Appeal 6002686

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with reference to the setting of the Grade I Listed building the Church of [name], (hereafter the church); and • the suitability of the site for the proposal having regard to the development plan’s approach to the location of employment development.

The appeal site is part of a field to the north of the MOD land that remains from the former World War Two (WW2) airfield RAF [site address] . The disused runways and taxiways to the south are now beset with MOD communication masts owing to the former airfield’s modern use as a military radio station. Access to the appeal site is from a highway to the south, which runs along the radio station’s north perimeter.

The village of [site address] , which largely developed from the former ‘married quarters’ associated with the airfield, is some distance to the southeast. To the immediate west are an aggregate supplier and a go karting enterprise, the latter now operating under extended opening hours. The church is directly to the east of the field.

Whilst the wider field is essentially grass bound by hedges, the appeal site is drawn around an area of hardstanding shaped as a ‘banjo’. This structure was used during WW2 for the stationing of military aircraft. The banjo remains an obvious feature and has not blended back into the agricultural landscape. In this sense, the appeal site comprises an area of [name] (PDL).

The site is within the immediate setting of the church. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) holds that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource that should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations. As a [name] listed building, the church is a designated heritage asset of the highest significance and is of exceptional special interest. The listed building has a fascinating history, marked by a surprising amount of, sometimes dramatic, change, with three key periods which manifest heavily on its significance.

It was initially a medieval pastoral church defined by its elevated siting ‘all on its own’ in a remote agrarian landscape. There was at a time a small churchtown and houses around or near it, but these modest buildings would not have impinged upon the rural character of its setting nor its primacy. Previously the area was also more enclosed by hedgerows, since removed, around smaller open fields. However, whilst the fields around the church are now more expansive and within different boundaries, they still present as an overtly rural and isolated landscape. Despite being more open than they once were, at the very least the current arrangement of fields provides an echo of the church’s historic former setting.

Second, its tower was rebuilt in the 18th century to aid seafarers as a seamark. This further underscores the importance of the vertical primacy of the church. The radio masts to the south are far more lightweight than the church tower and so have nothing like its substantive presence. Third, during WW2, RAF [site address] grew and grew, and the church came to be subsumed by it. The farmland around the church was developed on all sides with hardstandings and buildings and [name] adopted the role of the station church. It is only fairly recently that the fields around the church, including the appeal site, have reverted to their historic agricultural uses.

The church’s role within RAF [site address] is particularly important within the context of the loss of life during WW2 related the airfield, with a chastening figure of almost 1000 men killed by enemy action. These men continue to be remembered by the graves and commemorative artefacts which punctuate the church. This includes, within the churchyard, a row of immaculately maintained Commonwealth war graves. These graves are publicly signposted, and I note from the Parish Council’s comments that the church is visited by hundreds of people every year.

The churchyard is slightly elevated to the appeal site, and the intervening boundary hedge is quite low, which means there is actually clear intervisibility between them. The field hosting the site has largely returned to a more traditional, pastoral appearance. Its verdant character, as open grass bound by hedges, albeit newer hedges, emphasises the original, remote rural position of the church. The absence of development above ground level contributes to the church’s primacy. The banjo is visible from the churchyard and vice versa. This intervisibility overtly links the church and its commemorative role, back to the airfield it came to adopt spiritually.

As such, the appeal site contributes much to the significance the church draws from its setting by addressing the discrete, key narratives in the church’s history in an immediate and direct way. A large bund separating the field from the adjacent aggregate business ensures that the neighbouring land uses to the west do not notably impinge upon this relationship. It follows that the site is of high historic value.

The proposed building and works, vehicular parking and associated light emittance would significantly impoverish the open, verdant and rural character of the field. This would be observed from the churchyard, from within the appeal site and the wider field, and the profile of the building would also compete with the church when viewed together from the highway to the south. The ‘banjo’ would be removed and so, despite modelling the landscaping on its shape, the site’s remnant role in RAF [site address] would disappear. The adverse effects of the latter would be perhaps most appreciated by those paying their respects at the Commonwealth graves, given that the appeal site falls within the immediate backdrop to these graves. A photograph of this key spatial relationship is not included in the appellant’s heritage evidence.

