Appeal 6001469

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The appeal proposal is for the siting of a shepherd’s hut. At my site visit, I was able to see the shepherd’s hut at the site. The application has been submitted retrospectively, and consequently I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

The main issues are: • Whether the appeal site is in a suitable location for holiday accommodation with regard to accessibility; and • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site lies within open countryside to the north‐west of the settlement of Camborne, occupying an elevated position within an undulating landscape on the western side of a river valley. The narrow and unlit C0288 highway runs along its western boundary and to the south lies the [name]. The site forms part of the landholding associated with [site address] and is located approximately one kilometre north of Camborne. It is accessed from the C0288 at [address], where roadside hedgerows provide some screening. Development within the wider area is sparse and dispersed, and the locality exhibits a distinctly rural character.

The proposal is for holiday accommodation, and the appellant maintains that the structure is moveable and not permanent; however, I do not have any evidence to suggest that the structure would be removed when not in use and the evidence is that there is a deck in place. Nevertheless, it appears from the evidence before me that the shepherd’s hut provides the facilities required for day-to-day private domestic existence, a matter which is not disputed. Moreover, it would not lose these characteristics if it were occupied for only part of the year, or at infrequent intervals, or by a series of different persons. Consequently, the proposed accommodation exhibits the characteristics of a dwellinghouse.

The Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 (the Local Plan) resists development in the open countryside. Preferring to direct it, hierarchically, to within settlements and thus sustainably related to services on which future occupiers would rely day to day. This strategic approach to the spread of new development in the plan area is established by Policies 2 and 3 of the Local Plan. There are some exceptions.

Policy 7 of the Local Plan permits housing in the open countryside where it is shown that special circumstances exist. Several criteria are listed against which proposals may be assessed, and the proposal fails to accord with any of these criteria. Likewise, paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) advances exceptions for development in the countryside, none of which are met by the proposal.

Section 3 of Policy 5 of the Local Plan sets out that proposals for new tourism facilities should be of an appropriate scale to their location and to their accessibility by a range of transport modes. The matter of accessibility for Policy 5’s purposes is in the context of the proposed development’s scale rather than that it should, as a point of absolute, be accessible by a range of transport modes.

I acknowledge the support for rural tourism indicated by the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework). The appeal scheme is for one holiday let in a rural location. Thus, small in scale. Regarding accessibility of the location, the rural position of the site is not in question. There is no bus stop nearby, and access to the nearest settlement is approximately 1km away. There are no footways as part of the highway and access to the settlement would require walking on the unlit highway where the national speed limit applies. Consequently, it would be highly likely that future users would be mostly reliant on the private motor vehicle. That is not to say the location would preclude travel through cycling entirely. Whilst there is no nearby harmonious cycle route, that is not to say that the local highway network could not be cycled, unattractive though this option may be for those less abled.

The Climate Emergency Development Plan 2023 (CEDPD) Policy C1(6) reinforces the efficacy of the consideration of different modes of transport and active travel. It requires development to maximise the ability to make trips by public transport, sustainable and active modes of transport in all (my emphases) developments through careful design and mix of uses that actively support walking and cycling rather than car use for day-to-day living. Although the proposal is tourism related, such uses have the propensity to generate similar movements for shopping, recreation, dining, and the like by the private motor car.

Furthermore, CEDPD Policy T1 (2) aims for development to be designed to integrate existing settlements through inclusive, active travel networks ensuring easy and sustainable connections to community facilities and infrastructure. The proposal would be predominantly, if not wholly, reliant on the private motor vehicle, likely resulting in increased journeys by private vehicle contrary to the sustainable transport aims and objectives of Policies C1 and T1 which, amongst other things, seek to reduce harmful greenhouse gases.

Taking all matters above into consideration, including its low key and otherwise low energy use, the proposal would not be a suitable location for holiday accommodation regarding accessibility. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with policies 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 of the Local Plan and policies C1 and T1 of the CEDPD, insofar as they seek: to control development in the open countryside; a sustainable approach to accommodating growth; maintaining the dispersed development pattern of Cornwall; support for sustainable tourism; and tourism facilities that are of an appropriate scale to their location and to their accessibility by a range of transport modes. Furthermore, the proposal would conflict with the relevant paragraphs of the Framework insofar as they seek sustainable rural tourism that exploits any opportunities to make a location more sustainable.

The Site is within the Cornwall Landscape Character Area Silverwell to Camborne (CCA09), which, amongst other things, describes the rural area as mixed arable and pastoral landscape with a medium scale field pattern often with well treed [name]. The appeal site occupies an elevated position within an undulating landscape on the western side of a river valley, and there is a mature hedgerow.

I note the lack of external lighting, and I accept that the shepherd’s hut is green in colour and its location close to the hedgerow goes some way to screening the development; however, given its deciduous nature, that screening is limited to the summer and autumn months. I also note that there is no landscaping or further planting proposed to mitigate the proposal. Consequently, the parking of vehicles and the introduction of residential paraphernalia into the open countryside, including the deck, fencing and hot tub, amongst other things, would adversely affect the visual appearance of the area and jar against the rural character and local distinctiveness of the area.

Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with policies 12 and 23 of the Local Plan, insofar as they seek high quality design that respects the character and appearance of the locality and the landscape. The proposal would also conflict with the guidance in the [name] 2021 paragraph 3.1.2 insofar as it seeks development that maintains Cornwall’s distinctiveness and responds to the local landscape. In addition, the proposal would conflict with the relevant paragraphs of the Framework insofar as they seek development that effectively uses land whilst valuing and enhancing the natural landscape.

Based on the appellant’s submissions the proposal provides a form of seasonal holiday accommodation. This would support the visitor economy, increase local spend and aid businesses and jobs within the wider area. This may also promote active lifestyles and greater appreciation and understanding of the natural environment. These aims are supported by some local and national policies. Even so, given the modest scale of the proposal any associated benefits would not outweigh the harm identified and the proposal would not be in accordance with the development plan as a whole.

The appellant has referred me to other approved applications for holiday accommodation by the Council. I am not bound by the Council’s decisions, and I have not been provided with any substantive detail to demonstrate how these other applications relate to the subject appeal. As such I afford them little weight.

I acknowledge the small scale of the proposal and its likely small scale use of energy and lack of additional infrastructure. Nonetheless, these matters would not outweigh the harms I have identified.

The appellant maintains that there is no harm to highway safety. Compliance with policies relating to highway safety would be a neutral consideration and would not outweigh the harms I have identified.

The lack of objection from statutory consultees and the Town Council would not indicate support for a proposal and would not outweigh the harms identified.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.