Appeal 6003781

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for residential development comprising a minimum of one and a maximum of three dwellings at [site address] , [site address] , Woodford, Bude [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/03568.

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 schemes, development of previously developed land (PDL) 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”.

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, indicating 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 part of an agricultural field and whilst adjacent an existing dwelling known as Stone Park, lacks development to the opposing side. As such, the site does not form a small gap in an otherwise continuous built frontage and therefore the proposal does not represent an infill scheme, or given that the site is undeveloped, development of PDL.

In terms of rounding off, the appeal site is adjacent a highway and the established boundary with Stone Park. However, whilst linear development exists on the opposing side of the highway, due to being part of a larger field and not having the appearance of being substantially enclosed, the appeal site is seen as part of the countryside landscape.

The majority of development within Woodford’s settlement pattern is linear and on the opposing side of the highway to the appeal site. Whilst there is also some linear development alongside Stone Park, Stone Park itself is seen as somewhat disconnected due to its separation and visually differing scale to the neighbouring single storey dwellings. In combination with the appeal sites affinity with the undeveloped countryside, the proposal would not appear as providing symmetry or completion to the settlement, more a form of incremental growth away from the main settlement pattern. I therefore find the proposal would not constitute rounding-off.

The appeal site is within the Hartland section of the Cornwall National Landscape (CNL) which is an area designated for its landscape and scenic beauty. The Framework states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in such areas, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues.

The appeal site is part of the expanse of undeveloped countryside along [site address] , although due to high hedge boundaries, open vistas of the surrounding CNL landscape from [site address] are reduced. Nevertheless, the appeal site contributes to the rural character of the area.

Given the position of the site in relation to the highway, residential built form at this location would be noticeable, although not unexpected given linear development on the opposing side of the highway and that adjacent to Stone Park.

The degree of change to the site as a result of the proposal would also be discernible in the context of the wider landscape characteristics of the CNL, particularly from glimpse views from the east. In these views I observed that the appeal site forms part of an open foreground to existing residential built-form.

However, Stone Park intrudes into this foreground, and although further development of this area would encroach into the countryside, as it would be seen in the context of neighbouring residential development, visual urbanisation resulting from the proposal would not be overly conspicuous.

I also see no reason why details such as appropriate design, scale and landscaping as advocated within the [name] 2021 could not be achieved at TDC, which could further lessen harmful effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. It follows that I find that the proposal would result in some harmful erosion of the rural character of the area and the landscape and scenic beauty of the CNL, although this would be very modest.

In terms of access to services and facilities for future occupiers, Woodford is part of a network of rural settlements in the area. A range of services and facilities are available in the nearby village of Shop (stated by the appellant to be approximately 1 mile away), with a broader range available in the more distant Kilkhampton and Bude.

The appeal site is located near a bus stop. Notwithstanding the service only providing up to 3 buses a day, it would nonetheless provide an occasional alternative mode of transport for future occupiers for some journeys, particularly to those wider services and facilities available at Bude.

Nevertheless, I observed that the highway to Shop features no footpath or street lighting, and limited pedestrian refuge off the vehicular carriageway in areas. In combination with the distance, walking from the site to nearby services and facilities, particularly in the dark, inclement weather or in colder months, would be unattractive to most future occupiers.

Therefore, whilst some facilities could be reached by alternative modes of transport, future occupiers of the proposal would still be partially reliant on private vehicles to reach wider services and facilities for day to day living.

In rural areas some form of private transport is often likely to be necessary. Indeed, the Council’s Interim Policy Statement 2025 acknowledges that Cornwall is a rural county and sustainable growth here will differ from large urban areas. Moreover, the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) also 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 network of rural settlements in the area and available public transport, harm arising from the appeal sites lack of accessibility to services and facilities would be modest.

To conclude, the proposal 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, 3, 7, 12, 21 and 23, policies C1.6, C1.7 and T1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document 2023 (CEDP), and Policy ENV1 of the North Cornwall Local Plan 1999 (NCLP). Amongst other things, these seek to achieve sustainably located development and take a hierarchical approach to direct development based on the role and function of places, respect and enhance the quality of place, and conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the CNL.

The proposal would also conflict with policies PD-P1, PD-P2 and PD-P19 of the Cornwall National Landscape Management Plan 2022-2027 which seek, amongst other things, to ensure development maintains local distinctiveness and does not compromise the special qualities and characteristics of the CNL.

LP Policy 27 is referred to within the reason for refusal. This Policy, amongst other things, requires development to provide safe and suitable access to the site for all people and not cause a significantly adverse impact on the local or strategic road network that cannot be managed or mitigated. Given the spatial relationship of the appeal site to the highway, I see no reason why a scheme which could provide safe access and not adversely impact on the road network cannot come forward at TDC. Therefore, I find no conflict with this Policy at this PIP stage.

The Council are unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply of deliverable housing sites, stating that their supply is 3.9 years. The CNL is an asset of particular importance as denoted by footnote 7 of the Framework.

Nevertheless, in giving great weight to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty of the CNL, I have found only very modest harm to the CNL. As such, the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance do not provide a strong reason for refusal. My findings therefore materially differ from those of Inspectors in appeal decisions1 put before me, who found significant harm to the National Landscape. In these circumstances the presumption in favour of sustainable development outlined in Paragraph 11d)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. As such the proposal would align with the Framework where it seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing. 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 small scale of the proposal, this benefit attracts modest 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 [name] 1, 2, 3, 7, 12, 21 and 23, CEDPD policies C1.6, C1.7 and T1 and NCLP Policy ENV1, and the development plan as a whole. These policies are broadly consistent with the Frameworks aims of conserving and enhancing the natural environment, achieving sustainable development and actively manage patterns of growth. Nevertheless, harm to the natural environment is very modest. Furthermore, the Framework recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Whilst there will be some reliance on private vehicles to reach services and facilities, given the proximity to services, and public transport options available, I give this conflict modest weight.

In this instance, and at this ‘permission in principle’ stage, the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the 1 3353175; 3352006 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.

The Planning Practice Guidance2 indicates that it is not possible to impose conditions as the terms of any permission in principle must only include site location, type of development and amount.

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.