Appeal 6001638

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for the erection of a dwelling at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/02856.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for new residential development, having regard to the development plan; and • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site lies on the southern edge of Carnkie, a settlement whose built form is predominantly linear, following the east–west route through the village. While most dwellings are positioned both sides of the main road, smaller clusters extend southwards, including the narrow spur of development, comprising both housing and non-residential buildings, within which the site is located. This spur projects south from the main road and forms a recognisable, subordinate component of the settlement pattern.

The site forms part of a larger agricultural field. Its eastern boundary is defined by a narrow lane serving several residential properties and providing the proposed access. A hedgerow marks the northern boundary, while a small group of buildings lies immediately to the south. To the west, the remainder of the open field continues, reinforcing the site’s relationship with the wider rural landscape.

In this context, the site does not fall within the main, continuous linear frontage that characterises the core of Carnkie along the principal road. However, it lies directly adjacent to a cluster of dwellings and other buildings, and this projecting spur has a clear, identifiable linear form that extends along much of the lane on at least one side.

Given its proximity to, and direct physical connection with, both the main road and the established built form, this cluster cannot reasonably be described as a loose scatter of isolated buildings in open countryside. Rather, it reads as a coherent, subordinate element of the wider settlement. Accordingly, the appeal site adjoins the settlement of Carnkie and forms part of its settlement edge rather than open countryside.

Policy 3 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 – 2030 (LP) confirms that Carnkie is not identified as a main town. Residential development outside the main towns may be supported only in specific circumstances, including infilling or rounding off. The proposal does not constitute infilling, as the site is not framed by a continuous built frontage on both sides, nor does it occupy a gap within an otherwise uninterrupted row of development.

Turning to rounding off, Paragraph 1.68 of the LP explains that this applies to land that is substantially enclosed, lies outside but adjacent to the urban form of a settlement, and is bounded by a physical feature that also acts as a barrier to further outward growth, such as a road. Crucially, rounding off should not result in development that visually extends the built form into the open countryside.

I have also had regard to the Council’s Chief Planning Officer’s Advice Note: Infill/[name] (2017). While it provides useful guidance on the Council’s typical interpretation of these concepts, it is not part of the adopted development plan and therefore carries limited weight. Nevertheless, it offers helpful context when assessing whether the proposal accords with the principles of rounding off.

The site is bordered on its eastern boundary by the lane and lies opposite the residential properties of The Haven and [address] Farm to the east and south-east. The recently approved annexe at [address] Farm and agricultural buildings lie immediately to the south. To the north, the established hedgerow field boundary forms a clear physical limit to further development. I also note that opposite the site, the Council has granted both permission in principle and technical details consent for a new dwelling. That permission, existing buildings and features like the road and hedgerow provide enclosure on three sides.

The western boundary lies within the interior of a larger agricultural field rather than along a road, hedge or other strong physical edge. This weakens enclosure on that side. However, rounding off does not require all boundaries to be hard or defensible. Paragraph 1.68 of the LP and the [name] both recognise that settlement edges in Cornwall are often irregular, and that the assessment must be based on the overall appearance of the site in relation to the settlement rather than the strength of any single boundary.

Although the western boundary is not a strong physical feature, the proposed built form would not project beyond the depth of buildings on both sides of the lane. Nor would it extend development further into the countryside than those buildings. The proposal would therefore sit within the envelope of the existing built cluster rather than forming an outward projection into open countryside.

The Advice Note states that rounding off should not “visually extend development into the open countryside” and should provide “symmetry or completion” to the settlement edge. The site represents one of the few remaining undeveloped parcels on this side of the lane. Its development would consolidate and complete the group of built form at the southern extent of the lane, rather than open up further land to the west. The field beyond would remain visually and physically distinct, and there is no evidence before me that the proposal would create a new opportunity for westward expansion.

Taking these factors together, I find that despite the weaker western boundary, the site is substantially enclosed by existing development and long-standing boundaries on its other sides, and it reads as part of the settlement’s irregular but coherent southern spur. Development of the site would therefore amount to rounding off as envisaged by Policy 3 and Paragraph 1.68 of the LP.

