Appeal 6002985

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of 9 dwellings and means of access only at [site address] , Truro [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/05747, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The application was made in outline with only details of access to be determined at this stage. Matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are reserved for future consideration (the ‘reserved matters’). I have therefore treated any references to reserved matters, on the plans or in other documentation, as illustrative.

I have taken the description of development in the banner heading above from the application form. However as ‘(all other matters reserved)’ is not an act of development, I have removed this element.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the appeal site would provide a suitable location for housing, having regard to the local development strategy and accessibility to services and facilities; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether the proposal makes adequate provision for infrastructure, particularly education, open space, and health care.

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 schemes and rounding off within or immediately adjoining a settlement of a scale appropriate to its size and role.

The LP defines infill development as schemes that fill a small gap in an otherwise continuous built frontage and do not physically extend the settlement into the Countryside. Rounding off is defined 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”.

Guidance provided within the Chief Planning Officer’s Advice Note – Infill/[name] (December 2017) also advises that a judgement will be required as to whether a site has the appearance of being within the physical boundaries of that settlement and that ‘Rounding off provides a symmetry or completion to a settlement boundary’ and ‘it is not intended to facilitate continued incremental growth’

The appeal site is undeveloped and features well defined mature hedges to the boundary with a highway frontage. It is therefore substantially enclosed, with dwellings to either side of the highway frontage. Furthermore, there is residential built form on the opposing side of the highway.

However, an assessment as to whether the proposal would visually extend building into the open countryside is also required. The appeal site is located outside the settlement boundary of [site address] as detailed within the Feock Neighbourhood Development Plan 2017-2030 (NP) and I observed [site address] to have a clear form and shape which broadly follows the settlement boundary.

Whilst there is sporadic residential built form and a garden centre outside of the defined settlement area, this is of a notably lower density, and appear as sporadic outliers to the main settlement form, emphasised by the curvature of the road, surrounding mature planting and undeveloped parcels of land. Moreover, given the scattered an irregular spatial relationship of dwellings in combination with undeveloped areas of land, the frontage along this part of [address] cannot be said to be continuously built up.

These findings are similar to that I found within a previous appeal decision1 that has been put before me in relation to a nearby site. From my observations at my recent site visit, and the evidence before me, my assessment on this matter has not changed and I therefore find that the site is not immediately adjoining the settlement and has more affinity to the open countryside landscape outside of the settlement.

My view is also reinforced by the appeal site being beyond the sensitive settlement edge as defined within the NP, which I am told sought to prevent urban sprawl and retain the unique and individual identity of settlements. Indeed, my findings are 1 APP/D0840/W/23/3327622 also consistent with the findings of a differing Inspector for an earlier appeal2 at the current appeal site.

In combination with the appeal sites affinity with the undeveloped countryside, the proposal would not appear as providing symmetry or completion to the settlement and be more a form of incremental growth away from the main settlement extending building into the countryside. It does not therefore represent rounding off or infill as foreseen within the LP.

In terms of access to services and facilities, whilst some services are located beyond a 10-minute (800 metre) walk, a range is available within comfortable walking or cycling distance from the appeal site.

However, despite improvements to pedestrian safety provided by the [address] [name] scheme (TCS) with introduction of road cushions and lighting columns, there is no continuous pedestrian pavement to the appeal site from [site address] . Indeed, the TCS outlines that highway widths do not allow the provision of a footway/pavement.

Nevertheless, although unmade and uncut, I found that roadside verges between the appeal site and the settlement do provide a means of walking off the carriageway for some sections of the journey. They also provide pedestrian refuge in places from passing vehicles, particularly given the TCS and relatively slow speeds of vehicles I witnessed at my site visit. As such, walking, as well as cycling to some services and facilities is a feasible option for some people.

However, pedestrians could include those of reduced mobility requiring wheelchairs, or those pushing wheeled equipment such as prams. Due to the lack of a hard surfaced continuous pavement, and even with traffic calming, such pedestrians would be unable to use the unmade verge. As such, the route would not be attractive to such users due to potential conflict with vehicles on the carriageway. Consequently, the route would not therefore provide suitable pedestrian access for all people at all times of the year.

