PLANS for a residential development of 13 houses on land in Ingleton have been dismissed by a planning inspector.

The application from TE Brown for the site behind Panwell Cottage and Spring Cottage to the east of Back Gate, was refused by Craven District Council on July 27.

The reasons for refusal were listed as: The new development is more than 100 metres from a public sewer and no satisfactory means of surface

water drainage have been demonstrated for the proposed development.

In the absence of information to the contrary, the proposed development would be detrimental to the conservation area and its setting

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the proposed housing development would adversely affect the existing listed building, Panwell Cottage, and its setting.

Inspector Darren Handley said in his report: "With the location of the site immediately adjacent to the existing residential properties along Back Gate and with its largely undeveloped form, it is an important part of the setting of the conservation area as part of the countryside just beyond the edge of the settlement. It is, therefore, a strong contributor to the character, in line with the Conservation Area Appraisal. The use of the land also displays historical significance in relation to the connection of farming to the settlement and the historic field patterns.

"Whilst this may not be ubiquitous to the site, when these factors are taken together, it clearly contributes favourably towards the significance of the setting of the conservation area.

"This role of the site would be markedly disrupted by the development of the proposed dwellings and the associated infrastructure. The proposal would appear as a moderately large scale urbanising development and project well beyond the existing properties on this part of Back Gate. Thus, it would also represent a significant projection and encroachment into the countryside setting. The properties alongside High Street, to the north and in parallel to the site, reflect a linear pattern of development along this road and so they do not share the same level of detrimental effects on the setting that would arise from the proposal with its location to the rear of the properties on Back Gate.

"The design, materials and form of the proposed dwellings, including the use of short terraces nearer the site entrance, would not appear out of keeping with the existing dwellings on Back Gate, and the proposal seeks to retain much of the dry stone walls and identifies the potential for planting. However, this would not overcome the harm that would arise by way of the loss of the countryside setting to the conservation area. The extent to which the access would open up further views into the countryside would, in my view, also be limited due to the alignment of the internal access road and the arrangement of the proposed dwellings.

Mr Handley said in his conclusion summary: "The proposal would have a detrimental and harmful effect on the setting of the conservation area and it would fail to preserve the setting of Panwell Cottage, a listed building. The proposal would not be unacceptable as regards drainage and flood risk, which attracts neutral weight. I have considered all matters that have been raised, but the benefits that would arise would not outweigh the harm caused by the proposal. Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed."