Appeal 6000828

The appeal is dismissed.

The site address was not included on the application form. I have therefore used the address as provided on the Council’s decision notice.

The main issues are: (i) the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area; and (ii) whether the site is in an appropriate location, taking account of the Council’s spatial strategy.

The appeal site is located within Cornwall Character Area CCA25: [name] to [name]. It is a matter of agreement between the main parties that the area is characterised by undulating farmland which is generally uncluttered and has a quiet rural character.

During my site visit it was readily apparent that the site is in a very rural location which feels quite isolated. The countryside in the area is quite open with far reaching views across the landscape. Indeed, when I was approaching the site from the east, along the C0077, the paraphernalia currently occupying it was readily apparent from a reasonable distance away. As one gets closer to the site, including when passing directly in front of it, the site appears as an unusual and incongruous incursion into the countryside, which clearly detracts from the character of the area to a significant extent. There are public rights of way in the wider area, however these are some distance away and are likely to only offer glimpses of the appeal site. Nevertheless, this does not alter the harm associated with the wide-ranging views from the road.

I note that the scheme includes proposals for new planting to provide some screening, However, the proposal is for a temporary five year period, and any such planting is unlikely to be effective within this period of time. Furthermore, while the appellant has set out that the land would be returned to its previous undeveloped appearance at the end of the temporary period, I am of the view that the significant harm caused as a result of the development would be unacceptable even for a fixed period of time.

As a result, I find that the development has resulted in harm to the character and appearance of the area. It therefore conflicts with Policies 1 and 23 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 (the LP), and Policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document (CEDPD), February 2023. The relevant aspects of these policies seek to ensure that new development preserves character and appearance and the natural environment.

LP Policy 5 sets out the circumstances in which new business and tourism facilities can be provided. Part 1 of the policy states that proposals will be acceptable where they are well integrated with existing settlements, or within areas that are well served by public transport and communications infrastructure. Furthermore, the policy sets out that, in the countryside, proposals should be of a scale appropriate to their location or it should be demonstrated that there is an overriding business need to be in that location.

In this instance, the site is not well connected to an existing settlement, being within the open countryside. From the evidence before me, it seems that there is little in the way of access to public transport nearby. There are bus stops some distance to the west, however, even if services were currently running, it would not be possible to safely walk from the bus stops to the site given the busy nature of the road and the lack of pavements. I note that the site could be accessible by cycling as a result of its location close to National Cycle Network Route 305. However, to my mind this is not sufficient to meet the requirements of Part 1(b) of the policy. Given the harm I have identified in relation to character and appearance, it is inevitable that I must also conclude that the site is not of a suitable size for this isolated and rural location.

In terms of business need, the appellant has provided a Site Assessment document (Base Planning Consultants, December 2024). The assessment sets out how a search for suitable sites was undertaken. However, there is little detail within the document to provide any certainty with regards to how robust the search was, including for instance, sifting or constraints mapping. Indeed, it seems to me that the sources of potential sites are also quite limited, having focused entirely on property listing websites. [name] acknowledge the appellant’s requirement to secure a site close to the A30, that is also immediately available, I do not have sufficient certainty or confidence that there is a particular business need to be in this precise location.

I have had regard to the relevant aspects of the National Planning Policy Framework which seek to support economic development in rural areas, including by recognising that such uses may have to be located in areas beyond existing settlements. However, the Framework must be read as a whole, and it is clear that the policies within it seek to favour development in sustainable locations.

I therefore conclude that the development is not in a suitable location, taking account of the Council’s spatial strategy. It therefore conflicts with [name] 1, 2, 5, and 21 as well as [name] T1 and C1. The relevant aspects of these policies seek to ensure that new development, including business uses, is located in suitable areas, including by encouraging the use of sustainable modes of transport.

I have found that the development has caused harm in relation to character and appearance and is not in a suitable location. Consequently, it conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. Whilst the provision of a site for storage provides some economic benefits, and there is potential for some biodiversity enhancements, the small-scale nature of the scheme means that any such benefits are likely to be limited. Accordingly, there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. The appeal is therefore dismissed.