall and surrounding countryside.

Therefore, the incompatible design of the proposal with the surrounding buildings in conjunction with its prominent location beyond the envelop of existing farm buildings would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of its surroundings and would fail to preserve the setting of the Hall and the Barn insofar as it relates to their significance.

Although the disused slurry pits could be considered to harm the setting of the Hall and Church, they are cut into the land and do not extend upwards so are not more harmful that that proposed. That the appeal site is not visible from the road does not discount the effect of the proposal on the setting of the heritage assets, or the impact on views from the PRoWs and wider countryside. The appellant’s HS notes the appeal site is not directly visible in any of the Hall’s principal views. Although 3 Paragraph 8.2 of the appellant’s Statement of Case and referred to in their Heritage Statement what can be considered the principal views has not been closely defined. It was observed during the site visit that the appeal site is visible from the northern and east elevations of the Hall, both the Hall and appeal site are within views from the access track and PRoWs, and when viewed from the Church the appeal site can be clearly seen in the round with the Hall and existing farmyard. That the proposal does not alter the legibility of the architectural form of the Hall or the Church does not negate the impact it would have on their setting.

The appellant has concerns relating to the Council’s lack of evidence-based heritage analysis and that no site visit was undertaken. Paragraph 208 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) allows for consideration of the available evidence and any necessary expertise, and the Council has reached its position through consultation with its Built Heritage specialist and the information within the appellant’s HS.

For the reasons set out above the proposal has been found to harm the setting of a grade II* listed building, the Hall, and a grade II listed building, the Church. This would constitute less than substantial harm, of a moderate order due to the permanency of that proposed.

Where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimal viable use.

The appellant advances that the main public benefit of the proposal is the contribution the PO makes to the existing farming business and the positive impact that business has on the rural economy by supporting employment, sustaining local supply chains, and land management through biodiversity and environmental stewardship. However as ultimately a private family run business, the economic viability of the farm would be considered a private benefit, and with no substantive evidence showing that the public benefits are a substantial part of that business I can only give them limited weight.

Notwithstanding this the proposal would permanently remove an area of land which has previously been used for agricultural purposes to support the activities of the farm. This indicates that such purposes would be the optimal viable use of the site over residential.

Therefore, it is not found the public benefits would outweigh the harm identified. Accordingly, the proposal would fail to preserve the setting of the Hall and the Church, as part of their special interest and harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. So, it would fail to comply with the Act and the Framework, and Telford and Wrekin Local Plan (LP) Policies BE1 and BE4, insofar as they require new development to respect and respond positively to its context and the desirability of preserving the setting of heritage assets.

The main parties have not identified the appeal site to be within or near to any locally, nationally, or internationally protected habitats and there is nothing before me to suggest that the appeal site is used by protected species. However, it is an underused part of the farm, and although there are some structures dug into the site, they are redundant and the whole site is overgrown and taken over by nature. The proposal would clearly require a considerable amount of clearing and alteration of land levels so would significantly impact the biodiversity of the appeal site.

LP Policy NE1 seeks to protect, maintain and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity. Amongst other things it provides for the Council to require such assessments and sets out the details of what would be expected in them. This is expanded in LP supporting text paragraph 6.1.12 which states that where the nature and location of a development is such that impacts upon nature conservation are likely to be significant then further ecological surveys will be required prior to determination.

The Council’s Ecologist Specialist has reviewed the proposal and considers that due to the connectivity of the appeal site with the wider rural environment an ecological survey and impact assessment would be appropriate. This aligns with my observations on site, and therefore it would be necessary to further investigate the potential impact the proposal could have on the ecology of the site. As the appellant has not submitted any such assessment, it cannot therefore be concluded that the proposal would protect, maintain and enhance biodiversity.

The appellant considers that such assessments could be conditioned. Although it is accepted that mitigation of harm may well be appropriate to condition. Without comprehension of what that harm maybe and the level of mitigation required, it cannot be ensured that such a condition would be relevant or precise. Further there is potential that through ecological assessment fundamental changes may be required to the layout or format of the scheme which should not be dealt with through the discharge of conditions.

It is therefore concluded that there is not enough information to accurately assess the effect of the proposed development on biodiversity, and so the proposal would fail to comply with LP Policy NE1.

The appeal site is within the rural area of Telford and LP Policy HO10 seeks to control residential development in the rural area. Amongst other things this policy states that the Council would support new dwellings in the rural area where it would meet the essential need for rural workers. This aligns with paragraph 84a) of the Framework.

LP supporting paragraph 5.3.1.7 confirms that an essential need for rural workers means no suitable accommodation can be found subject to sufficient evidence of local housing need being provided. It amplifies that in assessing need, a clear functional need for the person to be readily available on the site at most times, that the worker(s) is fully or primarily employed on that site, the business is financially sound and has a clear prospect of remaining so, the dwelling is an appropriate size for the established functional requirement, and the need cannot be met by existing accommodation either on the site or within the area. These requirements align with the Planning Policy Guidance (PPG).

