EXMOOR National Park Authority members have called for planning inspectors to be given specialist training after a cattle shed was allowed to be built in open moorland following a successful appeal.

The authority's planning committee chairman Cllr Richard Edgell said Government-appointed inspector Julie German had failed to address adequately community concerns and her decision had knocked members' confidence in the Planning Inspectorate.

Ms German had been called in on behalf of the national inspectorate to determine an appeal by landowner Mike Willes.

He had been refused planning permission by the park authority for a partly-built cattle shed alongside the B3224 at Heath Poult Cross.

The authority's planning committee had been unanimous in its objection to the development on the grounds of the impact it would have on the surrounding landscape.

Mr Willes had argued the shed was necessary to improve welfare conditions for his cattle and was needed to provide winter shelter for stock on land at Quarme Combe Farm.

Ms German gave great weight to the needs of farmers in her report but only briefly mentioned the visual impact of the proposed development.

She allowed the appeal after concluding the shed would have "no unacceptable impact on the landscape and scenic beauty of the national park".

Cllr Edgell said there was "great concern" over the "quality" of her decision as it had failed to address the main concerns of the planning committee.

He said he accepted inspectors could come to a different view and allow appeals but said the reasoning behind such decisions had to be explained to show concerns had been analysed, understood and considered.

In a letter to Sir Michael Pitt, the inspectorate's chief executive, Cllr Edgell said: "There is a duty on the inspector to explain cogently how they have looked carefully at the site and understood its key characteristics and to logically describe why, in their judgement, the planning circumstances lead to a conclusion that permission should be granted.

"In the view of the planning committee and among the local community where there is considerable anger, this did not happen in this case and confidence in the professionalism of the Planning Inspectorate has been diminished."

In her appeal decision, Ms German noted the main issue was the proposed building's impact on the landscape and beauty of the national park.

She also acknowledged that the authority's policies sought to support economic growth and job creation.

She said the authority had not challenged the need for the building and said she understood there was no alternative site for the cattle shed.

Equally, she said the materials proposed for the shed were consistent with any other agricultural building so would not appear out of place in the landscape.

In her only specific reference to the shed's visual impact, she said: "I recognise that it would be large but I have been presented with no substantive evidence to suggest that it would be larger than reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture on the holding.

"In addition, the roadside hedge and the fall of the land would mitigate its impact when seen from the highway to a degree and additional landscaping would serve to further soften its visual impact when seen from the wider area."

Her report went on to acknowledge the difficulties of reconciling the needs of rural business with the conservation of the beauty of loc al landscapes in general terms.

She concluded: "Clearly, the appeal entails the erection of a large and utilitarian structure on land which is currently open and undeveloped.

"Nevertheless, the national park is a living and working landscape which to a great extent has been shaped by agriculture.

"If the agricultural stewardship which has shaped the landscape is to continue to prosper, I believe the needs of farming businesses must be recognised and accommodated where possible.

"In the case before me I concluded that the balance of considerations, which included the need for the building, the lack of a more suitable site and the limited visual harm, indicates that the appeal should be allowed."

Cllr Edgell said Ms German turned up 45 minutes late for a site visit at Quarme Combe Farm and claimed she was there long enough to investigate whether alternative sites were available for the proposed shed.

He said parish councils, the Exmoor Society and local pressure group Exmoor Uprising had all raised concerns about the visual impact of the building.

"This is a truly breathtaking location that is appreciated by local residents and visitors alike and is, therefore, deserving of considerable scrutiny at any appeal.

"The decision letter does not give confidence that the inspector has given the great weight to conserving the landscape and natural beauty of the area; this being the first statutory purpose for which Exmoor is designated a national park," Cllr Edgell said.

In his letter to Sir Michael, he said he was certain the inspectorate would be able to defend legally Ms German's decision but said that was not the point he was trying to make.

"If inspectors do not understand and cannot interpret the landscape character and the elements of scenic beauty of an area, and this is a skill and appreciation that comes from training and experience, then it follows that they will not be able to recognise the harm to those special qualities that such a development may cause," Cllr Edgell said.

"The planning committee feels that this is what has happened in this case and the cursory mentioning of national parks and landscape in the letter does not demonstrate the depth of understanding and appreciation required to consider such an appeal.

"Going forward, the inspectorate has specialist inspectors that deal with subjects where technical expertise is required.

"I would suggest that analysing landscape character and impacts in protected landscapes is one such area where a small group of inspectors could be employed and trained to ensure that the special qualities in these areas can be understood and more detailed analysis undertaken and articulated in decision letters."

But Sir Michael robustly defended both Ms German's qualifications and her appeal decision in his reply to Cllr Edgell.

He conceded she was late for the site visit but said she had read all the appeal documents in advance and was "quite clear" about what she needed to see and do in order to reach an informed decision.

Sir Michael said: "I have read the decision and the inspector understood what was being proposed and that she was required carefully to consider the impact of the development on the landscape and scenic beauty of Exmoor National Park.

"I appreciate that you and others disagree with her judgement . . . however, the courts have repeatedly maintained that reasons can be briefly stated and inspectors do not need to refer to every material consideration."

He said inspectors were not legally required to be specialists in any one field and were only obliged to weigh up the evidence before reaching a "reasoned and reasonable judgement".

Sir Michael added: "Landscape assessment is one of the core skills required of any planner and inspector and I am satisfied that as a chartered town planner Ms German was an appropriate appointment in this case."