Appeal 6003303

The appeal is dismissed.

I have amended the description of development in the banner heading to that used on the decision notice and that used by the appellant in their appeal. This is a more accurate description of the proposed development than that given on the application form and ensures that it accurately captures the scope of the proposal.

The proposal is for an agricultural workers dwelling and installation of a package treatment plant. The Council has indicated that it has no objection to the installation of a package treatment plant and, based on the evidence, I have no reason to take a different view. The dispute between the parties relates to the erection of the agricultural workers dwelling.

I have been directed to a number of paragraphs of the 2023 National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) within the evidence. The Framework was updated in 2024, with a small update in February 2025. Given that the paragraphs most pertinent to this appeal are unchanged, other than their numbering, the parties have not been invited to make further comment.

On 22 November 2023, all areas in England and Wales designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) were retitled National Landscapes (NL). There has been no change to the legal designation or policy status of these areas, and I have therefore replaced the reference to the AONB with the NL in my decision to reflect this change.

During proceedings, the Council clarified which parts of the Local Plan for Lancaster District 2020-2031 [name]: Development Management Development Plans Document (climate emergency review) ([name] 2)1 and the Wray with Botton Neighbourhood Development Plan 2018-2031 (the WNP)2 it relied upon in its 1 Policies DM29 and DM37 2 Policy H1 assessment. There was no dispute from the appellant; I have therefore assessed the appeal on this basis.

During the hearing, the appellant was advised that the [name] (UU) would need to be completed if it was to be taken into consideration. Whilst concerns were raised about the costs involved, the appellant chose to submit a completed UU in the absence of an alternative mechanism. A completed UU was submitted after the hearing closed on 6 May 2026.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether there is a clearly identified need for the proposed size of dwelling; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the landscape and scenic beauty of the Forest of Bowland National Landscape (the NL); and, • whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the setting of the [name] listed building(s).

Policy DM10 of [name] 2 sets out the required criteria (or tests) for both permanent and temporary dwellings for rural workers. While there is no dispute with regard to there being a clearly established existing functional need for two full-time workers to reside on the site, [name]. requires the proposed dwelling to also pass the policy test relating to the functional need set out in [name] of the [name] 2.

[name] relates to housing development for rural workers and sets out, amongst other matters, that the Council will not support proposals for occupational dwellings that are unusually large in relation to the needs of the unit.

[name] acknowledge that Policy DM10 doesn’t define what size the Council considers ‘unusually large’ to be, the Council’s Meeting Housing Needs Supplementary Planning Document, adopted in 2022 and amended in 2025 (the SPD), does. The SPD3 states that the maximum gross internal floor space for the main or first dwelling for a rural business should be no more than 100 sqm. The proposed dwelling would measure approximately 133 sqm and comprise four bedrooms and an office.

The appellant contends that the proposed dwelling has been designed to provide modest and functional accommodation for his son and family. However, during the Hearing, the appellant clarified that the size of the dwelling was based on a similar scheme that a family member had been allowed on another site, and one which they considered would work on the appeal site.

To support their planning application, a search had been undertaken4 for existing accommodation within the area. Paragraph 8.3 of the appellant’s AA5 sets out that this was based on a 4-bedroom dwelling (or 3 plus an office) and that this would 3 Paragraph 8.9 4 Rightmove assessment completed 14th May 2024 (Appendix 4) 5 Agricultural Assessment of the farm holding for planning purposes, dated April 2024 (AA) ensure an appropriate living space for the applicant6 however, the proposed dwelling comprises 4 bedrooms plus an office.

The evidence indicates that the appellant’s agent had put forward a compromise to the Council which would reduce the size of the proposed dwelling to either 1.5 storeys or a single storey. During the Hearing, the appellant confirmed that this compromise had been discussed with them and they were amenable to reducing its size. [name] acknowledge that this compromise was not acted upon, it does nevertheless indicate that a smaller dwelling could provide a similar level of accommodation to serve the needs of the appellant's son and farm manager alike. I therefore have little before me to demonstrate that there is a need for the larger-sized unit as proposed.

The appellant has drawn my attention to two approved planning applications7 for agricultural worker dwellings with a larger floor area. During the hearing, the appellant confirmed that the scale was the only common theme and neither application site was in an NL or had heritage assets nearby. Based on the evidence before me, neither example is comparable to the appeal scheme.

Moreover, from the evidence before me, I have nothing to persuade me that a 3- bedroom dwelling with an office would not attract interest to a farm manager's role if it were advertised in [name].

