Appeal 6001124

The appeal is dismissed.

During my site visit it was apparent that the concrete hardstanding area was already in place and therefore, the appeal is for retrospective development works.

I have taken the description in the heading above from the Council’s decision notice. This describes the appeal development more accurately than the application form, though I have removed the reference to retrospective, as this is not an act of development.

The main issues are whether the appeal development is an appropriate form of development, having regard to; (i) its location and its accordance with the spatial strategy of the development plan, and (ii), the effect of the development on the South Devon National Landscape (NL) and the [name] policy area.

The appeal site is a roughly triangular agricultural field located around 300m west south-west of the village of Malborough. The village is identified as being within the lowest tier of the settlement heriarchy defined in policy TTV1 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014 – 2034 (the JLP), being classified as one of the ‘Smaller villages, Hamlets and the Countryside’. The appeal site is around 200m away from the closest property at the very edge of the village, and is therefore within open countryside, though an agricultural barn is located in the field opposite the appeal site to the south side of the highway.

Policy TTV26 of the JLP relates to development in the countryside, encompassing two parts. Part 1 applies to development in isolated locations, whilst part 2 applies to all development within countryside locations. It is therefore necessary to establish whether the development is in an isolated location. The Council have stated that, with reference to the JLP Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), they apply the test of isolation in a manner that is consistent with the Braintree case1 as affirmed by the Bramshill judgement2. Whilst both of these cases relate to the creation of isolated new homes in the countryside, the test in relation to isolation is a matter for the decision maker to consider whether the development would be physically isolated from a settlement.

The appeal development is identified by the appellants as being for the purposes of providing care for their ponies, which they state are housed at the site. It would, therefore, not be a residential use, but would be an agricultural/equestrian use. The appeal site is over 200m distance from the closest property within the settlement of Malborough, with an unlit metalled road with no footpath linking it with the settlement. However, its intended use would require a countryside setting, as the keeping and grazing of ponies would not be consistent with a location inside a village setting.

For the above reason, I find that the location of the site, due to its’ intended agricultural/equestrian use, would not be an isolated location, as it would be within a short walking distance of the village, and its’ use would be consistent with its location in an open countryside designation. Part 1 of policy TTV26 would therefore not apply to the appeal development.

Turning to Part 2 of policy TTV26, the appeal development would need to demonstrate compliance with the criteria identified within the policy. The appeal development would not affect public rights of way or bridleways, and there are no existing buildings on the site, it would therefore comply with criterion (i) and (ii) respectively. Similarly, the appeal site is small and contains dense hedges and trees. It is therefore not classified as Best and [name], and therefore criterion (v) would be met.

However, the development has not demonstrated that it would be complementary to and not prejudice any viable agricultural operations on a farm and other existing viable uses (iii), nor has it demonstrated that it would respond to a proven agricultural, forestry and other occupational need that requires a countryside location (iv). Further, it does not demonstrate that it would help enhance the immediate setting of the site or provide a management and exit strategy to demonstrate how long-term degradation of the landscape and natural environment would be avoided (vi).

The existing site is a small agricultural field. The grazing of ponies would be an agricultural use, and there would be no justification for the appeal development for the purposes of grazing, as there is a loss of grazing land resulting from the hardstanding development. There is no evidence that the appellants ponies are kept for an agricultural occupation use, such as ploughing, or are part of a working stud farm that would justify development under criterion (iv). The housing and care of ponies for recreational riding is an equestrian use, and there is no evidence before me that the site has an extant consent for use consistent within this designation. There is also limited evidence that the stated need for the development as a level platform for the farrier or vet to carry out care activities for ponies, could not equally be carried out on a smaller, temporary level surface. 1 Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (2018) [name] 610 2 Bramshill v SSHCLG (2021) [name] 320

Whilst it is clear that the keeping of ponies or horses would justify the need for a countryside location, the keeping of ponies and horses for personal recreational use is not an agricultural occupational use supported by policy TTV26 (2) of the JLP.

For the above reasons I find that the appeal development conflicts with policy TTV26 (2) of the JLP, which requires, among other things, development within the open countryside to respond to a proven agricultural, forestry and other occupational need that requires a countryside location.

The appeal site is within the South Devon National Landscape (NL). Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA) amended the duty placed on relevant authorities required by the Countryside and Right of Way Act 2000 (CRoW Act), requiring decision makers to ‘seek to further’ the statutory purposes of protected landscapes, of which the NL is one. It requires, as far as is reasonably practical, relevant authorities to seek to avoid harm and to contribute to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty, special qualities and key characteristics of [name]. This is reflected in the Framework, which requires great weight to be given to protecting the scenic beauty of NL’s.

The appeal development is a concrete hardstanding slab of around [address] metres in area, which finishes level with the ground which surrounds it. The appeal site, a triangular field of around 0.087 hectares, sits in an elevated position to the adjacent highway from which it takes its access, and which runs along its southern boundary, separated by a high and dense, substantially evergreen hedge which sits atop a Devon bank. There are thick, mature hedges to the western and northern boundaries of the appeal site, which separate the site from adjacent agricultural fields.

As the appeal development is at ground level, it is substantially screened both from close views from the public realm in its immediate setting, and from wider landscape views, by the high hedges which form the boundary of the appeal site. Accordingly, I find the appeal development would not have a detrimental effect on the scenic beauty of the wider NL.

The appeal site also sits within the northern fringes of the South Devon Heritage Coast identified in The South Devon AONB (now NL) Management Plan 2019- 2024, and within the [name] area of the Local Plan. This non-statutory Heritage Coast designation, along with the [name] designation is protected via policy DEV 24 of the Local Plan, which restricts development except under exceptional circumstances, subject to five criteria.

The appellants suggests that a slab was constructed following receipt of conditional planning consent3 in 2008. However, it is acknowledged that this was in poor condition and was extended by them more recently. The Council note that the previous consent was subject to pre-commencement conditions, for which there is no evidence of discharge, and in any event, was also subject to a time limit on the conditional approval requiring removal of development and remediation of the land by 1 March 2018. 3 33/2666/07/F

Having examined the evidence, I find that there is insufficient justification of the need for the development as constructed, for the purposes stated by the appellants, within the [name] and Heritage Coast designated areas. Whist the development would not, of itself, conflict with criteria 3, 4 and 5 of policy DEV24, it has not been demonstrated that the exceptional circumstances exist to meet criteria 1 and 2 of policy DEV24, which would justify the development.

For the above reasons, I find the development would be contrary to policy DEV24 of the Local Plan, which requires, among other things, development to demonstrate that it requires a coastal location and that it cannot reasonably be located outside the [name].

The appeal site is located around 300m west south-west of the Malborough Conservation Area (CA). The CA, and the area of the village immediately to the western boundary of the CA, contains a number of grade II listed buildings. I have therefore paid special attention to the statutory requirements placed upon decision-makers by section 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended).

However, given the low-lying nature of the appeal development, the substantial enclosure to the appeal site through its boundary hedges, and the significant intervening distance between the appeal site and the CA and nearest listed buildings, I find the appeal development would not harm the setting of the CA, nor harm the significance or setting of the listed buildings.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal development would be contrary to the development plan, read as a whole, and that there are no material considerations, including policies in the Framework, that would justify determining other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.