Despite this, the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in decision-making. Given the above and the access available, harm resulting from some future occupiers being unable to access facilities by foot is modest.

To conclude, the appeal site would not provide a suitable location for housing, having regard to the local development strategy and accessibility to services and facilities. The proposal would conflict with [name] 2, 3, 7, 21, 27, and Policy T1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document February 2023 (CEDPD). These policies seek, amongst other things, to achieve sustainably located development which minimises the need to travel and take a hierarchical approach to direct development based on the role and function of places.

The appeal site is a field which the appellant’s Planning, Design & [name] states is used as a paddock. I observed the surrounding area features some characteristics of Character Area CCA15 Carnon Valley it falls within 2 APP/D0840/W/17/3175135 including being part of a post-medieval mixed farming landscape and field pattern. [name] have previously identified, the site has more affinity with the open countryside landscape and is rural in overall character, although surrounding residential development as well as street lighting and features associated with the TCS reduces the rurality and results in the surrounding area having a semi-rural character.

Whilst the proposal is in outline form, given the width of the site frontage and the quantum of dwellings subject to the proposal, residential built form, associated access infrastructure and paraphernalia is likely to result in a denser form of urban development. This would be visually apparent given nearby low-density sporadic development.

The proposal would be seen from both the highway approaching [site address] , and distant viewpoints given the sites position on a hillside, and alter the approach to, and setting of [site address] . Despite this, the appeal site would nevertheless be seen in conjunction with other residential development and therefore would not be totally unexpected.

However, the proposal would inevitably result in a change in character and appearance of the site and harmfully erode the semi-rural character of the area and setting of the main cluster of the settlement. Nonetheless, I see no reason why the visual harm to the area could not be reduced by appropriate layout, design and landscaping at reserved matters. Overall, subject to reserved matters, I find that the extent of harmful effects on the landscape would be modest.

To conclude, the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with [name] 2, 3, 7, 21, 23 and NP Policy LS2. These policies seek, amongst other things, to ensure that new development is of good quality design and appropriate density which sustains local distinctiveness and character and protects and where possible enhances Cornwall’s natural environment.

During the appeal process, a planning obligation by way of a unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) dated the 17th June 2026 (UU) was submitted. The UU seeks to provide financial contributions towards education, health care and delivery of public open space (POS). Legal and policy tests require that planning obligations should only be sought where they are: a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b) directly related to the development; and c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

In terms of education, the Education Infrastructure Needs Assessment provides a methodology and sufficient evidence that mitigation requirement in the form of a financial contribution is necessary due to the school infrastructure capacity being insufficient to support the occupants of the number of dwellings proposed. The UU directs the contribution to the [name] and [name].

In terms of health care, the NHS Kernow Clinical Commissioning Group ‘guide to planning contributions and health care provision in relation to primary care services’ provides sufficient evidence that mitigation requirement in the form of a financial contribution is necessary due to an identified deficiency in healthcare provision. The UU directs the [name] contribution towards the nearby [site address] Surgery.

Finally, Given the scale of the appeal site and other areas of open space in the wider area, the Council’s Principal Public Space Officer ([name]) has outlined the need for a contribution to the creation or improvement of strategic outdoor sports provision within the local Community Area Partnership area to be used in line with the Council's adopted [name] and Framework. LP Policy 13 notes that where there is access to alternative facilities that would meet the needs of the new development, contributions to the ongoing maintenance and management of these alternative facilities may be required. As such, I find that all the above obligations are necessary, directly related to the development and reasonably related in scale and kind.

Consequently, the proposal makes adequate provision for infrastructure, particularly education, open space and health care. The proposal therefore accords with LP policies 13.2. and 28 which amongst other things, seeks developer contributions to ensure that the necessary physical, social, economic and green infrastructure is in place to deliver development.

Interested parties have brought my attention to flooding risk. However, percolation tests have shown that surface water disposal by infiltration is appropriate, and given the scale and topography of the appeal site, I see no reason why a drainage scheme cannot come forward which would ensure appropriate and sufficient foul and surface water drainage.

