Cornish Marquees, Higher Trevellas, St Agnes (PIP, two dwellings)

Decision

dismissed, 2 October 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: S Harrington

Authority

Cornwall (South West)

Appeal reference

6008432

Application reference

PA25/05840

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for two dwellings on land claimed to be previously developed

Homes

2

Site context

open countryside, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

3.8 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(4), TR3, AnnexB:settlement, AnnexB:PDL

Development plan policies

Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 Policies 2, 3, 7, 21, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 T1, SEC1, St Agnes Neighbourhood Development Plan 2018-2030 Policies 2, 7

Main issues

suitability of location for housing

Summary

Permission in principle for two dwellings at a marquee hire yard in a scatter of buildings at Higher Trevellas was dismissed. The inspector found that Trevellas is not a settlement, that the yard is not previously developed land because its hardstanding and use are unauthorised, and that the site would extend a group of buildings and not infill it. With no S5(1) category met, S5(4) applied. Car reliance was given substantial weight and two homes were a modest benefit, so the benefits did not substantially outweigh the harm.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The parties had the opportunity to comment on the revised Framework (DL ¶3).
• Settlement, Annex B: NOT A SETTLEMENT. "the character of the grouping of buildings is more akin to a dispersed scatter of development" (DL ¶12). "Consequently, I find that this grouping of buildings is not a settlement for development plan purposes." (DL ¶13).
• Previously developed land, Annex B: FAIL. "In the absence of any planning permissions or lawful use, I cannot be certain that the hardstanding would be on the land permanently or the use continue given the potential for the Council to take enforcement action" and "I find that for the purposes of this appeal, the appeal site is not PDL as defined within the Framework" (DL ¶17).
• Location, TR3: FAIL. "walking and cycling from the site to bus stops particularly in the dark, would be unattractive to most future occupiers and result in potential conflict between pedestrians and vehicles" (DL ¶22). "I therefore give substantial weight to the harm resulting from the conflict with this Policy" (DL ¶27).
• Plan weight. The spatial policies are "broadly consistent" with the Framework (DL ¶25), but: "The spatial strategy is therefore not delivering a sufficient supply of homes in accordance with the other aims of the Framework. Consequently, I can only afford moderate weight to the conflict with the development plan policies that govern the spatial location of housing." (DL ¶26).
• Housing, HO7: substantial weight, modest benefit. "due to the limited scale of the proposal for two dwellings this would be a modest benefit" (DL ¶28).
• S5(1)(j)(i): FAIL. "the appeal site is not physically well-related to a settlement. Consequently, the approach to decision-making in Policy S5.1.j of the Framework does not apply" (DL ¶31).
• S5(1)(e): FAIL. "the proposal would be an extension to the group of buildings, rather than being within the group, so would not be infilling" (DL ¶32).

Planning balance

S5(4): "When assessed against the policies in the Framework, taken as a whole, the benefits of the proposal do not substantially outweigh the harm." (DL ¶33). On one side, two homes against a 3.8-year supply (substantial weight but a modest benefit) and modest economic benefits. On the other, conflict with the spatial strategy (moderate weight) and with transport policy T1 and TR3 (substantial weight). The appeal is then dismissed on the development plan (DL ¶41).

What made the difference

Three threshold facts: no settlement, no lawful previously developed land, and a site at the end of a group and not within it. Each closed an S5(1) route, leaving the S5(4) test that the benefits must substantially outweigh the harm. A lawful development certificate for the yard would have opened S5(1)(d), although the walking route would still have weighed against the scheme.

Transferable points

• Land with unauthorised hardstanding or use is not previously developed land under Annex B, which requires land "lawfully developed"; the appellant must show lawfulness, for example by a certificate (DL ¶15-18).
• A dispersed, low-density group of buildings with no recognisable centre is not a settlement under Annex B unless the plan names it (DL ¶10-13).
• With no settlement, S5(1)(j)(i) cannot be met however great the supply shortfall (DL ¶31).
• A site beside existing houses that extends the group is not "limited infilling within groups of houses" (DL ¶32).
• A bus stop 300 m away does not help where the walk to it is unlit and without pavement (DL ¶21-22).
• HO7 substantial weight can sit with a finding that two homes are only a modest benefit (DL ¶28).
• Decisions under the previous Framework are distinguishable on that ground (DL ¶38).

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 years (DL 26)
• Trevellas is outside any settlement boundary and is not named in Local Plan Policy 3 (DL 10)
• Council says the use and structures on the land are unauthorised; the appellant produced no evidence otherwise; a lawful development certificate remains open to the appellant (DL 16-18)
• Services for day-to-day living are in Perranporth (2.6 km) and St Agnes (3.4 km); a cafe, campsite and driving centre are nearby (DL 20)
• Nearest bus stop said to be 300 m away, reached along the highway without significant pavement or street lighting (DL 21)
• Energy standards under local policy SEC1 are a requirement and a technical details matter, not a benefit (DL 30)
• Earlier appeal decisions cited by the appellant distinguished, partly because they were decided under the previous Framework (DL 37-38)
• Parties had the opportunity to comment on the revised Framework (DL 3)

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.