Appeal 6000950

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form states that the work started in March 2022 and at the time of my visit I saw that the stables were in place. The application was submitted retrospectively, and I have dealt with it on that basis. I saw on my visit that there was a covered area between the proposed stables which deviates from the drawings. Nevertheless, I have assessed the proposal on the basis of the plans before me.

The site address above is taken from the appellant’s appeal form and Council’s decision notice. This is because the address given in the application form is incomplete.

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

The overall purpose of the Dartmoor Local Plan (LP) is set out in Strategic Policy (SP)1.1 which seeks to protect the National Park’s special qualities, whilst meeting the needs of its communities. All development should seek to further its statutory purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area and promoting opportunities of the understanding and enjoyment of its special qualities by the public. It is necessary to seek to further these purposes in decision making. Furthermore, in such areas, paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) attaches great weight to conserving and enhancing natural beauty.

The appeal site is located off a steep rural lane and comprises a small part of a large field near its entrance. This field is not far from a settlement, and although in the countryside, it is set within a particular landscape that is not without development. That said, the wider surrounding area contains rolling hills that are defined by a strong mosaic of irregular pastoral fields and its wooded areas. These features reflect locally valued attributes in the Authority’s landscape character assessment. The same character assessment highlights that equestrian enterprises, along roads and out from settlements, are resulting in the gradual encroachment of development into the landscape, affecting levels of tranquillity. Additionally, and amongst other things, LP policies SP1.2 and SP2.1 seek to conserve and enhance the character of such valued landscapes.

The LP recognises that the keeping and riding of horses on Dartmoor brings pleasure to many. However, LP Policy 5.10 only permits equestrian development under certain circumstances. In part, this is in order to conserve the National Park’s special qualities. Furthermore, new buildings cannot be isolated. They also need to be clustered with existing building groups and enclosed with an appropriate boundary feature. The Authority’s Design Guide expands on this by noting that new buildings should be sited within or adjacent to existing buildings, avoiding exposed skyline locations.

Within the appeal site is a collection of timber stable buildings which, at the time of my visit, were being used to shelter a horse and some chickens. The officer report identifies that there are no other structures within the vicinity of neighbouring holdings, though this is not consistent with my observations on the ground. I noted the presence of development in the fields surrounding the appeal site, with properties and groups of buildings positioned off higher and lower parts of the same lane, as well as stables in an adjacent field. These fields also contained horses. Even so, the appeal buildings are not close or clustered with any of this other development or groups of buildings and can therefore be reasonably considered to be ‘isolated’. This conflicts with LP Policy SP5.10.

In terms of the landscape effects, the buildings are set at a lower point in the wider field and close to an original gateway. Here, the lower field boundary and existing vegetation on the roadside provide some screening. This is likely to be more effective during times of the year when trees and bushes are in full leaf. Furthermore, I saw that some additional planting in its early stages of maturity was positioned between the access and nearest buildings. Over time, it is likely this planting will provide further natural screening.

Additionally, the traditional timber construction avoids the use of concrete which the LP explains can have a greater visual impact and is more difficult to remove upon redundancy. The buildings are of a relatively small scale and of a typical design that is common to the rural countryside. As such, one’s attention is not drawn to them when passing by the appeal site.

However, when looking back towards the appeal site from the nearest settlement, one of the appeal buildings was eminently visible in the largely undisturbed wooded and field covered landscape. Even with additional landscaping, its elevated positioning would make it likely to be visible for good parts of the year.

External lighting is not shown on the plans, though what was on site was very limited and only likely to be necessarily triggered during the dark for short periods. Be that as it may, the otherwise dark skies in this particular area would be likely to be partially eroded to some modest extent. Even in the absence of lighting, the development’s prominence and encroachment into the countryside harmfully reduces overall levels of tranquillity.

Although the appellant is agreeable to a condition that would secure the removal of the development when no longer required, their presence in the landscape could conceivably remain for a long time. Thus, any such condition would not mitigate against the identified landscape harm or make the development acceptable.

For the reasons set out above, and having paid regard to the referenced 2010 Circular, I conclude that the proposal harmfully affects the character and appearance of the area. In doing so, the requirement to further the purposes of the National Park is not met. Accordingly, there is conflict with LP policies SP1.1, SP1.2, SP1.5, SP2.1, SP2.6 and P5.10. There is also conflict with paragraphs 135, 187, and 189 of the Framework.

The usefulness of the buildings for providing winter shelter for horses is acknowledged. This is more of a private benefit to the appellant and in that context, there is no substantive evidence that alternative shelter could not be provided for. I have given this matter little weight.

The use of an existing access and removal of muck to avoid contamination of watercourses is noted, though these would be neutral factors that have little bearing on the merits of the proposal.

For the reasons above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no considerations individually or cumulatively that outweigh this. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.