Appeal 6003734

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of the proposed development above from the Council’s Decision Notice which differs from that shown on the application form. However, the appellants appeal statement, and Council’s Officer Report are clear that a change in description to that shown above, was agreed during the application process and the application was determined on that basis.

The appellant has requested that amended plans that did not form part of the Council’s decision be taken into consideration within this appeal. These plans seek to amend an originally proposed second access to pedestrian only. The appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. I have considered the breadth of the changes between the plans and I find that given the amended plans change the way the proposal would be accessed, the amended plans materially alter the proposal.

Moreover, the amendments would affect the appearance of the proposal, and noting interested parties’ comments on this matter, and that the plans have not been the subject of formal consultation, acceptance of the amended plans would be procedurally unfair. As such I have assessed this appeal on the plans that formed the basis of the Council’s decision.

Both parties refer to a reasonably recent appeal decision1 (the previous appeal) at the appeal site. Whilst that involved a proposal similar to that before me, the National Planning Policy Framework has been updated, and the Council’s housing land supply position has materially altered since that decision. [name] have noted the findings of the Inspector and the references to the previous appeal 1 APP/D0840/W/23/3321267 decision made by the parties, I have reached my own findings based on the circumstances of the present case.

The main issues are: • whether the site is a suitable location for the proposal, having particular regard to the local development strategy and access to services and facilities; and • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

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, rounding off and infill schemes.

[site address] is formed from a loose and rather dispersed grouping of dwellings and buildings in commercial use. The appeal site is agricultural land which is part of a wider field, located on the edge of [site address] .

Whilst the low density, lack of a recognisable centre and spatial separation of buildings with intervening undeveloped areas give [site address] the character of a rather dispersed straggle of development, the appellants annotated aerial photographs and plans provide compelling evidence of a recognisable settlement form. This is further emphasised by a settlement boundary shown within the draft Ponsanooth Neighbourhood Development Plan (PNDP), although given the stage of the PNDP, this carries very modest weight.

Nevertheless, even if [site address] were to be considered a settlement for development plan purposes, the proposal would need to accord with the definitions of amongst other things, either rounding off or infill as foreseen within the

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”. 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)’

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 infill and 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. The CPOAN 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.

The appeal site is located adjacent to the highway. However, the majority of built form associated with [site address] is on the opposing side of the highway.

From my observations of the site, even allowing for recent development to the north west, the appeal site is clearly physically separated from the other buildings on the same side of the road. The inclusion of properties on the appeal site side of the highway, but lack of inclusion of the garden of the [address] or the new residential development to the north west of the appeal within the PNDP settlement boundary are not determinative as to if the proposal constitutes infill or rounding off, particularly given the weight attributed to the PNDP.

Given the low density, even if frontages can be attributed to individual residential properties, the frontage of the highway on the appeal side does not have the appearance or character of being continuously built-up in the vicinity of the site. As such, the proposal would not fill a small gap in an otherwise continuously built-up frontage. Consequently, the proposal would not constitute an infill scheme in the terms of LP Policy 3.

In terms of rounding off, I observed that whilst bordered by the highway and a hedgebank, a post and rail fence demarcates it from the remainder of the field and is therefore not substantially enclosed. Indeed, even if development of the remainder of the field would be out of character with the prevailing pattern of development as is put to me, the fence itself would not be a physical feature that also acts as a barrier to further growth.

Moreover, and even with the recent nearby residential development, the mature hedgerow and trees on the appeal site’s side of the highway still provides the primary visual demarcation between the built-up areas of [site address] and the countryside beyond the site. As the site extends beyond this hedgerow and is visually part of a wider field, it is seen as part of and shares a clear visual and physical affinity with the wider area of open countryside. For the above reasons, the proposal would not constitute rounding off.

In terms of access to services and facilities, [site address] lacks the range required for day-to-day living. However, the larger settlement of Penryn is stated to be 1.5km away, with some commercial premises on the river frontage approximately 1.3km away. Nevertheless, the foot path to Penryn is incomplete in places, narrow and the busy B3292 lacks dedicated cycle lanes. Moreover, the sloping topography could result in the trip back to [site address] being arduous for some. As such, walking or cycling from the site, particularly in the dark, inclement weather or in colder months, would be unattractive to most future occupiers.

My attention is also drawn to bus stops and a bus route which provides a service to Penryn and Truro via Flushing and [name] 2 although this is disputed by interested parties. Nevertheless, no substantive details of frequency of service have been provided, and therefore whilst a bus may provide sustainable transport means for some trips, I cannot conclude that it would realistically provide a means of sustainable transport for the day to day living of future occupiers. Consequently, I find future occupiers would likely be heavily reliant on the use of private vehicles to access those services and facilities that are reasonably required for everyday 2 [name] 66 living, although given the proximity of services and facilities, this results in only moderate harm.

