Appeal 6006041

The appeal is dismissed.

My site visit was scheduled as an access required site visit. Although it was not possible to proceed on that basis, I was nonetheless able to consider the main issues based on seeing the site and its surrounding context from public areas.

The ‘Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England’1 states that, in general, appeals are determined on the same basis as the original application and the appellant’s submissions should not normally include new evidence or additional technical data not previously seen at the application stage. The appeal submission includes a ‘Flood Risk Assessment’ (FRA) and ‘[name] (CDS) which was not before the Council at the time of its decision. However, as the Council and interested parties have had the opportunity to comment through the consultation that forms part of the appeal timetable, I am satisfied that taking this material into account would not prejudice the interests of any party.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, which lies within the Forest of Bowland National Landscape; • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development, having regard to local and national planning policies; 1 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026. Updated 18 May 2026 • whether the proposal is an acceptable form of development having regard to flood risk; and • whether the proposed development would provide adequate foul water drainage.

The appeal site comprises a former water pumping station known as ‘ [site address] ,’ located within the Forest of Bowland National Landscape (FBNL). Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended) requires all relevant authorities to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the National Landscape when performing their functions.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) also requires that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty within National Landscapes, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these matters. Consistent with the Framework, Policy DM46 of the Development Management DPD2 (2025) (DM) requires proposals within the FBNL to be appropriate to the landscape character type and designation, and through siting and design seek to contribute positively to its conservation and enhancement.

The ‘Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2019-2024’ (‘the Management Plan’) identifies the special landscape qualities of the FBNL as including the grandeur and isolation of the upland core, the steep escarpments of the moorland hills and the undulating lowlands, as well as its historic and cultural associations. The appeal site is identified in the ‘FBNL Landscape Character Assessment’ (2025) as within the moorland fringe area of [name], characterised by a strong sense of openness, with wide and open panoramas from higher points, such as [site address] , across lower lying undulating farmland. Small areas of linear woodland however are described as contributing to an intermittent sense of enclosure.

The pumping station building is sited alongside [site address] on an artificial platform which sits just below the lane. The ground levels fall to the south-west of this platform toward the fields beyond, and the remainder of the appeal site comprises mixed woodland and ground flora. When travelling on [site address] from the direction of the upland fells, I observed the appeal site to make a very significant contribution to the special qualities of the FBNL. Although the simple, utilitarian form of the building is appreciable, the low stone boundary wall, woodland and tree under canopy afford it a discreet sense of enclosure, and it sits quietly in its remote, rural landscape with long, wide views of the surrounding undulating agricultural landscape.

Beyond the farm access to the north-west, the proposed dwelling would not be seen because of the bend in [site address] and the embankment on its opposite side. However, in close-by views, the appeal site would lose its sense of enclosure because of the removal of part of the hedgerow, and the introduction of a driveway and car parking. Moreover, the proposed full height windows on the 2 A Local Plan for Lancaster District 2020-2031. [name]: Development Management Development Plan Document (climate emergency review) (January 2025) west gable would increase the visibility and prominence of the building from the lane, with the trees at the tip of the site affording little in the way of screening. Despite retaining the existing trees on the boundary, the glazed doors proposed on the east gable would also be visible in those important views travelling from the direction of the fells. I observed that this would be the case even when the deciduous trees are in full leaf. The proposal would introduce a distinctly domestic character to the building and appeal site, which would appear discordant in its remote, and largely unpopulated rural landscape.

Views of the partially submerged rear extension would be mostly contained by the undulating farmland beyond the appeal site to the south-west, and by the existing boundary hedgerow. However, the proposed large picture window, storm porch and rooflight on the south (rear) elevation would be visible in relatively distant views from the footpath which crosses fields to the south-west3. From here, these domestic additions would fundamentally alter the functional character of the existing building, resulting in a form that appears incongruous within the predominantly agricultural and moorland landscape. This effect would be particularly pronounced during periods of low light, when illumination associated with residential occupation would increase its visual prominence. Hedgerow planting is proposed on the boundary, but this would be unlikely to mature for some time, would provide only partial screening of the rear elevation, and cannot be relied upon in perpetuity to hide otherwise harmful development.

The proposed dwelling would have a grassed area and patio to the south. This would inevitably be used for the siting of paraphernalia, such as garden furniture, children’s play equipment etc. which would contribute to the uncharacteristic domestic appearance of the site. Despite the existing boundary trees, due to the bend in [site address] , such paraphernalia would appear particularly discordant in the views travelling away from the fells. It would not be reasonable to restrict domestic paraphernalia and, given the specific way they are used and sited, a planning condition would not be practical or realistic to enforce.

