Appeal 6003344

The appeal is dismissed.

The address and description of development in the banner heading above have been taken from the appeal form as they more precisely identify the site and describe the development than that given on the application form.

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 appeal is accompanied by a [name] (UU) under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The UU secures the provision of improvements to land immediately adjoining the appeal site. I will return to this below.

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, • whether the proposal would conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the Cornwall National Landscape (CNL), and • the effect of the proposal on the Porthcothan Valley County Wildlife Site (CWS).

The appeal site comprises an open grassed piece of land accessed off a private road. It is adjoined by further open land to the north and north-east, by a dwelling to the east with residential properties on the opposite side of the private road to the south. A public car park adjoins the site 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. Porthcothan 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.

The St Eval Neighbourhood Development Plan does not identify the site for development and as the proposal is not being put forward as an exception site, it falls to be considered against whether it comprises rounding off or an infill scheme. 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. There is also no dispute between the main parties that the proposal is not development of isolated homes in the countryside under paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), but this does not result in compliance with LP Policy 3.

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 between 3 and 6 dwellings. The indicative plan shows a linear layout with the dwellings adjacent to the road. Given the presence of the dwelling to the east, dwellings on the opposite side of the access road and the public car park, there is built development to at least two sides of the site. As such, the site is substantially enclosed by and is outside of the urban form of the settlement, the edge to which I find to be clearly defined by the dwelling to the east, road to the south and public car park.

However, by reason of the grassed open undeveloped nature of the appeal site forming part of a wider finger of open land projecting down the valley toward the sea, the appeal site is more akin to the undeveloped land outside of the settlement. 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 would be the case despite recent residential development at Noordhoek and Tamarisk.

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 potential to provide a hedge or similar boundary treatment as this would not result in a significant barrier to future growth beyond the site to the north.

With regard to ‘infilling’, the supporting text to LP Policy 3 states that it is ‘defined as a small gap in an otherwise continuously built up frontage that does not physically extend the settlement into the open countryside.’ It further states that in ‘smaller villages and hamlets in which ‘infill’ sites of one-two housing units are allowed, the settlement should have a form and shape and clearly definable boundaries, not just a low straggle of dwellings.’

The CPOAN in relation to infill states that this is ‘development that would fill a gap in an otherwise continuous frontage which will normally be a road frontage.’

With regard to this, and although the development would fill a gap in an otherwise continuous frontage between the car park and the dwelling to the east, and Porthcothan is a smaller village or hamlet that when travelling through it has a form and shape and clearly definable boundaries, the gap is not small by virtue of being able to accommodate up to six dwellings. The development would also physically extend the settlement into the open countryside. As a result, it would not comprise infill development.

As the appeal site does not comprise previously developed land, I do not find that the proposal gains support from LP Policy 21 b.

Although the Council raise no concerns regarding access to a range of services and facilities, this does not in itself result in the proposal representing rounding off or infill development.

Consequently, I conclude that the site would not be a suitable location for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development having regard to the local spatial strategy. As such, it would be contrary to [name] 2 and 3, the aims of which I have outlined above. It would also be contrary to Policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document February 2023 (DPD) that seeks to ensure that development represents sustainable development.

The appeal site lies within the CNL. Paragraph 189 of the Framework requires me to give great weight to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes while Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 require relevant authorities to seek to further the statutory purposes of National Landscapes. This is reflected in LP Policy 23.

Porthcothan is a small coastal settlement shaped by the meeting of the valley and the sea. Most of its modest development sits along the valley edges. This restrained pattern of growth has preserved Porthcothan’s generally untouched character, with its identity strongly tied to the clear, harmonious relationship between the valley, the coastline, and the limited built environment.

This is reflected in the Cornwall National Landscape (AONB) Management Plan (the Management Plan) Special Qualities that states that "The peaceful and wild nature found in this section of the AONB, reflected in the modest character of Porthcothan" and "This section of the AONB is one of the few where communities along this section of coast, including Porthcothan, Harlyn, [name] and Treyarnon, have avoided significant commercial development."

