Appeal 6001889

The appeal is dismissed.

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 2 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 2 stages.

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

The main issues are whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development in relation to: • the local spatial strategy, and • the effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is part of a former quarry that lies to the north of the village of Ladock. It is adjoined by a residential garden to the south, with open countryside to the north and east. The site directly adjoins the B3275 to the west.

Policy 2 of the Cornwall Local Plan 2016 (LP) states that new development should provide a sustainable approach to accommodating growth and maintain the dispersed development pattern of Cornwall and provide homes and jobs based on the role and function of each place.

LP Policy 3 sets out a hierarchy for accommodating new residential development in the area. Ladock is not identified as a main town for the delivery of housing under LP Policy 3. Outside of the main towns identified in LP Policy 3, the policy states that housing will be delivered for the remainder of the Community Network Area through [name], the rounding off of settlements and development of previously developed land within or immediately adjoining that settlement of a scale appropriate to its size and role, by infill schemes that fill a small gap in an otherwise continuous built frontage and do not physically extend the settlement into the open countryside, and rural exception sites.

As there is no Neighbourhood Plan for the area and the proposal is not being put forward as an exception site or infill scheme, it falls to be considered against whether it comprises rounding off. Furthermore, the proposal does not gain support from LP Policy 7 as it does not comprise a replacement dwelling, subdivision of an existing dwelling, reuse of a building, temporary or full-time workers accommodation.

The supporting text to LP Policy 3 defines rounding off as applying ‘to development 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 also states that development should not visually extend building into the open countryside.’

There is no dispute between the main parties that weight should be given to the Council’s Chief Planning Officer’s Advice Note (CPOAN) on infill/rounding off which gives further guidance. Amongst other things, this states that rounding off provides a symmetry or completion to a settlement boundary and that a judgement will be required on a case by case basis whether a site has the appearance of being within the physical boundaries of that settlement.

The CPOAN indicates that the presence of definite boundaries, landscape features, the nature of the land and topography are amongst the important considerations in this respect. It requires proposals to be adjacent to existing development and contained within long standing and enclosing boundary features, for example, a road, outlining that suitable sites are likely to be surrounded on at least two sides by existing built development.

The proposal is to construct a dwelling on the site. The dwelling would sit adjacent to the road to the north of the garden to the adjacent dwelling. As such, there is built development to two sides. Furthermore, it could be bounded by the quarry walls/leat to the north and east that clearly define the site. As such, the site is enclosed by and is outside of the urban form of the settlement, the edge to which I find to be clearly visually and physically defined by the dwelling to the south that sits some distance from the site.

However, by reason of the treed and open nature of the appeal site, it is more akin to the agricultural and open countryside land outside of the settlement and nearby on approach to the Ladock. As a result, the proposal would visually extend built form into the countryside and does not have the appearance of being within the physical boundaries of the settlement. This is the case despite the signage to the entrance to the settlement being beyond the site to its north and it being within the lit 30mph zone with school crossing markings.

When travelling along the B3275, by virtue of its open, verdant and undeveloped nature, lack of footways connecting it to the settlement, location on a bend and distance from the house to the south, the appeal site reads and appears as part of the countryside on approach to Ladock. The appeal scheme would therefore be seen as an extension of built development beyond the urban form of the settlement. It would not therefore result in a symmetry or completion to the settlement boundary. This would be the case despite the presence of the leat/quarry walls to the northern and eastern boundaries. Therefore, the proposal would visually extend built form into the open countryside and would not round off the settlement of Ladock.

The CPOAN goes on to state that development of land that does not entirely fit the definition of infilling or rounding off, but would be within the form and shape of that settlement, will be acceptable where there is no significant harm arising. In relation to this however, I have found above that the site does not fall within the shape of the settlement due to its detachment from other built form reading as part of the open countryside on approach to the settlement.

[name] acknowledge that the appeal site comprises a former quarry, it visually appears as part of the countryside reclaimed by nature over time and benefiting from trees and planting. As a result, it does not have a despoiled, degraded or derelict appearance and I have little substantive evidence before me demonstrating that it is contaminated. As a result, I do not find that the proposal gains support from LP Policy 21 b.

Furthermore, with regard to access to services and facilities, I acknowledge that Ladock benefits from a number of services and facilities including a small post office, restaurant, primary school, church, community hall and bus stops serving Wadebridge, Bodmin, Truro and Newquay. However, the Parish Council have advised that the village does not have a shop and has limited bus services. In this regard I have not been provided with bus timetables. Furthermore, with regard to access to the services and facilities by foot, although some are close in distance, occupiers would be reliant on use of the B3275 that is devoid of pavements between the appeal site and community centre located on a bend in the road. In light of this and the speed of vehicles witnessed at the time of my site visit; the route would be unattractive despite the road markings and speed limit. Although the appellant states that further pedestrian access arrangements could be designed at the TDC stage to improve safety, no examples are given and due to the extent of the appeal site and relatively narrow nature of the road, such opportunities are likely to be extremely limited.

