	Casebook
	Cases from this week's Casebook section of Planning magazine and PlanningResource. To download the full decision for any case, you will need to create an account on Compass Online.

SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE

PLOT B, COTTAGE VIEW, WOODHOUSE DOWN, ALMONDSBURY, BS32 4HW

Amenity block extension allowed in green belt due to need An inspector allowed the extension of an amenity unit at a gypsy site in the green belt in south Gloucestershire, finding that it was justified by very special circumstances. The appellants cited government guidance in Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites – Good Practice Guide. The inspector found that the existing building did not satisfy this guidance, especially with the access to the bathroom direct from the kitchen and the lack of any living/day room. He considered that this was a factor in support of the development but not necessarily justification for the large size of the building, which seemed to him to depend more on the personal needs of the family. In accordance with their way of life and beliefs the extended family on the site all made use of the facilities in the amenity building. The inspector observed that, as well as not complying with the guidance in the good practice guide, the existing amenity building was very small to meet the basic cooking, eating, living, washing and sanitary needs of the twelve people on the plot. He understood why the family needed a larger block, noting that they had to eat their meals in shifts because of the limited space. The inspector noted that there was a fallback position that would allow up to six mobile homes to be stationed on the plot. As a concession, the appellants stated that they would be willing to accept a condition limiting the number to three. The inspector considered that this was a material consideration which would safeguard the openness of the green belt. He also found that there was an undoubted need for additional sites in the area and so it would be unrealistic in the short term to expect any of the existing residents to seek accommodation elsewhere. He concluded that there were very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh inappropriate development in the green belt.

402 PENN ROAD. WOLVERHAMPTON, WV4 4DF

Window treatment would not harm local centre An inspector varied a condition attached to a permission for a Tesco store in Wolverhampton, finding that doing so would not result in harm to the vitality and viability of the local centre or community safety. The original condition had been breached in that on two of its frontages, one facing a road and one facing a car park, the glass below a 1.1m high transom had been obscured by vinyl sheeting. Furthermore, the sheeting had been extended over the transom for something over a metre for much of the car park frontage. Manually operated roller blinds had also been installed along the road frontage. The inspector saw that the store seemed reasonably busy and he was told that it had been trading at expected levels. Despite the vinyl sheeting he found good visibility into the store from the footway on the road frontage and that it did nothing to lessen the attractiveness of the store to customers. The appellant contended that the roller blinds were necessary to counter the effects of high solar heat gain and glare. The inspector considered that use of the blinds could be a more significant issue but was told that staff were instructed only to lower them when conditions really required. He considered that the temporary use of blinds in exceptional circumstances would be justified. The inspector noted that the extended obscuring on the car park frontage screened chiller and freezer cabinets. He held that it would be unacceptable if this were the store’s only frontage or that facing the highway. However, he reasoned that it could be held to be a secondary frontage. He concluded on this issue that the combination of the impact of both frontages did not threaten the vitality or viability of the local centre. The inspector found that the car park frontage raised issues of community safety. However, the appellants suggested that a closed circuit television system could be installed in the car park. This would be linked to the existing system of internal surveillance in the store. The inspector considered that this would ensure that community safety was sufficiently safeguarded.

THE PLOT, OLD BLANDFORD ROAD, SALISBURY, WILTSHIRE, SP2 8DA

Kennels incongruous and out of character with dwelling The erection of a garage and kennels in the front garden of a dwellinghouse in Wiltshire was rejected because of the adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the area. An inspector noted that the structure would occupy a substantial proportion of the front garden and having regard to its size, bulk and functional appearance the developments would appear incongruous and harmful to the street scene. The proximity of the structure to the front and side boundaries would also give the structure an unduly cramped appearance which when coupled with the noise generated by barking dogs justified dismissing the appeal, he ruled.

