Appeal 6002503

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the conversion of existing buildings to form two dwelling houses and associated works at [site address] , Cornwall [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/05406, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The application form references the conversion, extension of granite barns to form two dwelling houses & associated works, and I have used this description for the header above. However, in my decision I have amended the description to; ‘conversion of existing buildings to form two dwelling houses and associated works’ as this more accurately describes the proposal. This acknowledges that there are no extension works proposed, and that not all the buildings to be converted are of granite construction, nor are they all barns.

The appeal site is situated within a conservation area. In making my determination I have been mindful of the statutory requirements placed upon decision-makers by section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

The application drawings reference the use of painted render to the external walls of Barn 1. However, the submitted Design and [name] reference the use of natural stone cladding to this building. For the purposes of the appeal, I have determined it in accordance with the submitted drawings.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the Trewellard Conservation Area (CA), the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site (WHS) and the Cornwall National Landscape (CNL) as designated heritage assets.

The appeal site consists of a group of three buildings which form part of the ‘ [site address] ’ complex. The farmhouse itself, which has recently been re-built is situated to the north across the yard, whilst other farm buildings, in various states of repair, are situated to the east and north-east of them. The farm complex sits in an elevated position, just outside the settlement boundary of the village of Trewellard, as defined on Map 5 of Appendix 2 in the St Just-in-Penwith Neighbourhood Development Plan 2021-2030 (the NDP).

The appeal group consists of a single storey, pitched roof building, referred to in the application drawings as Barn 1, which has concrete walls and a corrugated metal sheet roof. This building is situated at the western end of the group and is believed to have been constructed after 1907 but prior to 1946.

A further single storey, pitched roof building sits detached from, and at right angles to Barn 1. It is constructed from traditional granite to its walls, with natural slate to its roof, and is believed to have been constructed after 1880 but before 1907. This building sits centrally within the group and is attached to the third building, a tall two-storey structure at the eastern end of the group. The floor level of the two single storey buildings is at a lower level than the two-storey building. This third building is constructed from granite walls but has lost its previous slate covered pitched roof. It is believed to date from the early 1800’s and was formerly the [address] as part of the sett of [name] mine. These two granite buildings are referred to in the application drawings as Barn 2.

The appeal buildings, together with the farmhouse and other buildings which make up the ‘ [site address] ’ complex, fall within the Trewellard Conservation Area. Their varied age, detail, materials and close relationship, and particularly the former [address], contribute towards the historic significance of the CA and the rural but historic industrial character and appearance of the surrounding area, and its significance as a former tin and copper mining area. The historic significance of the [address] is acknowledged in the Cornwall and [name] (HER), where it is referenced as forming part of [name] 42747 – [name] – [name]. The former [address] is regarded by the Council as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA).

Whilst the two single storey buildings do not carry as much historical significance as the [address], they contribute to the group of agricultural buildings which form its setting. At my visit, it was clear that the [address] had undergone significant change in the intervening years since its use as part of the [name] mine. The walls of the building clearly indicated former openings which had been infilled, but which were clearly discernible. Stonework to both its northern and southern gables were evidently either later additions, or had been rebuilt, due to the slight difference in their stone type, and in the size and shape of stone used.

The Council’s archaeological officer notes the [address] in the 1843 [name] as having a chimney present on its north-west corner, but which is not indicated on the 1880 first edition of the OS map. At my visit, there were no indications that the [address] had an integrated chimney, or any signs of disturbance to the walls in this area from its removal. This would suggest this feature was either freestanding, was part of another now demolished adjacent building, or that the [address] building was fully reconstructed sometime between 1843 and 1880.

From the evidence before me, and with reference to the 1843 map, it seems likely that the chimney was part of another building, subsequently demolished, which occupied a site close to the position of the single storey section of Barn 2, but to a larger footprint. It is noted that the mine property was for sale in the latter part of the 1860’s, and by 1875 the single storey section of Barn 2 we see today, was present and the site in use as an agricultural small holding. [address] structure therefore would appear to be original, though having been subject to significant change, both physically and in its use.

The WHS office has objected to the proposal, primarily to the conversion of the former [address] for residential use. They consider it would harm its’ retained authenticity and integrity as a ruinous structure that remains as it was when inscribed as part of the WHS in 2006.

However, by reference to the Design and [name] (DAS) submitted with the application, the 2010 [name] image, looking from the public right of way adjacent to [name] towards the appeal site, it clearly shows the pitched slated roof over the [address] fully intact. Therefore, the [address] was not in a relict or ruinous state at the time of being inscribed as part of the WHS in 2006. It follows therefore, that it would not have contributed to the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the WHS in that way, at that time.

Whilst there have been comments relating to the proposal requiring the formation of new openings in the structures of the [address] and single storey buildings, the application drawings do not evidence this. They indicate that no new openings would be formed, and only existing openings, or original internal openings which had previously been blocked up, would be re-used. There would, therefore, be no new visible openings within the external envelopes of the group of buildings.

