Appeal 6001877

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for residential development comprising a minimum and maximum of 1 dwelling at [address], Menna, [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/05680.

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 (‘permission in principle’) establishes whether a site is suitable in principle and the second (‘technical details consent’) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first stage.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. 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 on this basis.

The main issue is whether the appeal site is suitable for residential development, having regard to location, land use and the amount of development proposed.

Much of the appeal site consists of grassland. With it also including various trees, the site therefore has a relatively undeveloped, verdant nature. However, it includes a surfaced access track and forms part of the residential garden of [address]. The main parties therefore agree that it constitutes previously developed land and the available evidence does not indicate otherwise. The site also reads as being in domestic use, is clearly separate from the surrounding agricultural countryside and does not form a component part of it.

The site is positioned in between several properties, including [address] and the various dwellings off [address]. A short distance away, and visible from very near to the site, are some further properties, including those just beyond [address] and to the south of [address]. Whilst there are gaps between many of these properties, the degree of separation is not significant. Although some other properties are within the Menna ‘nameplate’, the dwellings in the vicinity of the [address] junction with the A3058 read as a group rather than a scatter or low-density straggle of development with no clearly definable boundaries; and have a shape and form sufficient to constitute a small hamlet centred around the junction. In coming to this view, I have taken into account the screening effect of trees and hedges between the various properties.

On this basis, the proposed construction of one dwelling on the site constitutes development of previously developed land within or immediately adjoining a settlement of a scale appropriate to its size and role, in accordance with Policy 3 of Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 - 2030 (CLP). Consequently, CLP Policy 7 is not applicable. Neither the appeal decision put to me regarding this matter nor the lack of facilities in the hamlet lead me to a different conclusion.

The appeal proposal would result in the site being developed to a notably greater extent than now, and this would reduce its verdant and relatively undeveloped form. However, the site is largely enclosed by residential development and is visually and physically distinct from the adjoining agricultural field by the robust hedgerow boundary adjacent to the surfaced track. It also reads as domestic garden and, it seems to me, could include more domestic paraphernalia than now given its lawful use. Consequently, the development of one dwelling on the site would read as suitably related to its developed, residential surroundings; and would not extend development into the open countryside. Subject to a suitable scale and design at technical details stage, it would therefore not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area or wider rural landscape.

There are no pavements or street lighting on [address] or the nearby section of the A3058. Combined with the distances involved, walking or cycling to services and facilities would therefore not be particularly safe or appealing. However, there is a bus stop near to the junction and it seems to me that the layby would provide a suitable refuge area for waiting or arriving passengers. Subject to the securing of a new pedestrian access point in the southern part of the site at technical details consent stage, as described in the appellant’s appeal statement, the development could therefore realistically be accessed by public transport. On this basis, future occupiers would not be solely reliant on the private vehicle. In coming to this view, I have taken account of the frequency of the bus services and the number of places they serve, the lack of bus shelters, and the need to cross the A3058 when using services heading towards Newquay and Summercourt.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to location, land use and the amount of development proposed. I therefore find that it accords with Policy T1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document and [name] 2, 3 and 23. Amongst other aspects, these set out the Council’s approach to delivering housing and sustainable transport, and expect development to respect quality of place and sustain local character.

The appeal proposal is not within the scope of biodiversity net gain (BNG) because the grant of permission in principle is not a grant of planning permission. However, BNG is within the scope of the technical details consent stage as a grant of that would constitute the grant of planning permission. For it to be exempt from statutory BNG, as per the Council’s Officer Report, the proposed development would therefore need to be properly secured as a self-build dwelling at that stage.

The appeal site is within the zone of influence of the Fal and Helford Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The submitted evidence, including the Council’s European Sites Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document (SPD, July 2021), indicates that certain types of development, including all new housing, within 12.5 kilometres of the SAC add to increasing recreational impact at the designated site. Alone and/or in-combination with other relevant development, the appeal proposal would therefore be likely to have a significant effect on it. Accordingly, under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, Appropriate Assessment of the implications of the project for the designated site in view of its conservation objectives is required. In accordance with CLP Policy 22, appropriate mitigation would, where necessary, also need to be secured.

The qualifying features of the SAC include saltmarsh, intertidal mudflats and sandflats, subtidal sandbanks, large shallow inlets and bays including habitats such as reefs and rocky shores, estuaries, and Atlantic salt meadows and shore dock. The conservation objectives for the designated site seek to ensure that its integrity is maintained or restored and that the site contributes to achieving the Favourable Conservation Status of the [name] by maintaining or restoring the: extent and distribution of qualifying habitats and habitats of qualifying species; structure and function of qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying species; supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying species rely; and the populations and distribution of qualifying species. The SAC also has a Site Improvement Plan which, amongst other things, details the current and predicted issues affecting the condition of its features, which includes public access/disturbance, and the actions required to improve the condition of the features.

Without mitigation, it would not be possible to ascertain that the development would not adversely affect the SAC’s integrity through the effects of increased recreation on its interest features. However, the SPD sets out that the adverse effects of development can be mitigated by managing access to or within the SAC, managing visitor behaviour, and making it more resilient to recreational pressure. This is termed as [name] and Monitoring (SAMM).

Unless developers choose to provide their own mitigation measures, the SPD indicates that such mitigation can be strategically led through a SAMM plan, which has been drawn up and costed for the SAC, is funded by financial contributions from relevant development, and is delivered by the Council. The SPD identifies that developers can make use of the strategic mitigation by providing a financial contribution towards SAMM.

Based on the submitted evidence, the securing of the necessary mitigation would be sufficient to mitigate the effects of the development on the SAC. In this instance, the appellant has submitted a section 111 undertaking covering the required contribution and has already made the payment. This is sufficient to mitigate the effects of the development on the designated sites. Confirming this, Natural England have indicated that the mitigation would ensure the development would not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC and its relevant features.

On this basis, I am able to ascertain, as the competent authority undertaking Appropriate Assessment, that the integrity of the designated site would not be adversely affected by the development proposed.

For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposed development accords with the development plan as a whole. The appeal is therefore allowed.