Land at Marazanvose, St Allen (holiday lodges)

Decision

dismissed, 1 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Elizabeth Lawrence

Authority

Cornwall (South West)

Appeal reference

6006832

Application reference

PA25/02427

Procedure

written representations

Development

Change of use of former A30 roadworks temporary caravan compound to a site for up to 50 holiday lodges

Site context

open countryside, rural lane, settlement edge

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(b), S5(4), S5(2), DP3, E4, TR3

Development plan policies

Cornwall Local Plan 2016 Policies 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 21, 23, Cornwall Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, T1, G1-G3

Main issues

suitable location for tourism accommodation; accessibility; character and appearance

Summary

Proposal to turn a former A30 roadworks workers' caravan compound beside the hamlet of Marazanvose into a site for up to 50 permanent holiday lodges. Dismissed. The temporary compound was not PDL, no locational need for the tourism use was shown (S5(1)(b)), the site is car-dependent (TR3) and the scheme would urbanise a historic landscape (DP3/N2). Substantial weight to economic benefits under E2 was "substantially outweighed".

Issues and findings

• Transition. "Both the council and the appellant have been provided with the opportunity to comment on the relevance of the new Framework … I confirm that in this decision I have referred to the 2026 Framework" (DL ¶3).
• PDL: FAIL. "the caravans were not permanent structures and both the use and associated access and infrastructure was for a temporary period only and thus not permanent" (DL ¶8); former equestrian and temporary structures "fall outside the definition of previously developed land" (DL ¶10).
• Housing limbs S5(1)(e)/(j): FAIL. Lodges argued to be dwellings (DL ¶23). "Marazanvose comprises a low-density straggle of some 6/7 traditionally designed dwellings, with no shops" (DL ¶28); the scheme "would overwhelm and be out of scale and context with the hamlet" (DL ¶30). S5(1)(j): "an unmet need has not been demonstrated. Therefore, I give no weight to this factor" (DL ¶66).
• Rural tourism S5(1)(b) / E4: FAIL. "A specific locational need for a holiday lodge site in this location has not been demonstrated" (DL ¶34). Nearby infrastructure (bridge, A30, solar, pylons) "is not a good reason to justify a development that does not require a specific location in the countryside" (DL ¶51).
• Accessibility TR3: FAIL. B3288 to Zelah "would be unattractive for walking or cycling for safety and environmental reasons" (DL ¶36); the bus "would not provide a quick and efficient service for holiday makers wanting to pick up a few groceries" (DL ¶37); "although the proposal makes the most of existing and proposed transport infrastructure, it would not enable good accessibility for different users" (DL ¶40).
• Character DP3/N2: FAIL. The lodges "would appear totally out of context with the adjoining informal and spacious linear hamlet" (DL ¶46); "insensitive and suburbanising impact on the strong historic agricultural and industrial rural landscape" (DL ¶49).
• Heritage HE6: not engaged (DL ¶19).

Planning balance

S5 balance, though framed loosely. Benefits: E2 economic/tourism "substantial weight" (DL ¶63); BNG outweighed by disturbance to the green bridge wildlife corridor and bats (DL ¶¶60-61); L2 "little weight" (DL ¶65). Harm: landscape/character "substantial weight" "as required by Policy DP3" (DL ¶67). "Overall, the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the harm" (DL ¶68). DP3(1)/(2)(d) conflict invoked as an S5(2) refusal-policy trigger (DL ¶69). The DCO restoration was treated as a realistic counterfactual that would itself deliver green-link and BNG benefits (DL ¶62).

What made the difference

The site's history as a temporary DCO compound did not help: temporary works that must be removed are not PDL, so the scheme was treated as greenfield countryside development with no locational need. Scale (50 lodges next to 6-7 houses) and the unlit, footway-less B3288 did the rest. A smaller scheme with on-site facilities, a demonstrated tourism need, or a location with walkable services might have passed S5(1)(b).

Transferable points

• Temporary infrastructure lawfully installed under a DCO or time-limited licence, with a restoration obligation, is not PDL (DL ¶¶8-10).
• S5(1)(b) rural tourism needs a demonstrated need for this location; being "in principle acceptable in the countryside" is not enough (DL ¶¶34, 51).
• Adjacent major infrastructure (A30, green bridge, pylons, solar) does not justify further countryside development that does not need that location (DL ¶51).
• Holiday lodges argued to be dwellings still fail S5(1)(e)/(j) where the hamlet is a "low density straggle" (DL ¶¶26, 28-31).
• A bus service that finishes early evening does not give tourism occupants good accessibility (DL ¶37).
• DP3 character conflict used both for substantial weight and as an S5(2) "should be refused" trigger (DL ¶¶67, 69).
• Drafting slips: S5 limbs listed as "S5 1. C, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, I & & j" (DL ¶24); "E4a"/"E4b" for E4 limbs (DL ¶¶40, 57); final balance framed as "substantially outweighed" rather than the S5(4) "exceptional circumstances … substantially outweigh" test that applies once no S5(1) category is met (DL ¶68).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Site was one of nine temporary compounds under the A30 Chiverton to Carlan Cross DCO 2020; DCO requires restoration to grassland
• Up to 50 lodges in uniform rows beside a 6/7-house hamlet on the B3288
• Zelah (very limited facilities) 2 km away along a busy distributor road with no pavements or lights
• Bus service finishes early evening, fragmented at weekends
• Cornwall cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply (figure not stated)
• Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework after 17 Aug

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.