For these reasons, the appeal site represents a suitable location for residential development when assessed against the development plan. The proposal therefore accords with Policies 1 and 2 of the LP, which together promote a sustainable pattern of growth. It also complies with Policies 3 and 21 of the LP, which collectively require new housing to be directed to sustainable locations, well related to existing settlements and not isolated in the countryside. In addition, the scheme accords with Policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document (2023), which requires residential development to be located in the most sustainable places, minimising carbon emissions from travel, prioritising access to services and avoiding car-dependent or isolated locations.

The Council’s reason for refusal also refers to Policy 7 of the LP, which concerns residential development in the open countryside. [name] have found that the site does not lie in the countryside for the purposes of the development plan, and that it complies with Policy 3, Policy 7 is not determinative in my assessment of this main issue.

As set out above, the appeal site lies within a small but clearly identifiable cluster of buildings extending southwards from the main road. This cluster includes existing residential properties and agricultural buildings which, taken together, form a coherent group of built development. In visual and functional terms, this group reads as part of Carnkie’s settlement pattern rather than as isolated countryside development.

Although the wider landscape is rural, the immediate context of the site is shaped by this existing built form. Public views from the main road are filtered by intervening buildings, vegetation and changes in topography. From wider public viewpoints, the site is perceived as part of the established cluster, including domestic curtilages and agricultural structures. In this context, the introduction of a single dwelling would not appear visually intrusive or out of keeping with its surroundings.

The site lies within Landscape Character Area CCA10 (Carnmenellis), characterised by dispersed farmsteads and small clusters of cottages, including post-medieval industrial settlements such as Carnkie. The proposal would sit comfortably within this established pattern and would not erode any of the key landscape features or valued attributes identified for the Character Area. The field beyond the western boundary would remain visually distinct, and the development would not encroach into the wider open countryside beyond the existing built form on both sides of the lane.

Given the site’s containment within an existing cluster, the limited visibility from public viewpoints and the presence of surrounding built form, I find that the development of a single dwelling would not materially harm the character or appearance of the area. The proposal therefore accords with Policies 2, 12 and 23 of the LP, which collectively seek to sustain local distinctiveness and protect and enhance Cornwall’s natural environment.

The appeal site lies within the Zone of Influence of the Fal and Helford Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The Fal and [name] is designated for a range of [name] habitats and [name] species of European importance. These include sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time, mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide, large shallow inlets and bays, estuaries, Atlantic salt meadows, and reefs. The site is also designated for the [name] species shore dock (Rumex rupestris).

Residential development within this zone has the potential to increase recreational pressure on the designated site. In accordance with Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, it is necessary to undertake an Appropriate Assessment of the implications of the proposal, taking into account the site’s conservation objectives.

The Council’s European Sites Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document (2021) (SPD) establishes that any net increase in dwellings within the Zone of Influence is likely to result in additional recreational activity unless mitigation is secured. The SPD sets out a strategic mitigation scheme, funded through developer contributions, to ensure that such development does not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC.

The appellant has entered into a Section 111 Agreement securing the required financial contribution towards the Fal and Helford SAC Strategic Mitigation Plan. The Council’s delegated report confirms that the contribution has been paid and that the submitted information is sufficient to enable the authority to conclude that the effects of the development can be mitigated. The Council states that the effects have been assessed and that, provided the contribution to the Mitigation Plan is made, the integrity of the European Site will be maintained.

There is no evidence before me to contradict that conclusion. The mitigation strategy is established, evidence based and endorsed by Natural England. The scale of the development, being one dwelling, is modest, and the strategic mitigation scheme is specifically designed to address cumulative recreational impacts from such proposals.

Taking the above into account, and having considered the best scientific evidence available, I am satisfied that the proposal, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Fal and [name], provided the secured mitigation is delivered. Accordingly, the requirements of Regulation 63 are met, and the proposal is acceptable in terms of its effects on the European site.

The Council has referred to a number of appeal decisions which it considers relevant to the assessment of this proposal. I have had regard to those decisions, but each appeal turns on its own facts and site-specific context. The examples cited generally concern development that would have projected beyond an established settlement edge or occupied a more visually exposed position within open countryside. In contrast, the appeal site forms part of a coherent cluster of buildings extending southwards from the main road and is substantially contained by existing development and long-standing boundaries. The circumstances of the cited appeals are therefore materially different, and they do not lead me to a different conclusion in this case.

The Planning Practice Guidance sets out that it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of permission in principle. I have therefore not considered such matters in the determination of this appeal.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.