For the reasons given above, a clearly identified need for the proposed size of dwelling has not been demonstrated. The proposed development, therefore, conflicts with Policy DM10 of [name] 2 and the SPD insofar as these collectively seek to ensure that the size of rural workers' accommodation is not unusually large.

The Council contend that the proposed development would be contrary to Section 5 of the Framework. Paragraph 84 requires that decisions avoid isolated homes in the countryside unless one or more criteria apply. Given that there is no dispute that there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at their place of work in the countryside8 and, without anything to the contrary from the Council, there would be no conflict in my mind with Section 5 of the Framework.

Paragraph 189 of the Framework states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty in NL, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. It also advises that the scale and extent of development within the designated area should be limited, while development within their setting should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts.

Policies OS1, OS2 of WNP and Policy EN2 of [name] 1 relate to the NL. Policy OS1 acknowledges that development outside of the village of Wray will be treated as an exception and will only be permitted where it meets Criterion (I) and one of the criteria in (II) to (V). There is no dispute that there is an essential housing need; the dispute with regard to this main issue is therefore its impact upon the landscape character. 6 Appendix 4 7 23/01420/FUL - over 152sqm and 24/00570/FUL - over 128sqm 8 Paragraph 84

Supporting text alongside Policy OS1 of WNP and Policy EN2 of [name] 1 sets out that where a development proposal would create conflict between the primary purpose of the NL and other uses of the NL, greater weight will be attached to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the landscape and natural beauty of the NL.

Policy DM10 [name] of [name] 2 seeks to ensure, amongst other matters, that new dwellings are sited to minimise the impact on the surrounding area.

The surrounding area is characterised predominantly by rural countryside laid out in a patchwork of fields and farmland with expansive open views. These qualities form an essential part of the area’s intrinsic character and contribute directly to the special qualities of the Forest of [name].

The appeal site forms part of [site address] , a hilltop farm. The elevated nature increases its visual exposure, particularly from [site address] and Moor Lane, and this contributes to the intrinsic beauty of this designated area and its sensitivity from short and long-distance views. Furthermore, tree cover within [site address] is limited which reinforces its essential open character.

The appellant in their LVIA9 and the Council have highlighted a number of viewpoints (VPs). I have viewed the site from the majority of these and I am satisfied that I saw everything I needed to assess the impact of the development.

The farm comprises several buildings, including the Grade II-listed farmhouse and attached barn, which I shall discuss further in my assessment. It also comprises a number of agricultural buildings and storage areas that vary in size. From my observations, these were predominantly ancillary to the farmstead and were mainly clustered together. Ground levels within [site address] are undulating, more noticeably on the approach to the Farmhouse from [site address] . Given the change in levels, the cluster of buildings associated with the farm were readily visible when on the brow of the hill and visible alongside one of the two chicken sheds to the right of the main cluster.

The appeal site comprises largely open grassland which sits predominantly to the west of the main farm complex and occupies a relatively flat area at the top of the gentle but sloping hill. The proposed dwelling would be situated approximately between a large agricultural building and the northernmost chicken shed.

During the proceedings, the extent of visibility of the proposed dwelling as illustrated in the computer-generated images10 (CGI’s) was discussed. [name] accept that these are CGI’s and therefore can be limiting, the appellant did clarify that part of the proposed dwelling would be visible from points on [site address] . Given this, together with observations on site, I have no reason to take a different view. Due to the open nature of the landscape, even if the extent of its visibility were limited, it would nevertheless be a permanent structure and extend the built form of the farmstead outwards from what currently exists. There would therefore be a significantly discernible change to the landscape from [site address] .

Moor Lane is a predominantly single-track road with passing places. I saw that whilst there was hedging separating the road from fields surrounding [site address] , there were sections of hedging which were lower than others and gaps 9 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, [name] and Environmental Planner (RE4212 Issue 1 July 2024) 10 between groups of trees which allowed views over and through. There were also gaps in the hedge and a number of gates that provided me with predominantly unobstructed views across the fields surrounding [site address] and towards the appeal site and both chicken sheds. I could also see a large portion of the flank and rear elevation of the barn, and part of the roof and rear elevation of the farmhouse.

I acknowledge that when moving along Moor Lane the appeal site was partially obscured, firstly by the existing agricultural building and then by the topography of the surrounding fields. However, when within a moderately close range, it was clearly visible and could be viewed with the barn and farmhouse in the background. These views are in my mind, representative of a farmstead, and one which is typical of the character of the area.

