Appeal 6005931

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for application for erection of forestry building for storage/workshop and welfare area at [site address] , [address], [site address] , Torrington [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 1/0550/2025/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: 1004 Revision A Location Plan; 1005 [name] Plan; 1006 [name]; 1003 [name]; and 1001 As Built Floor Plan.

The building hereby permitted shall be used solely for the purposes of a forestry business and shall not be used for any recreational purposes. Furthermore, in the event that the building is no longer required, the building will be removed within three months of the cessation of that use, and the land will be restored to its former use.

At the time of my site visit the development had been carried out and appeared to accord with the submitted plans. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on those plans and on its planning merits.

I have removed reference to the development being retrospective in the description of development in the banner heading above as this is not an act of development.

The main issue is whether the appeal site is an appropriate location for the development with particular regard to the local development strategy, including the effect on the character and appearance of the area.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the appeal site is located in the Countryside beyond identified Local Centres, Villages and [name] as defined under Policy ST07 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 October 2018 (LP). I have no reason to disagree.

As well as stating that development in the Countryside will be limited to that which meets a local economic and social need, LP Policy ST07 also supports development in the Countryside which is necessarily restricted to a Countryside location.

In relation to this, LP Policy DM14 supports new small scale economic development in the Countryside subject to a number of criteria. In light of the small scale of the development, management of the woodland and associated sale of logs and proposed honey production, I find that the development comprises small scale rural economic development rather than a hobby site. My finding in this regard is supported by the business/management plans that detail the total investment in the site and projected sales. [name] accept that the level of employment and works do not support a full-time worker or viable independent business, and that a referenced [name] document of the LP states that small scale does not exceed 0.1 hectares, these are not stated requirements of LP Policy DM14.

Criteria (a) and (b) to LP Policy DM14 are not relevant to the development given it does not relate to a change of use and does not adjoin and is not well related to a defined settlement. However, the development does meet criteria (c) as it comprises work related to the management of the woodland and sale of logs and is located within the woodland with clear functional links to the management of the site. [name] have had regard to the concerns raised by the Council to the size of the woodland and cabin, the woodland is nonetheless being managed by the appellant and his son as a small forestry enterprise with the cabin used in association with these works. Furthermore, LP Policy DM14 does not stipulate a minimum size for any forestry activity.

LP Policy DM14 contains three other criteria to be satisfied. The first of these, criteria (d), relates to proposals needing to ensure no adverse impact on living conditions. Given the location of the site a considerable distance from the closest dwelling, given the small scale of the development and small size of the woodland restricting activity and noise levels and given that works to trees could be carried out without a building, this criterion is satisfied.

Criteria (e) states that the scale of the employment is appropriate to the accessibility of the site and the standard of the local highway network. In this regard, the scale of the development is small and used by the applicant and his son with suitable access and parking directly off the highway. [name] have had regard to the concerns from the Council in relation to vehicular access to the cabin, the appellant has agreement to access the site via an adjacent field and via a small entrance through the boundary. Although access is around the edge of the adjacent field that is on a slope, I saw at the time of my site visit that access is made via a small off-road utility vehicle/buggy. Given the small scale of the development, it does not generate a need for access by larger vehicles or necessitate the creation of a formal laid access track. Furthermore, the cabin is only a short walk from the associated car parking area and is located to avoid areas at risk of flooding. As such, the scale of the employment is appropriate to the accessibility of the site and highway network.

The final criteria (f) to LP Policy DM14 states that proposals should respect the character and qualities of the landscape and include effective mitigation measures to avoid adverse effects. This is also reflected in LP Policy ST04 that states that development will achieve high quality design that analyses and responds to the characteristics of the site, its wider context and the surrounding area. In this regard, the site and associated buildings are set within woodland, the car parking is set back from the road with the access shared with the adjacent field, with the cabin positioned further within the woodland such that it is not highly visible from the public domain.

I accept that the UPVC windows and patio doors are residential in appearance, but the shutters will obscure these openings at times, with the windows and doors dark in colour with a number recessed under the canopy above the decking limiting their prominence. Given this, and given the small scale of the building, limited public viewpoints, and given that the building is constructed from timber with a metal sheet roof given it a rural character in all other regards, I do not find the overall appearance of the building to be harmful and find that it suitably respects the immediate landscape.

At the time of my site visit, there were clear signs of forestry activity on the site with regard to tree planting, chopped logs, saws and wood waiting to be processed, albeit on a small scale. Furthermore, there were no kitchen units, there were bee hives and a room within the cabin dedicated to honey production. [name] acknowledge the presence of a log burner, seating, long-drop toilet and generator, these are associated with the management of the land, and they do not in themselves or in combination demonstrate a residential use of the cabin. Moreover, the cabin contains a room and decking for the working of wood under cover and a small admin area related to the management of the land. In light of this, and despite it not being a requirement of LP Policy DM14, I do not find the scale of the building to be excessive.

I have had regard to the comments from interested parties in relation to the poor appearance of the site, the laying of tracks, clearing of trees, works to ponds and other construction works. However, the appeal site is well screened from the closest public footpath and at the time of my site visit, the appeal site was well maintained and tidy. There was a single narrow footpath from the car parking area to the cabin that winds through the trees, and tree clearance appeared no more than would be expected in a managed woodland. I note the reference to works to the ponds, but at the time of my site visit they were natural in appearance, and I have little substantive information before me demonstrating that the extent of change to the ponds is significant and harmful. Furthermore, there were no signs of major earthworks, builders’ rubble, tarmac or construction of other roads at the site.

It follows from the above that the appeal site is an appropriate location for the development with particular regard to the local development strategy and does not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, the development complies with [name] ST04, ST07 and DM14, the aims of which I have outlined above. For the same reasons, I find that the development complies with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework with regard to supporting a prosperous rural economy and achieving well designed places.

I have had regard to comments from interested parties with regard to the effect of the development on ecology, flood risk and water supply. However, I have no substantive evidence before me that the development has been, or would be, harmful to ecology, flood risk or water supply. I also note the intended management of the woodland including new tree planting and associated ecological enhancement. As a result, I do not find harm to ecology, flood risk or water supply and it is noteworthy that the Council raise no concerns in these regards and confirm that the development is exempt from [name].

I have had regard to the tests in the Framework in relation to conditions, and the planning conditions suggested by the Council. As the development has already commenced, there is no need for the standard time condition. It is however necessary for a condition to confirm the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

A condition is also necessary to restrict the use to that being applied for and to prevent any recreational use given the location of the site in the Countryside and in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.