EXMOOR National Park Authority has been accused of taking a "pragmatic view" when deciding which buildings should be retained for business use and which ones converted into private homes within the park.

The comments were made by Government planning inspector George Mapson as he overturned the authority's refusal to allow Exmoor House conference centre, in Porlock, to be converted into a private home.

He said no justification had been given for the refusal while similar applications to convert Doverhay Place, in Porlock, and Tarr Steps Hotel, Hawkridge, into private homes had been approved.

Exmoor House owners Peter and Sandra Hall also won a second appeal against the park authority to build a new house and garage within the grounds of the property.

Exmoor House - formerly Terrells Hotel and Restaurant - has been run by the Halls for the past four years as a conference centre providing stock market training.

However, they have seen a swing in their business practices in favour of more internet-based training, meaning the house itself is now under-used and no longer viable as a full-time conference centre.

In refusing to grant permission for the use of the building to be changed from a business to a private house, park authority members had argued that such a change would significantly harm the economic wellbeing of Porlock.

They believed the property should be retained for business use as "the continued employment use of Exmoor House would be sustainable".

But in his investigation, Mr Mapson concluded that the property was in a far from sustainable position as there was little or no transport choice, other than private cars, for delegates using the centre.

He said Somerset County Council's highways authority had felt the change of use from business to a private home would in fact bring benefits to the area as the number of vehicles visiting the property would reduce if the change went ahead.

Mr Mapson agreed and said the park authority had failed to supply any evidence that the loss of the conference centre would harm Porlock's economy.

He said the two members of staff currently employed at the centre would continue to work for the company, but would be based at home rather than at Exmoor House.

Mr Mapson said: "It seems to me that the loss of the business itself would have a negligible effect on Porlock. For much of its existence, Exmoor House has been in full or partial residential use.

"It is not a big local employer. It employs two staff, both of whom would be retained.

"The business use of the premises has become unviable and will soon cease whatever the outcome of the appeal."

He said the park authority could give no explanation as to why "an apparently different view" was taken on refusing change of use permission for Exmoor House, while similar applications for hotels in the area had been successful.

However, he said, the authority had "inferred" that it might re-consider its original decision if the Halls tried "more comprehensively" to market the building as a business concern.

Mr Mapson said: "The council [park authority] has not assessed the local need or demand for premises of this type for either office/conference . . . consequently, the only evidence before me on this matter is that provided by two local estate agents.

"Their evidence suggests that in this locality there is an extremely limited market for premises of this type of use.

"The property is large and needs a great deal of maintenance. It therefore appears most unlikely that an alternative employment use could be easily found."

Mr Mapson concluded: "In the absence of any clear evidence to the contrary, it seems to me that the loss of the employment use of Exmoor House would have little, if any, effect on the economic wellbeing of Porlock."

He also disagreed with the park authority's decision to refuse the Halls outline planning permission to build a house and garage within the grounds of Exmoor House.

He said little had changed since outline permission was given in 1989 to warrant a refusal the second time around.

"I accept there have been some changes in planning circumstances . . . but I find that none of these changes are so significant as to justify withholding permission for this development," Mr Mapson said.

He gave the Halls' plans approval, subject to seven conditions concerning the retention of trees and boundaries, landscaping, visibility splays and submission of the finer details of the plans.

He took issue with each of the park authority's four reasons for refusal - the introduction of a policy to protect orchards, proposals to encourage sustainable development, highway safety policy changes and an increase of traffic on the A39.

Mr Mapson said it was now clear the development would "largely unaffect" a small orchard within the grounds of Exmoor House as the trees were outside the development site.

He said that, although an additional house would give rise to some car usage, this was expected with almost all housing developments in rural locations and said the occupants of the new house would, in turn, help to support local services such as schools and shops.

He also concluded that highway safety policy changes were less than significant and that access from the A39 was no more dangerous now than it had been in 1989.

He added: "The proposed closure of the office and conference use of Exmoor House would significantly reduce traffic movements at this access point.

"In that respect, despite some shortcomings in terms of visibility to the east, the access would be no more dangerous now than it was formerly.

"In fact, in my opinion, it is likely to be far safer."