Appeal 6003528

The appeal is dismissed.

Only the easting and northing of the appeal site was included on the planning application form, with the description of “[name], Ilsington”. For clarity, I have also included the full address on the banner heading above, which was used on the appeal form.

The description of development on the decision notice differs from that on the planning application form. I have used the description from the planning application form in the interests of conciseness.

The welfare facility is already in situ on the site, and appears to have been completed in accordance with the submitted plans. I have therefore considered the appeal on this basis.

The main issues are (a) whether it is suitably located, having regard to the Policies in the Development Plan, and (b) the effect of the development on flood risk.

The site is located within a valley, in a small clearing of woodland, within the open countryside. The site is relatively long in comparison to its width, with [name] running the length of the site. A forestry business operates from the site, which is a timber depot. Timber from the neighbouring woodland, which the appellant manages, as well as timber from off-site maintenance is processed at the site. The site is also used for the storage of equipment and machinery used in the forestry business. A timber-clad welfare facility, the subject of the appeal, sits adjacent to a storage container and barn.

Policy 5.8 a) of the Dartmoor Local Plan 2018 – 2036 (2021) (Local Plan) states that forestry development will be permitted where the development’s scale is proportionate to a proven functional need which cannot be met by an existing building.

The use of the site for the forestry business is established. The appellant has set out that the development is essential for the welfare and safety of the employees and equipment. Based on the evidence before me, and my observations on site, I am satisfied that there is a functional need for a welfare facility in connection with the business.

Notwithstanding whether the scale of development is proportionate in the context of Policy 5.8, it is first necessary to establish whether the need can be met by an existing building.

In addition to a storage container, a large barn is also on the site. It is enclosed at both ends and the top part of the flank wall is open sided. A raised decking area is attached to one end of the barn.

The barn has a large footprint and is currently used as a wood processing facility. However, I have limited evidence relating to the frequency of its use, or the way in which the barn is used internally for wood processing. The appellant asserts that the existing barn is not currently secure, nor would it provide a clean area for the storage of first aid provisions or the maintenance of safety equipment. Nevertheless, I have limited evidence before me that adequate consideration has been given to whether the existing barn could be made suitable for these facilities.

I acknowledge that there are limited public views of the site, particularly the area within which the development is sited. However, Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) is clear in that the scale and extent of development within National Parks should be limited. As such, the provision of separate welfare facilities would increase the scale and extent of development on the appeal site.

Paragraph 5.5.5 of the Local Plan requires an appraisal to be submitted to demonstrate that the functional need of the development cannot be met by an existing building. While the appellant goes some way to demonstrate the functional need of the development, the evidence presented is not sufficiently robust to show that this need cannot be met by the existing barn.

The English National Parks and the Broads UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 sets out that one of the National Park purposes is to conserve and enhance natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage. Policy 5.8 b) of the Local Plan also identifies that forestry development will be permitted where it conserves and/or enhances the National Park’s Special Qualities, particularly landscape character. In this regard, the increase in the number of buildings on the site would conflict with the purposes of the National Park without adequate justification.

Accordingly, there development would not be suitably located, having regard to Policy 5.8 and Policy 1.3 of the Local Plan, which the development would conflict with. Collectively, they seek to ensure that forestry businesses have a proven need to locate in the open countryside, and the proven functional need cannot be met by an existing building.

The site is located within [name] 3, which is confirmed within the submitted Flood Risk Assessment by STM Environmental, dated 19 March 2025 (FRA-2025- 000007), and it is established that there is a functional need for the location of the site within [name] 3.

Policy 2.5 of the Local Plan requires development to conserve Dartmoor’s water environment. It goes on to state that where development must be located within flood risk areas, there will be appropriate flood protection for the lifetime of the development, and the development will not increase flood risk elsewhere. This is also supported by Paragraph 181 of the Framework.

I am aware that information relating to infiltration testing and either details of a soakaway or an attenuation-based surface water drainage management system has been requested by the Lead Local Flood Authority. While this information has not been submitted by the appellant, I am not aware of any physical constraints that would prevent these mitigation measures from being implemented. As such, a condition could be imposed were I minded to allow the appeal.

On that basis, the development would be acceptable on flood risk grounds, and would comply with Policy 2.5 of the Local Plan.

As set out above, I have found the development would be acceptable in terms of flood risk. However, I have found that the proposal would not be suitably located, having regard to the policies of the development plan.

The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. For the reasons given the appeal should be dismissed.