A FARMER has won his long battle with Craven District Council to keep the stone barn he originally built in 2016 without planning permission on the site of an old, 200 year old farm building.

Following a remotely held appeal hearing on November 5, John Howard of Newton Grange Farm, East Marton, has won his appeal against the council and been told by the Planning Inspectorate the barn, on fields within sight of walkers on the Pennine Way can stay.

Mr Howard will be able to keep the supportive buttresses, that the council insisted would have to go, but will not be able to use New Laithe Barn for any other purposes, rather than for agricultural purposes, such as the storage of hay, straw and wool, without first seeking permission from the council.

A separate decision has yet to be made on Mr Howard’s application to the Planning Inspectorate for his costs of bringing the appeal.

It is the third time Mr Howard has appealed to the Secretary of State against the decision of the council to refuse permission for the barn.

In 2016 he lost his appeal against an enforcement notice calling for the barn to be demolished with the then inspector concluding a new structure had been built on the site which was not designed for agricultural purposes and should be demolished.

The second decision in October 2017 allowed an agricultural building subject to a condition that two lean-to projections were removed within six months of the decision, and if that was not carried out, the whole building was to be demolished in two weeks.

A further application to effectively reinstate the permission was supported by the council’s planning committee in December 2019, subject to a Section 106 agreement to remove the buttresses, which Mr Howard argued were needed for ‘structural stability’ but which the council argued were ‘substantial’ and which meant the building losing the ‘simplicity’ of the rectangular barn approved on appeal in 2017.

In the inspector, K Savage’s, decision notice of this week, the inspector said it was solely the buttresses that separated the barn as it is now and the scheme allowed on appeal three years ago.

“The evidence before me indicates that the barn is larger and bulkier than the structure which previously stood on the site, and is described as having a more domestic appearance given the number of window and door openings.

“However, on site, I saw the window openings to be modest in size, and set in an irregular pattern not inconsistent with historic stone barns. With the stone walls, pitched roof and large barn door, I find that the barn exhibits a rural and agricultural appearance.

“The buttresses are the only point of contention between the main parties. They are a somewhat atypical feature, but they are shallow in depth and seen against the main building they have limited massing and prominence, even when viewed at close range.

“There are also no close public vantage points where the barn would be viewed in side profile where the shape of the buttresses could most easily be discerned. On viewing the building from all sides, it was clear to me that the buttresses are not ‘substantial structures’ as argued by the council, but ancillary features which do not demonstrably enlarge the building or alter its predominantly rectangular form.”

The inspector also commented on the nearby ‘substantial, modern agricultural buildings of Souber Dairy which stood ‘conspicuously on higher ground’.

In allowing the appeal, the inspector said: "I have found no justification for the council’s insistence on a rectangular building or its stance that the buttresses are of such a scale and form as to be significantly harmful to the surrounding landscape character."