THE BEACHCOMBER PUBLIC HOUSE, DANE ROAD, SEAFORD, EAST SUSSEX BN25 1DX

Sheltered housing scheme design fails on public house McCarthy and Stone Assisted Living failed to secure planning permission for 66 apartments in addition to affordable housing on a site in East Sussex notwithstanding an inspector’s conclusion that the loss of a public house would not harm the tourist potential of the area. The appeal site lay in a prominent and open position on a seafront. It was occupied by a public house, two houses and four maisonettes and was adjacent to an area of public open space. The appellants proposed to erect a six storey building within which the assisted living units would be provided. Twenty-two affordable housing units would be sited in a separate building. The inspector decided that the main building would appear overly dominant and would have a significant impact on the openness of the seafront. It would be taller than adjacent buildings, he recorded, and while some increase in height might be justified given the prominence of the site, the introduction of six storeys would be unacceptable. In his opinion, the openness of the seafront was an important characteristic reflecting the historical development of the town. The scheme would therefore fail to make a positive contribution to the character of the area, he decided. In so finding he agreed with the appellants in respect of the demolition of the public house. The facility, although somewhat shabby and down at heel, provided a potentially valuable opportunity for tourists and visitors to eat and drink, he opined and in his view the retention of the facility would increase choice. However, none of the council’s policies set out a requirement for food and drink uses to be retained on the site, he noted, and in his opinion the loss of the facility would not undermine the attractiveness, quality and tourist potential of the seafront. Therefore, its loss was acceptable in principle, he decided.

RICHMOND-UPON-THAMES

WALCOT, HAGGARD ROAD, TWICKENHAM TW1 3AF

Rear dormer agreed to comprise roof alteration In allowing an appeal and issuing a LDC an inspector decided that a development involving changes to a dwelling house roof in Twickenham was permitted development. The appellant proposed significant alteration to the roof involving alterations to a gable end and the construction of a dormer to enable the loft to be converted. The whole of the rear roof slope would be removed together with part of one of the bungalow’s gables. The council claimed that the works were very extensive and involved an enlargement of the property which exceeded the tolerances set out in Class A of Part 1 to Schedule 2 of the GPDO 1995. The appellant stated that the works fell within Class B of the Order involving an increase in the cubic content of the dwelling of less than 50m3 and as a consequence it was permitted development. The inspector decided that the scheme did not fall within Class C of Part 1 to Schedule 2 because the works materially altered the shape of the roof. However, he agreed with the appellant that they fell within Class B notwithstanding the fact that less than half of the original rear roof would remain. This was sufficient, in his opinion, for the proposal to involve an alteration to the original structure as opposed to an enlargement of the dwellinghouse.

BRADSHAW FARM, WASPERTON, WARWICK CV35 8EB

Detailed farmhouse design leads to excessive building size An appeal seeking approval of the detailed design of an agricultural worker’s dwelling in Warwickshire was rejected because it would lead to an unacceptably large building. In granting outline planning permission for a dwelling on the site the council had been satisfied that there was a functional need for the property. However, it had imposed a condition on the permission which stated that the dwelling should have a gross floorspace including any garage not exceeding 140m2. The appellants submitted plans for a dwelling of 200m2 claiming that they had a large family and a smaller dwelling would not meet their needs. The inspector noted, however, that national advice in PPS7 made clear that a new dwelling was intended to meet the requirements of the enterprise rather than the proposed owner or occupier. At 140m2 it would be possible to build a detached three bedroom house with the normal living facilities, he concluded. Although the business appeared to be profitable this did not obviate the need to ensure that the dwelling was kept to a size commensurate with the needs of the holding, he decided, and dismissed the appeal.

HATTON VIEW FARM, TARPORLEY ROAD, HIGHER WHITLEY, CHESHIRE

Removal of agricultural building unjustified A condition imposed on a planning permission for an agricultural building at a farm in the Cheshire green belt which required its removal if it ceased being used for agriculture was struck down by an inspector who held that it was unjustified. The council claimed it was concerned about the proliferation of buildings within the green belt and the implications on the openness of the area. The condition required the removal of the building within 10 years of the date after it had ceased being so used unless an alternative use had been agreed, it stated. The inspector decided, however, that the local plan policies relied upon by the council failed to offer any support for this approach. Additionally, he had not been referred to any aspect of national guidance that would justify the condition in the absence of local policy. It was therefore not necessary because there was no policy basis to protect the green belt’s long term openness through such a condition. More fundamentally, he was not persuaded that the condition was reasonable. The council had offered no evidence to suggest that it consistently attached a similar condition to all planning permissions for new agricultural buildings. The appellant, on the other hand, had referred to a permission granted for a free range egg production unit on his farm where the condition had been omitted. The fact that the council was unable to cite other examples of development where a similar condition had been used suggested to the inspector that there might not be any. He decided, therefore, that the condition was not reasonable or necessary and it was deleted. He also awarded costs against the council due to its failure to justify the condition by reference to local plan policies or national guidance