Submitted plans show that the proposed two-storey dwelling would be located closer to Moor Lane than either of the chicken sheds. Given the evidence before me, its location and scale would therefore likely obstruct current views of the barn and farmhouse when travelling along Moor Lane. Through severing the current intervisibility from Moor Lane with the farmstead, it would dilute the context and special qualities of the site within the NL and would cause harm to the landscape character.

Whilst the visual impact of the proposed development in the LVIA has been assessed, it has been done so after the establishment of the proposed landscaping. This omits to take into consideration the time these landscape features would take to establish and mature. During this time, the landscape mitigation would do little to screen the proposed new dwelling. Furthermore, as I have found above, there is little tree cover within [site address] and, as such, tree planting to screen the proposed dwelling would further erode the open character of the farmstead.

I acknowledge that the appellant has undertaken an exercise to explore alternative sites within [address] Farm11 and I have taken these into consideration in my assessment. With regard to location 1, notwithstanding the amount of earthworks required, this would constitute a loss of high-value agricultural land and could impact the existing business. I note that locations 3 and 4 would be set closer to [site address] and would therefore be more visible within the NL. Whilst the appellant contends that a dwelling in location 2 could restrict future farm expansion, I have nothing before me to indicate future expansion plans and, as such, I give this little weight. Moreover, even if location 5 is separate from the existing residential elements, occupants and visitors currently either walk past or drive close to agricultural buildings to access the current farmhouse. I am therefore not persuaded by the reasoning for its disqualification and give this little weight.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to safeguard the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the special qualities of the NL. Accordingly, there would be conflict with [name] OS1, OS2, BE1 and H1, [name] 1 Policies EN2 and EN3 and LP 2 Policies DM10, DM29 and DM46 which collectively seek to ensure that the special qualities of the NL are conserved and that new development should contribute positively to the identity and character of the area through appropriate siting. 11 Response to Conservation Team Advice dated 29th August 2024.

There would also be conflict with the requirements of the Framework, insofar as it requires development to protect and enhance valued landscapes and recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

In considering whether to grant planning permission, section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires that special regard is given to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting.

The Framework highlights that designated heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. As a result, Paragraph 212 of the Framework requires that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

The appeal site is situated near a number of [name] designated heritage assets, comprising a Cross (the Cross)12 at the entrance to [site address] on Moor Lane, and the farmhouse and attached barn of [address] Farm13.

While the official entry was provided as part of the appeal during the Hearing, the Council confirmed that, given the distance between the Cross and the appeal site, the proposed development would have a limited effect on its setting. From observations on site and based on the evidence, I have no reason to take a different view.

The listing description describes [address] Farmhouse and barn to the north-west as being a two-storey mid- [postcode] (the farmhouse) with an early [postcode] barn and early [postcode] remains attached and constructed from squared sandstone and a stone slate roof. It also states that the barn to the right has a lower tile roof and on its wide entrance the keystone on the segmental arch is inscribed: '1718'. However, whilst quoins to the left of the inscribed date suggest that the barn is older than the house, the tooling of the stonework and the softwood tie beams suggest it is a [postcode] rebuilding. Nevertheless, it is [name].

The special interest and significance of the heritage assets is largely derived from the historic plan form of each building, the retention of historic fabric and its retained use as a farmstead. This, together with its location in a prominent position on a hillside with an expanse of open land, contributes to the understanding and setting of the heritage assets.

I saw that from the entrance of [site address] on [site address] the upper floor and roof of the farmhouse, together with part of the front elevation, and most of the roof of the barn were visible. [name] approached the farm on the main drive, the roof of the farmhouse and part of the roof over the barn remained visible. These views were experienced with a predominantly open aspect to the right. With regard to Moor Lane, I have found that both the farmhouse and Barn were partly visible, and that these views were experienced alongside agricultural buildings and open fields. 12 [name]: 1164896 13 [name]: 1362576 My findings largely correspond with those of the appellant, which were discussed during the proceedings.

I saw that there were a number of agricultural buildings in close proximity to the heritage assets. There is no dispute between the parties that the presence of these additional buildings erodes the significance of the heritage assets and thus erodes their setting. The Council have, however, drawn my attention to Historic England guidance14 which sets out that where the significance of a heritage asset has been compromised in the past by unsympathetic development affecting its setting, in order to accord with the requirements of the Framework consideration still needs to be given to whether additional change will further detract from, or can enhance, the significance of the asset.

