# 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
- **Tags:** rural-tourism, s5-1-b-necessity, pdl, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, dp3-refuse-trigger, s5-2-refusal-policy, e2-substantial-weight, landscape-harm, hamlet, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip

## 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
- **AnnexB:previously-developed-land: fail.** temporary DCO workers' caravan compound (to be restored to grassland under the DCO) and earlier equestrian structures are not PDL (DL 8-10)
- **S5(1)(e): fail.** lodges argued to be dwellings; Marazanvose is a 6/7-house low-density straggle, not a settlement; 50 lodges would overwhelm it (DL 26, 28-31)
- **S5(1)(j): fail.** no 5YHLS but not well-related / not of accommodable scale, and no unmet need for holiday accommodation shown; no weight (DL 30-31, 66)
- **S5(1)(b): fail.** rural tourism — no locational or business need for this site shown (DL 32, 34, 51)
- **E4: conflict.** cited as "E4a" and "E4b"; not well served by public transport and not PDL; siting/design not appropriate to surroundings (DL 32, 40, 57)
- **TR3: fail.** 2 km to Zelah along busy unlit B3288 with no pavements; bus finishes early evening; guests reliant on cars (DL 36-40)
- **DP3: fail (substantial weight).** urbanising, out of scale with hamlet; substantial weight given "as required by Policy DP3"; DP3(1) and (2)(d) conflict treated as S5(2) refusal trigger (DL 41, 67, 69)
- **N2: conflict.** harm to historic landscape (CLCS area 19, medieval field pattern) despite hedgerow reinstatement (DL 43-49)
- **HE6: not-engaged.** no effect on setting of nearby Grade II assets or Chyverton Park (DL 19)
- **E2: benefit (substantial weight).** tourism jobs and economic benefits (DL 63)
- **L2: benefit (limited weight).** intense use of site but not an "effective use" given harm; "little weight" (DL 64-65)
- **Annex A: neutral (very-limited weight).** very limited weight to plan policies materially inconsistent with the Framework; IPPS says CLP 2a and locational parts of Policy 3 out of date (DL 22)

## 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006832
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fe80e1df-9fe9-4047-be2f-61a4c1cb80c7

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006832.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.