Appeal 6000662

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has two stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (‘technical details consent stage’) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. It is only at the technical details consent stage where a planning permission can be granted. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted1. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

I have used the description of development as provided on the Council’s decision notice as this better describes what is being proposed, including the minimum and maximum number of dwellings.

The main issue for this appeal is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area. 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone]

Given that the application is for permission in principle, the scale, layout and design of the proposed dwellings are currently unknown. However, in order to determine whether or not the location of the site is suitable, matters such as character and appearance can be considered based on the information provided.

In this instance, the site is located within the Watergate and Lanherne Area of [name]. The site also straddles [name] CCA17 and CCA23, the latter of which is noted for the value of the gently rolling exposed coastal plateau and the scenic coastal landscape.

The site effectively forms part of a green wedge of land that protrudes towards the northern part of the small settlement of Trenance. Alongside the low density of built form nearby, the site forms an integral part of the visual transition from the built-up area of the settlement to the open countryside and the seascape beyond. In essence, its undeveloped nature helps to soften the appearance of development in the immediate area, and as such, the site contributes significantly to the character of the surroundings.

The appellant did provide a landscape and visual impact assessment as part of the evidence submitted at the application stage. This concludes that, subject to final design, the proposal would respect local character and would be sensitive to the surrounding environment. However, it seems to me that this assessment downplays the impact of development in this location. Despite the fact that the layout, scale and appearance of the proposed scheme is unknown, and that the site is well related to existing dwellings, it is inevitable that the development of three or four homes in this particular location would greatly erode the perception of transition from the built form to the surrounding countryside. Indeed, it would make this part of the edge of the settlement feel more urbanised and noticeably less verdant. As a result, the proposal would lead to clear and obvious harm.

The site can be appreciated as part of views from the B3276 on the southern side of [site address] , and it can also be glimpsed from the coast path in the same area. While these views are often fleeting, they are still important in terms of the way that the settlement is visually perceived. As such, the identified harm would be readily apparent within the wider landscape. This harm could not be sufficiently mitigated at technical details consent stage, even if a landscaping scheme was provided.

The Council has raised concerns about the density of the proposed scheme. However, a higher density development would clearly be inappropriate in this location given its semi-rural character and the loose urban grain of existing development nearby.

Nevertheless, for the reasons given, the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies 1, 2, 12, 21 and 23 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 (the LP), Policy 14 of the Restormel Local Plan 2001-2011 and Policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document 2023. Taken together, the relevant aspects of these policies seek to ensure that new development is well designed and that it preserves character and appearance, including that of locally important landscapes. In relation to this main issue, I do not find conflict with LP Policy 3 given that this relates to the spatial strategy for the area.

The site is within the zone of influence of the Penhale Dunes Special Area of Conservation. I note that the appellant provided mitigation towards the effect of the development in the form of a financial payment, and that this is now to be refunded by the Council following additional guidance from Natural England. However, as I am dismissing this appeal, there is no need for me to consider this matter further.

The Council’s evidence suggests that they also have concerns about how the proposal would adhere to the adopted spatial strategy. However, this issue does not appear to specifically form part of the reason for refusal as provided on the decision notice. Given that I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, there is no need for me to consider this matter as part of my deliberations.

The appellant has provided two appeal decisions as part of their final comments. I do not have the full details of these proposals before me. However, it is clear that these decisions relate to sites in different locations, and I do not consider that their content is a decisive factor in this appeal. Indeed, I have set out why the proposed development in this instance would result in unacceptable harm.

From the evidence before me, the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with the current figure being just under 4 years. In such circumstances the test set out in paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged.

In this instance, the benefits of the proposal include the provision of three or four new homes that would assist in meeting need in the area, provide support for nearby local facilities, both nearby in [site address] and further afield, and create jobs during the construction phase. There is also potential for biodiversity enhancements on site while the homes could also be sustainably designed. Finally, a [name] payment would be due which could be used to enhance local infrastructure. In combination these benefits are moderate in nature.

I have concluded that there would be material harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, keeping in mind the legislation for permission in principle applications, the site is not in a suitable location. The support for the principle of development within the Framework is countered by the importance it places on the provision of development that is well designed and preserves character and appearance. In this instance the harm, which would be substantial and enduring, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Consequently, for the reasons given, the proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that outweigh the identified harm. The appeal is therefore dismissed.