Case Reference: 3246885

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 19 May 2020
by Graeme Robbie BA(Hons) BPl MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 9 June 2020
Appeal Ref: APP/G2713/W/20/3246885
OS Field 2558, South Moor Lane, Sowerby, North Yorkshire YO7 3AG
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Hambleton District
Council.
• The application Ref 19/02718/FUL, dated 10 October 2019, was refused by notice dated
23 December 2019.
• The development proposed is change of use of land from agriculture to the siting
of 10 static caravans.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issues
2. The main issues are:
• Whether the appeal site is an appropriate location for the proposed
development; and
• The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of
the area.
Reasons
Location
3. The appeal site is a small field enclosure in a quiet, rural setting surrounded by
expansive agricultural fields. The settlements of Sowerby and, in turn, Thirsk
are located to the north of the appeal site, on the far side of the A168. The
road between the two is typically rural in its character, with narrow grass
verges and roadside hedgerows along either side. An existing caravan site is
located at short distance to the north of the site, beyond which the elevated
A168 assumes a more dominant presence in the countryside and marks a point
of transition at the entrance to Sowerby.
4. Despite its relative age, the Hambleton Local Development Framework Core
Strategy (CS) broadly aligns with the National Planning Policy Framework’s (the
Framework) aims of seeking to support a prosperous rural economy based on
sustainable patterns of growth and forms of rural tourism which respect the
character of the countryside. Thus, CS policies CP2 and DP3 emphasise the
need to minimise travel allied to convenient access via footways and cycle
paths, whilst CS policies CP15 and DP25 seek to support the social and
economic needs to rural communities and rural employment. They seek to do
so, however, in the context of consistency with the CS’s approach to
encouraging sustainable patterns of development.
5. It may well be, as the appellant states, that the site’s location is desirable from
an operational or marketing viewpoint so as to be able to, in the appellant’s
words, ‘get away from it all’ and to find peace and quiet in the countryside.
Even if I were to accept such an approach, it does not follow that such sites
have to be in locations such as the appeal site, which lies some distance away
from the nearest settlements of Sowerby to the north or Bagby to the east.
Nor does it follow that sites closer to, or better related to, settlements cannot
provide a similar ability to ‘get away from it all’.
6. The appeal site lies some distance from Sowerby and Thirsk. Whilst the road1
that links the site with those settlements is reasonably flat, it is not particularly
wide, the grass verges are narrow and uneven and the roadside hedgerows are
dense with minimal field entrances within which to seek refuge. Moreover, it is
unlit and subject to the national speed limit and thus it would not, in my
judgement, provide a pleasant or safe route to access local services and
facilities.
7. The site might, as suggested by the appellant, be well-located for cycle touring,
but the surrounding road network would not in my judgement be particularly
conducive to access to local services, facilities and attractions by pedestrians,
or by more causal cyclists. My attention has been drawn by the appellant to
the local footpath network2 and, whilst they might provide pleasant rural
walking routes, they provide, at best, somewhat circuitous pedestrian access to
Sowerby and Thirsk. Neither they, nor South Moor Lane, would provide
practical or convenient access to the nearest settlements by foot and access to
the appeal site would as a consequence be heavily reliant upon access by
motor vehicle.
8. I have noted the appellant’s submission regarding the economic contribution
that holiday parks and campsites make to the UK economy. The Council do not
dispute this. However, I share the Council’s concern that no specific case has
been made with respect to the appeal proposal’s contribution to the local
economy. A ten-unit static caravan site may provide some contribution to the
local economy, but this has not been quantified in any way nor has a business
case been provided to that end. Similarly, whilst the proposal’s countryside
location may be desirable, it has not been demonstrated that it could not be
located in, or closer to, existing settlements. Due to the limited scale of the
proposal, any positive economic benefits are also likely to be correspondingly
limited. Thus, whilst attracting some weight in support of the proposal, I am
unable to given this anything more than limited weight.
9. Thus, for the reasons I have set out, the proposed development would fail to
accord with CS policies CP1, CP2, DP3, CP15 or DP25. Together, these policies,
whilst seeking to support rural employment, rural tourism and a prosperous
rural economy, aim to do so in a manner which supports a sustainable pattern
of development not wholly reliant on access by car.
