- Decision
- dismissed, 23 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Alison Fish
- Authority
- Cornwall (South West)
- Appeal reference
- 6008414
- Application reference
- PA26/00144
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Permission in principle for an affordable-led scheme of two dwellings on a field across the road from a linear terrace
- Homes
- 2
- Site context
- open countryside, settlement edge, valued landscape
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 3.9 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE5(1), HE6(4), S5(1)(j)(i), HO10
- Development plan policies
- Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2016 Policies 1, 2, 3, 9, 12, 21, 23, 24
- Main issues
- suitability of location; land use and amount
Summary
Permission in principle for two affordable-led homes on a field opposite a mining-era terrace near Helston, inside a World Heritage Site and an Area of Great Landscape Value. Dismissed. The road and hedge separate the site from the linear settlement, so it was not physically well related (S5(1)(j)(i), HO10). No assessment of the site's contribution to the WHS had been made, so harm could not be ruled out. Minor potential harm, given considerable importance and weight, outweighed moderate benefits.
Issues and findings
- Relationship to the settlement. The site "is visually and physically separated from the established linear built form of the settlement by the intervening public highway and established roadside hedge" (DL ¶10). "Policies S5 and HO10 of the Framework provide support for housing, including rural exception sites. However, as I have set out above, the site does not adjoin nor is it physically well-related to a settlement" (DL ¶25).
- HE5 evidence gap. "no substantive attempt has been made to understand whether the appeal site or its open and undeveloped character ... are characteristics that contribute to the significance of the WHS, as required by Policy HE5 of the Framework" (DL ¶18). "I cannot rule out the possibility that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the integrity, authenticity and therefore significance of the WHS" (DL ¶18).
- HE6. "Whilst any harm is likely to be minor given the scale of the proposed development and the extent of the WHS as a whole, the Framework states that any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶19). "the moderate weight I have given, collectively, to the public benefits of the proposal are not sufficient to outweigh the potential harm to the designated heritage asset" (DL ¶26).
- Design benefits. "Securing a high standard of design at technical details consent stage is a general expectation for development rather than a benefit of this proposal" (DL ¶22).
Planning balance
Plan-led (s38(6)) with the HE6(4) balance. Housing, including affordable homes, got moderate weight; economic and social benefits modest; landscape, biodiversity and design very limited (DL ¶20-22). Neither S5(1)(j) nor HO10 supported the scheme, and the heritage balance failed (DL ¶25-27, 30). S5(4) was not expressly run.
What made the difference
The road and roadside hedge, which put the field on the countryside side of a strong linear settlement edge, and the missing WHS assessment. A heritage statement showing that the field makes no contribution to the mining landscape would have removed one reason for refusal, but not the relationship-to-settlement failure.
Transferable points
- A road and roadside hedge can separate a site from a linear settlement, so it is neither adjacent nor physically well related (S5(1)(j)(i), HO10) (DL ¶10, 25).
- An unassessed effect on a WHS counts against the scheme. The inspector weighed "potential harm" in the HE6(4) balance (DL ¶18, 26).
- Good design at the TDC stage is an expectation, not a benefit (DL ¶22).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S5(1)(j)(i) | fail | across the road and hedge from the terrace; visually and physically separate; "does not adjoin nor is it physically well-related to a settlement" (DL 10-12, 25) | |
| HO10 | fail | rural exception site support fails for the same reason; affordable-led but unsecured (DL 5, 25) | |
| HE5(1) | fail | no substantive attempt to assess whether the site contributes to the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape WHS; harm cannot be ruled out (DL 18, 26) | |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | potential harm "likely to be minor" but of considerable importance and weight (DL 19) |
| HE6(4) | fail | benefits (moderate collectively) do not outweigh the potential harm (DL 20-22, 26) | |
| HO7 | benefit | moderate | two homes including affordable; 3.9-year supply; modest contribution (DL 20) |
| N2(1)(a) | harm | mapped: encroachment into the AGLV setting of Godolphin and Tregonning Hills, "an incongruous intrusion into the countryside" (DL 13-14) | |
| AnnexB:PDL | fail | earlier development has blended into the landscape (DL 24) |
Key facts
- Site within the Tregonning and Gwinear section of the Mining Landscape WHS and the Godolphin and Tregonning Hill AGLV (DL 13, 15)
- No physical mining remains on site, but a chimney stack nearby and a terrace said to be miners' housing (DL 17)
- Cornwall supply 3.9 years (DL 20)
- Praa Sands appeal (6-8 affordable homes, development on two sides) distinguished (DL 11, 23)
- Habitats development question under PIP Order Art 5B(1) not reached (DL 29)
Sources
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.