# 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 (years):** 3.8 - **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 - **Tags:** PIP, s5-4-exceptional, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, infill-rejected, hamlet, settlement-definition, pdl, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, annex-a-weight-reduction, habitats-mitigation, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## 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 - **AnnexB:settlement: fail.** Trevellas is not a named settlement and reads as a dispersed scatter of buildings with no recognisable centre; the Annex B exclusion of hamlets and scattered groups is cited (DL 10-13) - **AnnexB:PDL: fail.** hardstanding and commercial use have no planning permission or lawful use, so the site is not previously developed land as defined (DL 15-17) - **S5(1)(d): fail.** site cannot be considered PDL for the purposes of the appeal (DL 32) - **S5(1)(e): fail.** adjacent to dwellings but an extension to the group of buildings, not within it (DL 32) - **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** not physically well-related to a settlement, because there is no settlement; letter says "Policy S5.1.j" (DL 31) - **S5(4): fail.** no S5(1) category met; benefits do not substantially outweigh the harm, including to sustainable patterns of movement (DL 33) - **TR3: fail (substantial weight).** day-to-day services 2.6 km and 3.4 km away along lanes and a classified road largely without footways or lighting; bus stops 300 m away by an unlit route without pavement; local policy T1 consistent with TR3 and the conflict given substantial weight (DL 19-22, 27) - **Transitional(2): conflict (moderate weight).** spatial policies found broadly consistent with the Framework, then their conflict cut to moderate weight because the 3.8-year supply shows the strategy is not delivering enough homes (DL 25-26) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight stated, but two dwellings "would be a modest benefit" (DL 28) - **E2: benefit.** mapped: construction jobs, support for the marquee business and local spending; "modest weight" (DL 29) - **N6: not-engaged.** within the zones of influence of the Fal and Helford and Penhale Dunes SACs; appropriate assessment not needed as the appeal is dismissed (DL 34-36) ## 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 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008432 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/904d024a-2424-45ea-a134-944935276fcd --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008432.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. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.