As such, access to a number of the facilities within Ladock, and more importantly access to day-to-day facilities such as secondary education, employment, shopping and leisure that are some distance from the site, would be reliant upon the use of a motor vehicle. I come to this conclusion considering that in rural locations it is unrealistic to expect public transport to meet all of resident’s travel needs. In addition, while I have also had regard to paragraph 83 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) identifying that development in one village may support another, given the small scale of the proposal any benefits and support would be very limited.

Consequently, I conclude that the site would not be suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development in relation to the local spatial strategy. As such, it would be contrary to [name] 2, 3, and 7, the aims of which I have outlined above. It would also be contrary to Policies C1 and T1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document February 2023 (DPD) that seeks to ensure that development represents sustainable development, is located in order to minimise the need to travel and maximises the ability to make trips by public transport, sustainable and active modes of transport.

The Councils reason for refusal references LP Policy 1 but as this relates to the presumption in favour of sustainable development and is very similar to paragraph 11 of the Framework, I will return to this below under [name].

The appeal site comprises a former quarry and as such varies considerably in topography with the eastern part of the site visibly forming quarry walls. While the remainder of the site is more level, it comprises a number of trees and planting. By virtue of the planting and lack of visible signs of recent quarrying and given the distance to the dwelling to the south, when viewed from the road, it has the appearance of being part of the open countryside on approach to Ladock.

[name] acknowledge that the appeal relates to Permission in Principle, by reason of the introduction of a residential built form onto the site with associated paraphernalia including car parking, outbuildings, sheds, and fencing, the proposal would visually and physically extend built form into the countryside. This would visually erode the largely undeveloped nature of the site and be harmful to the rural setting and approach to Ladock. Existing landscaping would not screen the development in totality given the raised nature of the tree canopies. Any additional landscaping to screen the development would likely appear alien to the more natural and sporadic planting on the site and take time to establish such that it would not adequately mitigate any visual harm.

I have found above that the appeal site does not appear to be degraded having been reclaimed by nature. As such, I do not find that the introduction of residential built form and likely paraphernalia would be an enhancement to the site or approach to Ladock. This would be the case even taking into account Ladock’s mixed setting and character.

It follows from the above that the proposal would not be suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development in relation to the effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, it is contrary to [name] 12 and 23 and Policy C1 of the DPD. Amongst other things, these seek to achieve a high quality safe, sustainable and inclusive design, maintain and enhance Cornwall’s distinctive natural character, respect landscape character of both designated and undesignated landscape and conserve and enhance the natural environment.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

My attention has been drawn to appeal reference APP/D0840/W/24/3353484 by the appellant. However, I do not have the full context of this decision with the Inspector concluding that the proposal was contained by existing development and complied with LP Policy 21. In light of my findings above, the appeal proposal is not directly comparable, and, in any case, I must determine this appeal on its own merits.

The Council accepts that they cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites as required by the Framework and that there is a ‘housing crisis’. Consequently, Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework, is engaged. It states that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The Framework states that existing policies should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted prior to its publication. Instead, due weight should be given to them, according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. As with the appeal decisions put forward by the Council1, I find that [name] 1, 2, 7, 12 and 23 are consistent with the Framework’s aims to achieve sustainable development, restrict new housing in the open countryside, and to reflect local character. Whilst the detailed locational aspects of CLP Policy 3 may be out of date in terms of housing supply, the generic locational guidance regarding rounding off is consistent with the Framework’s aim for development to respond to local character as detailed in the Cornwall Council’s Interim Policy Position Statement (March 2025).

Despite this, there is an urgent need for housing when considering the shortfall in housing supply that looks likely to continue for a number of years and the proposal would provide construction benefits and associated jobs with occupiers supporting local services and facilities through increased spend and Council Tax. The proposal would also provide some climate change measures, BNG and additional planting. As such, the delivery of a dwelling would contribute towards the area’s housing supply and provide other benefits, and its small scale means it would likely be built out relatively quickly. However, given the small scale of the proposal, the benefits, would be very modest.

Weighing against the proposal is the location of the site and conflict with the local development strategy, along with harm to the character and appearance of the area. Even taking into account the objective to promote the effective use of land and to significantly boost the supply of housing and the Council’s housing land supply position, the conflict between the proposal and the most important policies in the development plan should be given significant weight in this appeal. 1 APP/D0840/W/24/3348094 and APP/D0840/W/24/3343450

In light of the above, I find that the identified adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the identified benefits of the proposal, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would not deliver a sustainable form of development and is contrary to LP Policy 1.

The proposed development would be likely to have a significant effect, either alone or in combination, on the Fal and Helford Special Area of Conservation (SAC) due to its location within its recreational zone of influence. The appellant has paid a contribution towards mitigating any significant effects on the SAC and made an undertaking under Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I do not need to consider the related duties under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 further.

I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole, and there are no other considerations, including the Framework, that outweigh that harm. The appeal is therefore dismissed.