Appeal 6001238

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for a single dwelling (minimum 1, maximum 1) at [site address] , Cornwall [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/01283.

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.

For clarity, I have made very minor amendments to the description of development in order to ensure that it only refers to the operative part of the proposed development, including a minimum and maximum number of homes as is required in applications for permission in principle.

The main issues are both related to an assessment of whether the location of the site is suitable, in accordance with permission in principle legislation: (i) whether the proposed development would be in an appropriate location, having regard to 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone] the Council’s spatial strategy and access to services and facilities; and (ii) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

Policy 3 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 – 2030 (the LP), sets out the way in which new development will be provided across the county. Part 3 of the policy states that, outside of the identified main towns, development will be delivered in certain ways. The main parties are in agreement that the proposed development would not be an infill scheme, and that the site is not previously developed land. Based on the evidence before me, I can see no reason to disagree with that position. Furthermore, the proposal would not provide affordable housing and so would not be a rural exception site.

The policy also allows for the rounding off of settlements. Paragraph 1.68 of the LP sets out that a settlement should have a form and shape and clearly definable boundaries, rather than being a ‘low density straggle of dwellings’. This position is also reflected within the guidance set out in the Council’s Chief Planning Officer Advice Note: Infill/Rounding off (the CPOAN). In this instance, the appeal site is located just outside of the nucleus of development that forms the village of [site address] . As one leaves the village up the hill along the B3276, there is a feeling of separation from the settlement and existing development becomes very linear in nature. It seems to me that the homes in this location very clearly represent a ‘straggle’ of development as referred to in the LP. On that basis, the appeal site cannot be considered to be within a settlement.

Furthermore, paragraph 1.68 of the LP goes on to state that rounding off only applies where a site is substantially enclosed, albeit outside of the urban form of a settlement. The appeal site in this case is reasonably well related to existing development on its northern side, and the B3276 immediately to the west. However, to the south, there is an agricultural field between the site and other dwellings. In addition, the sloping landscape to the east is both open and expansive. As a result, it cannot be concluded that the site is ‘substantially enclosed’ as required by the LP.

On that basis, the appeal site is neither within a settlement, and nor would the proposal represent rounding off. The scheme would therefore conflict with the Council’s spatial strategy.

I now turn to access to services and facilities. The village of [site address] is only a very short distance from the site. There are several facilities within the village including a pub, shop and community hall. Bus services can also be accessed in that location. However, there is no pavement for much of the route between the site and the village and the road in that vicinity is also unlit. While there is a grass verge, this would not provide a particularly safe way of walking into the village. There is a primary school in the settlement of St. Mawgan, but one would have to travel slightly further to Newquay in order to access other facilities such as supermarkets. As a result, it is clear that future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be highly dependent on private cars to access the sort of services and facilities that are required for everyday living.

The level of harm associated with the site’s location would be very limited as a result of the fact that most car journeys, including to Newquay, would likely be quite short. Furthermore, the number of journeys associated with a single dwelling would be very modest.

Nevertheless, for the reasons given, I conclude that the site is not in an appropriate location, taking account of the Council’s spatial strategy and access to services and facilities. The proposal would therefore conflict with [name] 1, 2, 3, 7, 16, 21 and 27, as well as Policies C1 and T1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document, February 2023 (the CEDPD). Taken together, the relevant aspects of these policies seek to ensure that new development is located in sustainable areas which can be easily accessed via public transport or by walking and cycling.

The appeal site is located within an Area of [name] on the edge of an attractive valley which slopes gently down to the village. It is also situated within landscape character area CCA17 which, among other things, is noted for its sheltered valleys. Alongside the agricultural field to the south, the site forms a short break of undeveloped land between dwellings. When viewed from the village, the site is noticeable, and from a visual perspective, it does help to enable the immediate area to blend into the countryside beyond.

Given that the application is for permission in principle, the scale and design of the proposed dwelling is currently unknown. However, the development of one new home on the site would reduce the existing landscape gap, thereby forming a slightly harsher urban edge at the top of the valley, while somewhat eroding the existing perception of transition to the surrounding countryside. It is therefore inevitable that the proposal would result in some harm. I do find that this harm would be relatively modest given the small size of the site and its proximity to existing dwellings which means that the scheme would not be seen as an obvious intrusion into the surrounding landscape.

However, I do conclude that the development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with the relevant aspects of [name] 12 and 23 and CEDPD Policy C1 which seek to preserve character and appearance, including locally important landscapes.

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 3.9 years. In such circumstances the test set out in paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged.

The proposal is contrary to the objectives of the spatial strategy, as well as policies that pertain to character and appearance. As such, the proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. On that basis, my conclusions are consistent with the findings that were reached in a previous appeal decision for the same site2. 2 Appeal ref: APP/D0840/W/23/3316504

The aforementioned policies are broadly consistent with the aims of the Framework, notably, in respect of seeking to promote development in sustainable locations with genuinely sustainable travel choices, while also requiring development to be well designed. Consequently, I have given considerable weight to the conflict with the development plan.

The appeal proposal would make a small but nonetheless positive contribution towards housing supply in an area with a significant housing shortfall. It would also provide some social and economic benefits associated with the construction and subsequent occupation of the proposed dwelling, including the potential for future residents to support wider services. I have considered Paragraph 61 of the Framework which seeks to significantly boost the supply of homes. I have also considered Paragraph 73 of the Framework, which recognises the importance of small sites in meeting the housing requirement of the area. Still, given the scale of development, the benefits are fairly modest in nature.

Due to the reliance on private vehicles, and the harm to character and appearance, there would be adverse environmental and social impacts, contrary to elements of the Framework. I have therefore concluded that the development would not be in a suitable location. However, for the reasons given, the combined harm is fairly modest. Therefore, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, I find that the adverse impacts of the proposed development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

The site is within the zone of influence of the Penhale Dunes Special Area of Conservation (the SAC). This area supports an important assemblage of species including [name], Petalwort and [name]. The objectives for the site are to ensure that its integrity is maintained or restored as appropriate, and to ensure that it contributes to achieving favourable conservation status of its qualifying features.

The SAC is an important recreational and economic resource. It is well frequented by the public and it is possible that occupants of the proposed development would visit the site. It is necessary for me, as the competent authority, to conduct an Appropriate Assessment in relation to the effect of the development on the integrity of the SAC.

The evidence before me is clear that the proposal, particularly when combined with other developments in the area, could have a likely significant effect on the SAC due to an increased disturbance through recreational activity.

The parties previously agreed a financial sum in accordance with the Council’s adopted [name] which could have been put towards infrastructure or non-infrastructure projects. However, more recently, the Council has set out that, on the basis of advice from Natural England, they will no longer require mitigation measures to be proposed, or payment made in respect of the [name], other than where the proposal would be more than 500 homes and within 2.5km of the site. On that basis the appellant will be refunded the financial contribution that was previously made.

As a result of this amended position, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC.

I note that the Parish Council has referred to an emerging Neighbourhood Plan for Mawgan in Pydar. However, from the evidence before me, it would appear that the plan will not become ‘made’ in the near future. As such the draft policies would attract very little weight at this stage, and would not be a determinative factor. In any event, the description of the relevant draft policies, as provided by the Parish Council, seem to strongly reflect the associated LP policies which have been an important consideration as part of this appeal.

As set out within the Planning Practice Guidance, it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of permission in principle.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. However, there are material considerations, notably the provisions of the Framework, that indicate that the decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore allowed.