Appeal 6001767

The appeal is dismissed.

A planning obligation pursuant to s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in the form of a [name] dated 20th October 2025, was submitted during the appeal. The legal agreement would secure an appropriate financial contribution towards education should the appeal be allowed. The Council has confirmed that this would overcome its second reason for refusal. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

In light of the above, the main issues are: • whether the appeal site would be a suitable location for new dwellings with specific regard to the local development strategy and accessibility to services and facilities; and • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and Cornwall and West Devon World Heritage Site (WHS).

The local settlement strategy is set out within policies 2 and 3 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 (LP). The strategy seeks to maintain the dispersed development pattern of Cornwall, and provide housing based on the role and function of each place. In locations outside of main towns such as the appeal site, LP Policy 3 provides that housing growth is to be delivered through, amongst other criteria, rounding off of settlements.

[name] 1.68 defines rounding off as “development on land that is substantially enclosed, but outside of the urban form of a settlement” and “it should not visually extend building into the open countryside”. LP para 2.33 states that ‘open countryside is defined as the area outside of the physical boundaries of existing settlements (where they have a clear form and shape)’.

The Chief Planning Officer’s Advice Note – Infill/[name] (December 2017) (CPOAN) provides further guidance, and states that ‘Rounding off provides a symmetry or completion to a settlement boundary’ and ‘it is not intended to facilitate continued incremental growth’.

The appeal site is an area of land which is partly garden and has been granted planning permission as a storage yard. [site address] contains a mixture of residential and commercial development along [address] and is a settlement with a clear form and shape. Whilst there is some depth to development on the opposing side of [address], development on the appeal side is formed largely from ribbon development. As such, [site address] has a strong linear development pattern along [address].

The appeal site is somewhat divorced from and is not seen to adjoin the physical boundary of the settlement. A sizeable area of garden between it and built form within the settlement provides a notable visual break from the established settlement pattern. Furthermore, whilst being bordered by a Public Right of Way (PRoW) and foliage, the appeal site lacks any other direct surrounding development and has the appearance of being outside of the physical boundaries of the settlement and within the countryside.

Consequently, there would be an incongruous visual separation from the existing development pattern, and the proposal would not provide a symmetry or completion to the settlement. As such, the proposal does not constitute rounding off. Moreover, whilst LP Policy 3 supports proposals for previously developed land, this is also where the land is within or immediately adjoining that settlement.

In respect of access to services and facilities, I observed that Condurrow contains minimal services or facilities required for day-to-day living. [name] and its associated services, facilities and public transport links are in feasible walking distance, future occupiers would be required to walk partly along a highway with no pavements or street lighting. As such, walking from the site, particularly in the dark, would be unattractive to most future occupiers. Consequently, I find that future occupiers would be likely to rely on the use of private vehicles to access services and facilities that are reasonably required for day-to-day living.

Nevertheless, The National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in decision-making. Furthermore, the CPOAN, also recognises that it is unrealistic for public transport, walking and cycling to meet all transport needs and that considerations include opportunities to minimise the number or length of car trips.

Although occupiers of the proposal would be partially reliant on private cars, in the context of the rural location, such journeys are likely to be short. Harm arising from the lack of accessibility of the site to services and facilities would therefore only be moderate. My findings on this matter therefore accord with that of other appeal decisions put before me.

In conclusion, the proposal would not be in a suitable location for new dwellings with regard to the local development strategy and access to services and facilities. It would conflict with LP policies 1, 2, 3, 7, 12, 21 and 23, and policies C1 and T1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document 2023 (CEDPD). These policies, amongst other things, take a hierarchical approach to direct development to appropriate locations based on the role and function of places, protect the natural environment and seek the promotion of sustainable means of transport.

Despite boundary fencing and storage use, the appeal site and surrounding area feature characteristics of CCA10: Carnmenellis, being an open elevated undulating granite plateau within which are scattered mining remains and a strong visual association with past mining activity. I observed the site is seen as part of and positively contributes to the rural historic mining landscape.

The Framework states that World Heritage Sites are heritage assets of the highest significance which are internationally recognised to be of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV).

The Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site Management Plan 2020-2025 (WHSMP) describes the WHS as a series of ten areas comprising the distinctive patterns of buildings, monuments and sites which together form the coherent series of distinctive cultural landscapes created by the industrialisation of hard-rock mining processes in the period 1700 to 1914. The appeal site forms part of the Camborne and Redruth Mining District of the WHS.

The Statement of OUV outlines that the remains of mines, engine houses, smallholdings, ports, harbours, canals, railways, tramroads, and industries allied to mining, along with new towns and villages reflect an extended period of industrial expansion and prolific innovation.

