Appeal 6001412

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site forms part of a smallholding associated with [site address] . Although the land sits slightly below the nearby main road, the wider landscape is open, elevated and visually expansive, consistent with the plateau-like qualities described in Cornwall Character Area 10 – Carnmenellis. The immediate field is free of built structures and contributes to the undeveloped rural character of this part of the countryside.

While there are scattered dwellings and farmsteads in the wider area, they do not form part of the visual setting of the appeal site. The site reads as a discrete parcel of agricultural land, with the gravelled access and stored vehicles not forming an established building group.

The appellant highlights the presence of hedgerows and the lower ground level. However, the boundary vegetation is not sufficiently dense or tall to prevent views into the site, particularly outside the summer months. The building would be positioned close to the road frontage, and one of its principal elevations would face towards the highway.

As a result, the development would be visible from the nearby road and from the surrounding agricultural land. Even partial or seasonal views would be enough for the building to register as a prominent new feature in an otherwise predominantly open landscape. In the context of the appellant’s modest smallholding and the absence of comparable built form in the immediate landscape, the building would appear substantial and visually assertive.

The appellant explains that the building is intended to be ancillary to the dwellinghouse and used partly for domestic storage. However, it would be physically and visually detached from the dwelling and separated by a hedgerow. Its scale, form and utilitarian appearance are not characteristic of domestic outbuildings. Consequently, it would not read as an incidental domestic structure but as a substantial, independent building within open countryside.

The appellant further states that the scale is necessary to accommodate vintage tractors, a horse trailer and equipment for managing the associated land. I acknowledge these operational needs. Nevertheless, based on the evidence before me, the personal and functional benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the fact that the building would be disproportionate to the size and character of the holding. It would introduce a form of development that materially erodes the openness of the landscape.

A Cornish hedge bund and additional planting are proposed to soften the building’s appearance. While such measures would provide some mitigation over time, they would not fundamentally alter the building’s scale or its prominence in the short to medium term. Moreover, the introduction of engineered bunding and concentrated planting in this location would appear contrived and uncharacteristic of the existing field pattern. As such, the landscaping would not successfully integrate the development and would itself have an adverse effect on the character of the area.

I acknowledge the appellant’s view that enclosing equipment and vehicles within a building would reduce visual clutter. However, the existing storage is low-lying and visually recessive, whereas the proposed building would introduce a substantial and permanent structure. Any tidying benefit therefore carries limited weight and does not outweigh the landscape harm identified.

My attention has been drawn to agricultural and non-residential buildings approved elsewhere in the wider area. While some appear larger than the appeal proposal, they have their own landscape contexts and planning histories, none of which are before me in detail. Furthermore, I am determining this appeal on its own merits based on the evidence provided. As such, these examples do not alter my judgement on the appeal proposal.

For these reasons, the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it conflicts with Policies 1, 2, 5, 12 and 23 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 – 2030, insofar as they require development to respect, conserve and enhance the character and appearance of Cornwall’s natural, historic and built environment, ensuring that proposals are well-designed, locally distinctive and integrated into their landscape context.

The proposal would deliver a measurable biodiversity net gain and introduce new hedgerow planting. These are positive aspects of the scheme. However, they do not outweigh the significant landscape harm identified.

No harm has been identified to residential amenity or highway safety, but these neutral considerations do not alter the overall planning balance.

For the reasons given above, 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. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.