# Somerville, Mingoose Vale, Towan Cross, Truro (affordable PIP) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Butcher - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009030 - **Application reference:** PA25/07957 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 6-8 affordable dwellings (rural exception) on a field between clusters of Towan Cross - **Homes:** 8 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), DP3(3), S5(1) - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan 2010-2030 Policies 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 21, 23, 27, Cornwall Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, T1 - **Main issues:** suitability of location, land use and amount (PIP) - **Tags:** PIP, affordable-led, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, rural-lane-no-footway, settlement-definition, drafting-slip, small-scheme ## Summary Permission in principle for up to eight affordable homes as a rural exception site at Towan Cross, Cornwall, was dismissed. Towan Cross counted as a settlement and the site was well related to it, but it is one of the green gaps between the village's clusters that give it its character. Building on it would cause significant harm, conflicting with DP3(1), and eight homes likely breached HO10's 5% size limit. Substantial weight to affordable need did not prevent the harm substantially outweighing the benefits under S5(1). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I provided the main parties with an opportunity to provide comments on the new Framework" (DL ¶4). - **Is Towan Cross a settlement?** "it seems to me that the clusters of development form a settlement that is akin to a small village with definable boundaries and is not a straggle of dwellings" (DL ¶10). - **Character: SIGNIFICANT HARM.** The gaps between clusters "form an absolutely integral part of the character of the area" (DL ¶13). "the development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the immediate surroundings" (DL ¶14). - **Accessibility: NO HARM.** "the fact that the policy supports such developments in very small settlements, including hamlets, means that a reduced level of accessibility must be anticipated" (DL ¶15). "While there is no pavement from the site to the bus stops, they would still be easily reached on foot" (DL ¶15). - **HO10: likely FAIL.** "There does however appear to be a conflict with part 2(b) of the policy which notes that development should not exceed 5% of the size of the existing development" (DL ¶26). - **DP3(3).** The letter says DP3(3) "states that any development proposals which conflict with paragraph 1 of the policy should be refused" and that "it is an important matter that must be given the highest possible weight" (DL ¶27). The policy's clear-justification qualifier is left out and no justification question is asked. ## Planning balance S5(1) (via the S5(1)(f) exception-site category): "I conclude that the identified harm would substantially outweigh the benefits, even when attributing substantial weight to the above considerations" (DL ¶28). Plan-led conclusion. ## What made the difference The site's role as a landscape gap in a village made of separate clusters. Even at PIP stage the inspector held that no layout could avoid removing the gap (DL ¶22). A site that rounded off a cluster rather than closing a gap, and a scheme within HO10's 5% limit, might have succeeded. ## Transferable points - A village made of separate clusters can still be an Annex B settlement if it has definable boundaries and village signage; the gaps between clusters can be key to its character (DL ¶10, ¶13). - Character harm can be assessed at PIP stage where any form of development would remove a valued gap (DL ¶12, ¶14). - HO10(2)(b)'s 5% of existing development limit can defeat an exception site in a small village (DL ¶26). - Caution: DL ¶15 accepts an unpaved walk to bus stops for a rural exception site without testing the route, and DL ¶27 misstates DP3(3) by omitting its clear-justification qualifier. ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:settlement: pass.** Towan Cross - clusters with landscape gaps but village signs and definable boundaries; akin to a small village, not a hamlet or scattered group (DL 10) - **DP3(1): conflict.** site is one of the landscape gaps between clusters that give the village its verdant, spacious character; significant and enduring harm (DL 13-14, 24, 27) - **DP3(3): fail.** paraphrased omitting the clear-justification qualifier - proposals conflicting with DP3(1) "should be refused"; "highest possible weight"; no clear-justification question asked (DL 27) - **S5(1)(f): fail.** exception site under HO10 (DL 26) - **HO10: fail.** well related to Towan Cross, but eight homes "likely" exceed the HO10(2)(b) 5% size threshold (DL 26) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to meeting identified need, though collective benefits of up to 8 affordable homes described as "moderate" (DL 25, 27-28) - **TR3: pass.** mapped - few services, but fairly regular buses to St Agnes and Truro; no pavement to the stops yet "easily reached on foot"; reduced accessibility expected for rural exception sites; TR3 not cited (DL 15, 18) - **HE6: neutral.** no harm to setting of Mingoose CA or to the Cornwall and West Devon Mining WHS (DL 19-20) - **S5(1): fail.** harm "would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL 28) ## Key facts - Site mostly undeveloped field with some hardstanding; stables permission exists but much smaller (DL 6, 21) - Local Plan Policy 3 rounding-off/infill not met; scheme put forward as a Policy 9 rural exception (DL 7-8) - Appeal APP/D0840/W/25/3367115 (9 affordable allowed) distinguished (DL 22) - Penhale Dunes SAC mitigation apparently secured; no AA as dismissed (DL 23) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009030 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009030.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.