Appeal 6002533

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning Practice Guidance advises that permission in principle 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) (PIP) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle, and the second (‘technical details consent’ stage) (TDC) 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 TDC application if PIP is granted.

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

Policy 3 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 (LP) sets out a hierarchical strategy for the delivery of new housing based on the role and function of places. This Policy provides that outside larger named settlements, housing growth is to be delivered through, amongst other means, infill and rounding off within or immediately adjoining a settlement of a scale appropriate to its size and role.

The appeal scheme has not been advanced as infill, but rather a form of rounding-off development. [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”.

The Chief Planning Officer’s Advice Note – Infill/[name] (December 2017) (CPOAN) provides further guidance on the locally adopted approach in relation to matters such as rounding off. It indicates that ‘Rounding off provides a symmetry or completion to a settlement boundary’ and ‘it is not intended to facilitate continued incremental growth’. It further states suitable sites for rounding off must be contained within long standing boundary features (such as a road) and are likely to be surrounded on at least two sides by existing built development.

The appeal site is part of a field set to pasture and is enclosed on three sides by hedgebank (with highway beyond), a dwelling known as Drumeagles, and an access track.

Notwithstanding the site being enclosed on three sides, other factors must also be considered in assessing whether a proposal constitutes rounding off, including whether the proposal would visually extend development into the open countryside. In this regard, 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)’, with the CPOAN adding that it ‘is part of an expansive area before the next settlement’.

The adjacent access track, which is opposite the final dwelling in a linear development pattern clearly provides a clear form and shape to built-form within the settlement, and a visual demarcation between the settlement and open countryside. The demarcation of the urban form of the settlement by the access track would be further re-enforced if the adjacent planning permission1 for a detached dwelling is implemented, given that site’s location opposite residential dwellings which visually rounds off the settlement pattern.

[name], located on the opposing side of the appeal site, may not be ‘isolated’, it is clearly read as being separate, and an outlier to the defined settlement. The appeal site is therefore part of an expansive open countryside area, and the proposal would not provide a symmetry or completion to a settlement boundary but visually extend building into the open countryside. I therefore find it would not constitute rounding-off.

LP Policy 21 seeks to ensure the best use of land in certain circumstances, including sustainably located proposals that increase building density where appropriate, taking into account the character of the surrounding area and access to services and facilities.

The sustainability of the location in terms of access to services and facilities has not been refuted by the Council and I see no reason to disagree. Nevertheless, the site is within an Area of [name] (AGLV) and within Cornwall Character Area CCA38: [name] (CCA). The appeal site, being part of the pastoral landscape, together with established roadside hedging provides a positive contribution to the scenic landscape of the AGLV. The gap it provides between the edge of the settlement and further sporadic built form such as Drumeagles provides an important visual role in the rural setting of the settlement and forms an integral part of the verdant and rural character of the area.

The CCA highlights pressures that could impact landscape character including development on the edges of settlements, such as the proposal, which would 1 PA25/04729 impact on the tranquil perceptual qualities and erode the traditional settlement pattern of small, dispersed villages.

Even if the proposal’s layout were to be linear similar to that within the settlement, the proposal would inevitably introduce residential built form and associated paraphernalia into the countryside. It would remove an open countryside gap between the settlement and Drumeagles which is important to the rural setting of the settlement. Although seen in the context of other residential built form, and notwithstanding screening provided by hedging, residential built form would be readily apparent from surrounding viewpoints as an urban intrusion into the countryside.

Given the positive contribution the appeal site makes to the scenic and rural landscape of the AGLV and important role in the setting of the settlement, the proposal would result in substantial harmful erosion of the character and perceptual qualities of the area. Due to the prominence, I do not consider that overall detailed design considerations at TDC stage could overcome this projection into the countryside. The proposal would therefore fail to respond to the landscape context and enhance the landscape as advocated by the [name] 2021.

It follows that I conclude that the site is not suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development. As such, the proposal is contrary to [name] 1, 2(1d), 3, 7, 12, 21 and 23(1) and Policy ENV1 of the North Cornwall Local Plan (1999) (NCLP). Amongst other things, these seek to achieve sustainable development and take a hierarchical approach to direct development based on the role and function of places, maintain and enhance Cornwall’s distinctive natural character, and respect landscape character of both designated and undesignated landscapes.

The reason for refusal also refers to LP Policy 9. However, as the proposal is not advanced as a rural exceptions site this policy is not determinative in the appeal.

The Council are unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply of deliverable housing sites, with the appellant stating, and not refuted by the Council, that their supply is circa 3.8 years. As such, Paragraph 11 d)ii of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) is engaged.

The proposal would achieve an increase in housing supply in an area with an acknowledged lack of housing provision. Nevertheless, the benefit to housing delivery is modest given the scale of the proposal for up to four dwellings. Furthermore, there would be modest short term economic benefits from the construction of the proposal and further modest economic and social benefits from the future occupation of the dwellings and associated spending in the locality.

However, the proposal would result in development in the open countryside and AGLV that would not contribute to or enhance the natural and local environment and resultant significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to [name] 1, 2(1d), 3, 7, 12, 21 and 23(1) and NCLP Policy ENV1, and conflicts with the development plan as a whole. The development plan policies that the scheme conflicts with are broadly consistent with the Framework. As such, and due to the degree of harm I have identified, I give the conflict with these policies substantial weight.

The Framework is clear that new development should add to the overall quality of an area and protect and enhance valued landscapes. It highlights that development should be visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and the surrounding built environment. While the proposal would align with the objectives of the Framework which seek to significantly boost housing supply and promote the effective use of land, and acknowledging that small sites can make an important contribution, I have found the contribution to housing supply to be a modest benefit alongside other modest benefits.

Consequently, I find that the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the proposal would not represent sustainable development.

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