Land opposite Rose Meadow, Carnkie, Helston

Decision

allowed, 7 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Nick Davies

Authority

Cornwall (South West)

Appeal reference

6005328

Application reference

PA25/08915

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for 6-9 dwellings

Homes

9

Site context

settlement edge, open countryside

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

3.9 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(j), HO7, AnnexA(2)

Development plan policies

Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 Policies 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 21, 23, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, European Sites Mitigation SPD 2021

Main issues

suitability of location for housing; character and appearance

Summary

Permission in principle for 6-9 homes on a field opposite the western end of the linear village of Carnkie, Cornwall. Allowed. The site was outside the settlement and conflicted with the plan's spatial strategy (not infill, rounding off or PDL), and it caused moderate harm to rural character. With a 3.9-year supply, the inspector treated S5(1)(j) as a "material consideration of critical importance", cut the weight of the spatial-strategy conflict to moderate, and found the harms did not outweigh substantial HO7 weight plus affordable housing. The final balance, however, is expressed in the old "significantly and demonstrably" wording.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "Both parties have had the opportunity to comment on its implications for their respective cases. I have considered the new Framework" (DL ¶9).
• Inside or outside the settlement. Although inside the village sign, the site "is surrounded on three sides by undeveloped land, and is physically and visually detached from the development on the northern side of the road. It is not, therefore, within the settlement" (DL ¶12). But "an intervening road does not prevent land from being immediately adjacent to a settlement" (Corbett), so it adjoins Carnkie (DL ¶13).
• Spatial strategy — LP 2, 3, 7, 21: CONFLICT. Not infill or rounding off, and "the site does not fall within the definition of PDL in the glossary to the Framework" (DL ¶14).
• Character — LP 12, 23, CEDPD C1: moderate harm. From the west it "would appear as an isolated group of buildings in the countryside … However, the level of harm would be moderate" (DL ¶17).
• S5(1)(j). "a material consideration of critical importance … residential development that is physically well-related to an existing settlement, and is of an appropriate scale, should be approved, unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶21). No express finding that the site is "physically well-related" or of appropriate scale; this is implied by the adjoining finding (DL ¶13) and the allowance.
• Annex A(2). Spatial policies are consistent with the Framework and not reduced for age, "However, it is not delivering a sufficient supply of homes … I can only afford moderate weight to the conflict" (DL ¶22).
• Character harm weight reduced. "meeting the shortfall in housing provision is unlikely to be achieved without some visual impacts … the site does not lie within a protected landscape, and there is scope to minimise the harm through the technical details consent process … limited weight" (DL ¶23).

Planning balance

Against: moderate weight to the spatial-strategy conflict, limited weight to the character conflict. For: HO7 substantial weight; affordable housing "an additional, and significant benefit"; economic benefits "modest" (DL ¶¶22–25). Conclusion: "When assessed against the policies in the Framework, taken as a whole, the adverse impacts of the proposal do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Therefore, despite the conflict with the development plan, material considerations indicate that permission in principle should be granted" (DL ¶26). This is the 2024 NPPF ¶11(d) formulation, not S5's "substantially outweighed". The outcome is unaffected, since "substantially" is at least as high a bar for refusal.

What made the difference

A 3.9-year supply combined with a site physically adjoining (across a road) the built edge of a recognised settlement. The Corbett "intervening road" point let the inspector treat an outside-settlement field as well related. The weight of the plan's spatial-strategy conflict was then cut to moderate under Annex A(2) because the strategy was under-delivering, and the character harm was cut to limited because it was mitigable at TDC stage and outside a protected landscape. Affordable housing (a 6+ unit threshold) added a significant benefit. A site separated from the village by open land, or a council with a five-year supply, would likely have lost.

Transferable points

• S5(1)(j) is treated as "a material consideration of critical importance" in a shortfall, capable of outweighing conflict with an up-to-date-in-form spatial strategy (DL ¶21).
• Annex A(2): consistent spatial-strategy policies are not reduced for pre-dating the Framework, but can be reduced to moderate weight where they are not delivering enough homes (DL ¶22).
• Land across a road from the settlement edge can "adjoin" it (Corbett v Cornwall [2022] EWCA Civ 1069) even though it is not "within" it (DL ¶¶12–13). Relevant to "physically well-related" under S5(1)(j).
• A village name sign does not define the settlement edge (DL ¶12).
• At PIP stage, landscape harm outside a protected landscape can be discounted to limited weight as mitigable at technical details stage (DL ¶23).
• European site mitigation can be secured at PIP stage by a s111 LGA 1972 undertaking with payment made (DL ¶¶6–8).
• Drafting slip: the final balance uses the 2024 "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" test (DL ¶26) instead of S5's "substantially outweighed", and never states an express S5(1)(j) "physically well-related / appropriate scale" conclusion.

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• PIP for 6-9 dwellings on the south side of a linear village, opposite bungalows forming its western end (DL 4, 12)
• Site inside the village name sign but "not … within the settlement"; adjoins it across the road per Corbett v Cornwall [2022] EWCA Civ 1069 (DL 12-13)
• Supply 3.9 years, undisputed (DL 21)
• Fal and Helford SAC mitigation paid via s111 LGA 1972 undertaking at PIP stage; so not "habitats development" (DL 5-8)
• Flood Zone 1; mining legacy, access, drainage and BNG deferred to technical details consent (DL 18-20)

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.