Appeal 6005876

The appeal is dismissed.

The existing [name] benefits from previous planning permissions1 for the change of use of land to a clay pigeon shooting school, the use of land for car parking to be contained by post and rail fencing, the use of land for additional car parking and the erection of a marquee (the existing marquee) for up to 14 days per annum, and the use of part of the existing barn for teaching purposes (the original permissions), granted on 8 November 1995.

Planning permission2 was also granted in August 2022 for an extension to the existing [name] facilities building on the site, and the introduction of revised fenestration to facilitate the reconfiguration of the existing layout, including the relocation of office, retail and leisure provision (the clubhouse permission). A later planning permission3 was then granted in November 2024 for the proposed erection of a temporary facilities building to facilitate the works approved under the clubhouse permission, subject to a condition that the structures permitted were required to be removed from site by 1 March 2026. The temporary facilities included a modular building and a temporary marquee. The temporary marquee is a different structure to the existing marquee granted permission under the original permissions.

During the consideration of the current application the description of development was changed from the description given on the original planning application form, so as to match the amendments made to the application. The amendments removed the proposed resurfacing works to the overflow car park. Revised opening 1 Council references: 93/42881/ADD and 93/42883/ADD 2 Council reference: 22/00500/FUL 3 Council reference: 24/01909/FUL hours to those originally applied for were also sought, no longer seeking to extend the operating hours of the proposed hospitality use into late evenings.

As part of the appeal submission, the appellant has submitted further amended plans which remove the temporary marquee sited next to the modular building. While the appeals procedural guide4 makes it clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, having regard to the principles established in [name] Ltd5, I am content that in the context of the development proposed, the suggested amendment does not involve a substantial difference or a fundamental change to the proposed development. On this basis, I am satisfied that the amendment to the scheme by the removal of the temporary marquee, as shown on the revised plans, would not unacceptably prejudice the interests of other parties.

In respect of the existing marquee, the proposals still seek to remove the restrictions associated with the limitation of use of the existing marquee in order to facilitate its use for hospitality and function events where it is required and to extend the erection and dismantling period to a period of 72 hours. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

The main issues raised by this appeal are: • the effect of the proposed development on the setting of the [name] listed buildings comprising [name] and [name], • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring properties in respect of noise, • whether or not the proposed development would promote sustainable transport choices and / or lead to highways safety implications, and • whether the proposal would conserve and enhance the natural and scenic beauty of the North Wessex Downs National Landscape (NWDNL), and if it does not, whether any harm is outweighed by exceptional circumstances, and it can be demonstrated that the proposal is in the public interest.

The appeal site comprises an established [name] located within the grounds of Tomb farmhouse, a grade II listed building. The site is located within the open countryside and the NWDNL. The Shooting School includes an existing shooting valley, clubhouse, temporary modular building, main car park and an adjacent overflow carpark. The site is accessed via a long driveway off [address].

Tomb farmhouse is a detached, two storey building which occupies a focal position at the end of the access driveway. It sits in a slightly elevated position within the site, above the access driveway, a recently converted timber outbuilding, 4 Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals – England (2026) 5 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 clubhouse, car park areas and adjacent to a grade II listed stone mausoleum known as [name], on the opposite side of the driveway.

Under section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) I am required to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

The significance of the farmhouse is largely derived from its attractive late seventeenth century appearance constructed from Flint with brick dressings and a tile roof, occupying a commanding appearance within the site and the undulating rural landscape. The original chimney stack and later additions add further interest to the building. There is also historic interest from the occupation of the building as an agricultural dwelling and its association with the former agricultural uses of the site, including the large timber outbuilding with tile roof to the side.

The front and rear gardens, as well as the open appearance of the shooting valley, the landscaped grounds and adjacent fields, contribute to the setting of the farmhouse, highlighting its special interest by allowing the historic building to be experienced within the rural landscape. Particularly when viewed from the access drive.