The Management Plan includes specific policies to address these Special Qualities. These include [name]-P2, CSP-P3 and CSP-P5 that seek the conservation and enhancement of the undeveloped character, keeping free from intrusive development, encourage a more undeveloped character, and maintaining current low levels of light pollution. These policy aims are reflected within the [name] and Coastal Plateau Character Area CCA 23 that recognises the sparsely settled landscape, pressure for built development at the edges of settlements and to conserve views and the open character of these areas.

As a result of the above, and in its current undeveloped condition, the site makes a valuable contribution to the landscape character of this part of the CNL forming an integral component of the verdant green wedge that follows the river valley, passes through the settlement, and provides its essential setting.

Through the provision of development encroaching beyond the existing built form into the valley, together with a change to the ribbon nature of existing development generally to one side of the roads within Porthcothan, the proposed development will erode the verdant landscape which forms part of the character and setting of Porthcothan. Regardless of whether 3, 4, 5 or 6 dwellings were constructed, the proposal would exert a disproportionately pronounced effect on the settlement’s character, altering the perceived scale of Porthcothan. [name] acknowledge a very limited number of glimpsed views of the site from the coastal path, the proposal would be prominent when viewed from the car park, access road, surrounding dwellings and on approach along the B3276 from the north. This prominence is not significantly reduced by the recent residential development at Noordhoek and Tamarisk that comprise single replacement dwellings.

Introducing new homes into the valley floor would therefore create a feature that would be out of keeping with the existing pattern of development, diminishing the established character of the hamlet. This would neither preserve nor enhance the designated landscape.

It follows from the above that the site is not suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development in relation to whether the proposal would conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the Cornwall National Landscape. As such, it is contrary to [name] 12 and 23 and Policy C1 of the DPD that seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that development maintain and enhance Cornwall’s distinctive natural character, respect landscape character of both designated and undesignated landscape and conserve and enhance the natural environment.

The appeal site falls within the Porthcothan Valley Country Wildlife Site (CWS). This is separated from the Porthcothan County Wildlife Site.

There is little dispute between the main parties that the site has the appearance of a field, has been mown for a period of time and would be likely to continue to be so. In light of this, its appearance contrasts slightly with the more natural and unkempt appearance of the remainder of the Country Wildlife Site (CWS).

The appeal is accompanied by a Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment by [name] (Environmental) Ltd (the [name]). This report identifies that the CWS ‘was designated for the Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Priority habitat [name] and [name] species [name] helvetica; [name] trutta – which has been noted in the stream - [name] minutus (for which there are records of nesting), [name] lutra recorded at [name] and [name] bat Rhinolophus hipposideros which is known to roost within the CWS and is fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Other notable species within the CWS include [name] meles.’

The proposal will not result in the loss of lowland fens (the [name] habitat listed for the CWS designation), given that the site does not comprise lowland fen habitat with the exception of reedbed that would be retained. However, Section 6.4 of the [name] clarifies that it does not consider the presence of species so in this regard, I have little substantive evidence before me demonstrating that the appeal site does not include, and the proposals would not be likely to adversely affect, [name] species. This is the case despite acknowledging the mown nature of the site given the lack of substantive detail on the frequency of mowing and likely usage by [name] with particular regard to [name], [name] and [name].

Although the [name] mainly relates to [name] (BNG) through the undertaking of biodiversity metric calculations, the appellant states that the BNG improvements identified also result in overall enhancement to the CWS. The Spalding Report states that there is potential to secure enhancements of Porthcothan Valley CWS through a 30-year management plan. The Spalding Report identifies the provision of enhancements to the CWS via improvements to the land edged blue adjoining the appeal site.

The enhancements include improving Grassland and Wetland from Poor to at least Moderate condition, and creation of Cornish hedge banks along the western boundary with the car park and to replace a section along the road frontage. These would be secured upon grant of any TDC by the UU that would ensure that a scheme to secure the enhancements detailed in Section 5 of the [name] is submitted to and approved by the Council. I see no reason why this should not include the ongoing maintenance of the land and enhancements. In this regard I note that the [name] states that the production of a [name] and Monitoring Plan ‘would provide details of how to create and manage the post construction habitats proposed in this report, identify responsibility for carrying out works and outline a monitoring schedule for ensuring that habitats are being appropriately managed to secure the net gain in biodiversity proposed in this assessment.’

