Appeal 6005164

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the site is a suitable location for the proposal, having particular regard to the local development strategy, access to services and facilities and its effect 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 development of previously developed land (PDL) within or immediately adjoining a settlement of a scale appropriate to its size and role.

Moreover, Policy HO1 of the Dobwalls and Trewidland Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) establishes a development boundary for Dobwalls and only supports small scale housing development of infill and rounding off within the development boundary. This is so that, amongst other things, the open countryside is preserved.

The appeal site is located at the end of a track, and whilst near a small group of buildings, these are seen as a low-density cluster akin to a farmstead, and an outlier from the settlement itself. Although football pitches and the [name] lie between the appeal site and the main built form of the settlement, the site itself is some way from the edge of the development boundary.

Moreover, the football pitches and their extension granted by planning permission PA22/05548, as well as the [name] are visually seen to be outside of the physical boundaries of the settlement, which I observed are similar to that of the designated development boundary.

Given the separation distance, I find the appeal site to be visually divorced from the main urban form of Dobwalls and within the surrounding countryside, and the proposal would not result in symmetry or completion of a settlement boundary. Therefore, the appeal site does not immediately adjoin the settlement and cannot be considered rounding off or indeed infill development.

In terms of PDL, I observed a mobile home and an area of gravel/hard standing and domestic planting, and it is claimed areas surrounding the site are utilised as garden. There is however disagreement between the main parties as to the lawful use of the appeal site. Within the context of an appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act), it is not within my remit to formally determine the lawful use of land. If a person wishes to ascertain whether an existing use is or would be lawful, the correct approach is for an application to be made under section 191 or 192 of the Act for a certificate of lawful use.

As such, I must give minimal weight to the presence of the mobile home at the site and its alleged use. Notwithstanding, even if the site constituted PDL, given that I find the appeal site to be within open countryside and not within or immediately adjoining a settlement, the proposal would not gain support through LP Policy 3.

Moreover, although LP Policy 21 is permissive of the use of PDL, this is subject to taking into account matters including access to services and facilities and the effect on the character of the surrounding area.

Dobwalls contains a variety of services and facilities. Whilst these are within walking distance, part of the route is via an unmade and unlit track with no footway which would deter some future occupants especially during hours of darkness or inclement weather. Future occupiers of the proposal would therefore still be partially reliant on private vehicles to reach wider services and facilities for day to day living.

Nevertheless, given the reasonably close proximity to the settlement, and that the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, harm arising from the appeal site’s lack of accessibility to services and facilities would be modest.

Despite the appeal site featuring some domestic planting and its proximity to football pitches and the [name], the area that surrounds the site has a strong rural character and has the perception of being part of an attractive countryside landscape. Moreover, the rural characteristics and general openness of the site and surroundings not only positively contribute to the landscape character of the area but also provides a significant contribution to the rural setting of Dobwalls.

Notwithstanding the use of the site and siting of the mobile home, I observed that adjacent modest timber structures are visible in glimpse views from the adjacent track and are modest with a rural character. Moreover, the nearby cluster of residential buildings have the character of former farmstead buildings and are well contained within the landscape.

The proposal would result in the construction of a new dwelling which whilst of a scale and featuring materials not dissimilar to that found in the adjacent cluster of buildings, would nevertheless introduce additional significant domestic built form to the opposing side of the track to the former farmstead. Moreover, even if the appeal site and immediately adjacent area is currently used for recreational purposes, the introduction of a dwelling, and associated permanent use of garden areas with domestic paraphernalia would increase the appearance of domestication of the appeal site.

Although the proposal would not appear as an entirely unexpected or incompatible element in the landscape given existing residential development near the appeal site, it would inevitably result in new built form encroaching into the countryside. In doing so, it would also erode the contained setting and rural character of the former farmstead buildings, which would be emphasised by the appeal site being on a rising area of land above the nearby buildings.

Moreover, despite the extension of the football club and its associated suburbanisation, and any proposed landscaping at the appeal site, the proposal would nevertheless result in further sporadic urban built form. This and the associated domestication would be visually and spatially divorced from the form of the settlement, and result in an associated moderate harmful erosion of the rural landscape character of the area and setting of Dobwalls.

To conclude, the appeal site would not be a suitable location for the proposal, having particular regard to the local development strategy, access to services and facilities and its effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with [name] 1, 2, 3, 7, 12, 21, 23, Policies C1 and T1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document 2023 (CEDPD), and NDP policies LC1, HO1 and HS1. These policies, amongst other things and as well as that described previously, seek to ensure that development is well designed and that it maintains Cornwall’s distinctive natural and historic character, and the natural environment.

The Council are unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply of deliverable housing sites and have stated that their supply is circa 3.9 years. As such, Paragraph 11 d)ii of the Framework is engaged.

Whilst the proposal is described as self-build housing and the Council’s ‘pro-forma’ has been completed, there is no secure mechanism before me 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 would achieve an increase in housing supply with a ‘low-carbon’ dwelling in a rural area where dwellings can support larger rural service centres, and 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 and further modest economic and social benefits from the future occupation of the dwelling and associated spending in the locality.

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 moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Moreover, it is in a location where future occupiers would be partially reliant on the use of private vehicles to access services and facilities that are reasonably required for everyday living, although harm in this regard is modest. The proposal is therefore contrary to [name] 1, 2, 3, 7, 12, 21, 23, [name] C1 and T1, and NDP policies LC1, HO1 and HS1, 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 limited 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 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. 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 promote the effective use of land, I have found the contribution to housing supply to be a modest benefit alongside other modest benefits. Consequently, 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.

Whilst there were no objections from interested parties (including the Parish Council) to this proposal, a lack of objections is not a reason in itself to allow development that is unacceptable. Therefore, my assessment of the effect of the development is unchanged by the lack of objections.

Another appeal decision has been brought to my attention in relation to a single dwelling, although I do not have full details of that case. However, it appears that whilst the Inspector in that decision considered that the harm would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, it materially differs from the case before me in several ways. The other appeal relates to a differing scheme, in a differing local authority area, which notably could only demonstrate 2.53 years supply of deliverable housing. Furthermore, that case related to the reuse of an existing building. Consequently, the harms of the scheme and benefits to housing supply would differ. This limits the equivalence of the other case 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.