# Thurlestone Golf Club, Thurlestone (hospitality trailer beside the coast path) - **Decision:** dismissed, 2 October 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Reeves - **Authority:** South Hams (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008892 - **Application reference:** 2345/25/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retention of a seasonal hospitality trailer on land south of the golf course, beside the South West Coast Path (retrospective) - **Site context:** national-landscape, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N4(1), S5(1)(b), S5(1) - **Development plan policies:** Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2019-2034 SPT1, DEV20, DEV23, DEV24, DEV25, DEV36, Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2015-2034 TP1, TP17, TP22, TP23 - **Main issues:** character and appearance of the National Landscape and Undeveloped Coast - **Tags:** s5-1-b-necessity, substantially-outweighed, national-landscape, landscape-harm, rural-tourism, rural-business, retrospective, temporary-permission ## Summary A golf club sought to keep a seasonal refreshment trailer beside the South West Coast Path in the South Devon National Landscape. The inspector accepted that a location outside a settlement was necessary, so the scheme fell within S5(1)(b), and gave its tourism and economic benefits moderate weight. But the trailer was an incongruous commercial feature on an open, undeveloped stretch of coast, and N4 requires substantial weight to natural beauty. The benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** No switch paragraph. The letter applies S3, S5, E2 and E4 by code. - **Landscape and coast: HARM.** "The trailer therefore remains an incongruous commercial feature that fails to reflect the undeveloped and largely natural character of its surroundings." (DL ¶8). On the mitigation and temporary permission offered: "these measures would not overcome the fundamental issue arising from the siting of the trailer in this location" (DL ¶8). - **S5(1)(b): PASS.** "Given the nature of the facility and the users it is intended to serve, I accept that a location outside a settlement is reasonably necessary. To that extent, the development attracts support under Policy S5." (DL ¶13). - **Benefits, E2 and E4: moderate.** "those benefits are limited by the development's small scale and seasonal nature. I therefore afford them moderate weight" (DL ¶14). - **N4(1).** "The Framework requires substantial weight to be given to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of protected landscapes." (DL ¶15). ## Planning balance S5(1) balance: moderate-weight benefits against National Landscape harm at substantial weight. "I conclude that the benefits of the development are substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶16). The development plan conflict then decides the appeal under section 38(6) (DL ¶17). ## What made the difference The siting: directly in the path corridor, where development is otherwise hidden or set back. Small size, seasonal use, reversibility and a temporary permission all reduced the harm but did not remove it. A position grouped with the existing golf club buildings, away from the shore, would not have raised the same objection. ## Transferable points - Meeting an S5(1) category is not approval: an S5(1)(b) scheme was refused in the S5(1) balance on Protected Landscape harm alone (DL ¶13, ¶15-16). - S5(1)(b) "shown to be necessary" was read as "reasonably necessary", judged from the nature of the facility and its users (DL ¶12-13). - Small, seasonal and removable development can still harm a Protected Landscape where it stands in an open and undeveloped setting (DL ¶6, ¶8). - An offer of temporary permission and a review period does not overcome an objection to siting (DL ¶8). - Small scale and seasonal operation cut the weight of E2 and E4 benefits to moderate (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(b): pass.** a location outside a settlement accepted as "reasonably necessary" for a facility serving golfers, beach users and walkers (DL 12-13) - **E4(1)(c): benefit (moderate weight).** letter cites S5, E2 and E4 together; tourism, recreational and economic benefits limited by small scale and seasonal use (DL 14, 16) - **N4(1): harm (substantial weight).** isolated commercial feature on an open, undeveloped stretch of coast in the South Devon National Landscape; substantial weight to conserving and enhancing natural beauty (DL 6-9, 15) - **S5(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects (DL 16) - **s38(6): conflict.** conflicts with the development plan, including Undeveloped Coast policy DEV24 (DL 9, 17) ## Key facts - Trailer sited immediately beside the South West Coast Path between the golf course and Leasfoot Beach, within the South Devon National Landscape and the Undeveloped Coast (DL 4, 6) - Present April to October only, not fixed to the ground and removable (DL 7) - Mitigation offered, muted colours, no signage or external seating, operational and noise controls, a temporary permission and a review period; none overcame the siting objection (DL 7-8) - Other golf club development is set well back from the coast and is recessive from the path (DL 5-6) - Section 85 duty applied, the development fails to conserve and enhance natural beauty (DL 10) - Framework coast policy N5 is not cited; the Undeveloped Coast harm is decided on the local plan - No switch paragraph; the Framework is cited by 2026 policy code (S3, S5, E2, E4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008892 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6b1a1865-5fbb-4031-b3a3-ea0a44d9a65c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008892.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.