The appellant’s Heritage Statement1 (HS), provides sufficient information to allow an understanding of the historic relationship of the appeal site and WHS. There are a number of mine sites in the area with remaining engine houses and remnant mine workings. Nevertheless, the HS indicates that the appeal site is shown on the 1842 tithe map as part of a larger field, described as a croft and was not associated with the early activity of the mine. It continues that the site itself appears to have been only briefly used in connection with any mining activity on surrounding land.

Former mine sites are one of the key attributes that express OUV. However, given the largely undisturbed nature of the land and lack of mining features on the site, I find that the appeal site itself does not demonstrate any attributes of OUV that define the WHS. Indeed, this is consistent with the Inspectors view in relation to a previous appeal2 at the site.

However, the previous appeal decision was in relation to the use of the land as a storage yard and the stationing of four containers, with a planning condition ensuring material stores on the land did not exceed 2m in height. This materially differs from the proposal before me which would see the introduction of permanent built form by two storey residential development and associated domestic 1 Enhance Heritage & Planning ref: HS.2110.OBY.00 2 APP/D0840/W/23/3321504 paraphernalia. Moreover, given there are significant assets in the surrounding area as stated within the HS that positively contribute to the OUV, inappropriate development at the site could still harmfully effect the WHS.

The proposal would introduce residential built form onto a site divorced from the settlement pattern, and into the relict mining landscape. Its divorced spatial relationship would result in an incongruous development of urban residential built form into an area which whilst not demonstrating attributes of the OUV itself, positively contributes to the historic mining character of the area and the integrity of the WHS.

This would be readily apparent from both distant and nearby views, particularly along the adjacent PRoW. As such, and despite the design of the proposal reflecting the local vernacular, the proposal would inevitably harmfully overwrite part of the relict landscape and erode the legibility of this section of a former mining area.

Nevertheless, the impact would be minimal relative to the overall extent of the WHS and would be towards the lower end of less than substantial within the meaning of the Framework. However, the Framework sets out that less than substantial harm should be weighed against any public benefits associated with the development.

The proposal would deliver an increase of five dwellings in an area where the Council are unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Further public benefits include economic and social benefits to the local area, both short term during the construction period, and longer term through future occupant’s use of services and facilities.

However, the Framework sets out that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets and due to the limited scope and scale of the proposal, and notwithstanding the Councils housing land supply, these benefits in combination attract only modest weight and would not outweigh the harm that I have identified to the WHS.

To conclude, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and result in less than substantial harm to the WHS. It therefore conflicts with LP policies 1, 2, 3, 12, 21, 23 and CEDPD Policy C1. These policies seek, amongst other matters, to ensure that proposals respond to and are demonstrably informed by historic landscape character and to avoid harm to the authenticity and integrity of the WHS. The proposal would also conflict with policies P3, C2 and C9 of the WHSMP, which seek, amongst other things to protect, maintain and enhance the historic character and distinctiveness of the WHS.

The Grade II listed [address] lies near the appeal site and is a dominant feature of [site address] . It’s significance in part, arises from its architectural and historic value, and association with the historic mining industry. However, residential and commercial development surrounding the [address] compromise the historic value provided by its immediate setting.

Due its prominence in the landscape the [address] is visible from the appeal site. Nevertheless, given it is located on the opposing side of [address], the intervening built form and separation distance, the proposal would, in so far as it relates to this appeal, have a neutral effect on the significance of this heritage asset and setting.

The HS also identifies other designated heritage assets in the wider locality including [name], and structures at [name]. The significance of these heritage assets is derived, in part, from their historic values and association with the mining industry, and in the case of [name], the unique complete set of buildings, which can be experienced in close quarters.

The immediately surrounding land convey the functions between the assets and the mining industry and contribute to the historic value and setting of the assets. Given the notable wider separation distances to the surrounding heritage assets, lack of direct inter-visibility due to topography and intervening foliage, the proposal would not harm their significance.

The Council are unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply of deliverable housing sites. For the purposes of paragraph 11 of the Framework, the WHS is an asset of particular importance as denoted by footnote 7.

The proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the WHS. The Framework states that World Heritage Sites are heritage assets of the highest significance, and that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

As such, given that I have found less than substantial harm, notwithstanding towards the lower end of the scale, which is not outweighed by public benefits, and the significance of World Heritage Sites, I find that Section 16 of the Framework does provide a strong reason for refusing the proposal. Consequently, the provisions of paragraph 11d(ii) of the Framework are not engaged in this instance.

Nonetheless, the proposal’s benefits include the provision of five new dwellings to the areas housing land supply. Further benefits include short term economic benefit due to employment during construction, and an ongoing benefit from future occupants supporting local businesses, services, and the community. Notwithstanding, given the small scale and scope of the development, I find the benefits would be modest.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. No material considerations have been shown to have sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.