Appeal 6002086

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development was amended to include reference to the application being ‘retrospective.’ This is not an act of development under s55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The evidence however confirms that the development has been carried out and I was able to see this during my site visit.

The submitted plans ‘JRPA-55-1002; As Built Floor Plan’ and ‘JRPA-55-1003; [name] elevations’ depict the building as already converted. It was confirmed by the appellant and the Council at the Hearing that these are the plans for which planning permission is sought and I have considered the appeal on that basis.

The main parties confirmed at the Hearing that the ‘associated equestrian business’ referred to in the description of the development is that carried on at [site address] .

The main issue is whether the site is in a suitable location having regard to the development plan policies concerned with housing in the countryside with particular reference to the re-use of rural buildings and whether there is an essential need for a dwelling to accommodate a rural worker.

The site is located beyond the physical boundaries of existing settlements and, applying the definition in the explanatory text to policy 7 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 (CLP), lies within the countryside for the purposes of development plan policy.

The building is located at the end of a roughly surfaced drive accessed via a single track, rural lane from the A30 dual carriageway. Whilst there is a small number of dwellings and buildings in the vicinity of the site they are part of a dispersed pattern of development which is characteristic of the semi-moorland, partly wooded pastoral landscape in which the site sits. The villages of [name], Altarnun and Trewint lie some distance to the north of the site beyond the A30. Taking into account the Braintree1 and Bramshill2 judgements, the site is physically separate from those settlements and the distance between them and the site means it is isolated from them.

Policies 1, 2 and 3 of the CLP provide the strategic approach to the location of new development in Cornwall. Whilst conflict with policy 3 is not cited in the reason for refusal, the policy is referred to in the evidence and included in the statement of common ground as one of the most important policies for determining the appeal. Although policy 3 recognises that the development of previously developed land within or immediately adjoining a settlement may be acceptable, in my judgement, the site lies in a dispersed pattern of development in the countryside and is not within or adjoining a settlement.

Policy 7 of the CLP restricts the development of new homes in the open countryside to 5 alternative categories. Category 3 of policy 7 relates to the re-use of buildings. Applying the criteria set out in that category, it is a requirement that the proposed re-use of the building “would lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting.” I saw on my site visit that the building is situated between existing buildings with the access and a parking area immediately to its south beyond a grass verge. An open field lies immediately to the north. [name] heard that the use of the building as a dwelling would result in investment in its upkeep, I was not provided with any clear evidence of how this would result in the enhancement of its immediate setting. No external alterations are proposed and I have not been provided with details of any landscaping or other improvements to its immediate surroundings.

The building has planning permission and was originally built as a temporary dwelling more than 10 years ago. Whilst a structural survey of the building was not included with the appeal, I have no sound reason to conclude that the building was not suitably constructed. I heard that it was disused when the appellant acquired the site and has not been used by the appellant as an office/store. Nevertheless, as the change of use of the building to a dwelling does not result in an enhancement of its immediate setting, the development does not meet all the requirements for the re-use of rural buildings set out in policy 7 or paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

Turning to the 5th category of development permissible under policy 7, this relates to new dwellings for full time rural workers “where there is up to date evidence of an essential need for the business for the occupier to live in that specific location.” I heard that 7 horses, comprising 1 stallion and 6 mares are currently kept at [site address] . Of the mares, 4 are broodmares and 2 are livery. I was told that the mix of horses is unlikely to change. Whilst it is common ground between the main parties that the labour requirement calculated using a standard methodology does not exceed a single worker, in practice the horses are cared for jointly 1 [name] v SSCLG, Greyread Ltd & Granville Developments Ltd [2018] [name] 610 2 City and Country Bramshill Ltd v SSHLG and others [2021] [name] 320 between the appellant and a second person who currently lives in the appeal building.

I heard that the principal animal welfare requirements relate to foaling as the broodmares require support before, during and after foaling. Although the exact time of foaling is unpredictable, it is also intermittent. I heard that 2 foals had been born in the 3 weeks prior to the Hearing, 3 foals were born in June/July last year and no foals born in 2024. The timing of the birth of the foals varied with one being born at 1:00am and another at 5:00am.

[name] was told that there had been two emergencies in 2023 resulting separately in the loss of a stallion and a foal, no other emergencies were drawn to my attention. Whilst mares can be cast or contract colic I was not provided with evidence of this occurring at the stables.

There is an existing dwelling on the site which is subject to a planning condition restricting its occupancy to a person solely or mainly working in “horsiculture” at the business established on land at [site address] . It is situated a short distance to the west of the stables and allows a 24 hour presence to be maintained to deal quickly with such emergencies as arise. There is existing CCTV coverage in the stables and I did not hear any sound reason why its output could not be adapted to be viewed from the existing dwelling if required.

Whilst it may be convenient to house a second person on the site to assist with night time emergencies and the accommodation could be provided at low cost to its occupier, the appeal does not include a formal mechanism, such as a planning obligation, to secure it as affordable housing for eligible local households as required by CLP policy 8.

It has not been demonstrated that additional support could not be provided by a worker living elsewhere. Nor has it been demonstrated that an additional worker, if needed, could not be accommodated by improvements to the existing accommodation on the site as indicated in the national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

Indeed, I heard that part of the existing dwelling has already been occupied as an annex. Whilst that part of the dwelling is currently occupied by a family member who is not involved in the care of the horses at the stables, it had been briefly occupied previously by the person helping the appellant care for the horses. I heard no sound reason why it would not provide an opportunity to accommodate a rural worker in the future if the circumstances of the family member were to change.