From the information submitted the farm is predominantly arable. However, there is some animal stock and an intention to develop this part of the business in the future, although details of this have not been specified. As set out in the Reading Agricultural Consultants Assessment (RACA)4 animal welfare would be a clear functional need for a person to be readily available on the site at most times. However, both the RACA and the appellant’s own evidence5, confirms that the existing animal stock is the responsibility of the PO’s daughter, who lives in the Barn on site. They go on to confirm that the PO oversees the animal health supplies for the existing stock. Although important, this is not an element of animal welfare which may require an immediate on-site presence in an emergency.

It is not contested that [site address] is a well-established agricultural business, that the PO continues to carry out farm management and supervisory tasks, and has important and continued input in the daily farm decisions6. It is also acknowledged that modern agriculture increasingly relies upon management, coordination, and expertise particularly in diversified holdings such as that of the Farm7, and is not wholly reliant on manual capabilities or labour. In this vein the appellant also confirms 24-hour oversight of the farm is only required in certain seasons8.

Nevertheless with 2 dwellings already attributed to the Farm business, both occupied by people working within that business, there is nothing before me which substantively evidences a requirement for a 3rd dwelling for additional agricultural workers to be readily available on the site at most times.

The RACA infers that at the time of writing there were some potentials of appropriate open market accommodation in the area taking account of the PO’s personal requirements, and as an alternative option the Council consider this has not been properly addressed. However, the RACA could only provide limited accommodation options and confirmed them to be expensive, though potentially similar in cost to that which is proposed. It also concludes that although the proposed dwelling is larger than the average agricultural worker dwelling, the need to make the property accessible could justify its size.

Nevertheless, these findings do not negate the lack of substantive justification of a functional need for 3 dwellings for agricultural workers to live on the Farm.

It is recognised that the PO plays an important role in the existing farming business, and if they are not involved it may be detrimental to the prosperity of that business so impact its effect on the rural economy, which Paragraph 88 of the Framework seeks to support. But this does not outweigh the requirements of the LP or Paragraph 84 of the Framework.

The proposal fails to demonstrate an essential need for the proposed rural worker dwelling, so would not comply with LP Policy HO10 and Paragraph 84a) of the Framework. It would also fail to comply with [name] SP3 and SP4 as far as they seek to guide sustainable development in rural areas to address the needs of rural communities.

The appellant has tested the proposal against LP Policy HO11, which deals with affordable rural exception residential development; and referred to paragraph 89 of the Framework which relates to local business and community needs. There is no 4 Undertaken on behalf of the Council 5 2nd paragraph and section 2 of the justification document submitted by the appellant at application stage 6 Paragraph 6.15 of the [name] 7 Paragraph 5.3 of the [name] of Case 8 Paragraph 5.2 of the [name] of Case substantive evidence that the proposal is to be considered affordable and paragraph 89 does not expressly relate to rural residential need, so neither are determinative to this appeal.

The appellant has submitted a professional [name] from [name] and letter from the NHS confirming the medical and accessibility advantages the proposed new dwelling would have for the PO and their ability to remain on the farm. Equally they also confirm that the Hall and Barn would not be appropriate for adaption to fulfil the appellant’s needs due to the constraints of their unique historic importance and the specific physical and care requirements of the appellant. There is nothing before me to contradict this.

The personal benefits to the PO are also recognised as they are part of the partnership integral in the family farming business, specifically, in a directing and supervisory role.

In conclusion the personal circumstances of the PO would represent an appropriate need for a new dwelling which would provide personal benefits to them, their family, and their farming business.

The Council has queried the use of the previously approved office. This does not form part of the proposal. It is also noted that there is no substantive evidence that the proposed design and location is the only possible new dwelling option which would meet the needs of the PO. Nevertheless, I am required to consider the scheme before me on its own merits.

No harm was found in relation to drainage and highway safety. However, a lack of harm, by definition, cannot weigh for or against the proposal.

It is not in question that the PO’s personal circumstances should attract significant weight. However, without an essential need for the dwelling having been evidenced, the proposal would constitute unjustified development in a rural area which carries moderate weight. As would the harm identified in relation to the area’s character and appearance. But this is not the only harm identified and the proposal has been found to also harm the significance of both a grade II* and grade II listed building which must be given great weight. Further a potential for harm to biodiversity has also been identified, and it has not been ruled out that nationally important species would not be negatively impacted, which would also attract significant weight.

Finally, in making this decision I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty, contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Whilst dismissal of the appeal would deprive the appellant the opportunity to live in a new dwelling on the Farm, this is set against the serious effect the proposal would have in terms of other planning considerations. It does not therefore follow that the appeal should succeed.

Accordingly in totality the harm identified would outweigh the benefits. The appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no sufficiently weighted material considerations, including the Framework, which would indicate a decision otherwise. It is therefore proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal.