Land adjacent to, Purdoms Crook, Sandysike, Longtown, Carlisle, Cumbria, CA6 5ST

Land adjacent to, Purdoms Crook, Sandysike, Longtown, Carlisle, Cumbria, CA6 5ST — Cumberland — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 January 2025 by C Livingstone MA(SocSci) (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4 March 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/F0935/W/24/3352295 Corner of field adjacent to public layby, located off A7 southbound side of the Edinburgh to Carlisle road, north of Westlinton crossroads. • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Marc Gardner, Gardners Guns Ltd, against the decision of Cumberland Council. • The application Ref is 23/0717. • The development proposed is siting of a shipping container and storage unit, joined together to form a takeaway hot and cold food facility. This would be for takeaway only, no seating. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. Application form indicates that the change of use commenced in October 2023. The unit is in place and at the time of my site visit was operating as a hot and cold food takeaway. Main Issues 3.

Land adjacent to, Purdoms Crook, Sandysike, Longtown, Carlisle, Cumbria, CA6 5ST — Cumberland — Appeal Decision The main issues are: • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and • the principle of the development with regard to its countryside location and local plan policy. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal site is located in the countryside on a rural layby off the A7 between Westlinton and Longtown. The development comprises of a grey metal shipping container and a connected structure that are in operation as a hot and cold food takeaway. Grey metal fencing has been positioned beyond the side elevation of the container and in front of the entrance, partially screening the development. 5. The countryside surrounding the appeal site is characterised by flat open fields and mature trees and hedgerows. The development has an industrial appearance that is in stark contrast to the rural setting and fails to reflect the established character of the area. In light of this it appears as a prominent and incongruous element on the roadside. The harm in this regard is not lessened by the colour of the units and there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that hedging or design amendments would address the identified harm. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land adjacent to, Purdoms Crook, Sandysike, Longtown, Carlisle, Cumbria, CA6 5ST — Cumberland — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/F0935/W/24/3352295 6. For the reasons detailed above the development has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it is contrary to Policies EC11 and SP6 of the Carlisle District Local Plan 2015-2030 (CDLP), which require that developments are compatible with the existing rural setting, are in keeping in terms of scale and character with the surrounding landscape and buildings and reinforce local architectural features to promote and respect local character and distinctiveness. Principle of development 7. As detailed above the appeal development is located in the open countryside. Policy SP2 of the CDLP sets out eight criteria that govern strategic growth in the region. The eighth criterion listed in this policy requires that development in the open countryside is assessed against the need to be in the location specified. 8. Based on the evidence before me the appellant owns a shooting range that neighbours the appeal site and they assert that the development secures their land from trespass and damage.

Land adjacent to, Purdoms Crook, Sandysike, Longtown, Carlisle, Cumbria, CA6 5ST — Cumberland — Appeal Decision However, I am not certain that the appeal development is the only way that the shooting range and the land under the ownership of the appellant could be suitably secured and protected. 9. The development may meet a demand for takeaway food for individuals travelling along the A7. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that takeaway food could not be provided in settlements or service stations along the A7. In light of this there is no clear justification for the need for a takeaway in an open countryside location. 10. The neighbouring shooting-range, existing commercial development within the wider area or the potential development of the Ministry of Defence site at Longtown are not sufficient to demonstrate that there is sufficient demand to warrant the siting of temporary structures for the provision of takeaway food in the open countryside. 11. Any environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions for the permanent siting of the structures, as opposed to movements of a van serving takeaway food, would be limited. Therefore, any environmental benefits do not provide sufficient justification for the development. 12.

Land adjacent to, Purdoms Crook, Sandysike, Longtown, Carlisle, Cumbria, CA6 5ST — Cumberland — Appeal Decision For the reasons detailed above the principle of the development is unacceptable with regard to its countryside location and the requirements of Policy SP2 of the CDLP which states that development in the open countryside is to be assessed against the need to be in the location specified. Other Matters 13. My attention has been drawn to a demand from the Council for the payment of non- domestic rates on the development in December 2024. The requirement to pay business rates is a separate matter and not an indication of the acceptability of the development in planning terms. 14. Whilst it is regrettable that the appellant may have received contradictory advice, pre-application advice provided by the local authority cannot pre-empt the democratic decision making process or a particular outcome, in the event that a formal planning application is made. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Land adjacent to, Purdoms Crook, Sandysike, Longtown, Carlisle, Cumbria, CA6 5ST — Cumberland — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/F0935/W/24/3352295 15. The appellant raised concerns that the planning application was not publicised appropriately. I am not certain that a planning application for the appeal development would have required an advert in the local paper. Within their report the Council state that a site notice was put up at the site on 6 December 2023. I have no reason to doubt that this was the case. 16. I note from their letter of support that Arthuret Parish Council may not have received a consultation regarding the initial application for planning permission. However, I note that they were notified as part of the appeal process and as such were given a reasonable opportunity to provide comments on the development. 17. Authuret Parish Council have submitted a representation which supports the proposed development, the points they raise are addressed above. While their support is a material consideration it is of insufficient weight to outweigh the harm identified which is contrary to the development plan as a whole. Conclusion 18. Based on the evidence before me the appeal development provides an employment to one full time and two part time members of staff.

Land adjacent to, Purdoms Crook, Sandysike, Longtown, Carlisle, Cumbria, CA6 5ST — Cumberland — Appeal Decision Given the number of employees I afford only limited weight in favour of the development in this regard. 19. However, I have found that the development has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and it has not been clearly demonstrated that there is a need for the development in the open countryside. The adverse effects in these respects are considerable and outweigh the benefits detailed above. 20. The development conflicts with the development plan. This conflict is not outweighed by other considerations. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Land adjacent to, Purdoms Crook, Sandysike, Longtown, Carlisle, Cumbria, CA6 5ST — Cumberland — C Livingstone INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3