Adjacent to the farmhouse, [name] derives its significance from its historic interest as a burial site and its association with Tomb farmhouse. The significance of the listed building is diminished somewhat by its state of ruin and the unmaintained appearance, which is overgrown with vegetation. The lack of a visible information panel to mark its interest, as well as its juxtaposition next to the tarmac driveway, further tempers its special significance.

The timber outbuilding has been converted into office accommodation and is completed to a high standard, maintaining a traditional appearance but with a stylish and rustic appearance. Likewise, the redeveloped clubhouse has a traditional appearance, which utilises materials sympathetic to its surroundings, that match the farmhouse and outbuilding. It represents a high-quality design and with its scale and position within the site, respects the appearance of the farmhouse and wider landscape. The juxtaposition of the clubhouse with [name] also ensures that the special interest of that listed building is preserved.

Closely related to one another, the farmhouse, office and clubhouse form an attractive cluster of buildings that respect and compliment the character and appearance of the site and the rural landscape, viewed as an original complex of rural buildings. Indeed, the farmhouse remains the main focal building of the group.

In contrast, located to the rear of the farmhouse, which opens out to the shooting valley, and with an elevated position, the modular building is dominant and conspicuous. With a flat roof and an overly modern design, it also has a functional appearance. For these reasons, and in combination with its juxtaposition near to the farmhouse, the modular building competes negatively with the listed building. It is also at odds with the traditional appearance of the complex of buildings and it is stark within the context of the site and the rural landscape. Therefore, although the modular building was previously approved by the Council for a temporary period, its retention as a permanent building would be long lasting.

Sited behind the farmhouse, the outbuilding and clubhouse, the modular building does not harm the character and special interest of [name]. Particularly due to the diminished appearance of the listed building and the screening afforded by the intervening buildings.

During my site visit the existing marquee was not erected on the land. Copies of the previous planning permission, including the approved plans have not been submitted with the appeal and the location of the existing marquee is unknown. Furthermore, although my attention has been drawn to a previous appeal6 for the relocation of the existing marquee, which I am told has been allowed, a copy of the appeal decision and the approved plans have not been provided, and it is unclear whether that proposal sought a fixed position for the existing marquee within the site or not. There is also limited information regarding how many times a year the existing marquee would be erected and for how long, albeit there are suggestions that it would be on a frequent basis. In the absence of these details, the location of where the existing marquee would be located within the site, its size and proximity to the listed buildings is unclear.

The appearance of a typical marquee structure would be a contrast to the traditional buildings within the site, and in the absence of the details referred to above, I cannot be certain that it would preserve the special interest of the listed buildings on the site.

The additional shooting valley would be sited a notable distance from the farmhouse and tomb, beyond the clubhouse. With minimal ground works and due to the negligible size and number of shooting butts, the extent of the gravel path and fencing, the additional shooting valley would preserve the appearance of the site, the landscape and the setting of the farmhouse and tomb. As an existing commercial / recreational use, the increased use of the clubhouse and car park would not harm the special interest and setting of the farmhouse and tomb also.

For the reasons given, whilst I am satisfied that the setting of Tomb farmhouse and [name] would be preserved in respect of the additional shooting valley and increased hospitality uses of the site, and the modular building preserves the setting of [name], overall the proposals fail to preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the grade II listed [name], through development affecting its setting. The proposed development therefore fails to preserve the setting of the listed buildings contrary to the expectations of s66(1) of the Act. This harmful impact is contrary to Policy SP9 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023 to 2041 (the Local Plan), where it requires development proposals that conserve and, where appropriate, enhance those aspects of the historic environment which are recognised as, amongst other things, of architectural or historic interest.

As an established [name], there is noise from guns being fired during the existing opening hours. Due to the location, in an otherwise quiet rural area, noise from guns being fired, echoes within the landscape.

