Appeal 6001800

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission for erection of marquee and use of land for events is refused.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Cornwall Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision

This appeal relates to development that has already been carried out. However, the development differs from the submitted plans as the hardstanding area differs in size. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, I am considering the development proposed on the submitted plans as opposed to the development that has been built.

As set out in the banner heading above, the Council failed to determine the application to which this appeal relates within the prescribed period. Since the appeal has been made, the Council has provided reasons that they would have refused planning permission for, had they retained jurisdiction to do so.

The appellant has had the opportunity to respond to these in their final comments. Therefore, they would not be prejudiced by my taking these into account and forming the main issues. With these reasons for refusal in mind, I consider the main issues to be: • The effect of the development on nearby occupiers living conditions, with particular regard to noise; • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; • Whether the site provides a suitable location for the development, with particular regard to the local spatial strategy; and • The effect of the development on highway safety with particular regard to on-site parking and manoeuvring.

Although within open countryside, the appeal site is in reasonably close proximity to the villages of Bridge and Illogen. Moreover, further sporadic residential dwellings lie closer to the appeal site along [site address] .

The appellants Design, Accessibility & Planning Appraisal (DAPA) states that the development provides a multifunctional community venue which is host to weddings, fun days, live music and charity events. Moreover, the Council state, and not refuted by the appellant, that the marquee can seat 160-180 guests, or up to 300 guests standing.

The appellant accepts that the nature of some of the events is such that there will be some noise. Indeed, even if no formal action has been taken by the Council’s Public Protection Team, interested party representations have indicated that amplified music from the marquees is clearly audible within a nearby dwelling which affects conversation and the ability for the occupants to relax. This is stated to be particularly so given the low background noise of the rural location, notwithstanding highway and agricultural machinery noise.

No acoustic report or other technical evidence or information has been provided with the submission. In the absence of any technical noise assessments, it is not possible to fully ascertain the noise likely to be generated by the use, or indeed if any mitigation is required or likely to be achievable.

Given the external lightweight material of the marquee and associated likely low noise attenuation qualities, its location within a largely open field, proximity of nearby residential dwellings and existing ambient noise levels, harm to living conditions of nearby residents cannot be ruled out. Therefore, although hours of operation could be controlled by planning condition, this is a matter which should be resolved before planning permission is granted rather than leaving it to a planning condition.

Consequently, I conclude that it is not possible to satisfactorily ascertain if the development would have an acceptable effect on nearby occupiers living conditions, with particular regard to noise. The development therefore conflicts with Policy 12 of Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 – 2030 (LP). This Policy seeks, amongst other things, to protect individuals and property from unreasonable noise and disturbance.

The appeal site is within an attractive rural landscape which exhibits a number of the key characteristics of the landscape character areas it falls within1, being within a pastoral field on a valley slope enclosed with Cornish hedge boundaries. As a result, the appeal site has more resemblance with the open countryside in which it is located rather than any nearby settlements and positively contributes to the rural character of the area. 1 CCA09 Silverwell to Camborne; CCA14 [name].

The marquee building is adjacent to an existing agricultural building, with the appeal site as a whole adjacent to land used as a certificated campsite, and also near a neighbouring caravan site. As such, the marquee is not seen as being clearly divorced from other development or indeed as a self-contained entity in the landscape.

Nevertheless, the adjacent agricultural building is of a utilitarian appearance that is expected to be seen within the countryside, whilst the marquee due to its external materials and general appearance appears as an eye catching and alien feature in the rural landscape. Moreover, hard surfacing of the site forming part of the appeal proposal is significant and would further draw the eye.

However, views of the appeal site and marquee are largely restricted from distance due to topography and mature hedge boundaries, with only fleeting views gained from occupants of vehicles passing the entrance. As such, although the development would erode the generally rural character of the area and diminish the positive contribution that it makes to the landscape, its harmful effect would be modest.

Consequently, I conclude that the development would harm the character and appearance of the area in conflict with LP policies 2, 12 and 23, policies PH3 and PEH1 of the Illogen Neighbourhood Development Plan 2016-2030 (NDP) and Policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document 2023. Amongst other things, these policies seek to secure development that improves environmental conditions, add to the quality and distinctiveness of the area by being of high-quality design, and be respectful of setting and the special character of Cornwall.

