Appeal 6000635

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the Cornwall and West Devon World Heritage Site (WHS); and • the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is located within the Gwennap Mining District of the WHS. The Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site Management Plan 2020-2025 (WHSMP) describes the WHS as a series of ten areas comprising the distinctive patterns of buildings, monuments and sites which together form the coherent series of distinctive cultural landscapes created by the industrialisation of hard-rock mining processes in the period 1700 to 1914.

The appellant’s Heritage Statement1 (HS) identifies that the appeal site is part of a larger enclosure historically known as ‘[name] which the HS states can be conclusively identified as an enclosure that was originally created as part of a mineworkers’ smallholding.

Mineworkers’ smallholdings are identified as one of seven attributes through which the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the WHS is expressed. Consequently, mineworkers’ smallholdings are an important feature of the WHS both visually and in respect of an understanding of its origins, and their presence is one of the reasons for its establishment.

Furthermore, the Council’s WHS Supplementary Planning Document 2017 sets out that although the way land is used and managed has changed significantly 1 DAMSE0724_HIA v1.2 03/03/2025 over time, with traditional miners’ smallholdings no longer being occupied or managed under their original use or tenure, their authenticity is retained through the preservation of, amongst other things, historic field boundaries.

The HS states that the southwest, southeast and northeast boundaries are shown on 19th century maps and so relate to the smallholding landscape developed between Carharrack and [name]. However, the northwest boundary of the site constitutes a modern subdivision, with the HS stating that ‘the current site no longer has the character of ‘a smallholder enclosure’ – although its general character remains that of agricultural land, making a lesser contribution to OUV than land where all the characteristics of smallholding landscapes survive with high integrity’.

Nevertheless, I observed that large parts of the northwest boundary are formed by lightweight timber post and rail fencing. Even if this boundary has been in place for a number of years as evidenced by aerial photography, I find, contrary to the HS, that the appeal site is clearly seen as, and legible as part of the larger enclosure of the former smallholding. Moreover, the existence of invasive and ornamental species, hardstanding and modern buildings on the site, whilst reducing, do not significantly erode legibility.

Moreso, even if better preserved blocks of smallholder enclosure landscapes survive in the proximity, I observed the historic field pattern that the appeal site is within retains sufficient integrity and authenticity as part of the legible historic smallholding landscape. As such, it’s associations to a mine-workers subsistence lifestyle remains and it retains its ability to express OUV as a key attribute of the WHS. Therefore, I find that the site does positively contribute to the OUV of the WHS.

Even if the creation of a new Cornish hedge could help restore some integrity, the proposal would lead to the presence of modern residential built form, domestic paraphernalia, general residential use and a re-enforcement of the subdivision of the historic small holding. This would also result in the appeal site being seen more as part of the adjacent settlement, as opposed to the historic smallholding, further eroding the legibility of the historic smallholding landscape, and harming the OUV.

Nevertheless, the impact would be minimal relative to the overall extent of the WHS and whilst not negligible as is put to me, would be towards the lower end of less than substantial within the meaning of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework). However, the Framework sets out that less than substantial harm should be weighed against any public benefits associated with the development.

The proposal would deliver an increase of one dwelling in a location close to services and facilities, in an area where the Council are unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.

Further public benefits include economic and social benefits to the local area, both short term during the construction period, and longer term through future occupant’s use of nearby services and facilities.

However, the Framework sets out that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets and due to the limited scope and scale of the proposal, and notwithstanding the Councils housing land supply, these benefits in combination attract only modest weight and would not outweigh the harm that I have identified to the WHS.

To conclude, the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the WHS and would conflict with policies 12, 21 and 24 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 (LP), and Policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document 2023 (CEDPD). These policies seek, amongst other matters, to ensure that proposals respond to and are demonstrably informed by historic landscape character and to avoid harm to the authenticity and integrity of the OUV of the WHS. The proposal would also conflict with policies P3, C2 and C9 of the WHSMP, which seek, amongst other things to protect, maintain and enhance the historic character and distinctiveness of the WHS.

