Land east of Gwel An Syllan, Truthwall Lane, Truthwall (St Just)

Decision

dismissed, 9 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: C Butcher

Authority

Cornwall (South West)

Appeal reference

6003055

Application reference

PA25/04202

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for 1-9 dwellings

Homes

9

Site context

settlement edge, conservation area, national landscape, open countryside

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

3.8 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

HE6(4), N4(1), S5(1), S4(2)(a)(ii)

Development plan policies

Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 Policies 1, 2, 3, 12, 23, 24, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, St Just in Penwith NP 2021-2030 AH6, AD1, AD8, Chief Planning Officer's Advice Note on Infill/Rounding Off 2017

Main issues

suitability of location; land use and amount for PIP; rounding off; conservation area; National Landscape

Summary

Permission in principle for 1–9 dwellings on a field opposite a short row of cottages in the very small village of Truthwall, near St Just. The site lies within a conservation area, the Cornwall National Landscape and a World Heritage Site. Dismissed. Nine dwellings would be disproportionate and would not be "rounding off". The scheme would erode the village's transition to countryside, harming the conservation area and the NL. That harm substantially outweighs the moderate benefits, both under S5 and, in the alternative, under S4. The Council's supply was 3.8 years.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "In the interests of fairness, I provided the main parties with an opportunity to provide comments on the new Framework" (DL ¶4).
• PIP scope and amount. "The proposal before me presents a range in the quantum of proposed homes of between one to nine. I therefore must consider the potential impacts of the upper end of that range" (DL ¶9). Nine dwellings "would inevitably appear as being disproportionate to the size of Truthwall" (DL ¶9).
• Rounding off: FAIL. "The lane itself, and the Cornish hedgebank on its southern side therefore appear as a logical boundary to the settlement" (DL ¶11). Even with dwellings on two sides, the site "seems to have a much closer visual connection to the surrounding countryside than it does to the village itself" (DL ¶11).
• Conservation area: HE6 HARM. "the undeveloped nature of the appeal site plays an important role in maintaining the existing highly verdant, bucolic and rural character of the settlement" (DL ¶14). Under HE6(1) the proposal "would result in 'harm'", and under HE6(4) the moderate public benefits "do not outweigh the harm" (DL ¶¶16–17).
• National Landscape: N4(1) CONFLICT. "it is inevitable in this instance that the described harm would also extend to the scenic beauty of the NL" (DL ¶19).
• WHS: no harm found. The site's link to a mining smallholding was too uncertain. "the WHS designation is not a moratorium on new development" (DL ¶21).
• S5(1)(j): PASS but outweighed. "The site is outside of the settlement boundary of Truthwall but is well related to the existing built form. The requirements of Policy S5(j)(i) of the Framework could therefore be said to be met. However … the harm I have identified would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶27).
• S4 in the alternative: FAIL. "even if it was considered that the appeal site was within the settlement, the appeal would still not succeed … Furthermore, in relation to Policy S4(2)(a)(ii) … the proposal would also have a substantial adverse impact upon the NL" (DL ¶28).
• HO7. "It is unclear to me whether this is sufficient to trigger Policy HO7. However, even if it was of relevance, and substantial weight was to be afforded … I would still conclude that the harm substantially outweighs the benefits" (DL ¶29).

Planning balance

First the HE6(4) heritage balance, which failed because the benefits were moderate (DL ¶17). Then S5(1), where the harm to the CA and NL "would substantially outweigh" the benefits (DL ¶27), with an alternative S4(1) and S4(2)(a)(ii) route reaching the same answer (DL ¶28). The benefits were up to nine homes, possible affordable units, reasonable public transport and economic activity, "moderate in nature when considered in combination" (DL ¶25). The development plan conflict was not outweighed (DL ¶30).

What made the difference

The site's role as the undeveloped edge giving a small historic village its rural transition. That role counted twice, as conservation-area harm and as NL harm, with statutory and N4 substantial weight on both. The PIP format also hurt the appellant: a 1–9 range is judged at nine, and nine was out of scale for the village. A PIP for one or two dwellings might have fared better on "amount", but the heritage and NL objection to any built form on the site would probably remain.

Transferable points

• For a PIP with a unit range, the inspector judges the upper end of the range (DL ¶9).
• A site "well related to the existing built form" can meet S5(1)(j)(i) and still fail the S5 "substantially outweighed" balance on conservation area and NL harm (DL ¶27).
• Where it is unclear whether a site is inside or outside a settlement, inspectors run S4 and S5 in the alternative. S4(2)(a)(ii) (substantial adverse impact on a Protected Landscape) is a ready route to refusal inside a settlement (DL ¶28).
• A lane plus a hedgebank can form the "logical boundary" of a small settlement, so development on the far side is an incursion into the countryside (DL ¶¶10–11).
• The inspector doubted whether HO7 substantial weight is triggered by a modest market and possible-affordable scheme without evidenced need (DL ¶29).
• WHS objections need specific evidence of the site's contribution to OUV. Vague records will not do (DL ¶¶20–21).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• PIP for 1-9 dwellings; inspector assessed the upper end of the range (9)
• Truthwall is a very small village - crossroads nucleus plus short linear ribbon
• Site opposite a row of cottages on the south side of Truthwall Lane; hedges to south and east
• Within Botallack and Truthwall Conservation Area, Cornwall National Landscape and the St Just Mining District WHS
• Council supply 3.8 years with no prospect of short-term improvement
• Area "relatively well served by public transport"
• Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.