LP Policy 5 is supportive of new business development providing it is of a scale appropriate to its location or demonstrates an overriding locational and business need to be in that location such as farm diversification. There is, therefore, no objection in principle to a countryside location for the commercial use of land for events providing the criteria of LP Policy 5 are met.

The DAPA outlines that the development seeks to diversify the function of the farm, providing additional revenue and securing the ongoing vitality of the site, thereby responding to the changing nature of the farming economy. Nevertheless, details of how the development would support the farm business are sparse, with no business plan or similar such information before me.

However, the details provided do indicate a need for an event space of the scale of the development, with the appellant stating they have received more than 25 enquiries for weddings, workshops and community gatherings (all locally based) requiring a venue of this size. In addition, I am told there have been several charity events held at the site because the organisers of those events were unable to find alternative sites locally that could accommodate their size requirements. Moreover, the appeal site is well related to adjacent camping and tourism accommodation, which could be utilised by attendees of events at the appeal site.

Furthermore, the nature of the use of the site for events creating potential associated noise and disturbance is not well suited to residential areas. Notwithstanding my findings on the first main issue, the appeal site is located away from dense groupings of residential dwellings and whilst in the countryside is in close proximity to Illogan and Bridge, with a bus route running past the site.

There is no official bus stop outside the appeal site, and although close to the nearby settlements, parts of the route to the appeal site comprises highway without footways restricting their attractiveness, particularly at night or in poor weather. As such, it is likely that a significant number of people attending events the appeal site would utilise private transport. However, the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) states that planning decisions should recognise that sites to meet local business and community needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport.

Moreover, I am mindful of the benefits of the location away from high density residential areas as outlined above, and that the Framework acknowledges that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas.

To conclude, in terms of the principle of the development, the development is of a scale appropriate to its location, with sufficient locational and business need to be within this particular location. Therefore, the appeal site provides a suitable location for the development, with particular regard to the local spatial strategy in accordance with LP policies 1 and 5. These policies seek to ensure sustainable development and support jobs, business and investment with a focus on sustaining a range of local businesses.

Within the Councils suggested reason for refusal on this main issue, NDP Policy PEH1 is quoted. However, as this relates to matters of landscape character, I have considered compliance with this Policy in the previous main issue.

Although the development is likely to attract a number of private vehicles given the amount of guests the facility is able to cater for, the submitted plans include a significant area of hardstanding throughout the appeal site.

Such quantum of hardstanding would be more than sufficient for the level of parking likely to be required, as well as sufficient space for easy vehicle manoeuvring, allowing vehicles to leave the site in a forward gear. Given the available visibility, vehicles joining the highway in a forward gear would not result in highway safety concerns. Furthermore, whilst the development is operational, given the difference in hardstanding I observed at my site visit from the submitted plans, if planning permission were forthcoming, a planning condition could be imposed to ensure parking and turning area are provided and retained as such.

Consequently, I conclude that the development does not have a harmful effect on highway safety with particular regard to on-site parking and manoeuvring. The development accords with LP Policy 27 which, amongst other matters, requires development to provide safe and suitable access and not cause a significantly adverse impact on the local or strategic road network.

Social and economic benefits flow from the development through providing employment opportunities and a multifunctional community venue, with money raised at previous events for a local charity. Further benefits come from the support of other business and suppliers in the locality. Notwithstanding, I have not been presented with any substantive evidence of the breadth of such benefits and given the scope and scale of the development and associated likely level of employment, I find such benefits are likely to be modest.

Other planning permissions2 that have been granted by the Council are cited by the appellant. However, one involves a change of use of an existing covered store to a function room, whilst the other relates to a seasonal/temporary use. Furthermore, these permissions involve differing locations and spatial relationships with nearby dwellings, and both submissions appear to have included additional information in relation to noise disturbance. This limits the equivalence of the other permissions to the development before me. Moreover, the current appeal development has its own circumstances, and I shall determine it on its own merits.

[name] have found no development plan conflict in relation to the principle of the location of the development or harm to highway safety, I have found modest harm to the character and appearance of the area, and insufficient information to ascertain if the development would have an acceptable effect on nearby occupiers living conditions, with particular regard to noise. These latter matters are a prevailing consideration, and the development is in conflict with the development plan, read as a whole.

No material considerations, individually or cumulatively, indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.