The appeal site is an area of pasture which features a stable building, further small outbuilding and areas of hardstanding. Whilst in close proximity to the settlement of Carharrack, and the presence of sporadic built form, the appeal site has a rural character and is seen as part of, and positively contributes to the countryside landscape, distinct from the more semi-rural urban character of the settlement.

The proposal would result in the replacement of stables which have a functional appearance and rural character akin to its surroundings, as well as the associated pasture, with urban residential built form and domestic garden and associated paraphernalia. Given the positive contribution that the appeal site currently provides to the character of the area by being part of the countryside landscape, the proposal, despite being set low with the provision of additional planting and screening, would inevitably result in the encroachment of residential development into the countryside with associated harmful erosion to the rurality of the area.

However, given the presence of sporadic residential development outside of the settlement, further residential built form along the highway at the appeal site would not be wholly unexpected or out of place. Moreover, the proposed design has been carefully considered and would reflect the appearance of nearby residential built form, being a traditional bungalow featuring external materials sympathetic to the local vernacular and set behind hedge and decorative planting. As such, the identified harm would be modest.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would result in modest harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposal would conflict with LP policies 1, 2, 12, 21, 23 and 24, and CEDPD Policy C1. These policies seek, amongst other things, to ensure development respects and enhances the quality of place, are appropriate in character and appearance, and protect the natural and historic environment.

The Council are unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply of deliverable housing sites, with the appellant suggesting the Council have stated that 3.9 years can be demonstrated. For the purposes of paragraph 11 of the Framework, the WHS is an asset of particular importance as denoted by footnote 7.

The proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the WHS. My attention has been drawn to a differing appeal2 where the Inspector was not convinced that a finding of less than substantial harm (at the lower end of the scale) would on its own provide a “strong” reason for refusing the development. Nevertheless, I do not have the specific circumstances of that case, which relates to a differing site, context and potentially differing effects on the WHS.

In the case of my findings on this matter given the particular circumstances of the case before me, the Framework states that World Heritage Sites are heritage assets of the highest significance, and that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

As such, given that I have found less than substantial harm notwithstanding towards the lower end of the scale, which is not outweighed by public benefits, and the significance of World Heritage Sites, I find that Section 16 of the Framework does provide a strong reason for refusing the proposal. Consequently, the provisions of paragraph 11d(ii) of the Framework are not engaged in this instance.

Nonetheless, the proposal’s benefits include the provision of one new dwelling to the areas housing land supply on previously developed land in a location close to services and facilities. Further benefits include repair and improvement of Cornish hedges, short term economic benefit due to employment during construction, and an ongoing benefit from future occupants supporting local businesses, services, and the community. Notwithstanding, given the small scale and scope of the development, I find the benefits would be modest.

Another appeal decision3 cited by the appellant relates to the use of an annexe as a separate dwelling although limited information of this appeal has been provided. In that case, whilst the appeal was allowed, the appeal site does not appear to be within, or harm the WHS, and the provisions of paragraph 11d(ii) of the Framework were engaged. As such that appeal materially differs to the case before me, which I have determined on its own merits.

The appeal site is within the zone of influence of the Fal and Helford Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Designated features of the SAC include saltmarsh, intertidal mudflats, subtidal sandbanks, large shallow inlets and bays, estuaries and reefs. Within the vicinity of the SAC, new residential development would lead to increased levels of recreational activity. This would be likely to have a significant effect on the designated features of the SAC either on its own or cumulatively with other similar development, without avoidance measures.

The application had been accompanied by a financial contribution to seek to mitigate recreational impact of the proposal on the SAC. Notwithstanding, Regulation 63(1) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 indicates the requirement for an Appropriate Assessment is only necessary where the competent authority is minded to give consent for the proposal.

Given my conclusions on the main issue above, it is not necessary for me to consider this matter any further as the proposal would not take place and would 2 APP/D0840/W/24/3354321 3 APP/D0840/W/24/3357482 not affect the SAC. Moreover, even if I were to find that suitable mitigation had been appropriately secured, a lack of harm would only be a neutral factor.

The appellant questions whether the Council visited the site, or whether the decision was made on a desktop assessment. Irrespective, this has little to do with my assessment of the planning merits of the case, which I have considered on the basis of the evidence before me and a site visit.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. No material considerations have been shown to have sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.