Appeal 6001489

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location, having regard to need and its effect on the character and appearance of the area.

Part 3(c) of Policy 2 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 – 2030 (the LP) sets out that the expansion of existing business will be supported, including agriculture. This stance is also echoed within paragraph 2.7 which emphasises the importance of agriculture in the area. However, Part 1(c) of LP Policy 5 states that, in the countryside and smaller rural settlements, business development should be of a scale appropriate to its location or demonstrate an overriding locational and business need to be in that location. Therefore, in essence, the policy calls for an assessment of need, while also assessing the effect of the proposal on character and appearance.

During my site visit it was apparent that there was very little in the way of agricultural related activities taking place on the site. As noted within the appellants appeal statement, the enterprise is in its infancy, and I do acknowledge that it might be difficult to commence any agricultural activities before having the supporting infrastructure in place.

However, in such circumstances it is quite reasonable to expect a sufficient amount of detail so as to be able to conclude that the proposed building, including its relatively substantial size, is necessary. In this instance, the appellant has provided some details of need, including storage of machinery, hay, feed and occasional shelter for a flock of sheep. However, the details are vague and there is a lack of information regarding the amount of machinery and hay, and also the likely size of the flock of sheep. As such, I simply do not have the necessary certainty to conclude that there is a locational and business need for a building of this type, particularly in relation to its rather large size.

In addition to LP Policy 5, other LP policies also require new development to be well designed and to preserve existing character. In this instance, the site is located in the south west corner of a wider field, which itself forms part of a hillside with far reaching views across the surrounding landscape. As such, the site is clearly within a prominent position and is some distance from existing buildings, including the large structures at [name].

In terms of materials used, and its proposed use, the building would not look unusual for a rural area. However, it would be a large and conspicuous building. Given its proximity to the field entrance, its size would be very obvious from the road where it would inevitably be seen as an overly dominant feature which would reduce views of the landscape beyond and therefore harm the rural character of the surroundings. The existing mature hedgerows on the boundaries of the field would not reduce these views to any meaningful extent.

It is also likely that the building would also be a noticeable feature from various vantage points on the other side of the valley where again, as a result of its size, it would be seen as an unusual and incongruous addition to the area. The harm would be exacerbated by the proposed hardstanding which would surround the building on two sides while also providing an access route from the field entrance. The hardstanding would further erode the rural character of the immediate area.

As a result of these considerations, I conclude that the proposed development would therefore conflict with the overarching principles of [name] 1, 2, 12 and 23 as well as Policies EJ3 and GQD2 of the Gwennap Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2019 – 2030 and Policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document. The relevant aspects of these policies seek to promote sustainable patterns of development while ensuring that development preserves character and appearance.

The proposal would also conflict with the relevant parts of LP Policy 5 which seek to ensure that business developments are of an appropriate scale or demonstrate a locational and business need. While this policy was not included within the Council’s decision notice, it has been referred to within the evidence provided by both of the main parties, and I am therefore satisfied that there is not any procedural unfairness in terms of referring to it as part of this decision.

I note that aspects of the National Planning Policy Framework provide support for the expansion of businesses, including agriculture in rural areas. However, the Framework must be read as a whole. Indeed, it places great emphasis on the need for development to be well designed, and I am of the view that the effect of the proposal on character and appearance alone justifies dismissing the appeal.

The site is located within the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site (WHS). The relevant aspects of the Outstanding Universal Value of this designation, and therefore its significance, is associated with the historic mining activities of the area and its impact on the rural landscape over many years. In this instance, the small size of the appeal site, and its distance from any relevant historic mining features, means that the significance of the WHS would not be harmed as a result of the proposed development.

I acknowledge that there are no objections to the scheme from members of the public or the Parish Council. However, that does not mean that the proposal would not result in harm, and I have clearly set out my conclusions in this regard.

The proposed development would result in harm to character and appearance while I have also concluded that the need for the proposed development has not been adequately justified. As such, the proposal would not be in a suitable location, and it would therefore conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. The provision of the agricultural building could have some economic benefits for the local area. However, based on the evidence before me in terms of the likely scale of the business, any such benefits would 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.