The main parties agree that the original permissions for the site do not limit the amount of shooting that can take place within the grounds of the [name] 6 3253638 at any one point in time. However, the appellant suggests that a legal agreement associated with the original permissions limits the number of people able to carry guns to 100, and that the ratio of instructors to participants is 1:6 and the number of instructors to be working on any normal operational day is eight.

Copies of the original permissions have not been provided, nor has the legal agreement. As such, it is not known whether the additional shooting valley falls within the red edge application site of the original permissions, and land covered in the legal agreement. Furthermore, even if the original permissions and legal agreement do provide suitable limits, they do not bind the proposed development and the additional shooting valley to those limits. Consequently, I cannot be certain that the original permissions and legal agreement would control noise from the proposed additional shooting valley.

While an Environmental Noise Assessment (the ENA), dated June 2025, has been submitted, I concur with the Council’s Environmental Health officer that the ENA has a number of limitations. In particular it lacks detail in respect of measuring the effect of additional gunshot noise from the proposed shooting valley. Particularly when combined with gun shots from the existing shooting valley, which could be frequent during the hours of operation. The noise from guns could also be elevated when a shooting event takes place. I am also not persuaded that the most appropriate guidance has been used for assessing noise from clay pigeon shoots. As such, I am not satisfied that the ENA is a robust document in respect of measuring the effect of additional gunshot noise from the proposed shooting valley.

Taking into account the amended opening hours, which could be secured by a suitably worded planning condition, and the distance to the nearest residential properties, the proposed hospitality use of the clubhouse and the additional frequency of use of the existing marquee would not result in an unacceptable noise impact.

For the above reasons, I conclude that while the proposed hospitality use and increased erection and use of the existing marquee would not be harmful, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed additional shooting valley would not be unacceptably harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring properties in respect of noise. On this basis the proposal would be contrary to Policies SP2 and DM5 of the Local Plan, which amongst other things, seeks development that would not cause noise of a level which would disturb areas that are valued for their tranquillity in terms of recreation or amenity.

Located within the open countryside, the site and the surrounding area have a remote rural character. The roads near to the site are narrow, many with tall hedgerows to both sides, as well as mature trees. Indeed, [address], which the existing access driveway is served off, is a single carriageway and traffic data suggests that it experiences low traffic volumes.

The nearby roads do not have footways or street lighting. Bus stops are approximately two kilometres (km) from the site, and the nearest rail station is six km away. In these circumstances, staff and visitors to the [name] rely on cars and other motor vehicles to access the site.

The existing clubhouse provides an attractive, large restaurant leading to a spacious outdoor seating area for users of the [name]. The proposal does not seek to extend the timeframe for shooting activities, but the proposed hospitality use of the clubhouse would increase the number of visitors to the venue. These visitors would be in addition to the visitors of the [name], which operates from 8am to 8pm on Monday to Thursdays, 8am to 6pm on Fridays and Saturdays, with no operations on Sundays and [name].

The proposed hours of operation of the hospitality use would be increased by two hours in the evening on Fridays and Saturdays, and 10am to 6pm on Sunday’s. Consequently, vehicle movements to and from the site during the proposed opening hours would be increased. However, the appellant suggests that visitor capacity would be restricted to a maximum of 250 people.

With a lack of any alternative transport opportunities, including walking and cycling to access the site, additional visitors and staff would rely on cars and other motor vehicles to access the site.

The submitted [name] (the HS) and [name] (the TN) were produced prior to the amended hours of operation. Accordingly, the data within those reports is out of date. Nevertheless, taking the expected departures for the proposed hospitality use, as set out in the HS, 170 vehicles could leave the site between 6pm and 8pm on Monday to Saturday. However, in all likelihood the majority would leave at 8pm. On a Sunday, the HS suggests that the proposals could generate 110 departures between 4pm to 6pm. To my mind this represents a significant increase compared to the existing uses of the site.

