Land adjacent to Red Lane, Rosudgeon

Decision

dismissed, 23 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Alison Fish

Authority

Cornwall (South West)

Appeal reference

6007416

Application reference

PA25/04855

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for 1 to 5 dwellings

Homes

5

Site context

settlement edge, open countryside

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

3.8 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(j)(i), HE4, HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4)

Development plan policies

Cornwall Local Plan 2016 Policies 1, 3, 23, 24, Perranuthnoe Parish NP 2019-30 CW5, HCA1, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1

Main issues

suitability of location; land use and amount incl. World Heritage Site

Summary

Permission in principle for up to five houses on a field at the edge of Rosudgeon, inside the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site. Dismissed. The site met S5(1)(j) (3.8–3.9-year supply, physically well related), but it is a surviving historic mineworkers' smallholding contributing to the WHS's Outstanding Universal Value. Even minor harm to an asset "of the highest significance", given substantial weight under HE6, meant the moderate benefits were substantially outweighed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "The main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the implications of these changes for the appeal" (DL ¶2).
• Rounding off — CLP Policy 3: FAIL. The low hedgebank "does not provide a strong sense of enclosure"; "Development on the appeal site would visually extend building into the countryside and therefore the proposal would not constitute rounding off" (DL ¶¶10–11).
• S5(1)(j): PASS. "The close proximity to existing residential development means that the site is physically well related to the settlement" (DL ¶9); "the 5 year housing land supply position indicates an unmet need for housing and I have determined that the proposal would be physically well-related to the existing settlement. The criteria in Policy S5 (j) have therefore been met" (DL ¶24).
• WHS — HE6: HARM. Site "was historically a mineworkers' smallholding. As such, the site exhibits one of the seven attributes which … convey and express the OUV" (DL ¶13); "even for a single dwelling would erode the legibility of the site as a historic mineworkers' smallholding. The presence of other surviving smallholdings elsewhere in the WHS, does not … reduce the significance of the appeal site" (DL ¶15); "Whilst the harm is likely to be minor … any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶16).
• PIP scope. Food-growing space, hedge repair and biodiversity "cannot be secured at permission in principle stage"; good design "is a general expectation … rather than a benefit" — very limited weight (DL ¶19).

Planning balance

Two balances. HE6 heritage balance: housing (moderate) and economic/social benefits (moderate) "do not outweigh the harm to the designated heritage asset of the highest significance" (DL ¶¶17–20). S5(1) balance: "I have given substantial weight to the assets conservation and conclude that in this instance the benefits would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effect to the WHS" (DL ¶28). s38(6) conclusion (DL ¶29).

What made the difference

The site's own historic character: its elongated plot and surviving boundaries as a mineworkers' smallholding, one of the attributes of the WHS's OUV. That made even minor harm decisive, because HE6(1) scales weight to the importance of the asset and a WHS is at the top. Housing benefits of up to five homes were held to only moderate weight despite a 3.8-year supply. The nearby Red Lane appeal went the other way because nine affordable homes attracted significant weight.

Transferable points

• Passing S5(1)(j) does not secure approval: minor harm to a WHS attribute can "substantially outweigh" small housing benefits (DL ¶28).
• HE6(1) "the more important the asset, the greater the weight" does real work: minor harm to a WHS outweighed moderate benefits (DL ¶¶16, 20, 28).
• Other surviving examples of the same attribute elsewhere in the WHS do not reduce the significance of the one affected (DL ¶15).
• Benefits that cannot be secured at PIP stage (biodiversity, planting) get very limited weight; good design is not a benefit (DL ¶19).
• Housing benefit of up to five market homes given only moderate weight at a 3.8–3.9-year supply, without citing HO7's substantial-weight direction (DL ¶17) — a possible inconsistency with HO7(1).
• HE8 (World Heritage Sites) was not cited; the WHS was treated as a designated asset under HE4/HE6.

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Council supply 3.8 or 3.9 years (DL 17)
• Site is a rectangular field, historically a mineworkers' smallholding with surviving boundaries, within Tregonning and Gwinear area of the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape WHS (DL 12-14)
• Harm "likely to be minor" even for one dwelling (DL 15-16)
• Low stone-faced hedgebank on east boundary allows views to open countryside; not rounding off (DL 10-11)
• Nearby Red Lane appeal APP/D0840/W/25/3367115 (9 affordable homes, significant weight) distinguished (DL 22)
• Parties given opportunity to comment on 2026 Framework (DL 2)

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.