Land at Penstraze, Chacewater

Decision

dismissed, 8 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Nick Davies

Authority

Cornwall (South West)

Appeal reference

6007466

Application reference

PA25/09003

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for 9 dwellings (min 9, max 9)

Homes

9

Site context

settlement edge, open countryside

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

3.9 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

HE6(4), HE4, S5(1)(j), HO7

Development plan policies

Cornwall Local Plan 2016 Policies 2, 3, 7, 21, 23, 24, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, T1, Truro and Kenwyn NDP H1, E1, E4, E6, T2

Main issues

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

Summary

Permission in principle for nine homes on two small fields south of the A390, opposite the roadside settlement of Penstraze, within the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site. Dismissed. The location was found "relatively sustainable": there is a level segregated cycleway and a bus stop. The Council's supply is only 3.9 years. But the loss of legible miners' smallholding enclosures was harm to the WHS's Outstanding Universal Value. Given HE6 substantial weight and the site's international importance, that harm outweighed substantial weight to housing.

Issues and findings

• Transition. Parties commented on the new Framework (DL ¶5). The inspector applied Annex A(2): plan policies are not to lose weight "simply because they were adopted prior to publication" (DL ¶25).
• Spatial strategy. Across a road from the settlement still counts as adjoining it (Corbett), but the site is not infill, rounding off or PDL, so it conflicts with CLP 3 and 7 (DL ¶¶9–13). This conflict gets moderate weight, because the strategy "is not delivering a sufficient supply of homes" (DL ¶25).
• Accessibility: PASS. "the location of the site is relatively sustainable, given the proximity of the nearest settlements and the ease of accessing them by bicycle and, to a lesser extent, by bus" (DL ¶17). The eastbound stop needs a crossing of the unlit A390 from a refuge that "does not lead to a pavement", which is "a significant deterrent … particularly in the hours of darkness" (DL ¶16).
• WHS: HE4/HE6 FAIL. "the amount of development proposed would permanently overwrite the historic landscape such that, even with retention of the boundaries, the relic smallholdings … would no longer be legible. Whilst this would only affect a small part of the overall WHS, this argument could be repeatedly made for individual proposals, resulting in further cumulative harm" (DL ¶21). The benefits "are not specific to this site, so could be achieved elsewhere, without harm to the WHS" (DL ¶23).

Planning balance

S5(1)(j) is framed as "a material consideration of critical importance" (DL ¶24).

• Benefits: housing, substantial weight under HO7 (DL ¶28); economic benefits, modest.
• Harms:
  • WHS harm: substantial (DL ¶27);
  • spatial strategy conflict: moderate;
  • landscape conflict: limited.

The conclusion uses the superseded wording: "the adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶30). It never states the S5 "substantially outweighed" threshold as the conclusion, although the result would be the same.

What made the difference

The WHS designation. The inspector gave "substantial weight" under HE6 to harm he himself described as minor and at the lower end, and relied on the "international importance of the WHS" and the risk of cumulative erosion. The same site outside the WHS would very probably have been allowed: a 3.9-year supply, a cycle-accessible location and only moderate or limited weight to plan and landscape conflict.

Transferable points

• Lower-end harm to a WHS attribute (historic field pattern) can outweigh substantial weight to housing under S5(1)(j) with a 3.9-year supply (DL ¶30).
• "Could be achieved elsewhere" and cumulative-erosion reasoning were used to discount generic housing benefits in the HE6(4) balance (DL ¶¶21, 23).
• Annex A(2): a pre-2026 spatial strategy is consistent with the Framework, but its conflict is reduced to moderate weight where it is not delivering enough homes (DL ¶25).
• A level segregated cycleway to villages 1.5 km away plus a nearby bus stop can make a roadside site "relatively sustainable" (DL ¶¶15–17). An unlit crossing to a stop with no footway beyond is "a significant deterrent" (DL ¶16).
• An intervening main road does not stop land adjoining a settlement (Corbett v Cornwall [2022] EWCA Civ 1069) (DL ¶9).
• Drafting slip: the final balance used the 2024 "significantly and demonstrably" wording (DL ¶30).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Site opposite a continuous roadside row accepted as the settlement of Penstraze; A390 between (Corbett v Cornwall [2022] EWCA Civ 1069 — intervening road does not prevent adjacency) (DL 9)
• 175 m frontage, two undeveloped fields; not infill, not PDL, not rounding off (DL 10-11)
• Supply 3.9 years (DL 24)
• Parties had opportunity to comment on 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 5)
• Final balance expressed with the old 2024 "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" wording (DL 30)

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.