Many of these existing openings face inward into the courtyard between the appeal buildings and the farmhouse. Only a very limited number of openings face outward to the surrounding countryside. Similarly, the garden areas proposed to be associated with the new dwellings would be of a restricted size to the west, south and east of the group of buildings, and would be separated from the surrounding countryside by traditional Cornish hedges. The parking provision and the larger garden areas would be within the courtyard area facing the Farmhouse. These would use existing wall features to separate them from the Bridleway (114/167/1), which passes between them and the Farmhouse, retaining further historic fabric.

The appeal site is located at some distance from public highways which afford any views of the site. Views from the B3306 by the [name], and by the Bridleway (114/167/1) adjacent to [name] are both distant, around 330 metres and 110 metres respectively, and are at significantly lower vantage points. From these points, which I observed at my visit, the appeal site appears as a group of farm buildings within an upland rural, but post-industrial landscape. However, the appeal site grouping is also viewed, particularly from the B3306, against the backdrop of close by residential properties on [name], and [address] behind and so its proximate association with the village is evident.

Views from [address], from which the appeal site takes its’ vehicular access, are around 150 metres away, and the topography of the intervening landscape obscures views of the single storey buildings, the upper floor of the [address] being the primary element visible from this vantage point.

Whilst there would be more close quarter views of the proposal for users of the bridleway (114/167/1) or public right of way (114/168/1), which pass through the farm complex, I find the proposal would not harmfully change the overall fenestration of the buildings, nor their form. Careful detailing of the inserted roof, in the materials used, and in the detail of and set-back positioning of the windows and doors within the existing elevational openings, would allow retention of much of the [address]’s current relict features. These are matters that could be satisfactorily addressed by imposition of suitably worded conditions.

Along with sensitive consolidation of the stonework to the gable walls, and the careful repair of the infilled former openings, this would allow the historical interpretation of the building to be retained, both at close quarters and in wider views from the surrounding landscape. As a result, I find the proposal would not cause harm to the significance of these buildings. The proposals would preserve the contribution the [address] as an NDHA, and adjoining barn building currently make to the OUV of the WHS, acknowledging that the current more relict state, did not exist at the time of being inscribed as part of the WHS in 2006.

Due to the position of the existing openings, the restricted nature of the proposed residential garden areas, and the proposed location of parking areas, I find the extent of visual impact from the conversion of the group of buildings to a residential use, would be extremely limited. Much of the impact would be contained within the inward facing courtyard area, within the farmstead, which would be substantially screened from views from the surrounding public realm. Such views would be read in the context of a small farmstead, on the edge of a rural village. Any potential for harmful light spill, could be satisfactorily addressed by the imposition of a suitably worded condition controlling the extent and level of external lighting.

The appeal site is located within section 07 – [name] of the CNL. Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA) amended the duty placed on relevant authorities required by the Countryside and Right of Way Act 2000 (CRoW Act), requiring relevant authorities and decision makers to ‘seek to further’ the statutory purposes of protected landscapes, of which the CNL is one. It requires, as far as is reasonably practical, relevant authorities to seek to avoid harm and to contribute to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty, special qualities and key characteristics of [name].

Paragraph 189 of the Framework requires great weight to be given to protecting the scenic beauty of National Landscapes. However, having regard to my duties under the LURA and [name], the appeal proposal is located within proximity to the built-up edge of the village, as a conversion of existing agricultural and former mine buildings. It would utilise traditional materials and would be within a group of other such buildings, with landscape features retained within their surroundings. This would relate the appeal proposals to their setting within wider landscape views.

For the above reasons, I judge the appeal proposal not to have a detrimental effect on the scenic beauty of the wider CNL. It would, therefore, conserve the natural beauty, special qualities and key characteristics of the [name].

Paragraph 210 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) acknowledges the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and therefore by extension NDHA’s, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation. It also notes the contribution such conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities and their economic viability.

Having examined the evidence before me, I have found the proposal would not harm the significance of the [address] as an NDHA. Accordingly, I have found it would protect the OUV of the WHS. I have also found that it would not harm and would therefore conserve the natural beauty, special qualities and key characteristics of the CNL.

For the above reasons, having regard to my duty under section 72(1) of the Act, I conclude that the appeal proposal would not cause harm to the character or appearance of the CA, nor would it affect the way in which the CA, as a designated heritage asset, would be experienced.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would not conflict with Policies 1,2,12, 23 and 24 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 – 2030 (adopted 2016) (the CLP), policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document (February 2023), Policies AD2, AD3, AD4, AD5 or BD1 of the St Just-in-Penwith Neighbourhood Plan or with Chapters 15 and 16 of the Framework, which require, among other things, that development conserves and enhances the character and appearance of designated and non-designated heritage assets.

The southern part of the appeal site lies within the boundary of the West Penwith Moors and Downs SSSI (SSSI), whilst the appeal buildings lie within the [name] and Trewellard Common Cornwall Wildlife Site (CWS).