1 South Moor Lane
2 Annex C to appellant’s Statement of Case
Character and appearance
10. Much is made by the appellant of the site’s secluded nature and perimeter
planting screen. Although the presence of conifers are somewhat atypical of
the prevailing tree and hedgerow species, the mix of planting around the site is
such that it does not noticeably stand out as an arbitrary or artificial screening
device. It is also fair to say that views of the site’s interior are heavily
screened by this perimeter planting, which is a mix of deciduous trees and
conifers. The interior of the site, which is flat and largely open other than a
handful of individual trees, is really only visible from the existing gated
entrance to the site from the private lane which leads from South Moor Lane.
11. This is not to say, however, that the interior of the site is completely screened
from views from either road frontage, or in longer views through and above
existing roadside hedges. Despite the verdant nature of the site’s perimeter,
static caravans, and the paraphernalia that would inevitably go with them,
would be alien features in this rural setting. Their wider visibility within the
landscape would be mitigated to an extent by the site’s perimeter planting but
their presence would nevertheless be noticeable through the patchy lower level
roadside hedge below the more abundant tree canopies and foliage. Indeed,
despite the presence of conifers, I saw that much of the roadside hedge was
comprised of deciduous species and as such, the patchy nature of the hedge
would allow glimpsed views at most times of the year, becoming more visible
at certain times of the year when without leaves. As a consequence, their
incongruous form, colour and appearance would be at odds with the rural
setting of the site and their stark and alien appearance would be visible
through the foliage and branches of the lower level perimeter planting.
12. For these reasons, I am not persuaded that the static caravans would be
sufficiently screened so as to avoid harm to the rural character and appearance
of the surrounding area. I have noted the presence of a caravan site closer to
the A168 and the edge of Sowerby. However, the two are well separated and
there is no sense that the latter influences or shapes the character of the land
at or around the appeal site. The presence of static caravans in the manner
proposed in this instance would, notwithstanding the nature of the site’s
perimeter planting, result in a stark form of development alien to the pleasant
rural setting of the site and its surroundings. The proposal is therefore
contrary to CS policies CP1 or CP15 which together seek to ensure that
proposals protect and enhance, amongst other factors, the natural
environment.
Other Matters
13. Inevitably, people taking holidays on such sites may wish to make use of the
outdoor space around the caravans. This may be in the form of ball games or
alfresco dining, both of which have potential to generate modest levels of
activity and consequential noise. However, neither main party has submitted
substantive evidence to support their respective cases regarding potential
levels of noise generation and possible impacts upon nearby receptors. Whilst
noting an Inspector’s conclusions in respect of a proposal for static caravans
elsewhere near Thirsk3, I am not persuaded that the proposal would generate
levels of noise that would cause material harm to occupiers of nearby
3 APP/G2713/A/08/2064528 - “The Nurseries” Garden Centre, Stockton Road, South Kilvington, Thirsk YO7 2NW
properties, or that such matters could not be adequately and appropriately
dealt with by way of planning condition to secure a site management plan.
14. Similarly, although I have noted the Council’s concern regarding drainage
arrangements, I see no reason why, had I been minded to conclude favourably
in respect of the main issues, that such a matter could not have been resolved
by way of an appropriate planning condition. However, such an approach
regarding living conditions and drainage would not be sufficient to lead me to
allow the appeal given the harm I have identified in terms of the proposal’s
location and its effect upon character and appearance.
15. The proposal for 10 static caravans is of a relatively modest scale whilst the
units themselves – two bedroomed – would not be particularly large. The
Council are concerned that the proposal would result in an increase in private
traffic. There may well be an increase, but the quantum of development is
modest and I have not been presented with any evidence to persuade me that
the local highway network would not be able to cope.
Conclusion
16. Although I have not found harm in respect of the effect of the proposal on
living conditions, drainage or highways matters, these matters are not
sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified in respect of the main issues.
Thus, for the reasons I have set out, and having considered all other matters
raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Graeme Robbie
INSPECTOR