Appeal 6004686

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed storage shed on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding landscape.

The appeal site adjoins [site address] , the host building, which has recently been converted into holiday accommodation. It lies within the village of Biggin which is predominantly linear in form, centred along [site address] and contains a small number of buildings, including [site address] , which are set back from the road. The landscape around Biggin is gently rolling, open pastoral farmland of small to medium sized fields bound by limestone walls. The Tissington Trail (the Trail) passes the appeal site in an elevated position, separated from it by a field.

The appeal site is within the Peak District National Park (PDNP). Under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 2000 (as amended), the two purposes of National Parks are to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage; and to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of them by the public. The Act requires me to further these purposes. Moreover, paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in the National Parks.

The main parties agree that [site address] is a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). The evidence before me supports this conclusion and, in reaching my decision, I have treated it as such. Its significance as a NDHA is, in part, derived from its evidential and historical value as a traditional agricultural building. The open agricultural setting to the rear of the host building also contributes to its significance as a NDHA.

The evidence before me shows that the part of the appeal site where the proposed storage shed would be sited has been used for outdoor storage. Therefore, it has not been in active agricultural use in recent times. Although it is contained on three sides by limestone walls it still open in appearance and, thus, respects the rural character of this edge of settlement location. As such it contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed storage shed would be sited some distance to the side and rear of the host building, in a position that would not cause fragmentation of the setting of the NDHA. It would be constructed in materials and have a roof pitch that would be reflective of the host building, and a smaller footprint and lower height than it. However, given its length of 12 metres and ridge height of 5.5 metres it would be a significant structure that would fail to appear as a proportionate and subservient outbuilding. Consequently, the proposed storage shed would be inappropriate in the setting of the host building. Even if I were to agree that amendments to the north elevation windows could be secured by condition, that would not address the harm that I have identified.

Furthermore, whilst I acknowledge that the site may be less sensitive to change due to its location next to residential properties, that is not to say that all domestic development is acceptable within the curtilage of the host building. The large building as proposed would be of a materially different nature to any lower intensity, open domestic use that was deemed to be appropriate for the site when planning permission was granted for the holiday let and, for the foregoing reasons, is unacceptable.

Given its backland siting, there would be limited public vistas of the proposed storage shed from [site address] and it would not be overly prominent in views travelling along the Trail towards [site address] as it would be seen against the backdrop of the host building. However, when moving along the Trail in the opposite direction the proposed storage shed would be seen against open countryside devoid of buildings. Although relatively close to other structures, it would, nevertheless, appear as an incongruous and harmful encroachment into the rural landscape in such views. The introduction of landscaping would not mitigate such an adverse impact on the pattern of development or address the loss of the more open and rural character that is experienced when travelling along the Trail away from the village.

For the identified reasons, I consider that the proposed storage shed would result in harm to the setting of the host building, thereby adversely affecting its significance as a NDHA. It would also fail to conserve and enhance the landscape, scenic beauty and cultural heritage of the PDNP.

Paragraph 216 of the Framework says that the effect of an application on the significance of a NDHA should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect NDHAs, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

The proposal would provide storage in association with the operation of the holiday accommodation. However, it has not been demonstrated that there are no alternative ways to do so without the harm that I have identified. As such, I give only limited weight to this benefit. Overall, I find that there are no clear benefits that would outweigh the harm to the NDHA that I have identified.

For the above reasons, the proposed storage shed would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building, a NDHA, and the surrounding landscape of the PDNP. It would therefore conflict with Policies GSP1, GSP3 and L1 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document, adopted October 2011. Such policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development is consistent with the purposes and duty of the National Park, conserves and where possible enhances valued landscape character and that any conversion of a heritage asset does not compromise its character or setting. It would also fail to accord with Policies DMC3, DMC5 and DMH8 of the Development Management Policies document, adopted May 2019, which seek to protect the visual amenity of the landscape, avoid harm to, or loss of, the significance, character and appearance of NDHAs, and ensure new outbuildings conserve or enhance the dwelling and curtilage.

The development conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no other considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweighs the identified harm and associated development plan conflict.

I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.