The Council, acting as Competent Authority for the purposes of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations), consulted Natural England (NE). NE confirmed that they consider the appeal proposal would not have a likely significant effect (LSE) on European sites or on the SSSI, and that an LSE can be ruled out. They therefore raised no objection to

Acting as Competent Authority for the purposes of the appeal, having examined the evidence before me, there is no credible evidence that the appeal proposal would have an LSE, either alone or in combination with other development, on the qualifying features of surrounding European sites within Cornwall, or on the SSSI. As an LSE can be ruled out, it has therefore not been necessary for me to carry out a further Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations, or to consult further with NE.

An interested party has drawn my attention to part of the appeal site within the red line boundary, as being registered as [name] under unit No.CL493 and known as [name] (or [address]). It is therefore protected under section 9 of the Commons Registration Act 1965.

Accordingly, the appellants would need to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State (SoS) for Environment, Food and [name], either to deregister and exchange land in common under section 16 of the Commons Act 2006, or apply for works on common land under section 38 of the Commons Act 2006. As this is part of a separate regulatory process under law, it has not been determinative to my decision in this appeal.

The Council has stated that it can currently demonstrate a 3.9-year housing land supply. This is below the 5-year [name] required by the Framework. Accordingly, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged for decision making purposes.

However, the appeal site contains an NDHA and is also within the CA, the CNL and the WHS. All of these are designated heritage assets as referenced in paragraph 11(d) (i) and footnote 7 of the Framework. However, I have found the proposal would not harm the significance of the former [address] as an NDHA, or the character or appearance of the CA, or the scenic beauty of the CNL, or the OUV of the WHS as designated heritage assets. It would therefore accord with the development plan in these regards. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to further consider the question of housing supply, and the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in national policy, as this would not alter the outcome of my decision.

I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council and the comments provided by the appellant. Where necessary I have amended the wording, in the interests of precision and clarity, and in order to comply with the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance and the Framework. Pre-commencement conditions have been the subject of a Regulation 2(4) notification and agreement with the appellant.

In addition to the standard time limit for implementation, in the interests of certainty, I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans. A pre-commencement Condition is necessary to ensure an approved methodology for historic building and archaeological site investigation and recording is in place prior to any physical works taking place on site.

Conditions are necessary for pre-commencement contaminated land assessment, and for contaminated land remediation, verification reporting and for the reporting of any unexpected, contaminated land discovered during development, in order to ensure the health and safety of site operatives and future occupiers.

A pre-commencement Condition is also required for the submission of landscape and planting proposals and their replacement in the event of failure, in the interest of visual amenity.

Conditions are also necessary for the submission and approval of materials to be used in the external envelope, and for large scale details of key junctions of the proposal in the interest of visual amenity.

A Condition has also been applied for the submission and approval of details of external lighting to be used, in the interest of visual amenity and to minimise light pollution within a [name] initiative area.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would accord with the development plan, read as a whole, and that there are no material considerations, including policies in the Framework, that would justify determining other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.

The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording

The programme for post investigation assessment

Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording

Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation

Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation

Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the [name] of Investigation. B) No development, mining and geotechnical investigations, or the conversion and alteration of the buildings shall take place other than in accordance with the project design/[name] of Investigation approved under (A). C) The new dwellings shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the [name] of Investigation approved under condition (A) and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured. D) The archaeological and historic building recording condition will only be discharged when all elements of the WSI including on site works, analysis, report, publication (where applicable) and archive work has been completed, and a final report has been submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority. [address] until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination, carried out in accordance with [name] 10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice and the Environment Agency‚ [name] (LCRM) (or equivalent [name] and [name] if replaced), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If any contamination is found, no development shall take place until: i. a report specifying the measures to be taken, including the timescale, to remediate the site to render it suitable for the development hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and ii. the site has been remediated in accordance with the approved measures and timescale; and iii. a verification report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 5 If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been previously identified, work shall be suspended until: i. additional measures for the remediation of the site have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and ii. a verification report for all the remediation works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 6 No development shall commence until a scheme of landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include details of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, identify those to be retained and set out measures for their protection throughout the course of development. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. [address] until samples of all external facing materials for use in the approved scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved samples. [address] until detail drawings, drawn at large scale (1:5 or 1:10), of key junctions of the inset roof, and of the windows and doors to be installed in the [address] and adjoining barn (Barn 2), which include dimensions of set-back from the face of the walls, and the materials to be used, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 9 a) Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, a scheme for any external lighting that is to be installed at the site, including measures to prevent light spillage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. (b) Any such external lighting as approved under part (a) shall be installed in accordance with the approved drawings and such directional hoods shall be retained permanently. (c) The applicant should demonstrate that the proposed lighting is the minimum needed for security and working purposes and that the proposals minimise pollution from glare and spillage. *** End of Schedule***