The UU would ensure that the improvements would be secured irrespective of any BNG exemptions.

However, I note the comments from Cornwall Wildlife Trust regarding the overall net loss of part of the designated site and the County Wildlife Sites designation for the collective biodiversity value with non-priority habitats providing support to ecological functions. I also note their comments regarding County Wildlife Sites being considered as a whole rather than as a collection of sites with removal of parts disrupting a sites integrity with the loss of parts of sites weakening their coherence and ecological function. I further note the comments from MKA Ecology Ltd in these regards and in relation to the baseline survey in the [name] being undertaken at a sub optimal time immediately after mowing possibly underestimating the condition of the habitat.

In light of this, given that the [name] does not deal with the presence or otherwise of [name] or substantially address any effects on the coherence or wider function of the CWS, and despite the enhancements to Grassland, Wetland and Hedgerows, in the absence of substantive details demonstrating that the proposal would not harm the [name] species present within the CWS or coherence, I cannot conclude that the development overall would not adversely affect the CWS or that its coherence would be maintained.

Furthermore, with regard to additional light, noise and human disturbance to the CWS from the additional dwellings, and while I have had regard to the appeal site being in close proximity to existing dwellings, and adjoined by a road and car park where light, noise and disturbance would already occur, the proposal would nonetheless extend built form, activity and associated lighting further into the CWS.

I acknowledge the redevelopment of Tamarisk and Noordhoek within the CWS but have limited information in relation to these to be sure that they are directly comparable to the current proposal. In any case, I am required to consider the appeal proposal on its merits.

In light of the above, as I cannot conclude that the development would not be likely to adversely affect the CWS, its features or its function and that the coherence of the local ecological network would be maintained, the site is not suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development in relation to the effect of the proposal on the Porthcothan Valley County Wildlife Site. As such, the proposal is contrary to [name] 23 and 25. Amongst other things, these state that development likely to adversely affect locally designated sites, their features or their function and the coherence of the local ecological network is maintained, that development proposals should retain and enhance the most important environmental infrastructure assets and connections that contribute to the functionality of networks and ecosystems, and provide appropriate buffers to natural spaces that have community and biodiversity significance. I will deal with the need and benefits of the development in relation to LP Policy 23, and whether this outweighs any loss, below.

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 a number of appeal decisions and subsequent decision by the Council at Sandy Lane1. However, I do not have the full context and details of these decisions to be able to conclude that they are directly comparable. In any case, I am required to consider the current proposal on its own merits.

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. [name] 2, 3, 12, 21, 23 and 25 are consistent with the Framework’s aims to achieve sustainable development, restrict new housing in the open countryside, to reflect local character and to conserve and enhance the natural environment. 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 and infill are consistent with the Framework’s aim for development to respond to local character.

Nevertheless, the Council cannot demonstrate the required five year supply of deliverable housing sites and accepts that there is a ‘housing crisis’. This triggers the circumstances in paragraph 11(d) of the Framework. However, as I have found above that the proposal would harm the landscape and scenic beauty of the Cornwall National Landscape, and this provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

Despite this, there is an urgent need for housing when considering the shortfall in housing supply and the proposal would provide construction jobs with occupiers supporting local services and facilities through increased spend and Council Tax and the potential for financial contributions towards off-site affordable housing via a windfall site. Any possible contributions towards public open space, education and health carry very little weight as they are mitigating the impacts from the development. As such, the delivery of dwellings would make a contribution 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 scale of the proposal, the benefits, would be modest. 1 3367358, 3335610, 3329559, 3353175, 3352006,

Weighing against the proposal is the conflict with the local development strategy, along with harm to the landscape and scenic beauty of the Cornwall National Landscape, and I have also found that the proposal would adversely affect the features and function of the CWS and fail to maintain its coherence. 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 weight in this appeal.

In light of the above, I find that the identified adverse impacts of the development would outweigh the identified benefits of the proposal. I also find that the benefits of the development do not clearly outweigh the loss to the CWS and as such it is contrary to LP Policy 23.

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.