Whilst some of the agricultural buildings are positioned to the front of the heritage assets, the majority of these are to the side and rear and retain intervisibility between the heritage assets on both [site address] and Moor Lane. These views of the farmstead are, in my mind, important elements which assist in retaining the significance of the heritage assets within the surrounding agrarian landscape.

Policy SP7 of the [name] 1 acknowledges that the heritage assets within the district have all played a major role in helping to shape the district’s distinctive identity. Policy DM37 of [name] 2 states that proposals affecting listed buildings should conserve and, where appropriate, enhance those elements which contribute to its significance. It further states that the significance of a Listed Building can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of those elements which contribute to its special architectural or historic interest or through development within its setting. It also states that any harm (substantial or less than substantial) to such elements will only be permitted where this is clearly justified and outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.

Submitted plans show that the proposed dwelling would be located to the west of the farmhouse and barn. I have found above that when viewed from [site address] , its position would erode the current spaciousness and that this contributes towards the agrarian setting of the farmstead. There is no dispute that the overall height would be higher than the farmhouse or that its design and scale was based on a family member having planning permission granted for a similar dwelling elsewhere. A building which is taller than the historic farmhouse would therefore visually compete with the heritage asset, and given my findings, this would likely erode some understanding of the evolution of the farmstead and, as a consequence, fail to preserve the setting of both the farmhouse and barn.

With regard to Moor Lane, the introduction of a new dwelling of the scale proposed would likely lead to the loss of views towards the heritage assets. This would sever the clear link between the listed buildings and their setting and, as a consequence, the proposed development would fail to preserve the setting of both the farmhouse and barn.

I have found above that the surrounding agricultural land reflects the historical function of the farmstead, and that views from [site address] and Moor Lane are an intrinsic part of the environment within which the listed buildings are experienced 14 GPA3, 2017 - [name] in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets and appreciated. Therefore, while neither party dispute the fact that there has been some erosion of the significance of the heritage assets, there still remains a sense of spaciousness between the heritage assets and the agricultural buildings. This, in my mind, assists in maintaining the setting of the listed buildings and thus retains significance.

There is no dispute that the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the setting, with the appellant describing the harm at the lower end of the less-than-substantial spectrum. Without anything to the contrary from the Council, and from the evidence before me, I have no reason to take a different view.

Regardless of the level of harm, Paragraph 213 of the Framework indicates that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting) should require clear and convincing justification. Paragraph 215 advises that this harm be weighed against the public benefits.

The proposal would bring about a number of public benefits, not least the provision of one dwelling to boost the housing supply. There would also be benefits to the economy, notably through meeting an essential need for on-site accommodation to support animal welfare and farm management, and to the local economy during its construction and subsequent occupation. These benefits can be afforded a modest degree of weight in favour of the scheme. However, they do not outweigh the great weight which should be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty in NL or to the conservation of the designated heritage assets.

As a result, the proposed development would fail to meet the requirements of section 66(1) of the Act. There would also be conflict with [name] OS1, BE1 and NE3, Policy SP7 of [name] 1and Policies DM10, DM29, DM37 and DM39 of [name] 2, insofar as they seek to ensure that proposals affecting listed buildings conserve and, where appropriate, enhance those elements which contribute to their significance.

The proposal would also be contrary to the provisions of the Framework in relation to heritage assets which also seek to ensure, amongst other matters, that development is sympathetic to local character and history including, amongst other matters, the landscape setting.

I note that the appellant has no intention for the dwelling to be used as holiday accommodation. These matters are not determinative to my assessment, which must focus on the planning merits of the appeal proposal.

With regard to whether the proposed dwelling would appear isolated does not outweigh or alter my conclusion on the main issues. Furthermore, whether the Council undertook a site visit falls outside the scope of my assessment.

I acknowledge that there is an existing functional need for the proposed dwelling, and to this I attach modest weight. It would also provide modest benefits to the rural economy through its occupancy, giving support to local services and facilities, and limited economic benefits arising from the construction period. There would also be benefits in the creation of one dwelling supporting the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. However, I have found that there is no identified need for its proposed size and that its location and scale would fail to safeguard the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the great weight which should be given to NL’s. I have also found that it would fail to meet the requirements of section 66 of the Act. The benefits, therefore, would not outweigh the harm I have identified above.

Whilst the completed UU secures the proposed dwelling as self-build, this does not outweigh the harm I have identified above.

For the above reasons, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the Development Plan.

Therefore, for the reasons given above and having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.