- Decision
- dismissed, 10 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: C Butcher
- Authority
- Cornwall (South West)
- Appeal reference
- 6004909
- Application reference
- PA25/07349
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Permission in principle for 1 to 2 dwellings on a former mineworker's smallholding plot
- Homes
- 2
- Site context
- settlement edge, PDL
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE8, HE4(2), HE6(1), HE6(4), S4(1)
- Development plan policies
- Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 Policies 1, 2, 12, 21, 24, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape WHS Management Plan 2020-2025, Cornwall Design Guide
- Main issues
- World Heritage Site Outstanding Universal Value; suitable location for PIP
Summary
Permission in principle for one or two homes on a small plot at Vicarage Hill, St Day, inside the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site. Dismissed. The inspector accepted the WHS Office's evidence that the plot was part of a mineworker's smallholding that contributes to Outstanding Universal Value. Domestic development would sever it visually from the surviving landholding. Low-end harm under HE5/HE6, given "very significant weight", substantially outweighed limited housing benefits under S4(1), even with HO7 substantial weight.
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).
- WHS contribution — HE8. "given the extent to which St Day was linked to the mining industry … it seems very likely to me that the smallholding would have been worked by mineworkers. Moreover, the lack of an associated dwelling on or near the site does not reduce the historic value or importance of the smallholding. As such, having regard to Policy HE8 of the Framework, it seems to me that the site does contribute to the significance of the WHS" (DL ¶11).
- Harm. Up to two dwellings with hardstanding and "the inevitable domestic paraphernalia, would result in the site becoming visually separated from the wider landholding … the contribution of the appeal site to the significance of the wider WHS would also be lost" (DL ¶12). "having regard to Policy HE5(2) of the Framework, the proposal would result in 'harm', albeit at the lower end of the scale given the modest nature of the proposal" (DL ¶13).
- HE6(4) balance: FAIL. "given the modest scale of the proposal, the benefits would be limited … the harm in this instance would clearly outweigh the public benefits" (DL ¶14).
- Settlement status — S4(1). "while it is situated outside of the main urban area of St Day, I am of the view that it should be regarded as being within a settlement" (DL ¶19).
- HO7. "Given the shortfall of housing land supply in the area, this clause could be said to be triggered" (DL ¶19).
- L2. "Given the harm I have identified to the WHS, I cannot conclude that the proposal represents a 'better use' of the land" (DL ¶20).
Planning balance
HE6(4) heritage balance first (DL ¶13-14), then S4(1): "harm to the WHS is a serious matter that must attract very significant weight. I therefore find that the harm would substantially outweigh the limited benefits in this case, even when applying substantial weight in relation to Policy HO7 of the Framework" (DL ¶21). Development plan conflict as a whole (DL ¶17).
What made the difference
Detailed, specific historical evidence from the WHS Office, backed by the appellant's own tithe map showing intact historic boundaries, established that this particular plot was an attribute of OUV (mineworkers' smallholdings). The appellant's argument that there was no definitive proof of mineworker occupation failed on balance of likelihood (DL ¶10-11). Once a WHS contribution was found, even low-end harm outweighed 1-2 homes. A plot whose historic boundaries had been lost, or with no documentary link to mining, would likely have passed S4(1).
Transferable points
- For a WHS, historical uncertainty does not defeat a finding of contribution: "when dealing with historical records, there can sometimes be an absence of certainty" but a detailed, compelling specialist analysis can carry it (DL ¶11).
- Harm to a WHS attracts "very significant weight" and can substantially outweigh HO7 substantial-weight housing under S4(1) even where harm is at the lower end (DL ¶21).
- PIP stage can consider "the effect of additional built form … in general terms" on heritage to decide if the location is suitable (DL ¶6).
- A site outside the "main urban area" but well related to existing homes can be treated as within a settlement for S4 (DL ¶19).
- L2 "better use" of underused land is given little weight where the development causes heritage harm (DL ¶20).
- Drafting note: the inspector calls benefits "limited" (DL ¶14, 18) while also applying HO7 "substantial weight" (DL ¶21), and grades harm by "the modest nature of the proposal" (DL ¶13), which HE5(3) says is not the test.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE8 | harm | site is part of a historic mineworker's smallholding whose boundaries survive intact on the 1838 tithe map; it contributes to the WHS's Outstanding Universal Value; the absence of an associated dwelling does not reduce its value (DL 6-11) | |
| HE5(2) | harm | harm "at the lower end of the scale given the modest nature of the proposal" (DL 13) — the inspector scaled harm to the size of the scheme, which sits awkwardly with HE5(3) (effect on significance, not scale of development) | |
| HE4(2) | fail | cited for the "clear and convincing justification" requirement (DL 13) | |
| HE6(1) | harm | significant | substantial weight to conservation; harm to the WHS "a serious matter that must attract very significant weight" (DL 13, 21) |
| HE6(4) | fail | limited public benefits (1-2 homes on PDL, economic) "clearly outweighed" by the harm (DL 14) | |
| S4(1) | fail | site outside the main urban area of St Day but "well related to existing homes" and treated as within a settlement; harm substantially outweighs benefits (DL 19, 21) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | "Given the shortfall of housing land supply in the area, this clause could be said to be triggered"; yet benefits elsewhere called "limited" (DL 14, 18-19, 21) |
| L2 | neutral | limited | not a "better use" of land given the WHS harm (DL 20) |
Key facts
- Site forms part of the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape WHS; Cornish Mining WHS Office objected with detailed historical analysis
- Field owned by the Harvey brothers, suppliers to the mining industry, who leased 30+ plots of dwellings, outhouses and field plots locally (DL 7)
- 1838 tithe survey boundaries of the landholding still intact on the ground (DL 9)
- Existing buildings on the plot in poor repair; site accepted as PDL
- Council has a housing land supply shortfall (figure not stated)
- SAC mitigation (Penhale Dunes, Fal and Helford) provided; AA unnecessary as dismissed (DL 16)
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.