It is also put to me that the proposal would result in the loss of very good quality agricultural land. In this respect I am told that the land in question is not sloping in excess of 7 degrees, which indicates that the land is ‘grade 2’, although this is refuted by the appellant. Whilst the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) outlines that Best and [name] land (BMV) includes grade 2, I have no substantive evidence that the appeal site does constitute BMV and even if it were, given the size of the appeal site, the quantum of loss of agricultural land would be modest.

The appeal site is within the Council’s ‘Call for sites’ process, and I am told it has passed the second stage of the Council’s Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA). Nevertheless, the Planning Practice Guidance is clear that the HELAA does not in itself determine whether a site should be allocated for development, but it is for the development plan itself. I therefore assign only very modest weight to the progress of the appeal site through the HELAA.

My attention has been brought to the ability for the appeal site to be utilised as a temporary campsite for up to 50 pitches under permitted development rights (the Fallback). Given the appellant has discussed the potential future use of the site under the fallback and a booking system is available online, I consider there is a greater than theoretical possibility of this taking place.

However, whilst there would be associated movements with such a use, this would be only for part of the year given the permitted development right only allows camping for 60 days in a calendar year. Moreover, camping and its associated modest structures and infrastructure would have a temporary, and notably less harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area than permanent residential built form. As a result, the fallback position is a matter that carries very modest weight.

Despite interested parties stating that there are a notable number of dwellings for sale in the local area, the Council are unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply of deliverable housing sites and have stated that their supply is 3.9 years. I have not been made aware of any areas or assets of particular importance as denoted by footnote 7 of the Framework that would provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed and as such, Paragraph 11 d)ii of the Framework is engaged.

The proposal would achieve an increase in housing supply in an area with an acknowledged lack of housing provision. Moreover, the UU secures the dwellings as ‘self-build’. As such the proposal would align with the Framework where it seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing for differing groups in the community including those wishing to commission or build their own homes. Furthermore, the Framework acknowledges that small-scale developments can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement and be built out quickly. Due to the scope and scale of the proposal for 9 dwellings, this benefit attracts moderate weight.

Additionally, the proposal would provide other 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 support of local services and facilities.

However, the proposal would conflict with LP policies 2, 3, 7, 21, 23, 27, CEDPD Policy T1 and NP Policy LS2 and the development plan as a whole. Given the housing supply position and that the locational strategy for the delivery of development needs to deliver a Framework compliant supply of housing land, I attach limited weight to the conflict with the development plan policies that set the approach to the location of development. Nonetheless, the Framework is clear that new development should be directed to sustainable locations and add to the overall quality of an area. It highlights that development should be visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and the surrounding built environment. The development plan policies in relation to these matters that the scheme conflicts with are broadly consistent with the Framework.

Nevertheless, harm to the character and appearance of the area is localised and modest, whilst the Framework also recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Whilst the proposal would not provide suitable pedestrian access for all people at all times of the year, resulting in some reliance on private vehicles to reach services and facilities, given the relatively short distances to travel by private vehicle if needed, I give this conflict modest weight.

In this instance, the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the range of benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the application of Paragraph 11d) of the Framework indicates that permission should be granted.

A number of other appeal decisions have been brought to my attention by the Council. Whilst my findings in relation to such matters as rounding off, infill, accessibility and consistency of policies with the Framework are broadly consistent with the other Inspectors findings, each case involves a differing site and therefore differing circumstances and effects.

The appeal site is within the zone of influence of the Fal and Helford Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The Cornwall Council European Sites Mitigation - Supplementary Planning Document – July 2021 (SPD) explains that the SAC qualifying features include saltmarsh, intertidal mudflats, subtidal sandbanks, large shallow inlets and bays, estuaries and reefs.

Recreational activity within this area has the potential to disturb the habitats. The SPD concludes that additional residential development within the identified zones of influence, in combination with other residential development, would likely increase recreational visits and, thereby, increase disturbance to the habitats. There is, therefore, an impact pathway between additional residential development in the zone of influence and a resulting likely significant effect on the qualifying features of the SAC.

