Appeal 6000733

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the address given in the Council’s Decision Notice for clarity.

As the site is within the Cornwall National Landscape, I have paid regard to my duty under Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area.

Based on the evidence before me the appellant provided a structural appraisal during the planning application process. However, it is unclear whether this has been subject to public consultation or that it formed part of the Council’s decision. Given that the appeal procedure should not be used to advance appeals, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the evidence on which the Council made its

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area including whether the proposed development would conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Cornwall National Landscape (the CNL); and • whether the appeal site is a sustainable location for the proposed development.

The appeal building is located in a predominantly rural location and is currently used for the storage and repair of vehicles and machinery. A caravan is located on the appeal site. There is mature vegetation that screens the building to an extent however there remains some intervisibility between the building and the public highway. It is located within the CNL and is also within the [name] Park.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes. The appeal site is located within the [name] section of the CNL which is described in the Cornwall Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2022-2027 (the MP) as an historic landscape of unique, sparse, open, coastal moorland. Its general character has been shaped by granite geology and is exposed to the [name].

The MP was subject to consultation and adopted by the Council. Consequently, in my planning judgement, it attracts significant weight in the determination of this appeal.

The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Third Edition 2013 outlines, amongst other things, that there may be land outside the boundary of a nationally designated site, that meets the designation criteria and thus there may be land inside that does not.

Therefore, whilst the appeal site is located on the edge of the CNL and I am mindful of the built form adjacent to the appeal site, the overall character remains rural and thus, in my planning judgement the appeal site contributes to the overall character of the CNL.

I am cognisant of paragraph 84 of the Framework which states that the development of isolated homes should be avoided unless, amongst other things, the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting. I am also mindful of paragraph 161 of the Framework which outlines that the planning system should support the transition to net zero in 2050 and thus amongst other things, encourage the reuse of existing resources including the conversion of existing buildings.

The appeal site is not within a settlement and thus is considered to be in the open countryside for planning purposes. Consequently, Policy 7 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 (the CLP) is determinative for this appeal.

Policy 7 of the CLP provides support for housing in the countryside subject to certain criteria. Notably in this case, is the support it provides for new dwellings where it would involve the reuse of suitably constructed redundant, disused or historic buildings that are considered appropriate to retain and would lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting. Additionally, that the building to be converted should have an existing lawful residential or non-residential use and be ten years old or greater.

The Council accepts based on the evidence that the appeal building is at least 10 years old. I find no reason to disagree with its conclusion on this matter. Consequently, I turn to the matter of whether the reuse of the building.

The supporting text of Policy 7 of the CLP highlights that the appropriateness of buildings for conversion will depend on their scale and method of construction, structural soundness and the ability to convert the building without the necessity of substantial demolition or substantial rebuilding operations. Notably, it also states that the conversion of large portal framed buildings will rarely be appropriate. However, I do acknowledge that Policy 7 does not prohibit them.

Policy PD-18 of the MP states that the conversion of existing redundant agricultural (and other similar) buildings to form dwellings will only be supported if they meet certain criteria.

The criteria are that the existing buildings are characteristic, historic, vernacular buildings which are recognisably an important part of the local built and landscape context. Additionally, that the existing building is worthy of retention in its own right, that the conversion would very substantially retain the scale, character and appearance of the original building and finally, that the conversion does not give rise to the introduction of uncharacteristic fenestration or domestication of the setting or the introduction of conspicuous domestic paraphernalia into the setting of the building.

I acknowledge that the Chief Planning Officer’s Advice Note on [name]/Replacement dwelling in the Countryside (the CPOAN) highlights that a building does not need to have any historic or particular architectural merit and may have a utilitarian form and appearance typically expected of an agricultural building found in the countryside. Although this is guidance and does not form part of the development plan.

Additionally, it further outlines that just because something does not positively contribute to the visual amenity of the area, it does not inevitably mean that it would not be appropriate to be retained. Nevertheless, similar to the supporting text of Policy 7 of the CLP it does outline that large portal framed buildings will rarely be appropriate and that each case should be assessed on its own merit.

The appeal site is identified as being within the CCA03 [name] landscape character area (the LCA). Amongst other things, the settlements in the LCA are described as being concentrated in the sheltered valleys, forming clusters of small farms with characteristic granite farmsteads and slate roofs.

Furthermore, PD-18 of the MP also highlights amongst other things, that existing agricultural and other buildings such as portal frame buildings would form alien elements in the landscape where there is an absence of agricultural use.

The Council refers in its statement of case to reservations regarding the steel roof and whether it could be replaced with a natural slate roof due to its pitch as well as the addition of solar panels which would likely add to the loading of the structure. However, this matter is not a putative reason for refusal nor was it explicitly raised in the [name].

Notwithstanding this, the appeal building is sited upon a large concrete hardstanding and has a portal framed structure. It is clad with concrete block walls as well as timber boarding and has a dual pitched sheeted roof. It has a utilitarian character and is not, to my mind, a recognisably important part of the local built and landscape context. Consequently, in my planning judgement, based on the evidence before me and given the size of the appeal building, it constitutes a large portal framed building.

Considering the above, there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the appeal building is worthy of retention in its own right and thus appropriate to retain. Notwithstanding this, the appeal scheme would introduce uncharacteristic and to my mind, extensive fenestration, given the proposed large areas of glazing.

I acknowledge the topography of the site in relation to the hillside, the set back of the building from the highway including the vegetation that borders the site as well as the busy character of the highway. However, it would, due to the large scale of the building and the proposed fenestration, still result in an incongruous and busy design given the utilitarian nature of the building. Thus, for the same reasons, it would still result in an unacceptable level of light spill.

