# Land east of Lower Clicker Close, Clicker, Menheniot - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Nick Davies - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007431 - **Application reference:** PA25/07800 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for one dwelling on part of a grass field next to a hamlet - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.9 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S6(1), S5(1)(j), HO7 - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 Policies 2, 3, 7, 9, 21, Menheniot Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan 2021-2030 Policies 1, 5 - **Main issues:** suitable location, land use, amount - **Tags:** PIP, s5-1-j, neighbourhood-plan, s6-neighbourhood-plan, housing-shortfall, infill-rejected, habitats-mitigation, old-balance-wording, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme ## Summary Permission in principle for one dwelling on part of a field on the edge of Clicker, outside the Neighbourhood Plan development boundary. Dismissed. The scheme passed S5(1)(j) because Cornwall had a 3.9-year supply and the site was well related to the hamlet. But the Menheniot Neighbourhood Plan was made in April 2022, less than five years before the decision, and allocates sites to meet its identified requirement. S6 therefore applied, and the conflict with NP Policy 1 carried substantial weight that outweighed the benefit of one home. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Both parties have had the opportunity to comment on its implications" (DL ¶9). - **Habitats (PiP eligibility).** Mitigation was already paid under a S111 agreement, so the proposal "would not, therefore, be habitats development, so can be considered under the permission in principle application procedure" (DL ¶8). - **Spatial strategy — CLP 3/7, NP 1: CONFLICT.** Not infill (not in a built frontage). Not PDL: "the area covered is a relatively small proportion of the overall site" (DL ¶13). Not rounding off: "the eastern boundary of the site is an arbitrary line across the middle of the field … The lack of any substantial boundary features would also create the potential for further incremental growth" (DL ¶¶14–15). - **S5(1)(j): PASS.** "As the location of the site is well-related to the settlement, and a single dwelling would be appropriate in scale, the Framework's approach … as set out at Policy S5 1.j, is a material consideration of critical importance" (DL ¶18). - **Spatial strategy weight.** The inspector quoted Annex A ¶2 (no reduced weight just for pre-dating the Framework) but then gave "only moderate weight" because the plan "is not delivering a sufficient supply of homes" (DL ¶20). - **S6: FAIL.** "Policy S6 of the Framework advises that the benefits of approving development are likely to be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects where a proposal would conflict with a neighbourhood plan that has been made within the last five years, and which contains allocations to meet its identified housing requirement" (DL ¶21). The allocations have not come forward, "but there is no evidence before me to demonstrate that they cannot be delivered … I therefore give substantial weight to the conflict with Policy 1 of the Neighbourhood Plan" (DL ¶23). The appellant's challenge to the NP's housing figure failed because the plan had been examined (DL ¶22). ## Planning balance S5(1)(j) balance with S6 as the operative harm. Benefits: HO7 substantial; economic modest (DL ¶19). Harms: CLP conflict moderate; NP conflict substantial (DL ¶¶20, 23). Conclusion: "having particular regard to Policy S6, the adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶24). That is the old tilted-balance wording, not S5's "substantially outweighed", though the result is the same. An earlier Cornwall appeal was distinguished because that scheme was rounding off and complied with the NP (DL ¶25). ## What made the difference The Neighbourhood Plan's date and content. It was made in April 2022, less than five years before the decision, and contained allocations, so S6 gave the NP boundary substantial weight despite a 3.9-year supply and an S5(1)(j) pass. Slow delivery of the allocations did not matter without evidence that they could not be delivered. The appellant's two other routes also failed: rounding off (the site's boundaries were not defined) and PDL (hardstanding on only a small part). The result would likely reverse once the NP passes five years (April 2027), or if the allocations were shown to be undeliverable. ## Transferable points - S6 can defeat an S5(1)(j) pass: a neighbourhood plan made within five years with allocations meeting its identified requirement gives substantial weight to NP boundary conflict, even with a 3.9-year district supply (DL ¶¶18, 21–24). - For S6, allocations that are slow to come forward still count unless there is evidence they cannot be delivered; a partial commercial permission on an allocation is not enough (DL ¶23). - An examined NP's housing requirement cannot be reopened at appeal (DL ¶22). - S6 has an expiry date: once the NP is more than five years old, S6 no longer applies (NP made April 2022, so April 2027). - A small patch of hardstanding does not make a field PDL (DL ¶13). - Annex A ¶2 does not stop an inspector reducing weight to spatial-strategy policies for failing to deliver supply (DL ¶20). - Drafting slip: the conclusion uses the old "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" test rather than S5/S6's "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶24). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** 3.9-year supply; well related to Clicker and of appropriate scale; "a material consideration of critical importance" (DL 18) - **AnnexB:previously-developed-land: fail.** small area of hardstanding in one corner of a grass field does not make the site PDL (DL 13) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** evidenced unmet need; one dwelling (DL 19, 21) - **Annex A: neutral (moderate weight).** Annex A para 2 quoted (no reduced weight just for pre-dating the Framework), but spatial strategy conflict given only moderate weight because the plan is not delivering enough homes (DL 20) - **S6(1): fail (substantial weight).** NP made April 2022 (within 5 years) with allocations meeting its identified requirement; allocations not yet built but no evidence they cannot be delivered; conflict with NP Policy 1 given substantial weight (DL 21-23) - **CLP 2/3/7/21, NP 1: conflict.** not infill, not rounding off (open southern and eastern boundaries), not PDL; open countryside (DL 13-17) ## Key facts - Council supply 3.9 years — "the shortfall is considerable" (DL 18) - Menheniot NP made April 2022; identified need about 5 market and 19 affordable homes; allocations for about 20 homes plus an elderly care site; a further site for about 275 homes for the Liskeard and Looe CNA - Part of the CNA allocation now has commercial permission; no evidence housing cannot come forward on the rest (DL 23) - Eastern boundary an arbitrary line across the field; southern boundary a post and rail fence; north open to a pub car park - SAC/SPA recreational mitigation already paid under a S111 agreement, so PiP could proceed without being habitats development (DL 7-8) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007431 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a82912b9-28ca-4716-a369-1897ad00cfa1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007431.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.