RICHMOND-UPON-THAMES

CENTRAL COURTYARD AREA, ST LEONARD'S COURT, ST LEONARD'S ROAD, EAST SHEEN, SW14 7NG

Air raid conversion judged to harm mansion flat development The conversion of an underground air raid shelter in the garden of mansion flats in south London to two self contained apartments was rejected because it would harm the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of residents. The shelter was beneath the central raised garden area of the 1930s development. Access was via a concrete staircase from a conical tower on one side of the garden. Below ground, the shelter comprised four main rooms in two parallel chambers each bisected by a central corridor. An inspector observed that the impression was of a traditional, well-ordered residential enclave which contributed to the townscape and was clearly designed to be appreciated as a whole. He noted that the new dwellings would be contained largely underground. However, they would demand new and more imposing structures with a sloping grassed roof, pergola and staircase enclosure rising to two metres above the level of the raised garden. He held that the superstructure would appear obtrusive and as an ungainly afterthought which would disrupt the generally uncluttered sweep of the raised garden. The proportion of built to open space would also be diminished. He decided that the proposal would spoil the setting and local distinctiveness of the development. On living conditions the inspector considered that the visible structures would obtrude into views across the garden so spoiling existing residents’ amenity of outlook and that residents of the new flats would suffer intrusive overlooking.

SOUTH OXFORDSHIRE

LAND AT THAME SHOWGROUND, THAME, OXON

Cattle market relocated to countryside site An inspector sanctioned the relocation of a cattle market in Oxfordshire after concluding that it was a valuable resource which needed a new site and this consideration outweighed the adverse landscape impact which would result. The scheme involved erecting a new building approximately 500m from the built up area of a settlement. The building’s footprint would be 3,300m2, comprising two storeys with a further 442m2 of space at first floor level. The council accepted that the existing cattle market required a new site. However, it asserted that the impact of the development on the countryside would be unacceptable. The inspector noted that the proposed building would be functional and would have a larger footprint when compared with most agricultural buildings. It would appear as a large building in the open countryside and there was little prospect of it being screened by new planting, he decided. It would impact on views from a nearby bridleway such that overall it would cause significant harm to the local landscape. However, the inspector decided that his conclusion on this matter was not decisive. The council had published a consultation document which had identified thirteen possible sites for the relocation and one of these was the appeal site. There was little doubt that the existing cattle market site suffered from operational shortcomings which included a lack of covered pen space for animals and severe congestion on the local road network on market days. In his opinion, there was a degree of urgency and it was inappropriate to require the appellants to wait until the council had allocated a site through its local development framework. The appeal site had certain advantages, he decided. It adjoined a showground and both facilities would be within a single ownership allowing car parking to be shared. The provision of a permanent building associated with the weekly cattle markets would also be of benefit to the showground. The latter included an annual sheep fair and government requirements required a high level of bio-security to avoid the spread of disease. The use of the cattle market on the adjoining land would provide secure holding pens for animals which, when coupled with the need to relocate the market, weighed significantly in favour of allowing the appeal, he ruled.

LAND AT DUNSFOLD PARK, STOVOLDS HILL, CRANLEIGH, SURREY GU8 8TB

Use of helicopters for filming cars would not disturb neighbours An inspector varied a condition prohibiting the use of aircraft including helicopters and a condition limiting the testing of cars at a building, track and runway in Surrey used as a film studio, finding that it would not harm the amenity of local residents. The site had been used as an airfield during the Second World War. The inspector noted that the site benefited from a large number of temporary planning permissions, and had been used by the BBC for filming Top Gear since 2003. A track had been formed on the airfield for use by cars in association with filming. The inspector was not satisfied that the council had provided sufficient information to show that the condition prohibiting aircraft use was necessary to protect local residents from unacceptable disturbance due to noise. However, he noted that national advice given in Paragraph 16 of Annex 3 to PPG24 acknowledged that helicopter noise was often regarded as more intrusive or more annoying by the general public than that from fixed wing aircraft. He anticipated that helicopters would need to hover over one spot during filming, which would be a noisy activity. He accepted the council’s suggested condition limiting the use of an aircraft to six days a year, two days a month and a total aggregate of two hours a day. The inspector also substituted a condition limiting the evaluation, testing and filming of cars to three days a week for the original condition which allowed three days a week but on no more than two consecutive days. The appellant stated that this would give greater flexibility to cater for such things as changes in weather and breakdowns. The inspector found that the new condition would not result in any material change in the effect of noise on local residents’ living conditions.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE

LAND AT QUAYSIDE ROAD, NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NE1 2BJ

Tall building protects gorge setting A major mixed use development along the River Tyne in Newcastle-upon-Tyne was approved after an inspector carefully considered the impact of a tall building on the setting of the river’s gorge. The proposal involved a residential building up to 13 storeys high together with a six storey office building. In addition, food and drink and retail floorspace would be provided including a public square and art gallery. The site lay within an area covered by a masterplan at the confluence of the rivers Tyne and Ouseburn. The council had also published a study which examined the urban landscape along the gorge of the River Tyne which highlighted various views which had to be protected from tall buildings. The inspector decided that the prominent site demanded an appropriately prominent building. The residential building had not been designed to stand “politely” in its surroundings and the importance of the site demanded that a suitably designed and prominent building should be developed. Its mass would be in keeping with other major buildings along the river and would not harm views of the river’s gorge, he opined.

LAND OFF HIGH STREET, SANDYFORD, TUNSTALL, STOKE-ON-TRENT ST6 5NN

Restaurant use would impede traffic flow A ground floor restaurant with seven apartments above was rejected in a Staffordshire town because access to the site would impede the free flow of traffic. The appeal site was located on the high street, an A classified road. An inspector noted concerns about vehicles crossing or joining the southerly flow of traffic onto the high street. He held that gaps in the traffic would be required in order to break through what could be a standing queue. He reasoned that signage might assist but that access would depend on the goodwill of drivers. Nevertheless, based on the appellant’s assessment of traffic flows, he found that the proposal would not have a material impact on the free flow of traffic. However, the council had assessed peak hour traffic flows for 2015 following the opening of a northern bypass. When considered in the context of anticipated continuing traffic growth in the UK the inspector found that these clearly suggested that the northern bypass would attract and cater for traffic which at present used the high street. In such circumstances he had considerable reservations regarding the appellant’s assertion that only 60 per cent of the restaurant customers would approach from the south. In addition, he remarked that the style of operation of the restaurant and the number of covers was unknown. The inspector concluded that revised traffic patterns, growth in vehicle ownership or a large number of restaurant customers could result in traffic backing up onto a roundabout which would impede the free flow of traffic.

VILLAGE FARM, EAST PORTLEMOUTH, SALCOMBE TQ8 8PE

Temporary dwelling allowed with costs An inspector granted temporary planning permission for an agricultural dwelling in Devon and in so doing also decided that the council had acted unreasonably in refusing the application. In addition to the dwelling the appellant sought permission to convert farm buildings to enable him to operate a livery business. The council had refused permission on the basis that it would undermine highway safety, the site being accessed by a network of narrow roads. The county council in respect of an identical application had accepted a travel management plan submitted by the appellant and had recommended that permission should be granted. The inspector noted that the travel management plan assumed that a proportion of trips associated with the trekking operation would be linked to tourists visiting a neighbouring settlement which was accessed via a ferry across an estuary. In his view, given the need to drive over 20 kilometres by car around the head of the estuary to access the site, the use of the ferry by pedestrians who would then walk to the site or be collected by mini-bus seemed plausible, he opined. Overall, he decided that there would be a negligible increase in traffic on the local road network. He also ruled in favour of the appellant, granting a partial costs award in dealing with the need to rebut the council’s concern on highway danger. The council had failed to substantiate its reason for refusal despite the county council withdrawing its objection when presented with a second application which had been accompanied by a travel management plan. The inspector decided, however, that the planning evidence submitted on behalf of the appellant had not been relevant to his consideration of the case and had been unnecessary. Therefore, those costs should be borne by the appellant, he concluded.

FOSSE WHARF LODGE, FOSSE WAY, OFFCHURCH CV33 9BQ

Narrowboat justified by agricultural need An inspector quashed an enforcement notice and granted a five year planning permission for the mooring of a houseboat on the Grand Union canal in Warwickshire, finding that it was justified by agricultural need. The appellants ran a livestock enterprise on adjacent land involving small herds of alpacas and Kune Kune pigs. An inspector held that it was an emerging business to which paragraph 12 to Annex A of PPS7 applied. He believed that the appellants were committed to building up their enterprise, having invested in the animals, field shelters and fencing. He noted that the appellants’ case in regard to the functional test arose mostly from the alpaca enterprise. They were subject to disease but it was against their nature to show that they were ill so constant monitoring was necessary. Birthing could take place at any time of year. The inspector found that their value was a compelling point, with a female alpaca being valued at £6000. He took the view that there was a case for one or more workers to be available at most times. The inspector found that the narrowboat did not appear as an alien feature on the canal, as might a mobile home in a rural setting, and was not at odds with the character of the area.

