Case Reference: 3345381

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 11 December 2024
by E Worley BA (Hons) Dip EP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 06 March 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/D0840/W/24/3345381
Land East of Glenmoor, St Ann's Chapel, Cornwall PL18 9HP
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as
amended) against a refusal to grant permission in principle.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Cornwall
Council.
• The application Ref is PA23/08749.
• The development proposed is the construction of a single storey dwelling, garage and
vehicular access onto public highway.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for the construction
of a single storey dwelling, garage and vehicular access onto public highway at
land East of Glenmoor, St Ann's Chapel, Cornwall PL18 9HP, in accordance with
the terms of application Ref PA23/08749.
Preliminary Matters
2. 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.
3. 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 Technical Details Consent (TDC) application
if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.
A proposed site layout plan was submitted as part of the application, I have
treated this as indicative only.
Main Issue
4. The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, in
terms of its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development,
having specific regard to whether the site is a suitable location for the proposed
development having regard to the development plan.
Reasons
5. The appeal site comprises a vacant parcel of land located between existing
properties within a short row of detached dwellings fronting the highway. There
are residential properties opposite the site and open countryside to the rear.
Due to the surrounding topography, the site is at a lower level than the road to
the front of the site and slopes down towards the rear boundary.
6. The site lies outside the development boundary of St Ann’s Chapel, as defined
in the Calstock Neighbourhood Development Plan 2021-2030, made January
2022 (NDP), and in an area designated as a Rural Gap. Part 3 of Policy HP1 of
the NDP sets out the strategy for the location of new development in the area.
It seeks to control development outside of development boundaries, supporting
development only in the specific circumstances listed at a) to d). The proposed
development does not fall into any of those exemptions. The justification for
Policy HP1 advises that the aim of village development boundaries is in part, to
protect the valuable rural gaps that contribute significantly to local character,
and also to encourage development closer to existing services with a range of
transport options, thus contributing to a reduction in emissions, whilst
strengthening social infrastructure.
7. Policy HP2 of the NDP sets out that development proposals in the Rural Gaps,
should be located and designed to maintain the separation of the villages and
the visual openness and landscape character of the gaps. The site is located
between the dwellings in the existing frontage development and is currently
free from built development. It is limited in size and bound by residential
development on either side and on the opposite side of the road. Consequently,
it benefits from a considerable degree of visual containment and makes a very
limited contribution to the landscape character of the area and overall sense of
openness of the Rural Gap.
8. Aside from limited localised views of the site immediately to the front, the
proposed development would be viewed against the existing built development
nearby. While details of siting, scale and design would form part of a TDC
application, a single dwelling on the site could be accommodated so as to
retain the proportion and scale of built structures in the existing row, and the
space between them, and reflect the surrounding built vernacular. Moreover, as
the proposed dwelling would not encroach beyond the confines of the
immediate group of properties in which it would sit, it would have no tangible
effect on the open countryside which is a component part of the Rural Gap
between the group and the edge of St Ann's Chapel or diminish the sense of
visual separation between them.
9. As such, while the proposal would introduce built form into the existing space
between the buildings, it would not conflict with the policy requirement to
maintain the separation of villages and the overall visual openness and
landscape character of the Rural Gap.
10. Policy 3 of the Cornwall Local Plan: Strategic Policies Document 2010–2030
(adopted 2016) (CLP) sets out that the delivery of new development will take
place in accordance with the hierarchy specified. As part of this approach, in
areas other than the main towns, Policy 3 supports infill schemes that fill a
small gap in an otherwise continuous built frontage and do not physically
extend the settlement into the open countryside. Paragraph 1.68 of the
supporting text sets out 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 density straggle of
dwellings.
11. The Council contend that, while the proposal would constitute infilling of a
small gap in an otherwise continuous built frontage, and would not extend
visually into the open countryside, given its location beyond a settlement, the
proposal would not constitute infilling in accordance with Policy 3 of the CLP.
The Council’s Chief Planning Officer’s Advice Note: Infill/Rounding off, dated
December 2017, provides useful guidance as to the interpretation of policies in
the CLP, including whether a site is suitable for infill development set out in
Policy 3.
12. I recognise the appeal site is physically disconnected from the settlement of St
Ann’s Chapel, separated from it by the intervening development and a parcel of
agricultural land. Nonetheless, it is located within a small group of closely
related residential properties, positioned to either side of the A390.
