Appeal 6004389

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and on the setting of the Forest of Bowland National Landscape (FBNL).

The appeal site comprises a parcel of grassland located to the east of [address] within an area of open countryside which is predominantly rural in character, despite the proximity of the motorway.

Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires that great weight be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes, which have the highest status of protection. The appeal site is outside of the FBNL, but it contributes positively to its setting forming part of an expanse of predominantly undeveloped and open fields and agricultural land which extend eastward up to its boundary. This area is characterised as undulating and lowland farmland and parkland, and it is recognised as containing scattered isolated farmsteads and small historic villages.

The Planning Practice Guidance advises1 that land within the setting of National Landscapes makes an important contribution to maintaining their natural beauty, and where poorly located or designed development can do significant harm. It further states that this is especially the case where long views are identified as important, or where the landscape character of land adjoining the designated area is complementary.

The parties have not identified any important long views from the FBNL. However, whilst farmsteads may be characteristic of the setting, the siting of the proposed 1 [name]: 042 [name]: 8-042-20190721 building close to the western boundary of the appeal site would obstruct long views from [address] towards higher ground to the east. This would result in modest harm to the appreciation and setting of the moorland fringe on the edge of the FBNL. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with Policy SP5 of the Wyre Local Plan (2011-2031) (2022) (LP) which seeks to protect the landscape and scenic beauty of the FBNL from development which would affect its setting.

Despite being cut into the existing east-west rising grass embankment, the lowest part of the ridgeline of the proposed building would be around 4.6m in height and it would occupy an elevated position above [address]. Consequently, from the road and the existing field gate, the building would appear a substantial and unduly prominent addition. The widened site access and tarmac driveway leading to an area of hardstanding and car parking would exacerbate this prominence. In combination with the timber cladding, barn doors, PV panels and retaining structures, it would also introduce an urban or domestic form of development in an otherwise rural countryside location, even if details were controlled by condition.

When walking west to east on the existing footpath2 which runs close to the southern field boundary, whilst appearing prominent and substantial in size, the building would quickly be behind you. Walking from the east, its visual impact would be tempered by the backdrop of mature trees and glimpses of the motorway as it crosses over [address].

However, I observed that the existing section of footpath3 to the north-west of the appeal site is at the bottom of the grassed embankment and appeared well-used, connecting an area of woodland alongside [name] with open fields and with [address]. Although the motorway can be heard in the background, this part of the footpath has a distinctly rural character and notwithstanding the rising ground levels there is a wide, predominantly open aspect towards the appeal site and beyond towards the mature trees on the southern field boundary.

The ground would be excavated to reduce the overall height of the building, but its siting on higher ground means its wide northern elevation would appear imposing and overbearing for users of this footpath despite its staggered height. Although agricultural buildings are commonly seen on rural walks, the siting and size of the proposed building would significantly detract from the open and rural character of the footpath and would be to the detriment of the enjoyment of its users.

The appellant has proposed additional planting to mitigate the visual impacts of the building from [address] and nearby footpaths. However, I have little evidence before me that such planting would be effective in screening or softening the appearance of the building given its scale, notably at times of the year when trees or hedgerows would not be in full leaf. Further, the planting would be unlikely to mature for some time and, in any event, cannot be relied upon in perpetuity to hide development that would otherwise be harmful. The existing hedgerow alongside [address] would not adequately screen the large gable of the building from the road, even if it were maintained at a height of at least 2m.

I have found that the proposed development would cause harm to the open and rural character of the countryside. In such circumstances, LP Policy SP4 states 2 FP0219009 3 FP0219013 that development will not be permitted, unless it is demonstrated that the harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm.

I understand the appellant wishes to conserve, manage and enhance the environmental quality of the wider land and there are environmental benefits associated with agroforestry and regenerative farming. The supply of locally grown trees, saplings and flowers would also contribute positively to the economy, and there would be opportunities for collaboration with local education and environmental organisations.

The appellant asserts that the proposed building is integral to the establishment and long-term viability of the agroforestry, tree seed nursery and flower farming enterprise. Amongst other things, it would be used for the storage of machinery, materials and seeds, areas for crop drying and dispatch of flowers. It is therefore reasonably required for agricultural purposes. However, whilst the height is said to allow for storage of machinery, I have very little evidence before me that the overall size and scale of the proposed building is necessary, or that a building could not be located to meet the needs of the enterprise in a manner that causes less harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Accordingly, I afford these benefits limited weight and they do not constitute the substantial public benefits required by LP Policy SP4 to outweigh the harm to the open and rural character of the countryside.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and on the setting of the FBNL. In addition to the conflict with LP policies SP4 and SP5, the proposal would conflict with LP policies CDMP3 and CDMP4. Together, these require all development to be designed to enhance the character of the area, including its siting, height, scale and massing and to take into consideration landscape setting.

It would further conflict with LP Policy CDMP6 in so far as it states that proposals will not be permitted which adversely affect an existing Public Right of Way and the public’s enjoyment of it or detract from the character.

The appellant’s ‘Refuse & [name] refers to the requirements for residual and compostable waste and recycling, and I am satisfied that details of such provision could have been controlled by condition if the appeal proposal was otherwise found acceptable.

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