Planning appeal decision
Coope, Ashwater, Beaworthy, EX21 5HE
Planning appeal 3229627 at Coope, Ashwater, Beaworthy, EX21 5HE (Torridge District Council) was allowed in part (a split decision) on 22 November 2021 by Inspector Curnow R, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Ground (d) – The Stables: whether the four-year immunity period applied to the change of use of the stable/bunkhouse to a single dwellinghouse.
Enforcement notice alleging (i) material change of use of a building (stable/bunkhouse) to residential use; (ii) unauthorised construction of a wooden structure; (iii) siting of a caravan for human habitation
- Authority
- Torridge District Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Change of use
- Inspector
- Curnow R
- Postcode
- EX21 5HE
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Ground (d) – The Stables: whether the four-year immunity period applied to the change of use of the stable/bunkhouse to a single dwellinghouse
- Ground (d) – The Caravan: whether the ten-year immunity period had been met for the residential use of the caravan
- Ground (a) – Columbine: whether planning permission should be granted for the residential use of the wooden structure as tourism accommodation
- Ground (g) – The Stables: whether the compliance period allowed by the Notice was reasonable
What decided it
Whether continuous residential occupation for the statutory immunity periods, and (for Columbine) an existing viable tourism attraction under Policy DM18, could be evidenced determined the outcome on each element of the notice.
the significant weight attributed to the benefit of holiday/care-farm accommodation for disadvantaged people did not outweigh the harm arising from non-adherence with the Council's adopted policy approach (Policy DM18) to holiday accommodation in rural areas, given the absence of an existing tourism attraction
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy DM18Policy ST07
- Judgments
- Gravesham BC v SSE & O'Brien [1983] JPL 306; Burdle & Williams v SSE & New Forest DC [1972] 1 WLR 1207; Birmingham Corporation v Minister of Housing and Local Government and Another [1963]; Forest of Dean District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and another [1994] JPL 937; Barton Park Estates Limited v SSHCLG and Another EWCA [2021]; Dyer v Dorset CC [1988] 3 WLR 213; Burford v SSCLG & Test Valley BC [2017] EWHC 1493 (Admin); HM Attorney-General ex rel Sutcliffe & Rouse & Hughes v Calderdale BC [1983] JPL 310; McAlpine v SSE [1995] JPL B43
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision


More decisions in Torridge
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2021
- Dismissed30 July 20263375548The Big Sheep, Abbotsham, Bideford, EX39 5AP
- Allowed29 June 20266006625Moorview Cottage, Pyworthy, Holsworthy, EX22 6LG
- Planning permission granted18 February 20263356368Outbuilding Within Rear Garden, Clinton House, Sheepwash, Devon, EX21 5NQ
- Allowed4 December 20256000831Lufflands Caravan Park, Sutcombe, Holsworthy, Devon, EX22 7PJ
- Allowed3 December 20253352946Bowood Farm, Roborough, Winkleigh, Devon, EX19 8TE
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®