Furthermore, I acknowledge that the existing building and caravan on the site do not have any restrictions in terms of hours of use, noise controls, or internal and external lighting restrictions. Nevertheless, for the reasons given above, it remains to my mind, that it would lead to an unacceptable light spill into the [name] park.

Regarding the large area of hardstanding, the appeal scheme would reduce this area to provide a parking and turning area. When considered on its own, given the historic use of the appeal building, it would not result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. However, the likely introduction of domestic paraphernalia associated with the appeal scheme would be generally incongruous given the overall rural character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Moreover, whilst I acknowledge that there are residential dwellings adjacent to the appeal site, I do not know their full circumstances and therefore cannot be certain that they are wholly comparable to the appeal scheme before me. Nevertheless, based on the evidence before me their existence as dwellings is as a result of the conversion of the buildings from the former Trevarrack boarding school dating from around 1880’s. They are located across the public highway and given the mature vegetation are not, in my planning judgement, in the immediate setting of the appeal building nor the general rural character of the surrounding area.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, it remains in my planning judgement, that the appeal scheme would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the CNL. Consequently, the appeal scheme would not lead to an enhancement of the immediate setting.

Regarding the appeal decision at [address], I do not have its full circumstances and therefore cannot be certain that it is wholly comparable to the appeal scheme before me. Nevertheless, each application is determined on its own merits and site context. Therefore, for the reasons given above it does not lead me to an alternative conclusion.

The appellant refers to the possibility of the imposition of conditions to overcome any perceived harm from the appeal scheme in relation to reducing/controlling the lighting on the site, removing permitted development rights, removing the existing caravan as well as managing and retaining the natural boundaries that exist. However, in my planning judgement, given the large scale of the building and the extensive fenestration in conjunction with the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the CNL, these conditions would not overcome the harm I have identified.

The appellant refers to the appeal scheme improving the existing character and appearance of the appeal building. However, given the harm I have identified above regarding the appeal scheme, it follows that, the relatively busy and incongruous design of the appeal scheme would not result in a significant improvement regarding the character and appearance of the appeal building and site in general.

Considering all of the above and based on the evidence before me in this case, the appeal scheme would, on balance, result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would also fail to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the CNL.

The appeal scheme would therefore conflict with Policies 1, 2,7,12 and 23 of the CLP. Policy LUD7 of the Ludgvan Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2020 (the NP), [name]-P1, PD-P11 and PD-18 of the MP as well as Policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document 2023 (the DPD) insofar as they seek to ensure that developments, including the conversion of existing redundant agricultural (and other similar buildings) to form dwellings, demonstrate high quality design that assimilate with the character and appearance of the surrounding area as well as respect the local landscape including to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the CNL.

The Council has referenced Policy 27 of the CLP and Policy T1 of the DPD however they relate to Transport and Accessibility and sustainable transport respectively. Consequently, they are not determinative for this main issue.

Regarding the accessibility of the appeal site, whilst I note that there is limited day to day services and facilities in the immediate context of the site they can be accessed at Lelant. Additionally, there are a smaller range of services found in the [site address] Holiday Village, approximately 900m from the appeal site.

Reference to [site address] and [name] regarding access to facilities as well as the pedestrian link of [address] route from [site address] to Marazion is in the evidence before me. There is limited substantive evidence before me, regarding the distances and lighting along this route. Additionally, there is limited lighting and footpaths to reach either the [site address] Holiday Village or Lelant from the appeal site. Therefore, on balance, it is likely that the future occupants of the appeal scheme would be reliant upon private motor vehicles to access these facilities.

Nevertheless, I am mindful that paragraph 89 of the Framework outlines, amongst other things, that in rural areas, sites may have to be found adjacent or beyond existing settlements and in locations that are not well served by public transport. The Framework further outlines in paragraph 110 that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas.

Therefore, considering all of the above, the appeal site would be a suitable location for the proposed development. Thus, it would comply with Policies, 1, 2, and 27 of the CLP as well as Policies C1 and T1 of the DPD insofar as they seek to ensure that developments do not cause a significant adverse impact on the local or strategic road network that cannot be managed or mitigated and represent sustainable development.

The Council has referred to Policies 7, 12 and 23 of the CLP, [name]-P1, PD- P11 and PD-18 of the MP as well as Policy LUD7 of the NP. However, these policies relate mainly to design, local distinctiveness and character (including the character of the CNL). Consequently, they are not determinative for this main issue.

The Council has stated that they are able to demonstrate a housing land supply of circa 3.9 years. This is significantly below the housing land supply the Council is expected to deliver in line with the Framework. Whilst the proposal would deliver four units, this would nonetheless boost the housing stock in circumstances where there is a shortfall.

Based on the evidence before me, the appeal site is within the [name] for the West Penwith Moors and Downs Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI). Additionally, the Environmental Impact Assessment screening direction issued at appeal stage also highlights the proximity of the appeal site to the [name] and [name] as well as the [name]. I have a duty under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to assess any impact the proposed development would have upon the SSSI’s. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for the reasons given above, I do not need to conduct any further assessment in relation to these sites.

As set out above, whilst I have found the appeal site to be a sustainable location for the appeal scheme, it remains that the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area as well as fail to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the CNL.

The appeal scheme would deliver a net gain of four dwellings. However, whilst the scheme would positively contribute to housing provision, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this case due to footnote 7 of paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework, which outlines that harm to a National Landscape provides a strong reason for refusing the appeal scheme.

Consequently, the benefits that would result from the appeal regarding the provision of four dwellings would not clearly outweigh the harm to the CNL and other harms I have identified regarding the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.