Planning appeal decision
Low Birker Farm, Boot, Holmrook, Cumbria, CA19 1TH
Planning appeal 3276612 at Low Birker Farm, Boot, Holmrook, Cumbria, CA19 1TH (Lake District) was dismissed on 11 November 2021 by Inspector Whitfield J, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Partial erection of a detached pitched roof building to the rear of the farmhouse
- Authority
- Lake District
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- other · Other minor developments
- Inspector
- Whitfield J
- Postcode
- CA19 1TH
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area
What decided it
The substantial size and scale of the building, appearing as a dominant and obtrusive element within the landscape of the Lake District National Park and World Heritage Site, with no public benefits to justify the harm to landscape character and heritage significance.
The less than substantial harm to the World Heritage Site was balanced against the public benefits of the development, but no public benefits were advanced by the appellant, resulting in the refusal of permission.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Lake District National Park Local Plan 2020-2035 Policy 1Lake District National Park Local Plan 2020-2035 Policy 5Lake District National Park Local Plan 2020-2035 Policy 6Lake District National Park Local Plan 2020-2035 Policy 7
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 176Paragraph 202
- Judgments
- Brutus and Cozens [1973] AC854; Dyer v Dorset CC [1988] 3 WLR 213; Burford v SSCLG & Test Valley BC [2017] EWHC 1493 (Admin); Sinclair-Lockhart's Trustees v Central Land Board [1950] 1 P&CR 195; Methuen-Campbell v Walters [1979] 1 QB 525; HM Attorney-General ex rel Sutcliffe & Rouse & Hughes v Calderdale BC [1983] JPL 310; Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v SSETR (No. 1) [2000] EWCA Civ 60, [2001] JPL 1025; Challenge Fencing Ltd v SSCLG & Elmbridge BC [2019] EWHC 553; R (oao Sumption) v Greenwich LBC [2007] EWHC 2276 (Admin)
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision


More decisions in Lake District
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2021
- Notice varied and upheld6 July 20263356610Land Opposite Orchard View, Saltcoats, Holmrook, CA19 1YY
- Planning permission granted26 June 20263377594Land at South Barn, Ayside, Grange Over Sands, LA11 6HY
- Notice varied and upheld23 June 20263376839Thwaite Howe, Thornthwaite, Keswick, CA12 5SA
- Notice varied and upheld5 June 20263362991Land at Bell Intake, High Dam, Finsthwaite Ulverston, Cumbria, LA12 8BN
- Notice upheld28 May 20263374745Old Bank House , Lake Road, Ambleside, LA22 0AD
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®