With the suggested cap of a maximum of 250 people, I am not persuaded that the hospitality use would be comparable to the existing use which has a restriction of 100 people. Also, a hospitality event with 170 departures would be a more frequent occurrence than an existing event. Therefore, although the trips would be outside the peak period, traffic movements to and from the site and on surrounding roads are likely to be significantly increased.

The significant number of vehicles travelling along the lane, including people leaving and being picked up, would increase vehicle volumes along the road. The TN suggests that the number of passing bays and the distance between each passing bay would be acceptable for the increased volume of traffic on the road during the busiest hour. However, many of the passing bays are informal and due to the length of the road, and its single width nature, as well as the volume of increased traffic that would be generated by the proposal, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that unacceptable conflict between vehicles would not arise.

While traffic management measures are suggested as possible mitigation during larger hospitality events, a traffic management plan has not been submitted and information is otherwise limited. In any event, I am not persuaded that the volume of traffic, at the end of an event, could be suitably and reasonably controlled by the appellant. Likewise, there is limited evidence that existing passing bays could be upgraded. Also, although shuttle bus services from the nearest rail station could be encouraged, in the context of the expected additional traffic movements, the benefits would be limited.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not promote sustainable transport choices and it would lead to unacceptable highways safety implications. As such, it is contrary to Policies SP19 and DM42 of the Local Plan, which together and amongst other things, require new development to minimise travel activity, that supports low levels of travel with a focus on local journeys that can be made sustainably.

It would also not accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks that specific applications for development should ensure, amongst other things, that sustainable transport modes are prioritised taking account of the vision for the site, the type of development and its location, and any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.

The statutory purpose of National Landscapes is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 amended the duty on relevant authorities in respect of their functions which affect land in National Landscapes. Relevant authorities must ‘seek to further’ the statutory purposes of [name], including National Landscapes.

The Framework describes National Landscapes as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty, to the conservation and enhancement of which great weight should be given.

Policy SP2 of the Local Plan seeks development that responds positively to the local context, conserving and enhancing local distinctiveness, sense of place and setting of the National Landscape and that the strong sense of remoteness, tranquillity and dark night skies should be preserved. Development in the North Wessex Downs will be required to support its local communities and rural economy in a manner commensurate with the statutory status of the National Landscape as a nationally valued landscape. Planning permission will be refused for major development in the National Landscape except in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated to be in the public interest (my emphasis). This is consistent with paragraph 190 of the Framework.

As set out in footnote 67 of the Framework, whether a proposal is ‘major development’ for the purposes of paragraph 190 is a matter for the decision maker, taking into account its nature, scale and setting, and whether it could have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated or defined.

The Council validated the application as major development, which the appellant does not dispute and on the evidence before me, as well as my own observations, I have no reason to disagree with the main parties that the appeal scheme comprises major development. Indeed, the appeal site extends to 24 hectares, and the proposed development would increase the existing activities and use of the site and buildings notably.

Set in a remote location, the appeal site and surrounding landscape is tranquil. The remoteness and tranquillity of the landscape is a quality of the NWDNL, as set out in Policy SP2 of the Local Plan, and are a fundamental feature of its character.

While the activities of the existing [name] have a degree of harm to the tranquillity of the area, the combined increase in noise, visitors and traffic to the site, would be a notable intensification of uses on the site, including significant activity on roads within the surrounding area. As such, the increased harm would be significant, and the appeal scheme would not otherwise preserve the remoteness and tranquillity of the landscape.

There would also be some harm to the landscape from the increased erection of the existing marquee and from the functional appearance of the modular building, which is a stark contrast to the traditional appearance of existing buildings within the site. Nonetheless, the harm to the scenic beauty of the landscape is relatively localised with screening within the wider landscape from existing trees and the adjacent buildings on the site.

