Appeal 6006298

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for siting of poly tunnel at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01336/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition:

Unless within 2 months of the date of this decision a surface water drainage scheme (based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance) is submitted in writing to the local planning authority for approval, and unless the approved scheme is implemented within 2 months of the local planning authority’s approval, the use of the poly tunnel shall cease and all equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed until such time as a scheme is approved and implemented. If no scheme in accordance with this condition is approved within 6 months of the date of this decision, the use of the poly tunnel shall cease and all equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed until such time as a scheme approved by the local planning authority is implemented. Upon implementation of the approved scheme specified in this condition, that scheme shall thereafter be maintained and remain in use. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.

The planning application form states that the development had already been completed, and I observed the poly tunnel to be in situ. Accordingly, I have determined the appeal on this basis.

I have taken the description of development in the banner heading and decision above from the application form, but I have omitted reference to ‘retrospective application’ because this is not an act of development.

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 an assessment of alternative sites which was not before the Council at the time of its decision. However, the Council and interested parties have had the opportunity to comment on this through the consultation that forms part of the appeal timetable. Accordingly, I am satisfied that taking this material into account in my assessment would not prejudice the interests of any party.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the development, having regards to local planning policies; and • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises a field off [address] within open countryside. Policy DM47 of the Development Management DPD (2025) (DM)2 states that “development proposals on greenfield sites within the open countryside will only be supported where it is clearly demonstrated through a robust assessment that no alternative suitable locations exist within local settlement areas and that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the impacts on local amenity.” It goes on to state that: “Other development proposals in rural areas will be supported in principle for the following purposes: [name] operations for agriculture, horticulture, equine related activities, allocated mineral extraction or waste management facilities and essential infrastructure where there is a proven and justified need.”

I observed that the site is partly used for the keeping of a small number of sheep and goats, and there is no dispute between the parties that the appeal site is in existing agricultural use. This is defined in The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) as including the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land) and the use of land as grazing land.

The appellant states that the goats were previously housed in a moveable structure, but this has been replaced with the larger, more permanent poly tunnel. The goats are being reared for breeding and milk production, and it is understood 1 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026. Updated 18 May 2026 2 A Local Plan for Lancaster District 2020-2031, [name]: Development Management Development Plan Document (2025) from the appellant’s evidence that dairy goats cannot permanently live outside and require a reasonable amount of dry shelter per adult goat for day-to-day living and kidding. Further, when “in milk,” the goats cannot access pasture due to the potential for milk contamination. The poly tunnel has good levels of natural light and ventilation and provides enough space for the existing goats to be separately penned in groups, as well as allowing for the dry storage of hay, feed and equipment. It is also of sufficient size for the number of goats housed to increase.

Therefore, based on the evidence and my own observations, I find there to be a need for the poly tunnel to provide shelter for the goats and ensure their welfare, and to allow the continued operation and growth of the existing agricultural use. Accordingly, the development falls under the ‘other development proposals’ listed in DM Policy DM47 I).

The appellant has undertaken a search of Rightmove which has identified well over 300 farms, sites or land available to rent or buy within a 40mile radius of Borwick. The information which has been provided for each site is limited, but it is evident that most are distant from Borwick and are outside of a settlement area, predominantly comprising other agricultural land, or amenity, pasture, woodland or allotment land. The Council refers to several potential sites which have agricultural buildings or are within or adjacent agricultural landholdings. However, I have no substantive evidence before me that these are within ‘local settlement areas’ as DM Policy DM47 requires.

Moreover, in those cases where sites do appear close to other development, they are typically tightly constrained by housing, benefit from planning permission for alternative uses, are being marketed as having residential potential or are within industrial areas. Whilst enquiries may not have been made to the landowners of these sites, none strike me as being suitable for agricultural use, particularly the housing of goats which in my judgement is an inherently countryside use. I find this to be the case irrespective of the cost of leasing or buying the land.

Therefore, I am satisfied that it has been clearly and robustly demonstrated that no alternative location exists for the development within local settlement areas. Consequently, I conclude that the appeal site is a suitable location for the development and the proposal accords with the provisions of DM Policy DM47.

The appeal site forms part of an undulating and expansive field network subdivided by stock fencing, boundary hedgerows and drystone walls along the narrow rural lane of [address]. The surrounding area has a contained, but pleasant agricultural and rural character.

The poly tunnel has been sited at the far corner of the agricultural field, which I observed on my site visit is divided into various fenced paddocks to separate livestock along with the siting of trailers, feed stores, water butts, a field shelter and other associated paraphernalia. It is understood that an existing stable building and the access track are the subject of enforcement action.

The long elevation of the poly tunnel is clearly visible from the site entrance and from a short section of the lane travelling away from [address], and it is clearly detached from any regularised buildings or structures. However, it is set well back behind the stock fencing and paddocks used to graze sheep and from the lane it appears modest in its overall footprint and height. Further, the curved, semi-cylindrical roof design, UPV cladding and livestock mesh, gives the poly tunnel the appearance of a lightweight structure. Consequently, the poly tunnel does not appear unduly prominent, and its green colour assimilates with the backdrop of trees and hedgerows along the field edges.

I observed that from the north-west on [address], the curved gable of the roof is just visible above the hedgerow alongside the lane, and the poly tunnel is seen alongside existing stable buildings to the east. It is unclear from the evidence whether these buildings are lawful, and I note that the photographs provided by the appellant show that in winter months more of the poly tunnel would be visible. Nevertheless, the existing trees and hedgerows provides an effective foil or screening, and the poly tunnel does not appear of a scale or design discordant or out of character in its rural, agricultural setting.

I therefore conclude that the development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would accord with Policy EN3 of the [name] and [name] DPD3 (2025) and with DM policies DM29, DM46 and DM47. Together, these seek to ensure that development in the open countryside has due regard to its rural context and contributes positively to the identity and landscape character of an area appropriate to its surroundings.

The parties have drawn my attention to a dismissed appeal4 for the site. I have had careful regard to the comments made by the Council in respect of this decision. However, although in the same location, the proposal was for a materially larger agricultural livestock building with a timber and concrete panel finish, and an access track. Its size, design and access would mean it would have appeared more prominent and conspicuous in views from [address] than the appeal proposal before me, which I have found does not result in harm to the pleasant rural character of the area. Moreover, unlike in that case, I have found the development before me to meet the requirements of DM Policy DM47. Therefore, there is reason to take a contrary view to the one taken by the previous Inspector.

Interested parties have raised a number of matters, most of which have been covered above. I have no substantive evidence before me that the siting of the poly tunnel would result in additional waste being generated by the goats, but as set out below a condition requiring a scheme of surface water drainage has been imposed. It is also reasonable to expect that pens or enclosures would prevent goats from escaping. Therefore, based on my observations and the evidence, the matters raised by interested parties would not be grounds to dismiss the appeal.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions against the advice contained within the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. Given the development has already been completed, a condition which would list the approved drawings is not necessary. 3 A Local Plan for Lancaster District 2020-2031 [name]: [name] & Land Allocations Development Plan Document (2025) 4 APP/A2335/W/24/3340688

However, to reduce risk of surface water flooding and to protect nearby watercourses from pollution, it is necessary to impose a condition requiring the submission and approval of a surface water drainage scheme, within the timescale suggested by the Council. In the interests of clarity and certainty, I have undertaken some editing to the Council’s wording of this condition given the development is already complete.

For the above reasons, the development accords with the development plan and there are no material considerations to indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with it.

Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.