Galowras Farm, St Ewe (redesigned dwelling, National Landscape)

Decision

dismissed, 8 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: C Butcher

Authority

Cornwall (South West)

Appeal reference

6005119

Application reference

PA25/00620

Procedure

written representations

Development

Redesign (larger, contemporary) of a dwelling permitted under extant permission PA22/08946, implemented but not built

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside, national landscape, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

N4(1), S5(1)(c), S5(1)(j)

Development plan policies

Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 Policies 2, 7, 12, 23, Climate Emergency DPD C1(7), Cornwall Design Guide 2021

Main issues

suitable location under spatial strategy; character and appearance; National Landscape scenic beauty

Summary

A larger, highly contemporary redesign of a small dwelling already permitted (and implemented, but unbuilt) in open countryside in the Cornwall National Landscape. Dismissed. The metal-clad, heavily glazed design would be incongruous and harm the NL's scenic beauty (N4), and it was worse than the fallback. Neither S5 route helped: S5(1)(c) replacement fails because it is disproportionately larger than the unbuilt permitted house, and S5(1)(j) fails because the site is not physically well related to a settlement despite the supply shortfall.

Issues and findings

• Transition. Parties given "an opportunity to provide comments on the new Framework" (DL ¶2). Appellant's arguments about 2024 para 11(d): "Clearly such arguments are no longer of relevance" (DL ¶18).
• Design and NL — N4: CONFLICT. "despite the use of stone and wood for part of the exterior, it is abundantly clear … that the proposed dwelling would have a highly modern appearance" (DL ¶8); "it would therefore be seen as being incongruous and highly out of place" (DL ¶9). "Policy N4 of the Framework states that substantial weight should be placed on the importance of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of such areas. Furthermore, the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 requires decision makers to actively seek to further the statutory purposes of NL's … The fact that the site is close to the edge of the boundary of the NL does not reduce this harm in any meaningful way" (DL ¶11).
• Fallback. The permitted dwelling "would have a much more subtle appearance overall … predominantly formed of timber, while there would also be a slate roof"; the larger dwelling would be more intrusive after dark despite shutters (DL ¶12). "whether one is assessing the proposed development before me in isolation, or within the context of the fallback position, it would lead to an unacceptable level of harm" (DL ¶13).
• Replacement — LP7 and S5(1)(c): FAIL. Not technically a replacement as the permitted house was never built (DL ¶5); "Even if this clause were considered to be activated … the proposed dwelling would clearly be disproportionately larger than the previously permitted dwelling which has not yet been built" (DL ¶20).
• S5(1)(j): FAIL. "the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year supply … the policy sets out that it applies to development schemes that would be physically well related to an existing settlement. Given the location of the appeal site within the open countryside, that clearly would not be the case here" (DL ¶21).
• Self-build. "I have some concerns that the pro-forma is not, in itself, sufficient to secure the proposed dwelling as self build" — not determinative (DL ¶16).

Planning balance

Development-plan-led: harm "significant and enduring"; benefits of one self-build home, construction economy, sustainability features, accessible layout, home-working space and a sewage treatment plant were "only limited, even when considered in combination … the harm substantially outweighs the benefits" (DL ¶19). S5 limbs then checked and none engaged (DL ¶20-21). No material considerations outweigh plan conflict (DL ¶22).

What made the difference

The design, not the principle: the permitted fallback established a dwelling here, but the redesign's scale and industrial/modern materials made it incongruous in a visible NL location. Had the redesign kept to broadly the permitted size and traditional materials it would likely have been accepted as an improvement on the fallback. The S5 analysis shows that an unbuilt permission is not an "existing building" that unlocks S5(1)(c) generously, and a housing shortfall does not help a site not well related to a settlement.

Transferable points

• N4 substantial weight plus the LURA 2023 "seek to further" duty: harm to scenic beauty is not reduced because the site is near the NL boundary (DL ¶11).
• A fallback permission does not justify a larger, more intrusive redesign; the comparison with the fallback is itself a reason to dismiss (DL ¶12-13).
• S5(1)(c) replacement requires the replacement not to be disproportionately larger, measured against an unbuilt permitted dwelling if that is the baseline argued (DL ¶20).
• S5(1)(j)(i) housing-shortfall route is closed for sites in open countryside not physically well related to an existing settlement (DL ¶21).
• 2024 para 11(d) arguments are "no longer of relevance" after 17 Aug 2026 (DL ¶18).
• Completing the council's self-build pro-forma may not be enough to secure self-build status (BNG exemption) (DL ¶16).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Extant permission PA22/08946 for a small 1.5-storey, 2-bed timber-clad, slate-roofed dwelling; implemented but not built
• Proposal much larger in floorspace and mass; metal roof and cladding, aluminium windows, extensive south glazing, sliding shutters
• Site at a lane corner in the Cornwall National Landscape, near its edge; public right of way close by
• Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply (figure not stated)
• Self-build pro-forma completed but inspector doubted it was sufficient to secure self-build (BNG exemption) (DL 15-16)
• Fal and Helford SAC contribution secured; no AA needed as dismissed (DL 17)

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.