Appeal 6000672

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

Policy 1 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 (LP) outlines the Councils approach to sustainable development whilst Policy 2 provides the local spatial strategy. This directs that new development should provide a sustainable approach to accommodating growth, providing a well-balanced mix of economic, social and environmental benefits. The Policy further seeks to support the expansion of existing businesses and the indigenous businesses of agriculture, fishing and mining.

Nevertheless, LP Policy 2, in conjunction with LP policies 12 and 23 also requires that development respects and enhances the quality of place, respecting the special character of Cornwall and ensuring that the design of development is high quality and demonstrates a cultural, physical and aesthetic understanding of its location

The appeal site is in a rural location within the Carnmarth Area of [name] and within the Cornwall Landscape Character Area CCA09: Silverwell to Camborne (LCA). I observed that the character of the surrounding area accords with that of the LCA in being one of undulating historic mining farmland within a valley system featuring a mixed arable and pastoral landscape with a medium scale field pattern of medieval origin.

Although there are no other buildings within the fields which forms the appeal site, the proposal would be located in reasonably near proximity to neighbouring buildings at [site address] . However, I observed that due to nearby buildings being largely screened, the proposed building would be seen as a singular and somewhat prominent building on a hillside within the field it is located.

The appellant has outlined that a calf house that is durable, easy to clean and disinfect and gives protection from the elements is vital for calf health. Nevertheless, although featuring a single pitch roof and of overall simplistic design, the proposed building would have somewhat of a non-utilitarian appearance, due to its overall form and proposed fenestration details which include small windows and door openings on its front elevation.

As such, and in combination with its hillside location, the appearance of the proposal would draw the eye and have greater presence and prominence in the landscape than other sporadic utilitarian agricultural development I observed in the area, notwithstanding that the building would be relatively modest in scale.

Therefore, despite nearby buildings, the proposal would be seen as separate from any existing farmstead and would appear somewhat incongruous in its setting. It would be a visually intrusive feature in the undulating pastoral landscape reducing the landscape value of the area.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to LP policies 1, 2, 12 and 23, the purposes of which I have previously outlined, and Policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document 2023. This Policy seeks amongst other things, to increase built and natural environment distinctiveness through locally distinctive, high quality and sustainable design.

The appellant has highlighted that the growth in the dairy sector has led to increased demand for younger dairy cattle, with demand for 6-month-old heifers and steers being strong, driven by their suitability for finishing into prime beef cattle, or dairy cattle. As such, the appellant is seeking the proposed building as part of a change and pivot strategy to keep cattle rearing viable, with a goal to rear two-week-old calves up to the age of 6 months, housed indoors, to sell on to finishers.

However, other than generalised stated intentions, and although it appears that the appellant may farm adjacent land, there is no clear indication of the total size of the holding concerned, the numbers of cattle intended, or indeed other operational information in relation to any current agricultural enterprise, or how the proposal would support the expansion of an existing agricultural business.

Given the lack of information provided in relation to the existing holding or enterprise, no substantive evidence has been provided that leads me to conclude that any need to expand an existing agricultural business or associated operational requirements outweigh the harm I have identified.

I note the appellant's comments about the Council's handling of the application, and the frustration this has caused the appellant. However, this has little to do with the planning merits of the case, which I have considered on the basis of the evidence before me.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposed development would conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. No material considerations, individually or cumulatively, outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.