The Management Plan recognises that the FBNL’s distinctive character is ‘determined not simply by the presence of particular natural elements or their rarity value, but also by the way in which they combine to form a mosaic of landscape types and reflect a rich history and cultural heritage’. However, it also recognises that the area is characterised by a complex interplay of landscape types, all intrinsic to its overall character. In this case, the proposed dwelling would fundamentally alter the way the existing quiet, simple utilitarian building is experienced, and the residential use of the site would result in a significant harmful change to the landscape character and intrinsic qualities of the surrounding area. This harm would not be sufficiently mitigated by the proposed landscaping.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the FBNL. Consequently, it would conflict with policies EN2 and EN3 of the [name] and [name] DPD4 (2025) (SPLA) and DM policies DM29 and DM46. Together, these require new development to have regard to local distinctiveness and be appropriate to the landscape character type and designation, conserving and enhancing the landscape character and visual amenity of the FBNL. 3 Landscape Impact Assessment, photographs 16 and 17 4 A Local Plan for Lancaster District 2020-2031. [name]: [name] & Land Allocations Development Plan Document (climate emergency review) (January 2025)

It would further conflict with DM Policy DM49 which supports the re-use of buildings within rural areas only where certain criteria are met, including that it does not adversely affect the landscape character, visual amenity or rural setting of the surrounding area.

The appeal site is within the open countryside and is distant from an identified settlement or village. It is therefore isolated, and the parties do not dispute that it is in an unsustainable location. However, the appellant asserts that the importance of preserving the pumping station building amounts to ‘special circumstances’ sufficient to justify the proposed dwelling in such a location.

DM Policy DM4 states that the Council will support proposals for residential development outside of the main urban areas of the district, where they reflect sustainable patterns of development and accord with the settlement hierarchy. It further states that proposals for new homes in locations outside of identified sustainable settlements or other rural villages are unacceptable unless they meet the special circumstances set out in the Framework.

Paragraph 84 of the Framework states that decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one or more of the circumstances listed apply, which includes: “b) the development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; c) the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting;”

The pumping station building is not a designated heritage asset. However, the Planning Practice Guidance5 (the PPG) states that non-designated heritage assets are buildings, monuments, sites, places or areas identified by plan making bodies as having a degree of heritage significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, but which do not meet the criteria for designated heritage assets. The PPG6 recognises that in some cases non-designated heritage assets may be identified as part of the decision-making process on planning applications.

The Heritage Statement (HS) describes the pumping station building as housing a pressure break basin set within an artificial platform, which relieved hydrostatic pressure within the gravity-fed, piped water supply for Lancaster. The building is one of two redundant 19th century pressure break basins established next to [site address] , which I observed to be similar in their simple utilitarian form, and are said to be typical of Victorian water supply infrastructure in the Pennines. It is unclear from the evidence whether other examples of such infrastructure exist.

The building’s artificial platform, deep pressure break basin and the three openings under round arches on the east and west gables are of some architectural interest. However, I recognise that the pumping station is illustrative of the development of Lancaster’s historic water supply. Consequently, it has a moderate degree of local historic interest as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). 5 [name] 039 [name]: 18a-039-20190723 6 [name] 040 [name]: 18a-040-20190723

I acknowledge that putting heritage assets to a viable use is likely to lead to the investment in their maintenance necessary for their long-term conservation, and that the optimum viable use need not be the original use7. There is clearly no prospect of the building being re-used for its originally intended purpose. However, I have no persuasive evidence before me that there are no other alternative economically viable uses, or any other realistic means by which conservation of the pumping station building might be achieved.

It is also unclear whether the proposed alterations are the minimum necessary to achieve the re-use of the building, and there is little evidence that there are no other uses which would result in a lower level of less than substantial harm than is identified in the HS as arising from adapting the structure to a dwelling. This is not just through necessary initial changes, but also likely future changes sought to a building in residential use. I cannot therefore be certain that the proposal is the optimum viable use for the building.

Moreover, I have little evidence that the proposal is ‘enabling development’ for the purposes of securing the future of the asset or indeed that its conservation as a NDHA would be at risk should the appeal fail. The building appears to have remained largely structurally intact despite being vacant for several years.

Therefore, although there are clear benefits associated with the retention, and appropriate restoration and re-use of NDHAs, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal meets the circumstances at paragraph 84 b) of the Framework. Further, for the reasons given in respect of the first main issue, I have found that the proposal would not satisfy paragraph 84 c) of the Framework as the re-use of the building would not enhance its immediate setting.

I therefore conclude that the appeal site is not a suitable location for the proposed development, having regard to local and national planning policies. In addition to the conflict with DM Policy DM4, it would conflict with the settlement hierarchy set out in SPLA Policy SP2 and with DM Policy DM60, in so far as it seeks to minimise the need to travel.

