- Decision
- dismissed, 18 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: O Marigold
- Authority
- Cornwall (South West)
- Appeal reference
- 6009443
- Application reference
- PA26/00089
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Three glamping pods with hardstanding, access drive and solar array
- Site context
- open countryside, valued landscape, national landscape, rural lane
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(1)(b), E4, N4, TR3(1), CC2(1)(a)
- Development plan policies
- Cornwall Local Plan 2016 Policies 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 23, 27, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, T1
- Main issues
- character and appearance; access to services
Summary
Three glamping pods in open Area of Great Landscape Value countryside near the Cornwall National Landscape were dismissed at appeal. There were two harms, each given "very substantial negative weight": landscape intrusion, including a permanent gravel drive across the field, and poor access to services. The inspector held that E4, although it accepts rural businesses may be poorly served by public transport, still requires well-related sites and appropriate siting.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The parties commented on the new Framework, and the appeal was decided "using the current planning policy position" (DL ¶3).
- Landscape and National Landscape setting: HARM. The new drive "would have an intrusive and scarring effect on the landscape, on a permanent basis" (DL ¶11). The scheme "would detract from the NL setting, harming its natural beauty" (DL ¶13). There was conflict with N2 and N4, which require development in the setting of Protected Landscapes to be "sensitively located and designed" (DL ¶24).
- Access: FAIL. Bus drivers "may not be willing to stop hereabouts given the narrow nature of the road and its 60mph speed limit. Holidaymakers unfamiliar with the area may well feel uneasy at relying on such an arrangement" (DL ¶17). "Patterns of movement associated with holiday use may be different … but I have little reason to believe that trips would necessarily be limited" (DL ¶18). TR3(1)(e) "recognises the constraints on connectivity opportunities in rural areas. Even so … the proposal would not accord with these policies" (DL ¶25).
- E4: CONFLICT. E4 "recognises that such proposals may need to be located outside settlements, and may not be well served by public transport. Nevertheless, it makes clear that such proposals should take opportunities to use sites physically well-related to existing development, and must be appropriate in respect of their siting" (DL ¶23).
- Other permissions. "Some of the cases pre-date the adoption of current Development Plan policy, as well as the new Framework" (DL ¶20).
Planning balance
The S5(1)(b) route was engaged. The benefits were construction and visitor spend, renewable energy, EV charging, BNG and social benefits. They were "substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶27). The Framework "is a material consideration of critical importance and therefore weighs heavily against it" (DL ¶28). The local plan Policy 1 tilted balance, which applied because Cornwall lacks a five-year supply, also failed (DL ¶22, 28).
What made the difference
Landscape siting was as important as accessibility. Pods placed away from the existing buildings, with a long new drive, could not meet E4's "physically well-related" expectation. Clustering the pods beside the existing barn and implement store, using the existing entrance, would have removed most of the landscape objection. The access objection would have remained.
Transferable points
- E4's acceptance that rural businesses may be poorly served by public transport does not excuse siting remote from existing buildings. The site must still be "physically well-related to existing development" (DL ¶23).
- Request-stop or hail-and-ride buses on a fast, narrow road do not give holidaymakers a realistic alternative to the car (DL ¶17).
- Holiday use does not reduce trip generation enough to overcome poor accessibility (DL ¶18).
- Permissions granted before the 2026 Framework carry limited weight in consistency arguments (DL ¶20).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| N4 | harm | substantial | pods, solar array and long gravel drive intrude into open AGLV countryside next to Cornwall National Landscape; detracts from NL setting (DL 10-14, 24) |
| TR3(1) | fail | substantial | Bude c.4 miles on narrow unlit lanes without pavements; buses three each way weekdays, request stops on 60 mph road; TR3(1)(e) rural constraint acknowledged but not enough (DL 16-18, 21, 25) |
| CC2(1)(a) | fail | does not support good access to facilities to limit need to travel (DL 25) | |
| E4 | fail | E4 accepts rural business may be outside settlements and poorly served by public transport, but still requires physically well-related sites and appropriate siting; not met (DL 23) | |
| N2 | fail | does not contribute positively to natural environment (DL 24) | |
| S5(1)(b) | fail | benefits (spend, renewables, EV charging, BNG) substantially outweighed by landscape and accessibility harm (DL 26-27) |
Key facts
- Three timber green-roofed pods set well away from existing barn conversion, with a new gravel drive across the field
- Area of Great Landscape Value, opposite Cornwall National Landscape
- Nearest town Bude c.4 miles; 3 buses each way on weekdays, one on Saturday, none on Sunday
- Cornwall accepted to lack a five-year housing land supply, engaging local plan Policy 1 tilted balance (DL 22)
- Numerous other Cornwall tourism permissions cited; given limited comparative weight, some pre-dating the new Framework (DL 19-20)
Related decisions
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.