- Decision
- dismissed, 25 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: N Perrins
- Authority
- Cornwall (South West)
- Appeal reference
- 6000903
- Application reference
- PA25/02674
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Change of use and conversion of a former piggery to a holiday cottage
- Site context
- open countryside, isolated, national landscape, rural lane
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(1)(b), S5(1)(c), S5(4), TR3, E4(2), N2
- Development plan policies
- Cornwall Local Plan 2010-2030 Policies 2, 5, 7, 21, 23, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, G2, T1
- Main issues
- location and accessibility; re-use of building; biodiversity net gain
Summary
An appeal to convert a former piggery in open countryside near Tintagel to a single holiday cottage was dismissed. The inspector applied the August 2026 Framework without a separate consultation round, as the issues were already in play. The site was car-dependent, the appellant did not show a countryside location was necessary for the tourism use (S5(1)(b)), and the building was not shown to be capable of conversion without, in effect, rebuilding (S5(1)(c)).
Issues and findings
- Transition. "I am satisfied that no party has been prejudiced by its publication, as the determinative matters in this appeal were already in issue between the parties" (DL ¶2).
- Holiday let or dwelling. The inspector left the characterisation open because "Framework policy S5(1)(c) applies substantively the same construction-quality test to the re-use of any existing building outside a settlement regardless of that characterisation" (DL ¶3). If it were a dwelling it would be an isolated home under S5(3)/HO11 (DL ¶12).
- Location: FAIL (S5(1)(b), TR3, E4(2)). The lanes are "narrow, hedge-enclosed, unlit, and lack footways … Walking for day-to-day purposes is largely unrealistic" (DL ¶7). "visitors would be at least as car-dependent as residents" (DL ¶8). S5(1)(b) "supports rural tourism development outside settlements only where such a location is shown to be necessary", and the appellant "does not identify why this location, rather than a site within or better related to a settlement, is necessary" (DL ¶9).
- TR6(4) is the wrong test. "TR6(4) addresses matters of capacity and safety … The concern here is the car-dependent travel pattern the development would generate" (DL ¶10).
- Re-use: FAIL (S5(1)(c)). The building "would derive its structural integrity from new work rather than from the existing fabric" (DL ¶15). Embodied-carbon benefit was given no weight (DL ¶18, 26).
- BNG: FAIL (N2). The exemption was not demonstrated and there was no metric (DL ¶20-22).
Planning balance
The decision was taken under s38(6), with conflict with the plan as a whole (DL ¶25). The benefit, one holiday unit with no evidence of need, carried limited weight. Against it, car-reliant location with no demonstrated necessity carried considerable weight, plus the conversion failure and the BNG conflict (DL ¶26-27). Because the scheme fell within no S5(1) category, it went to S5(4): "No such circumstances exist and the limited benefits fall short of that test" (DL ¶28).
What made the difference
The absence of evidence. There was no structural survey supporting conversion, no reason why the tourism use had to be at this site, and no BNG baseline. The inspector read S5(1)(b) as requiring a positive demonstration of locational necessity, not a general appeal to the tourism economy. A sound structural report and a site-specific case for the rural location would have moved the scheme into S5(1)(b)/(c) and the "substantially outweighed" balance. Even then, the transport harm would have remained.
Transferable points
- S5(1)(b) requires the appellant to show why this countryside location is necessary. General tourism benefits do not do that (DL ¶9).
- S5(1)(c)'s "permanent and substantial construction" test applies to any re-use outside a settlement, whether the use is a dwelling or tourism (DL ¶3, 12).
- Holiday occupiers are at least as car-dependent as residents, so holiday use does not cure an unsustainable location (DL ¶8).
- TR6(4)'s "unacceptable/severe" test concerns highway safety and capacity. It does not answer a TR3 objection about car-dependent travel patterns (DL ¶10).
- E4(2) and TR3(1)(e) are expectations the proposal must meet, not only support. A scheme that takes no opportunity to improve connectivity or use a well-related site conflicts with them (DL ¶10-11).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S5(1)(b) | fail | rural tourism outside a settlement supported only where the location is shown to be necessary; appellant argued general tourism benefit but not why this site (DL 9, 11) | |
| S5(1)(c) | fail | re-use of an existing building must be of permanent and substantial construction whatever the use is called; 2019 survey showed new steel frame, foundations and roof needed, so in substance a new building (DL 3, 12-19) | |
| S5(3) | neutral | if the unit is a dwelling it would be an isolated home, engaging HO11; not resolved because S5(1)(c) applies either way (DL 12) | |
| TR3 | fail | considerable | narrow unlit lanes without footways; bus every two hours, Mon-Sat only; visitors at least as car-dependent as residents (DL 7-8, 10-11, 27) |
| TR6(4) | not-engaged | appellant's "severe impact" argument rejected; TR6(4) deals with capacity and safety, which were not in dispute; the objection is to car-dependent travel patterns (DL 10) | |
| E4(2) | fail | did not take opportunities to improve rural connectivity or use PDL or well-related sites (DL 10-11) | |
| N2 | fail | BNG exemption not demonstrated (red line over 1,000 sq m against a claimed 123 sq m); no metric (DL 20-22) | |
| S5(4) | fail | outside all S5(1) categories; no exceptional circumstances; limited benefits well short of "substantially outweigh" (DL 28) | |
| E2 | benefit | limited | one holiday unit is a modest economic contribution; no evidence of unmet need (DL 26) |
Key facts
- Single-storey breeze-block former piggery, c.400 m from Trewarmett (a hamlet, not a settlement) and over 1 km from Tintagel
- In Cornwall National Landscape and Heritage Coast; no landscape objection (DL 23)
- Previous appeal for a dwelling on the site dismissed in 2020 (APP/D0840/W/19/3243906)
- Structural survey of 2019 showed conversion needed a new steel frame on new foundations and a new roof
- Bus 95 every two hours, 07:35-18:45, Mon-Sat only
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.