Prestedge Barn, Whitefield Lane, Ashover

Decision

allowed, 17 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: D J Barnes

Authority

North East Derbyshire (East Midlands)

Appeal reference

6010764

Application reference

26/00165/FL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Change of use of agricultural land to domestic garden (residential curtilage extension) for converted barn

Site context

open countryside

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

N2

Development plan policies

North East Derbyshire Local Plan SS9, SDC3, SDC12, Ashover Neighbourhood Plan AP2, AP11, AP13

Main issues

character and appearance of countryside

Summary

Extension of a converted barn's garden into an adjoining field in a locally sensitive landscape near Ashover. Allowed, with permitted development and external lighting controlled by condition. The letter records that the 2026 Framework "no longer refers to valued landscapes" and that the parties were invited to comment on this (DL ¶2). It then treats N2, described as a "National Development Management (NDMP) Policy", as the relevant national test (DL ¶3, 16).

Issues and findings

• Transition — valued landscapes. "the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in August 2026 and no longer refers to valued landscapes. The parties were provided with the opportunity to comment on this change" (DL ¶2). "The NPPF has not altered the objective of limiting development away from settlements to help safeguard the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside" (DL ¶3).
• Landscape — N2: PASS. "the degree of the change would not result in significant harm being caused to the character and appearance of the landscape … The intrinsic beauty of the countryside would be preserved" (DL ¶12).
• Strip-field heritage claim: not decisive. A garden "would predominantly be private amenity space rather than built development" (DL ¶8).
• Conditions. Removal of PD rights was "exceptionally justified and necessary in this case" (DL ¶15).

Planning balance

No balance was needed: no harm was found. The decision is a compliance finding against local policies and N2.

What made the difference

The host dwelling stays the dominant feature and the garden stays open. PD and lighting controls were what made the outcome acceptable: the inspector said outbuildings, hardstanding or fences "would" cause material harm (DL ¶14).

Transferable points

• The 2026 Framework drops "valued landscape"; landscape arguments now run through N2 (environmental qualities, landscape character, natural beauty) and local designations (DL ¶2-3).
• The "intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside" objective survives the rewrite (DL ¶3).
• A garden extension into countryside can be acceptable where PD rights and lighting are removed. That removal meets the "exceptionally justified" threshold (DL ¶14-15).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Site in an Area of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity; Historic Landscape Assessment says fossilised strip field (ground level already raised) (DL 7-8)
• Visible mainly from adjoining public right of way; host dwelling is the dominant visual feature (DL 10-13)
• Conditions — stock-proof post-and-wire fence and hedge, no buildings/hardstanding/fences, no external lighting (DL 1, 15)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.