Overall, I am not convinced that it has been clearly demonstrated that the small number of horses kept at the stables or the number of night time emergencies generates an essential need for a second rural worker’s dwelling.

Notwithstanding this, I also heard that the appellant’s livery and foaling enterprise is a relatively new start-up, sole trader business. Whilst the very limited financial information before me indicated that the modest income for the enterprise exceeded the expenses it incurred, it did not include any financial forecasts for future years or a breakdown of how the income was generated or costs incurred. As a result I cannot be confident from the limited financial information that the enterprise would be viable for the foreseeable future. Whilst this is not an explicit requirement of policy 7, the PPG indicates it is a relevant consideration.

Policies C1 and T1 of the Council’s Climate Emergency Development Plan Document 2023 (the DPD) seek to maximise the use of sustainable and active modes of transport rather than the use of the car for day to day living. The site is not accessible by public transport and the distance between it and the nearest villages, together with the lack of a safe and suitable pedestrian access, means that the occupier of the dwelling would be heavily reliant on the private car to access services and facilities elsewhere.

The Framework recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and I have taken this into account in my decision. I also recognise that a worker visiting the site on a regular basis to work at the stables would also be likely to drive. However this does not mean that the site is in a sustainable location which is where CLP policy 21 encourages the use of previously developed land and buildings.

[name] conclude, for the reasons given above, that the development is not in a suitable location having regard to the development plan policies concerned with housing in the countryside and in particular relating to the reuse of rural buildings and to whether there is an essential need for a dwelling to accommodate a rural worker. It results in a moderate level of harm to the settlement strategy in the development plan in conflict with CLP policies 2, 3 and 7 which seek to direct development to sustainable locations and limit new dwellings in the countryside. It would also conflict with policies C1 and T1 of the DPD regarding sustainable transport.

The site falls within the Cornwall National Landscape. In addition to the statutory duty at section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the Framework requires that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes. Saved policy ENV1 of the North Cornwall District Local Plan (1999) –saved policies 2007 (NCDLP) has similar objectives and sets out the approach to development within the National Landscape. Whilst, over time, the change of use might give the building a more domesticated appearance compared to its use as an office/store, it sits adjacent to the stables and existing dwelling. Although visible from the field to the south, its single storey form and timber materials coupled with existing boundary vegetation means it is not prominent in the landscape. As a consequence, the change of use to a dwelling does not result in harm to the natural beauty of the National Landscape. The development therefore complies with policy ENV1 of the NCDLP which seeks to protect the National Landscape.

The site is screened from Killarney Moors to the east by boundary vegetation. The vegetation, coupled with the distance between the building and Killarney Moors, means the change of use does not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupants of that property as a result of loss of privacy.

I was told that the building drains to an adjacent sewage treatment plant which has sufficient capacity to cater for the change of use. The Council is satisfied that any future issues which might arise, including contamination, would be covered by other relevant legislation. I have found no sound reason to arrive at a different

Whilst the access to the site is via a rough track and country road, the single dwelling would generate relatively few vehicle movements and I have not been provided with any compelling evidence that this would result in harm to the safety of highway users or harmful deterioration to the road surface.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the Framework. These proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. I have therefore had regard to the 2024 Framework in my decision.

Although reference has been made to two other appeal decisions3 in 2019 relating to accommodation at horse related development, I am not aware of the full details of those sites or their planning context. I have determined the appeal on its individual merits.

[name] have not found conflict with policy ENV1 of the NCDLP, the moderate harm which I have identified would result in conflict with CLP policies 2, 3 and 7 and policies C1 and T1 of the DPD. The development therefore conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole.

The Council can only demonstrate 3.9 years of deliverable housing sites which is well below the minimum level required. The policies most important for determining the appeal identified above are therefore out of date for the purposes of the Framework. Consequently, with reference to CLP policy 1 and paragraph 11d) of the Framework, consideration of the presumption in favour of sustainable development is required.

Paragraph 232 of the Framework states that due weight should be given to existing policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. The Framework seeks to avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside. The requirement in policy 7 that the re-use of the building should enhance its immediate setting is consistent with the Framework which also requires that sustainable transport modes are prioritised. [name] policies 2 and 7 and policies C1 and T1 of the DPD are generally consistent with the Framework, and conflict with those policies therefore carries substantial weight, the restrictive approach to housing in CLP policy 3 is not consistent with the Government’s objective in the Framework to significantly boost the supply of new homes. In view of the shortfall in the Council’s housing land supply, the conflict with policy 3 attracts limited weight.

Taking into account the significant shortfall in the Council’s supply of deliverable housing sites, the benefit of an additional dwelling adjacent to the existing stables which would provide convenient, low cost accommodation for a rural worker attracts moderate weight in favour of the proposal. There are also moderate economic benefits from the support that an occupier of the dwelling can give to the existing equestrian enterprise and from their spend on services in the local area. These also attract moderate weight in favour of the development. 3 APP/D0840/W/19/3224692 and APP/J3720/W/18/3202781

Nevertheless, the adverse impact of the development on the settlement strategy significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in CLP policy 1 and the Framework does not apply to this appeal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.