The Council’s ‘Strategic Flood Risk Assessment’ (SFRA) identified an indicative channel or culvert running through the appeal site to the east of the pumping station building, identified as within [name] 3b. However, site investigations undertaken to inform the CDS did not identify such a culvert, and correspondence from the Council’s Planning and [name] Service8 confirmed it would not be shown in updated mapping.

The appeal site lies within [name] 1, which denotes a low probability of fluvial flooding. However, paragraph 173 of the Framework states that a sequential risk-based approach should be taken to individual applications in areas known to be at risk now or in future from any form of flooding. Applications for some minor development and changes of use should not be subject to the sequential test. However, the PPG9 acknowledges that changes of use can result in occupation or use by people who are more vulnerable than the previous users to risks from 7 [name]: 015 [name]: 18a-015-20190723 8 [name] of the appellant’s evidence 9 [name]: 052 [name]: 7-052-20220825 flooding. Depending on the risk, mitigation measures may be needed, and it is for the applicant to show that the change of use meets the Framework objectives.

The SFRA assesses the appeal site as being in an area where groundwater levels are predicted to be between 0.5m and 5m below ground level during the 1 in 100- year scenario, classified as at ‘risk of flooding to subsurface assets but with surface manifestation unlikely.’ However, should there be surface manifestation, the change in topography across the site would allow groundwater runoff away from the dwelling towards the existing ditch system on the southwest boundary.

The EA ‘[name] shows the appeal site to be within an area at very low risk from surface water flooding. The EA ‘[name] for Planning’ further shows it to be outside the modelled surface water flood extents for the duration of the development’s lifetime. This applies to both the 1% [name] (AEP) (1 in 100 year) event and the 0.1% AEP (1 in 1000 year) event.

The FRA recognises some data limitations, including the absence of climate change scenarios, and suggests the loamy, clayey soils may impede drainage leading to localised surface water flooding. It is also noted that the site may be at a slightly greater risk of fluvial flooding than indicated by the EA’s mapping, due to the potential restricted flow capacity of an offsite culvert. Nevertheless, subject to regular maintenance of the on-site ditch system, I am satisfied that the appeal site is not at risk now, or in the future, from any form of flooding.

Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal site is not at risk of flooding and there is no requirement to satisfy the sequential test. The proposed development accords with DM Policy DM33 in so far as it requires proposals to minimise flood risk to people and property and satisfy the requirements of the sequential test, where necessary.

The appeal site is not located close to any existing drainage infrastructure and connection to a public sewer would not be feasible. Due to this and other site constraints, the CDS identifies that the only option for foul water drainage is a closed system cesspit. This could be accommodated where the ‘sewage treatment plant’ is indicatively shown on the proposed plan, and a detailed design and specification could be secured by condition.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would provide adequate foul water drainage. It would accord with DM Policy DM35 which requires developers to demonstrate adequate wastewater capacity to satisfactorily serve the development, having regard to the foul water discharge hierarchy.

The pumping station building clearly had a former, functional use, but I have no substantive evidence before me of any recent commercial activity occurring on the site, including but not limited, to the planting and felling of fast-growing trees. I observed there to be no existing vehicular access or area for parking, and any development rights afforded to a statutory undertaker would have ceased when the appeal site was acquired by the appellant. Therefore, these matters lend very little support to the proposal now before me.

As the appeal is being dismissed on other grounds, it is not necessary to carry out an appropriate assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 in relation to the ecological integrity of the nearby [name], which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest and Special Protection Area.

The appellant’s concerns about the handling of the application, notably the lack of consultation with the Conservation Team, are outside the scope of my decision.

The Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. Paragraph 11d) of the Framework states that where the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date, permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusal.

Footnote 7 includes National Landscapes in its list of assets of particular importance. For the reasons I have given above, I have concluded that the development would have a significantly harmful effect on the FBNL, which provides a strong reason for refusing the proposal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development in paragraph 11d) of the Framework and SPLA Policy SP1 is not engaged in this instance.

However, the proposed development would make a very small contribution to local housing supply, in an area where new housing is particularly constrained, and within a sub-area of the district with an identified housing need. It would also maximise renewable energy opportunities, would enhance native planting and would provide for biodiversity net gain. I afford these benefits moderate weight, but they are not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have found above.

Finally, having regard to paragraph 216 of the Framework and DM Policy DM41, on balance, any benefits associated with preserving the moderate local historic significance of the pumping station building would not be sufficient in this case to outweigh the great weight given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty within the FBNL.

For the reasons given, 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. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.