Appeal 6000676

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for up to 6 dwellings (minimum 5 maximum 6) at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/04117, and the plans submitted with it.

The proposal is for permission in principle. The Planning Practice Guidance (the 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. 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.

An applicant can apply for permission in principle for a range of dwellings by expressing a minimum and maximum number of dwellings as part of the application. In this instance, permission has been sought for a minimum of five and a maximum of six dwellings.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for five or six dwellings, having regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development.

Policy 2 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 – 2030 (adopted 2016) (the Local Plan) sets out the spatial strategy for development. It seeks to maintain 1 The PPG Paragraph: 012 [name]: 58-[phone] the dispersed development pattern of Cornwall, providing homes and jobs based on the role and function of each place. Based on this strategy, Policy 3 defines how development will be accommodated, with growth focussed on identified main towns. However, it also supports housing growth within or adjoining smaller settlements through rounding off; development of previously developed land (PDL); infill; or rural exception sites. It is not contested that Longdowns is a settlement. Although the Mabe Neighbourhood Development Plan 2022 -2030 (the Neighbourhood Plan) does not designate a settlement boundary for Longdowns, Policy 1 supports residential development outside the settlement boundary of [name] where it accords with Policy 3 or 7 of the Local Plan.

The major part of Longdowns lies to the north of the A394, but the filling station and the houses around the junction with [address] also form part of the settlement. The appeal site, however, lies beyond the western extent of the dwellings on either side of [address], and borders open countryside to the north and south. Whilst there is a scatter of buildings further to the west, these do not border the appeal site and are clearly detached from the village. The site is not, therefore, within the settlement. It is, though, adjacent to the existing built-up area, and outline planning permission2 was granted in February 2024 for six dwellings, at least three of which would be affordable, as a Rural Exception Site.

The appeal scheme is not promoted as a Rural Exception Site, and it is accepted by the appellant that the proposal does not constitute infill or rounding off as defined by the Local Plan. Furthermore, it is not contended that the site comprises PDL. Consequently, the proposal is not supported by Policy 3 of the Local Plan or, therefore, Policy 14 of the Neighbourhood Plan.

Paragraph 2.33 of the Local Plan says that land outside the physical boundaries of existing settlements is defined as open countryside. In the absence of support from Policy 3, Policy 7 says that the development of new homes in the open countryside will only be permitted where there are special circumstances, none of which apply in this case. Consequently, the location for the proposal would conflict with the spatial strategy set out in Policies 2, 3 and 7 of the Local Plan, and Policy 14 of the Neighbourhood Plan.

The site is a scrubby piece of land, largely enclosed by an overgrown roadside boundary wall, and by tall conifers to the south and west. It is, therefore, visually divided from the surrounding open countryside. Its eastern boundary abuts the settlement edge, and is more open. On this side, the gable end of the garage, and various outbuildings, at 3 [name] are readily visible close to the site. It is, therefore, strongly influenced by built development, and in combination with its enclosed nature, this means the site does not make a significant contribution to the wider landscape setting of the village.

Nevertheless, there is currently a distinct built edge to the village marked by the western boundaries of 3 [name] on one side of the road and [address] on the other. Beyond these buildings the character of the area abruptly turns to a narrow countryside lane, with vegetation on both sides. The buildings further to the west are hidden by the curve of the road, so the landscape is almost entirely rural. The provision of five or six dwellings on the site, with the inevitable breach of the roadside boundary for access, would, therefore be a visually 2 Local planning authority reference: PA23/06137 intrusive extension of built development into the countryside, which would be harmful to its character. This harm to the wider countryside setting of the village would be limited, due to the enclosed nature of the site and the existing urban influence on its eastern side. However, this limited harm would place the proposal in conflict with Policies 12 and 23 of the Local Plan, and Policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document (February 2023) (the DPD), which seek to maintain and enhance Cornwall’s distinctive natural environment.

The proposal would conflict with the spatial strategy of the development plan and with its policies that seek to protect the natural environment. There are no policies that positively support development of the appeal site, so the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. However, it is not disputed that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In these circumstances, the approach to decision-making set out at Paragraph 11d) of the Framework applies.

Paragraph 232 of the Framework says that due weight should be given to existing development plan policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. The spatial strategy set out in Policies 2, 3, and 7 of the Local Plan is consistent with the Framework’s aims to direct development to locations where there is a genuine choice of transport modes, and to maintain the vitality of rural communities. However, it is not delivering a sufficient supply of homes in accordance with the other aims of the Framework. Consequently, I can only afford moderate weight to the conflict with the development plan policies that govern the spatial location of housing.

Policies 12 and 23 of the Local Plan, and Policy C1 of the DPD are generally consistent with the Framework’s aims to conserve and enhance the natural environment. The proposal would result in limited harm to the rural setting of Longdowns. I am mindful, however, that meeting the shortfall in housing provision is unlikely to be achieved without some visual impacts. In this case, the site does not lie within a protected landscape, and I am also mindful that outline planning permission already exists for residential development on the site. Consequently, I give limited weight to the conflict with Policies 12, 23 and C1.

Set against the harm that I have identified, there would be benefits associated with the development. It would support the Framework’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes as set out at paragraph 61. I recognise that the inclusion of at least three affordable dwellings is likely to have been a significant factor in favour of the existing outline permission, and that the appeal scheme does not include such provision. Nevertheless, in view of the current shortfall in housing land supply, the benefit of an additional five or six houses still carries significant weight. In apportioning this weight, I note that the Council’s Interim Policy Position Statement (April 2025) advises that many sites which would formerly only have been accepted as [name] will now be dealt with under general housing policies.

There would also be economic benefits associated with the development, through the creation of jobs during the construction phase. Thereafter, residents would contribute to the local economy through ongoing spending and support for local services. The limited scale of the development means that these benefits carry modest weight.

Overall, when assessed against the policies in the Framework, taken as a whole, the adverse impacts of the proposal do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Therefore, despite the conflict with the development plan, material considerations indicate that permission in principle should be granted.

The PPG makes it clear that it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of permission in principle, whose terms may only include the site location, the type and amount of development.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.