The development would therefore erode the site’s contribution to the Church’s complex narrative and harm its significance. The harm would, in the Framework’s terms, be less than substantial. Given the clear and layered contribution that the site makes to the setting of the Church that would be diminished, the harm would be towards the upper end of a sliding scale of less than substantial harm.

Either way, the Framework explains that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Any harm to the significance of an asset from development within its setting requires clear and convincing justification. The Framework goes on to require decision makers to weigh any less than substantial harm against the public benefits of the scheme. In this case that exercise must take place in the context of s.66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which sets a strong presumption against a grant of permission for development that would cause harm to the setting of a listed building.

The appellant, and interested parties, have set out an array of social, economic and environmental benefits that would accrue from the scheme, related to [name], [site address] , and the wider area. I have no reason to take issue with any of them. I am also aware of the support for the growth and expansion of businesses that exists within the Framework, including in rural areas, and also the support that the Framework lends to the reuse of PDL. Ultimately, however, this is an inherently modest employment scheme and the stakes for the historic environment are far higher. The public benefits that would result pale in comparison to the great weight I attribute to the harm that would arise to a designated heritage asset of the highest significance, and which is of exceptional public interest.

The current planning application for the provision of housing on a site to the southeast of the radio station has little bearing on this appeal. I understand that it is currently undetermined, and the site in question is some distance away, and on the other side of [site address] village. Likewise, the referenced appeal decision in Newlyn is lacking in relevance as it did not involve harm to a [name] listed building

Accordingly, the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area with reference to the setting of the church. It would conflict with the landscape and heritage aims of Policies 2, 12, 21, 23 and 24 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 (adopted 2016) (CLP) and Policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document (adopted 2023) (DPD).

Policy 5 of the CLP provides that, to ensure a continued supply of appropriate business space, proposals for new employment land and uses should be a) well-integrated with Cornwall’s city, towns and villages or b) within areas that are well served by public transport and communications infrastructure. Failing that and if in the countryside, proposals should c) be of a scale appropriate to its location or demonstrate an overriding locational and business need to be in that location.

The appeal site is clearly located within the countryside and, with a single, hourly ‘hail and ride’ bus service the only public transport option some 250m along the adjacent highway near the church, there is a paucity of reliable public transport near to the site. This means that the proposal would in all likelihood be accessed almost always via private transport. Parts a) and b) of Policy 5 would not be met.

However, turning to part c), [name] is locally rooted, catering for the management of holiday lets in Padstow and the surrounding coastal area. The current set up is fragmented which is inhibiting growth and the effective management of the business. There is a need to consolidate the enterprise into a sensibly placed and holistically designed centre of operations. [site address] is geographically an adept place from which the business could manage its lets.

The appellant has clearly spent a lengthy amount of time searching for locations both within Padstow and the wider area to do so, which has been thwarted by a highly competitive market and a lack of available options. When one considers the current arrangement, the need for the business to grow and consolidate, and the clear absence of alternative sites at the moment, it draws the conclusion that there is a locational and business need for the development in the proposed location.

I therefore conclude this issue that the site would be suitable for the proposal having regard to the development plan’s approach to the location of employment development. The proposal would accord with Policies 2 and 5 of the CLP, T1 of the DPD and Policy SENDP7 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Development Plan 2014- 2030 (made 2015) insofar as, read together, they seek to support the supply and expansion of businesses in locations where there is an operational need for them.

Given the harm that would arise to the church, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole.

I keenly recognise the circumstances that have led [name] to the appeal site, and the level and warmth of support for the relocation of the business to [site address] . It is clear that employment land supply delivery in this part of Cornwall and indeed Cornwall as a whole has lagged significantly behind the level envisaged by the CLP. Given that the CLP runs to 2030, it is highly unlikely that the shortfall in employment land provision is going to be resolved during the plan period. The practical implications of this situation on the growing number of local businesses in Cornwall, like [name], is that it is really difficult to expand and consolidate the business. The general absence of available employment land locally has been highlighted keenly by several interested parties that are local to [site address] itself.

However, listed buildings rightly enjoy a significant level of protection in statute and planning policy. Even within this context, the [name] listed church is of the upmost importance to the public interest; it is an acute constraint on this particular site. Given the harm that the scheme would cause to the significance of the church, the other considerations before me, including the Framework, do not indicate that I should make my decision other than in accordance with the development plan.

For this reason, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.