Notwithstanding the surrounding rural character of the area, the group has a
fairly clear form and shape and is contained within boundaries that are
reasonably well defined by existing boundary treatments including hedges and
fences. In addition, the site is well located so that future occupiers of the
dwelling would benefit from accessibility, via a footway adjacent to the
highway, to nearby services, amenities, and options to travel by means other
than the private car. As such, I consider that the proposal would therefore
constitute ‘infill’ within a settlement for the purposes of Policy 3 of the CLP.
Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Policy 3 of the CLP, with regard to
the location of the site.
13. Notwithstanding this, there is clear conflict between Policy 3 of the CLP and
Policy HP1 of the NDP in relation to the suitability of the location of the
proposed development. Section 38(5) of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004 states that, if to any extent a policy contained in a
development plan for an area conflicts with another policy in the development
plan the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in
the last document to become part of the development plan. The NDP became
part of the development plan for the area when it was made in February 2022,
which postdates the adoption of the CLP in November 2016. It therefore follows
that Policy HP1 of the NDP should take precedence over Policy 3 of the CLP.
14. Thus, while the proposed development would not conflict with Policy HP2 of the
NDP, it would conflict with Policy HP1 of the NDP by virtue of its location
beyond the development boundary and the absence of compliance with any of
the identified exceptions. That brings the proposal into conflict with the
development plan, read as a whole, indicating that it would not be a suitable
location for the proposed development, having regard to its location, the
proposed land use and the amount of development.
15. However, the proposal would not conflict with the wider aims of Policy HP1 in
relation to protecting local character and encouraging development close to
existing services with a range of transport options. Furthermore, the proposal
would offer benefits in terms of housing supply, and while modest, the
additional provision of a single unit would nonetheless be valuable given
Council’s stated housing supply position of 3.8 years. The proposal would also
result in some economic benefits during the construction phase, as well as
through local expenditure by future residents.
16. Given the housing land supply position paragraph 11 d) of the Framework,
which indicates that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse
impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the
benefits, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to
sustainable locations and making effective use of land when assessed against
the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Paragraph 14 of the
Framework sets out that in such situations, the adverse impact of allowing
development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly
and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, where specific criteria are met.
17. Notwithstanding this, given the limited nature of the harm arising from the
conflict with Policy HP1 of the NDP in this case, and the absence of conflict with
the wider aims of Policy HP1, the adverse impacts of the proposal would not
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against
the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the proposal would
benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development, set out at
paragraph 11 of the Framework. As Government policy, that is a material
consideration of significant weight and, in this case, indicates that a decision
should be made otherwise in accordance with the development plan.
Appropriate Assessment
18. Article 5B of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order
2017 (as amended), sets out that permission in principle must not be granted
for development which is habitats development. Habitats development is
defined as development which is likely to have a significant effect on a
European designated site either alone or in combination with other projects.
19. The site falls within the Zone of Influence for the Plymouth Sound and
Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Tamar Estuaries Complex
Special Protection Area (SPA) (the European sites), which are protected by the
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats
Regulations). The European sites are designated for their qualifying features
including habitats such as sandbanks, estuaries, large shallow inlets and bays,
reefs, and Atlantic salt meadows and mudflats, and shore dock, alis shad, and
water birds including pied avocet, and little egret, which are of international
marine conservation importance. There is, therefore, potential that additional
residents at the site, in combination with other development, could result in
adverse effects on the integrity of the European sites through recreational
pressure and invasive species.
20. The Council’s submissions indicate that, subject to a financial contribution
towards the Plymouth Sound and Estuaries SAC and Tamar Estuaries Complex
SPA Strategic Mitigation Plan, it is satisfied that the integrity of the European
sites will be maintained. In this case, the Council has confirmed that the
appropriate contribution has been paid and is detailed in an undertaking
pursuant to S111 of the Local Government Act 1972. I have no reason to
disagree. Following appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations, I
am, therefore, satisfied that adverse effects on the integrity of the European
sites by future occupiers of the development, could be mitigated. No significant
effect on a European site would arise and, therefore, the permission in principle
route is available.
Other Matters
21. The appeal site is located within the Cornwall and West Devon Mining
Landscape World Heritage Site (WHS). The Council consider that the proposal
would not harm the Outstanding Universal Value of the area. Having regard to
the scale of the development, for a single dwelling, and the site context, I have
no reason to reach a different conclusion.
Conclusion
22. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed.
E Worley
INSPECTOR