Appeal 6002914

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for retention of a livestock shelter at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] , Ilfracombe [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 80606, and the plans submitted and documents with it reference LP1 Location Plan, BP1 Block Plan and EV1 Elevations.

An application for costs was made by [name]. Robertson against North Devon District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

At the time of my site visit, I saw that the development was complete and I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

The main issues are: • whether the development would be appropriately located having regard to the Councils development plan policies, and • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is a large parcel of land that is mostly open and is located in the countryside. Policy ST07 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 [name] 2018 (LP) outlines that amongst other things, development will be limited to that which is necessarily restricted to a countryside location.

Policy DM14 of the LP relates to the rural economy and supports development that amongst other things, has a strong functional link to local agriculture, forestry or other existing rural activity.

The development is a small shelter that is located on the edge of the appeal site. Amongst other things, the appellant outlines that the shelter is needed to store hay, feed, tools and equipment which are all necessary for managing the land as well as livestock.

The appellant has submitted detailed information about the use and future use of the appeal site and based on this evidence and what I observed on-site, the building is appropriate for the identified needs of storage for maintaining the land and future livestock. The appeal site is not close to the appellant’s home and there is a lack of other structures available for use on the land, it is therefore reasonable to have a small building for the purposes outlined and it is appropriate for a countryside location.

The appellant states that they intend to keep livestock on the land and have used the land infrequently for this previously. The small shelter is likely too small to provide any shelter to livestock, even with the overhang but it’s not unreasonable to require a covered area to store items for the care of the livestock.

The Council raise concern over the use of contractors, however, for bigger or specialist jobs I do not consider this to be unreasonable or diminish the need for the shelter. Furthermore, while the Council suggest that tools could be bought from the owners house each day. I consider this to be unreasonable, particularly due to the size of the appeal site as well as the ad-hoc nature of the maintenance tasks.

This would also mean the appellant would need to bring all tools and equipment to the site each time they visited or carry out multiple visits to and from their house. Therefore, resulting in an unnecessary increase in vehicle movements to and from the site which could also negatively affect the future use of the cycle path which is required to access the appeal site.

I note that the development is retrospective and that the Council have witnessed the building being used for purposes that may not be related to the use of the land. However, I can only consider the information before me which I consider is reasonable to demonstrate the requirement of the small shelter on the appeal site.

There is little evidence to demonstrate a rural business from the appeal site is being supported. However, Policy DM14 seeks to support the rural economy, agriculture and existing rural activity. In this regard, it is clear from the evidence before me that the development is serving these purposes through the maintenance of the land, employment of contractors and future grazing of the land. Furthermore, Policy DM14 seeks to support improvement and expansion which the development would help achieve.

I therefore conclude that the development would be appropriately located and would not conflict with Policies ST07 and DM14 of the LP and Paragraph 88 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Amongst other things, these seek to support development that has a strong functional link to local agriculture or existing rural activity and the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed, new buildings.

The appeal site is a large parcel of land which is open and free from development. Access is by a private road which provides access to sporadic housing and a forthcoming cycle path passes the rear of the appeal site which is also required to access the field gate to the site.

The shelter is a small wooden structure that sits on the edge of the appeal site, below the cycle path which is located to the rear. While there is little development in the wider area there are some small buildings and shelters visible in surrounding fields. In any case, the small size of the shelter as well as vegetated boundaries means that views are very limited and would be limited too passing glimpses, with the functional appearance of the building not appearing harmful in the wider context of the area.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. I find no conflict with Policies DM04, DM14 and DM08A of the LP which amongst other things, seek to ensure that proposals respect the character and qualities of the landscape.

The Council have alleged conflict with Policy ST04 of the LP within their officer report; however, this Policy has not been referred to within the decision notice. Policy ST04 relates to improving the quality of development and as I have found no harm to the character and appearance of the area, there would be no conflict with this Policy.

I note the concerns from interested parties about the use of land and that grazing of livestock has only occurred recently and that previous owners of the land did not have a shelter; however, this does not outweigh my findings of the need for the storage based on the evidence before me.

The grazing of livestock on the land has the potential to increase vehicle movements to and from the site, however, the Council have found the development would not harm highway safety and I have no reason to conclude otherwise.

Interested parties have raised concern over covenants, land registry details and the maintenance of the private road, however these are not planning matters for which I can consider.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.