TICEHURST VILLAGE HALL, THE RECREATION GROUND, LOWER HIGH STREET, TICEHURST

Mesh fencing and basketball hoops denied at hall The owners of a village hall in East Sussex failed in a bid to vary the terms of a condition imposed on a development involving an all weather playing area, an inspector deciding that the amenity of local residents would be undermined. Planning permission had been granted in 2006 and the appellants wished to increase the height of a mesh fence surrounding the site. They also sought permission for installing goal mouths and basketball hoops together with a youth shelter. The inspector decided that the fence would have to be raised if the additional facilities were provided in order to prevent stray balls leaving the playing area. However, the installation of permanent goals and basketball hoops would make the area more attractive than a simple all weather playing surface. In his view, it was more likely to attract people wishing to congregate socially while others used the facilities for recreational or sporting activities. The bouncing of balls off the mesh fence and the hoops would also generate increased noise, he reasoned, which would also harm the amenity of local residents. The increased need for recreational activities had to be balanced against the need protect the amenity of residents, he opined.

2 GOOSE LANE COTTAGES, CHIPPING, PRESTON, PR3 2QF

Chimney in keeping with quality landscape An inspector authorised the erection of a chimney on a cottage in the Forest of Bowland AONB in Lancashire concluding that it was a feature commonly found on properties in the locality. The cottage formed part of a group of properties developed within the grounds of a former dairy, the inspector noted, and the chimney would be formed on the gable end of one of the houses projecting over one metre above the ridgeline. In his opinion, the feature would not be out of keeping with the property or the AONB. Indeed, he decided that the chimney would add an appropriate level of detail to a small cottage.

ACORN HOUSE, WARFIELD LANE, OFF OAK ROAD, COWTHORPE, WETHERBY

Large pub in small village overruled The demolition of a dwellinghouse and the erection of a public house and restaurant in a north Yorkshire village were denied permission because of the potentially adverse impact on local residents. An inspector noted that the facility would provide 46 car parking spaces and was likely to generate a considerable amount of new business with the pub’s garden close to an adjoining property. Noise from delivery vehicles together with people sitting in the garden and leaving the pub late in the evenings would have a detrimental impact on local residents, he opined. Coupled to this concern was the likelihood that customers would travel to the village by car. These vehicles would use the narrow country lanes leading to and from the village, he decided. Given the lack of public transport facilities locating the facility in a relatively remote location would be contrary to the principles of sustainable development, he ruled.

253 SHINFIELD ROAD, READING RG2 8HF

Detached snooker room claim questioned given overall size A LDC was denied for the development of a detached snooker room and double garage in Berkshire because it contained facilities which were not incidental to the use of the property as a dwellinghouse. The building would measure approximately 14m long and 10m wide with a pitched roof under four metres in height. The total footprint including an attached double garage would be approximately 184m2 which would be approximately double the amount of floorspace in the existing dwelling. The submitted plans showed a small room within it containing a toilet ad shower. The remainder of the building would remain open. The council argued that the size of the building was excessive and far exceeded the space required to house a snooker table and gymnasium. The inspector agreed that a games room to house a snooker or billiard table would be incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. So too would a double garage. However, no evidence had been submitted about the need for the building to be so large, he decided, and Class E of Part 1 to Schedule 2 of the GPDO 1995 was intended to allow buildings within the curtilage which would accommodate leisure activities which were incidental to the enjoyment of the main house. The proposed building greatly exceeded the need to accommodate a snooker table, he concluded, and he dismissed the appeal.