To conclude, the site is not a suitable location for the proposal, having particular regard to the local development strategy and access to services and facilities. The proposal conflicts with [name] 1, 2, 3, 7, 21, 27 and Policies C1 and T1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document 2023 (CEDPD). These policies, amongst other things, seek to promote sustainable patterns of development and locate development so that the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised.

The area around the appeal site has been identified as an extension to the existing St Gluvias Area of [name]. However, this extension has yet to be adopted. As such the appeal site is not within any formal landscape designation. Nevertheless, whilst undesignated, the surrounding area has an attractive rural and verdant character.

Despite residential built form in the locality, the appeal site has the perception of being within the countryside as I have outlined in the previous main issue. Although there is some built form at the appeal site, this is modest and has a rural character, and both the boundary hedging and mature planting, as well as the undeveloped rural nature of the site positively contributes to the attractive character area of the area.

Moreover, the presence of built form on the appeal site side of the highway, including recent development to the northwest, is notably more sporadic than that on the opposing side of the highway. Due to the differing densities between the opposing sides of the highway, the retention of undeveloped gaps such as the appeal site, play an important part in retaining visual links to the countryside and maintaining the rural character of the area.

The proposal would introduce residential built form onto the appeal site which whilst of a form, scale and featuring materials appropriate to the local vernacular, would nevertheless, in combination with associated domestic paraphernalia, result in the urbanisation of the appeal site. Moreover, despite a low finished floor level, due to the higher ground levels and siting, the proposal would likely still be noticeable in glimpse views and through the access.

The proposal would not appear as an entirely unexpected or incompatible element in the landscape given existing residential development near the appeal site. However, the erection of residential built form would result in further additional sporadic urban development and associated residential activity within the countryside, harmfully eroding the rural character of the area.

The loss of a section of hedge bank to accommodate works to accesses would further weaken the boundaries existing contribution to providing an important indicator of the termination of the main built-up area of [site address] , and reduce the verdancy of the area. In combination, harm to the character and distinctiveness of the area would be notable and significant. I do not consider that a planning condition or additional landscaping as provided for within the proposal would be sufficient to overcome the harm.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with [name] 2, 21, 23 and CEDPD Policy C1. These policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development is well designed and that it preserves existing character and the natural environment.

I am aware that heads of terms were submitted to the Council in relation to a potential planning obligation under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). This was in relation to defining the appeal site as an ‘exceptions site’. However, no signed or dated S106 Agreement is before me, and as such I have not considered this matter further.

Whilst the proposal is described as self-build housing and the Council’s ‘self-build pro-forma’ has been completed, there is no secure mechanism before me such as a planning obligation that would guarantee the scheme would meet the definition of self-build or custom build homes. Therefore, I can only afford minimal weight to the ‘self-build’ element.

Nevertheless, the proposal has also been put forward as an ‘extra-care’ dwelling. In this regard I have been referred to evidence relating to the personal circumstances of [name]. In the interests of privacy, it is not necessary to set out the details here, however the evidence leaves no doubt that [name] has a genuine need for the type of dwelling proposed. The Planning Practice Guidance is clear that, in general, planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. In this regard, the proposed new permanent dwelling would likely remain in place beyond the point at which [name] personal circumstances cease to be material. However, I have no doubt that the circumstances are not just personal circumstances to [name], but circumstances that affect a proportion of the population.

I am mindful of the relevant provisions of the [name] on Human Rights as set out in Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (as amended). Specifically, Article 8 provides that everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life, their home, and their correspondence. Article 8 is however a qualified right, meaning that interference with the right may be permissible if there is a clear legal basis for it and it is necessary in a democratic society.

Furthermore, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. These characteristics include disability and age.

It is clear from the evidence before me, that the design of the proposal, being single storey and featuring a design and layout that aids accessibility can achieve health and well-being requirements for the appellant, but also for future occupiers whom may share protected characteristics. As such, the proposal includes positive considerations in that it would contribute towards eliminating discrimination against persons with the protected characteristics of age and disability, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons, and fostering good relations between them and others.

The LP identifies the need for a range of accommodation of appropriate types to meet future requirements. Furthermore, the current National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), as well as proposed future amendments also seeks to ensure a sufficient supply of homes for different groups in the community, including people with disabilities and older people.

The appellant recognises that the existing housing stock does include single storey dwellings. However, the appellant’s ‘bungalow availability spreadsheet’ discounts various available properties for various reasons, including affordability, value for money and practical accessibility issues.

