# Higher Collybeer Farm, Spreyton (B8 storage units)

- **Decision:** allowed, 23 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Hills
- **Authority:** West Devon (South West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6014952
- **Application reference:** 1315/26/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Erection of four B8 storage units beside an existing storage business
- **Site context:** open-countryside, isolated
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(b), E4, TR3
- **Development plan policies:** Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2019 SPT1, SPT2, TTV1, TTV2, TTV26, DEV15
- **Main issues:** suitable location for rural business
- **Tags:** rural-business-expansion, s5-1-b-necessity, sustainable-location-pass, car-dependent-accepted, small-scheme

## Summary
Four B8 storage units in open countryside in West Devon were allowed on appeal. The site is car-dependent and isolated from any settlement, but the inspector found S5(1)(b)'s "location shown to be necessary" requirement met. The reason was the functional relationship with the established storage business next door: the location was "a logical consequence" of that business expanding. E4's recognition that rural businesses may be poorly served by public transport carried the transport issue.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** Parties commented on the updated Framework (DL ¶2).
- **Relationship to the existing business.** "Although such development is not inherently dependent upon a countryside location, the proposal seeks to expand an established business operating by the appeal site. In that context, the proposed location is a logical consequence of that expansion" (DL ¶8).
- **S5(1)(b): PASS.** "Framework Policy S5 identifies that rural business development may be supported outside settlements where such a location is shown to be necessary. Given the functional relationship between the proposal and the existing business, I am satisfied that this requirement is met … S5 does not require a separate demonstration of unmet demand" (DL ¶11).
- **Transport: acceptable.** The inspector acknowledged "it is very unlikely future occupiers would use transport modes other than private vehicles" (DL ¶5). However, "the development would generate a modest level of activity that would be unlikely to result in a significant increase in trips" (DL ¶12). E4 "expressly recognises that development meeting business needs may need to be located outside settlements and in locations that are not well served by public transport … any such small-scale increase in activity would not conflict with the objectives of Framework Policy TR3" (DL ¶13).

## Planning balance
The scheme complied with the plan: no overall conflict with TTV26, and support from DEV15 and TTV2 (DL ¶10, 14). The established business attracted significant weight. The small loss of Grade 3 land was justified.

## What made the difference
The existing lawful business next door. The inspector accepted that storage units are not inherently rural, but read S5(1)(b) necessity as satisfied by the need to expand an established enterprise in place. Compare the Shropshire wigwams (PINS-6008804) and the Cornwall holiday schemes, where there was no established enterprise and necessity failed. A standalone new storage yard at this site would probably have failed.

## Transferable points
- S5(1)(b) necessity can be met by functional dependence on an adjacent established rural business, even where the use itself could go in a settlement (DL ¶8, 11).
- S5(1)(b) does not require a separate E2 demonstration of unmet demand (DL ¶11).
- For low-intensity rural business uses, car-only access is not a TR3 conflict where extra trips are modest (DL ¶12-13).

## Policy findings
- **S5(1)(b): pass.** necessity of a location outside a settlement met by the functional relationship with the existing established storage business next door (DL 8, 11)
- **E2: neutral (limited weight).** council's E2 unmet-demand objection given limited weight; S5 does not require a separate demonstration of unmet demand here (DL 11)
- **E4: accord.** supports sustainable growth of rural businesses and recognises they may need locations outside settlements not well served by public transport (DL 13)
- **TR3: pass.** car-only access accepted; modest activity and local catchment mean no significant increase in trips (DL 5, 12-13)

## Key facts
- Site isolated from settlements but physically well-related to an adjacent B8 unit and shared access off an A road
- Existing storage business said to be oversubscribed; inspector accepted units could in principle be in a settlement
- Small loss of Grade 3 land already disturbed by an access track (DL 10)
- Council's suggested use-restriction, hours and CEMP conditions not imposed (DL 16-18)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6014952
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/065ab2ea-e7e4-49f5-9d95-f37ae31772d3

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6014952.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.