# 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 (years):** 3.8
- **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
- **Tags:** PIP, s5-1-j, substantially-outweighed, heritage-harm-decisive, world-heritage-site, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## 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
- **S5(1)(j)(i): pass.** 3.8/3.9-yr supply; site physically well related to Rosudgeon (DL 9, 24)
- **HE6: harm (substantial weight).** minor harm to OUV of Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape WHS through erosion of legibility of a historic mineworkers' smallholding; HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation, HE6(3) considerable importance and weight; public benefits moderate (DL 13-20, 28)
- **HE4: fail.** cited in final balance — conserve in a manner appropriate to significance (DL 28)
- **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** up to five homes; modest but useful contribution; HO7 not named (DL 17)
- **CLP Policy 3: conflict.** not rounding off; site not substantially enclosed, visually extends into countryside (DL 7-11)

## 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007416
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/214bbcaa-b2dd-47fe-be38-30a51f74aa6e

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007416.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.