Policy DM35 of the Local Plan seeks development that would support the rural economy, subject to a number of criteria, including, amongst other things, that proposals demonstrate that the business can make a positive contribution to the rural economy; the use / development is suitable for a rural location; the proposals are compatible with uses in the surrounding area; it would not generate traffic of a type or amount inappropriate for the rural roads; and it would not have a detrimental effect on the fabric, character and setting of historic buildings or other

Paragraph 85 of the Framework sets out that planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt, and significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity. Nevertheless, as a mechanism for supporting a prosperous rural economy, paragraph 89 of the Framework advises that development in rural areas should be sensitive to its surroundings and should not have an unacceptable impact on local roads. In particular, the Framework identifies that the use of sites that are physically well-related to existing settlements, should be encouraged where suitable opportunities exist. Whilst also exploiting opportunities to make a location more sustainable.

As an existing [name], the additional shooting valley would improve the quality and range of shooting facilities on the site, and it would offer alternative shooting provision, maintaining its reputation as a renowned [name]. As such, the proposals would increase its contribution to the shooting supply chain, which would include additional spending and the retention and increase of equivalent full-time jobs.

In these circumstances the prospect of the additional shooting provision being located outside the NWDNL would offer limited benefits to the business. However, while the proposed hospitality use would represent a diversification of the existing buildings, which are high quality facilities, extending the quality of the commercial offering, increase local job opportunities and maximise the economic contribution of the site to the rural economy, there is no substantive and quantifiable evidence of the need for those new uses to the existing business. There is also little evidence of how the hospitality use would supplement the existing shooting uses on the site. Likewise, and for similar reasons, even though the retention of the modular building would assist in providing additional hospitality floorspace, there is limited evidence of the benefits to the existing business, and it is not clear how the proposals would help the existing business to expand, as supported by the Framework.

The identified harm would not be moderated by suggested mitigation measures, to address the impact of the development, and for similar reasons to those set out above, there are no exceptional circumstances which exist. Within this context, it is not clear how the proposal would be in the public interest.

Overall, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the NWDNL, as it would not support the local community and rural economy. As such, it would not accord with Policies SP2 and DM35 of the Local Plan. It would also be contrary to the identified objectives of the Framework.

As a temporary building the modular building could be removed permanently and the land restored. Once erected, the existing marquee could also be easily removed from the land with minimal works. Therefore, the harm to the setting of the listed buildings is tempered and it would be ‘less than substantial’ within the meaning of the Framework, and for these reasons I consider that it would be at the lower end of that spectrum. Nevertheless, still of considerable importance and weight.

The appeal scheme would provide increased and improved facilities on offer at the [name], and the proposed hospitality use would represent a diversification of the existing high-quality facilities, providing economic benefits to the rural economy, as supported by the Framework. In particular, jobs would be retained and increased as a result of the proposals.

The Framework states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. The Framework also advises that sites to meet local business and community needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport. However, the appeal scheme is not sensitive to its surroundings, and it would have an unacceptable impact on local roads with no opportunity to make its location more sustainable, as required by the Framework. Therefore, the benefits of the proposal to the rural economy would be tempered. Overall, the public benefits of the proposal would cumulatively be matters of modest weight in favour of it.

In respect of the proposal’s effect on the listed building, Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

Less than substantial harm should not necessarily be equated with less than substantial planning objection when the statutory test in the Act that seeks to preserve a listed building and its setting has not been met.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets. Considerable importance and weight must be given to the special regard I must pay to preserving the listed buildings setting. This does not amount to a direction to refuse proposals that harm, and thus fail to preserve, designated heritage assets, but it provides a strong presumption in favour of preservation. In this context, I find that the harm to the setting of the grade II listed buildings that would arise from the proposal, as well as the identified harm in respect of noise, highways safety and sustainable transport options and the effect on the NWDNL, would not be outweighed by its modest public benefits, and draws the scheme into conflict with the development plan read as a whole. Accordingly, there is conflict with Paragraph 213 of the Framework as harm to the designated heritage assets does not have clear and convincing justification.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal scheme fails to satisfy the requirements of the Act, the Framework and the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.