Sunny Bank Kitchen Garden, Killington New Bridge, Killington (market garden barn and polytunnels)

Decision

allowed, 2 October 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: David Smith

Authority

Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (North West)

Appeal reference

6013634

Application reference

S/08/23

Procedure

written representations

Development

Barn (14 m x 8 m packing shed with 8 photovoltaic panels), two polytunnels (8 m x 30 m and 5 m x 8 m), grasscrete paving, composting toilet, compost bins and a 10,000 litre water tank for an existing market garden

Site context

national park, open countryside, rural lane, listed building setting

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

N4(1), TR6(4), S5(1)(a), E4(1)(d)

Development plan policies

Yorkshire Dales National Park Local Plan CP1, CP2, CP6, CP8, CP9, AC3, E2

Main issues

National Park landscape character; highway safety at the existing access

Summary

A market garden in the Yorkshire Dales National Park sought a packing barn, two polytunnels and associated infrastructure. The inspector found the modest, hedge-screened buildings would have an insignificant effect on the Park's landscape, and that the existing access, although well below normal visibility standards, would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety given the low level of movements. Policies E4 and S5 supported the horticultural use. Allowed with conditions.

Issues and findings

• Transition. No switch paragraph. The letter cites the Framework by 2026 policy code.
• National Park, N4(1): PASS. "it is reasonable to expect that agricultural or horticultural uses would have buildings associated with them in order that they can function" and "the effect on the landscape value of the Park would be insignificant" (DL ¶6). The proposal would meet the N4 expectation that development be limited in scale and sensitively located and designed (DL ¶9).
• Design, DP3: ACCORD. The buildings "would be integrated with their surroundings in line with Policy DP3 of the Framework" (DL ¶7).
• Highway safety, TR6(4): PASS. "the likely low level of movements and the characteristics of the lane mean that the danger of collisions is acceptably small" (DL ¶12). "As the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety it does not fall within the type of development that should be refused in line with the Framework." (DL ¶13).
• Principle, S5(1)(a) and E4. "Framework Policy S5 also establishes that development for horticulture is one of the forms of development outside settlements that should generally be approved" (DL ¶16). On securing the business benefits: "that is always likely to be the case for any commercial venture" (DL ¶17).

Planning balance

Plan-led. No S5(1) balance was run, because no harm was found: "The proposal would conform to the development plan and there are no material considerations which indicate that a decision should not be made in accordance with it." (DL ¶22).

What made the difference

The buildings were small, agricultural in character and sited behind a dense hedge, and the access was already in use by the business. The Authority produced no evidence of risk at the access, and the appellant's points on low speeds and light traffic went unchallenged. A new access, a larger or more exposed group of buildings, or evidence of speeds and flows on the lane could have produced a different result.

Transferable points

• In a National Park, modest agricultural or horticultural buildings are expected features of a farmed landscape and can meet N4(1) where they are well sited (DL ¶6-9).
• A substandard visibility splay does not by itself make the impact on highway safety unacceptable under TR6(4): the existing use of the access, the likely level of movements and the character of the lane are all relevant, and the authority must evidence the risk (DL ¶10-13).
• S5(1)(a) covers horticultural development outside settlements, and E4 names polytunnels and domestic food production (DL ¶16).
• A local policy requiring removal of rural enterprise buildings when no longer needed cannot reasonably be applied to a permanent barn (DL ¶19).
• Uncertainty over whether business benefits will last is not a reason to discount them (DL ¶17).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Site in the Lune Valley Landscape Character Area (LCA4) of the Yorkshire Dales National Park; land used as a market garden since 2024 (DL 4-5)
• Buildings sited behind and alongside a dense boundary hedge; close views only at the entrance; no long-distance views identified (DL 7-8)
• Access from the C5079 with visibility of no more than 15.2 m at a 2.4 m set back in either direction; consolidation on site said to reduce off-site vehicle movements (DL 10, 12)
• Environment Agency gauging station on the land also generates trips (DL 10)
• Setting of Grade II listed Killington New Bridge not adversely affected, as accepted by the Authority (DL 15)
• Authority's concern that benefits to the business cannot be secured long term rejected as true of any commercial venture (DL 17)
• Conditions, removal of the polytunnels when no longer needed (barn excluded) and control of external lighting for dark skies; no fixed lumen limit and no construction-hours condition (DL 19-21)
• No switch paragraph; the Framework is cited by 2026 policy code (DP3, E4, S5)

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.