However, I have little substantive evidence to conclude that available properties would not take into account accessibility requirements, or indeed substantive evidence of the scale of lack of any such dwellings within the area’s housing land supply. Neither can I be sure that methodology that has been utilised is appropriate to robustly conclude that the proposal is the only site suitable to provide a dwelling that meets the appellants needs and that there are no other sites that are suitable or more appropriately located.

This is particularly the case given that the proposal is forwarded as an ‘extra care’ dwelling which could be suitable for other occupiers whom may need suitable accommodation for their needs following the needs of [name] personal circumstances cease to be material. Consequently, the benefits of the proposal relating to an ‘extra care dwelling’ and the personal circumstance of [name] attract no more than moderate weight.

It is not disputed that the Council are unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply of deliverable housing sites, with the Council’s published position indicating a 3.9 year supply can be demonstrated. As such, Paragraph 11 d)ii of the Framework is engaged.

The proposal would achieve an increase in housing supply with a ‘low-carbon’ dwelling that has been designed to be accessible which would add towards housing choice and mix within an area with an acknowledged lack of housing provision. However, the benefit to housing delivery is modest given the small scale of the proposal for a single dwelling.

Furthermore, there would be modest short term economic benefits from the construction of the proposal. Further modest economic and social benefits would flow from the future occupation of the dwelling and associated spending in the locality and possible use and therefore assistance in retention of public facilities, such as public transport.

However, the proposal conflicts with the local development strategy which is central to achieving a planned strategy for future housing growth in the area that preserves the open countryside and setting of existing settlements, resulting in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Moreover, it is in a location where future occupiers would be reliant on the use of private vehicles to access services and facilities that are reasonably required for everyday living, resulting in moderate harm. The proposal is therefore contrary to [name] 1, 2, 3, 7, 21, 23, 27, and [name] C1 and T1, and conflicts with 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 moderate weight to the conflict with the development plan policies that set the approach to the location of development. However, 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 sympathetic to local character and conserve the natural and local environment. The development plan policies in relation to these matters 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.

While the proposal would align with the objectives of the Framework which seek to significantly boost housing supply and provide a mix of homes for different groups, I have found the contribution to housing supply to be a modest benefit alongside other modest benefits. Even with the moderate weight afforded to the provision of an extra care dwelling and the personal circumstance of [name], 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.

In terms of the PSED, the refusal of planning permission is a proportionate and necessary approach to the legitimate aim of ensuring that development is appropriately located and the countryside is protected. Therefore, whilst I acknowledge the personal circumstances of [name], I conclude that these are not matters which outweigh the harm that would be caused by the proposal in respect of my aforementioned conclusions on the main issues.

The appeal site is within the zone of influence of the Fal and Helford Special Area of Conservation (FHSAC). Within the vicinity of the FHSAC, new residential development would lead to increased levels of recreational activity. This would be likely to have a significant effect on the designated features of the FHSAC either on its own or cumulatively with other similar development, without avoidance measures.

The application has been accompanied by an undertaking under Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 to seek to mitigate recreational impact of the proposal on the habitat site. Notwithstanding, Regulation 63(1) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 indicates the requirement for an Appropriate Assessment is only necessary where the competent authority is minded to give consent for the proposal.

Given my conclusions, it is not necessary for me to consider this matter any further as the proposal would not take place and would not affect the habitat site. Moreover, even if I were to find that suitable mitigation had been appropriately secured, a lack of harm would only be a neutral factor.

A number of other appeal decisions and planning permissions granted by the Council are cited by the appellant, although the full details of the other cases are not before me. Nevertheless, in relation to APP/D0840/W/25/3366033, this was in relation to a ‘Permission in Principle’ (PIP) application and the Inspector in that case found moderate weight in relation to harm to the character and appearance of the area, and that harm could be minimised through the technical details consent process. Moreover, that proposal related to up to 5 dwellings and therefore the harms and benefits materially differ.

In respect of APP/D0840/W/25/3362082, this was also in relation to a PIP application and consistent with my findings above, the Inspector found that Paragraph 11 d)ii of the Framework was engaged. PA25/07798 is also cited which was a PIP approval where the Council found that the proposal was well related to an identified settlement. Similarly planning permission PA25/05816 relates to 9 dwellings which the Council also found immediately adjoined the settlement of Redruth. Therefore, these permissions also materially differ from the case before me. This limits the equivalence of the other cases to the current proposal. Moreover, the current appeal proposal has its own circumstances, and I shall determine it on its own merits.

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, outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.