As recreational pressure would compromise the sites conservation objectives as detailed in the SPD, an adverse effect on integrity cannot be ruled out. In this case, without mitigation the additional residents who would occupy the proposal would be, in combination with other schemes, likely to adversely affect the SAC by way of increased recreational disturbance.

A strategic mitigation scheme is available, and the SPD sets out a series of measures, which include a [name] and Monitoring plan, to mitigate the effect of increased recreational pressure resulting from additional residential development within the zone of influence. Natural England have been consulted as part of the appeal process and have not objected to the proposal subject to securing a financial contribution. In this case, the appropriate financial contribution has been secured via a S111 Agreement.

On this basis, in carrying out the Appropriate Assessment, the adverse effects of the proposal on the integrity of the SAC would be avoided. For these reasons, the proposal would not harm the integrity of the SAC.

In terms of precedent, this appeal has been dealt with on its own merits and has been found to be acceptable for the reasons given above. There is no clear reason why this appeal decision would set a precedent for the area, as each proposal must be assessed on its own merits and the particular circumstances and context of the site.

The Council has provided a list of suggested conditions in the event of the appeal being allowed, which I have assessed with regard to the advice provided in the Planning Practice Guidance. As well as a time condition and details of reserved matters, a condition regarding the approved plans is required to provide certainty.

A condition is necessary to ensure the access visibility is provided prior to any other building works taking place in the interests of highway safety. Conditions are also necessary to ensure recommended ecological measures, an appropriate external lighting scheme and that bat and bird boxes, and bee bricks are provided in the interests of protection and enhancement of protected species and biodiversity.

Further conditions are necessary to ensure appropriate foul and surface water drainage are provided in the interests of preventing flooding and the protection of the environment.

Finally, conditions are necessary to ensure that contamination risks are appropriately assessed and remediated in the interests of the health and safety of construction workers and future occupiers of the proposal.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. However, material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, (hereinafter called the reserved matters) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

An application for approval of reserved matters must be made no later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this decision and the development hereby approved shall commence no later than 2 years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos PL.02; JG01 [name].

Before any other building or engineering works are carried out on the site, all land within the visibility splays shown hatched on drawing no. JG01 [name]; shall be reduced to a height not exceeding 900mm above the adjoining carriageway level and thereafter no obstruction shall be permitted within the approved visibility splays.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendation measures identified within the [name] ref: WOR-5294 prepared by [name] and dated May 2025.

Prior to the construction of the dwellings hereby approved, a scheme for the incorporation of bat boxes and bird boxes and bee bricks at a minimum rate of one measure per dwelling shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such details shall include the location and specific details of each feature. The approved features shall be installed prior to the occupation of the dwellings to which they relate and shall thereafter be retained and maintained as such.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until sewage disposal works serving the development have been completed in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the installation of a system to serve the development for the disposal of surface water drainage has been completed in accordance with details which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The system shall thereafter be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until details of external lighting to minimise the impacts on bats has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. External lighting shall only be installed in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained.

[name] - Risk Assessment No development, other than demolition of any buildings or structures, shall commence until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This assessment must be undertaken in accordance with [name] 10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice and the Environment Agency's Land contamination risk management (LCRM), (or equivalent [name] and Land contamination risk management if replaced), and shall assess any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site.

[name] - [name] development shall take place where (following the risk assessment) land affected by contamination is found which poses risks identified as unacceptable in the risk assessment, until a detailed remediation scheme shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include an appraisal of remediation options, identification of the preferred option(s), the proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, and a description and programme of the works to be undertaken including the verification plan. The remediation scheme shall be sufficiently detailed and thorough to ensure that upon completion the site will not qualify as contaminated land under [name] of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to its intended use.

[name] - [name] following [name] approved remediation scheme in condition (11) shall be carried out and upon completion a verification report by a suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development [or relevant phase of development] is occupied.

[name] - Reporting of [name] contamination that is found during the course of construction of the approved development that was not previously identified shall be reported in writing immediately to the local planning authority. Development on the part of the site affected shall be suspended and a risk assessment carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found remediation and verification schemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These approved schemes shall be carried out before the development [or relevant phase of development] is resumed or continued. ***End of Conditions***