Appeal 6000804

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for the construction of five dwellings, at [site address] , [address], Leedstown [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, PA25/06089.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

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. 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 [name] application if permission in principle is granted. I have considered the appeal accordingly.

The decision notice includes a reference to the Crowan Neighbourhood Development Plan (2018-2030) (the NDP) policy HT4. This policy relates to design and is not relevant for consideration of a permission in principle.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, proposed land use, and amount of development. 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone]

The appeal site is a parcel of land to the east of [address] and is located outside of but adjoining the rural settlement of Leedstown. The Parish Council state that the appeal site would not form a logical part of the village, and since the appeal site is outside of the defined Leedstown development boundary, the scheme would not be supported by Policy HT1 of the NDP. The Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 (2016) (the Local Plan) Policy 3 sets out the locational strategy for the delivery of housing based on the role and function of each place. It seeks to steer the majority of new housing towards the main towns.

Policy 3 allows for the rounding off of settlements within or immediately adjoining that settlement of a scale appropriate to its size and role. It also considers the potential for infill, which is defined as a small gap in an otherwise continuous built frontage that would not physically extend the settlement into the open countryside.

[name] is not a major town, the scale of the proposed development would be appropriate to the size and role of Leedstown, and the appeal site is immediately adjoining the settlement. The settlement of Leedstown benefits from a regular bus service between the towns of Hayle, Helston, Penzance, and Camborne. It also has a primary school, a [name], a village hall, and a public house. Realistically, other services are a car journey away. Given the short distance to those other services in other towns and villages, and alongside the bus service, I am satisfied that Leedstown is a sustainable location. It therefore depends on whether the proposed development could be rounding off, infill, or previously developed land. I shall address these in turn.

Rounding off is defined as development on land that is substantially enclosed but outside of the urban form of a settlement and where its edge is clearly defined by a physical feature that also acts as a barrier to further growth (such as a road). It should not visually extend building into the open countryside. The Chief Planning Officer's Advice Note 2017 (CPOAN), suggests that rounding off provides a symmetry or completion to a development boundary. It is not intended to facilitate continued incremental growth, and it should not visually extend development into the open countryside. Furthermore, proposals must be adjacent to existing development and be contained within long standing and enclosing boundary features, for example, a road or stream. The CPOAN says that suitable sites are likely to be surrounded on at least two sides by existing built development.

The appeal site is accessed by a public right of way which forms a clear barrier to the west and south-west boundary. On the other side of this boundary is residential development. The appeal site could be considered adjacent to the settlement in its most north easterly boundary; however, that part of the development boundary is contained by the public right of way. To the north is a track with the rifle club on the other side. Whilst there are areas of built development adjacent to the site, to the east and south-east are open fields separated by hedgerow, and beyond those fields are more fields. The appeal site has a natural affinity with these in character and appearance terms due to the large amount of vegetation and open feel of the site.

The site is beyond an existing barrier to development and is not substantially enclosed by a physical feature that would function as a barrier to further growth to the east and south-east. Moreover, there is further open land beyond it to the east, which is as open and undeveloped, emphasising the appeal site's feel as distinctly more rural than urban and underlining the appreciation that its development would have a clear role in visually extending the settlement into the open countryside. Thus, it could not be defined as rounding off .

The appeal site fronts onto the public byway and there is development constructed to the north-west and some to the south. However, there is no built development to the south-east of the appeal site, just another open field. There is a much larger open field to the east and one beyond that. Given the size of the site overall, the scale of the proposal, the dwelling types, associated curtilages and spacing of the units, they would not occupy a space, or gap in this case, which could be reasonably considered as small. The layout of the proposals and the built form around and to its rear would be stretching the definition of a continuous built up frontage and, as I shall come onto, the appeal scheme would have the effect of physically extending the settlement into the open countryside. It would not therefore be infill.

The evidence is that the appeal site includes a former mine and haulage yard. The National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) excludes land from its definition of [name] (PDL) where the remains of permanent structures or fixed surface structures have blended into the landscape. My observations onsite were that the site included an earth stone boundary wall to the south of the site with dense vegetation. To the south-east there were large spoil heaps of waste materials and to the north of the site there was an area containing spilled construction materials, a cabin, two free standing containers and some Harris fencing. I did not note fixed surface areas nor any permanent structures. Given the lack of structures or fixed surfaces and the amount of vegetation that has taken over the site, I conclude that the site does not meet the definition of PDL as set out in the Framework.