FIELD NOS 5890 & 4295, HUTTON HALL FARM, HUTTON MAGNA, RICHMOND, NORTH YORKSHIRE

Rifle range reduces rights of way amenity The construction of a rifle range in North Yorkshire was rejected because the noise would adversely affect the amenity of people using adjacent rights of way. The scheme involved constructing a steep sided mound approximately nine metres high. The shooting platform would be 65m away and would be served by 12 car parking spaces. The appellants confirmed that the majority of users would use .22 calibre weapons which generated low noise levels. In addition, the range would be regulated by the police authority in accordance with strict codes of practice removing the risk that people outside of the range would be shot. An inspector noted that a number of people had questioned the noise levels generated by small calibre weapons stating that it was quite likely that horse riders and people using the public footpaths would be startled by the gunfire. Although the appellants had suggested that acoustic fencing could be erected no details had been provided nor had it been shown that this would reduce potential noise levels to acceptable levels, he opined. Red flags could also be flown when shooting was occurring but this would not stop horses reacting badly when shots were fired, he ruled. The site lay within the countryside and was generally peaceful, he concluded, and the scheme would materially affect this tranquillity, he decided.

KENSINGTON & CHELSEA

1 CHEYNE GARDENS, CHELSEA, LONDON, SW3 5QU

Mansard roof alterations not subordinate Alterations and extensions to a mansard roof in a west London conservation area were denied because the scheme failed to be visually subordinate to the main dwelling. The council had granted planning permission for an additional storey. However, the appellants wished to add a further storey by replacing the existing mansard roof with a new roof with a hipped end. The inspector decided that the increase in height would lead to an extension which was no longer subservient to the host property and would therefore adversely affect its character and the local townscape.

46 BLACKBOY ROAD, EXETER

New shop front held to lack sensitivity and overly fussy An enforcement notice requiring the removal of UPVC windows at a shop in an Exeter conservation area was upheld, an inspector deciding that the windows failed to preserve the character of the locality. The appellant stated that the original windows had been constructed of iron with plate glass. They were badly damaged, he asserted, and he therefore decided to replace them with white UPVC similar to other commercial premises in the area thereby maintaining continuity and improving the quality of the building which had been vacant for many years. He also claimed not to have known that permission was required. The inspector decided that the new shop front lacked sensitivity noting that it comprised two double doors with windows on either side. The result was an overly fussy and unnecessarily complicated design which paid inadequate respect to other properties in the area. Its unattractiveness was compounded by the use of plastic components which introduced a domestic element into a commercial unit. The work failed to make a positive contribution to the character of the area and it had resulted in a “disfigurement” and was unworthy in a conservation area, he opined.

THE WAREHOUSE, MERE ROAD, STOW BEDON, ATTLEBOROUGH, NORFOLK, NR17 1HP

Personal permission given for mobile home use An inspector in allowing an appeal seeking the retention of a mobile home in Norfolk decided that it should be conditional on the appellant only being able to live there. A temporary permission for a mobile home on the site had been granted in 1987 and this was renewed in 1990. The council refused permission for its permanent retention because the site lay in the countryside and special justification for it to remain had not been provided by the appellant. The inspector noted that since the last temporary permission had expired in 1993 a mobile home has been stationed on the site although the council had refused to issue a LDC confirming that it was lawful. Although in policy terms the site lay in a rural area in practical terms it was sited in a complex of commercial buildings. The appellant, he noted, worked from one of the units and, in his opinion, the council’s failure to seek its removal after the temporary permission expired suggested that the mobile home did not have a particularly serious impact on the character of the area. In his opinion, granting a personal permission would allow the appellant to remain on site until he wished to move to a permanent dwelling or to continue to develop his business on the adjoining land.

LAND ADJACENT TO WALNUT BARN, CHURCH LANE, HUTTON, WESTON-SUPER-MARE

Reasonable agricultural need for new hay barn The erection of a hay barn and machinery store in the Mendip Hills AONB in Somerset and within the grounds of a grade II* listed farmhouse was secured, an inspector being convinced about the need for the development and that it would have an acceptable impact. The appellant proposed to erect the building which would be constructed on a stone clad plinth with structural oak framing. The exterior would be clad in horizontal green oak boards and roofed in clay tiles. He asserted that the building would resemble a traditional threshing barn and was needed given the large size of the holding and the lack of any comparable facility on the farm. The council questioned the extent of the need noting that modern farm machinery could easily be accommodated in a structure of reduced height. The inspector decided that on balance there was sufficient evidence as to the need for the building. In addition, he decided that the building was not inimical to the setting of a nearby conservation area, the listed farmhouse nor the AONB. In his opinion, the agricultural occupation of the site had ebbed and flowed over the last five centuries and the presence of the building was not fundamentally harmful to its historic agrarian character.