It has to be horses for courses doesn't it? I rather hope EH doesn't and can't come up with a universal definition as they'd be so terrified of the implications elsewhere that it would be very generalised and wouldn't prevent Tarmac's Thornborough ambitions at all.

Whilst I agree the visual element is important, relying on that would be unhelpful to Thornborough as well. Drawing a line one place or another there makes little difference. And of course, once you start on about ruining the view it hands them the chance to say No problem, we'll reinstate everything.

So we need more. Tarmac's appeal is likely to be - "EH were wrong to say the near part of Ladybridge is nationally important but failing that, we'll have the far part, which isn't.

Against that, a counter claim of "Ah but it sort of looks as if it's part of the setting" is weak. We need hard evidence that it's part of the setting. So how about setting being partly defined by "evidence of intensive associated use"?

Tarmac has already hinted that that line is speculative, not fact based, and therefore invalid but EH have committed to the view that it's most likely the truth. So on this subject, unlike the visual thing, we're ahead.