The appeal site is approached via a verdant public byway which forms a natural barrier to residential development to the west. There is new development to the north-east and there is a railed yard and buildings known as the rifle club to the north. To the east and south-east are open fields, which again lead to open fields. The site sits comfortably alongside these, separated only by a hedgerow and a field access. In this regard the site can be considered as semi-rural, forming a transition between the rural elements to the east and the commercial/residential elements to the north and west. Whilst the site provides a positive spatial transition between urban and rural character the site as it exists does not make a positive contribution to the area.

Nonetheless, the proposed development would incrementally extend built form into this space and 'creep' towards the open fields to the east, casually eroding the more open feel to land as it moves away from the built up village and into the countryside contrary to the development plan.

Policy 7 of the Local Plan allows for new homes in the open countryside where there are special circumstances. The appeal proposal fits none of these categories.

For the reasons given above, the location, land use and amount of the proposal would not comply with the development plan. The principle of the proposed development would thus be unacceptable. The proposal would conflict with Policies 1, 2, 3, 7, 12 and 23 of the Local Plan, Policy HTl of the NDP, Policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document 2023, and Policy 1 of the Cornwall Site Allocations Development Plan Document 2019, insofar as they seek, amongst other things, a hierarchical approach to housing distribution and to protect the open countryside from unsustainable development. Furthermore, the proposal would conflict with and the relevant paragraphs of the Framework, insofar as they seek sustainable development that is sympathetic to the surrounding environment. I will give weight to these conflicts below.

The Cornwall Interim Policy Position Statement (2025 (IPPS) sets out that Policy 2a (housing supply) has substantial conformity issues and is out of date. Whilst detailed locational aspects of policy 3 are considered to be out of date, the more generic locational guidance relating to settlement extent, infill and rounding off is considered to be in general conformity with the Framework. The Council considers that Policies 1, 7, 12 and 23 are still considered to be in conformity with the Framework.

The Council has confirmed that it is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply of deliverable housing sites. Where the development plan is considered to be out of date for the policies most relevant to the determination, paragraph 11(d) requires that presumption in favour of sustainable development be applied unless the adverse impacts of the development ‘significantly and demonstrably’ outweigh the benefits. For the purposes of paragraph 11 of the Framework, footnote 8 also sets out that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is also applied where the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing. As such, the circumstances of the current appeal differ from those on the previous appeals referenced by the Council.

I acknowledge the lack of affordable housing provision within the proposal; however, the proposal would provide five new open market dwellings at the site. The Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of homes and advises that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area and are often built out quickly. I afford this matter significant weight.

There is evidence that the site was considered suitable to be part of a previous iteration of the draft 2004 Kerrier allocation plan; however, there is no evidence to suggest that this draft became adopted policy. Twenty-two years have since passed and the Local Plan has been adopted. As such I afford this matter little weight.

There would be limited economic benefits in terms of short term employment opportunities during construction and from the future spend of residents within the wider area.

Furthermore, footnote 9 to paragraph 11 of the Framework highlights specific policies of particular regard to the above balancing exercise, amongst these are paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework, which state that ‘development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes’ but also recognises that ‘opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. I am satisfied that Leedstown is served by public transport to a degree that it is connected to the wider area and is a sustainable location. I afford this matter some weight.

Accordingly, I give moderate weight to the conflict with policies 1, 2, 3, 7, 12 and 23 of the Local Plan, Policy HTl of the NDP, Policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document 2023, and Policy 1 of the Cornwall Site Allocations Development Plan Document 2019. Against this conflict the proposal would contribute to the supply of housing in the area, by the addition of five dwellings. I give this benefit significant weight.

The site is within the Tregonning and Gwinear Mining District World Heritage Site (the WHS). The WHS is a heritage asset of the highest significance. As the site of a former mineworking it constitutes one of the features of inscription for the WHS. However, the Council conclude that due to the fact that there are no extant remains and the site has been much altered since mining operations ceased on the site, the impact of the development of the site for five houses is unlikely to overwrite the historic significance of the site both locally and in the wider WHS. The harm to the WHS caused by the proposal would be likely to result in a neutral effect upon the significance of the WHS. Given the consultation comments from the WHS planning officer, I have no reason to disagree.

The Parish Council raise concerns about traffic volume and speed. Those matters are outside the scope of this appeal.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that applications, and therefore appeals, must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The proposal benefits from the presumption of sustainable development as outlined in paragraph 11 of the Framework. I have found that the adverse impacts of granting permission in principle would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, despite the conflict with the Development Plan, when read as a whole, material considerations indicate that Permission in Principle should be granted. Accordingly, I recommend allowing the appeal.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.