# Land South of Mount Pleasant Cottage, Poundstock

- **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: O Marigold
- **Authority:** Cornwall (South West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010020
- **Application reference:** PA25/05551
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** One custom-build dwelling with attached garage and a small solar array in a field off the old A39 near Bude
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** open-countryside
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S5(4), S5(1)(j)(i), S5(1)(e)
- **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan 2016 policies 1, 2, 3, 7, 12, 21, 23, 27, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, T1
- **Main issues:** spatial strategy, character and appearance, access to services
- **Tags:** self-build, s5-4-exceptional, s5-1-j, infill-rejected, settlement-definition, hamlet, landscape-harm, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
A single custom-build house with a solar array in a field among a handful of houses by the old A39 near Bude. The self-build unit was secured by a unilateral undertaking and got substantial weight. But the site is outside any settlement, not infill, and not physically well related to a settlement, so no S5(1) category applied. The suburbanising harm to the rural landscape, given very substantial weight, meant no exceptional circumstances under S5(4). Access to services passed the plan policies on short car trips and two-hourly buses. Dismissed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The Council and the appellants have had the opportunity to comment on this change in policy" (DL ¶3).
- **Character: HARM.** "The proposed dwelling would result in the domestication and suburbanisation of the land, caused by the additional built form, the new access, and residential paraphernalia associated with the use" (DL ¶10). "I give this harm and conflict very substantial negative weight in the planning balance" (DL ¶12).
- **Access: PASS on plan policies.** Walking and cycling to Bude use "the busy A39, which has no street lighting or pavement in the area" (DL ¶13). "Even so, the length of car journeys to Bude would be relatively short" (DL ¶14). "Consequently, given its rural context, the proposal would maximise the ability of people to make trips by public transport and other sustainable modes of travel" (DL ¶15). TR3 is not mentioned.
- **Settlement.** The site "lies outside of a settlement, defined by the Framework as excluding scattered groups of houses located outside predominantly built-up areas" (DL ¶20).
- **S5(1)(e) and (j)(i): FAIL** (DL ¶20–21).
- **S5(4): FAIL.** "I give substantial positive weight to this benefit, in accordance with Framework policy HO7 ... No exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated" (DL ¶23).

## Planning balance
S5(4) exceptional circumstances. Substantial weight to one secured custom-build home and very limited weight to other benefits, against very substantial character harm and conflict with CLP policies 2, 3, 7, 12, 21 and 23. The Framework is "a material consideration of critical importance" (DL ¶24).

## What made the difference
Landscape character, not accessibility. The site is a green, rolling field, and a set-back, angled house with a sweeping drive and solar array would suburbanise it. Securing self-build by undertaking earned substantial weight but could not meet the S5(4) bar.

## Transferable points
- A small cluster of houses along a road outside any built-up area is not a "settlement" under Annex B (DL ¶20).
- A self-build unit secured by unilateral undertaking attracts substantial HO7 weight even for one dwelling (DL ¶4, ¶23).
- Caution on access: the letter accepted short car trips and two-hourly buses "given its rural context" under plan policies without applying TR3 (DL ¶14–15). Do not cite it as TR3 authority.

## Policy findings
- **AnnexB:settlement: fail.** a handful of houses along the old A39; "scattered groups of houses located outside predominantly built-up areas" excluded, so outside a settlement (DL 20)
- **S5(1)(e): fail.** large field gap; not infilling even if the houses form a group (DL 20)
- **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** unmet housing need applies, but the site is some distance from a settlement, so not physically well related (DL 21)
- **S5(4): fail.** substantial weight to the secured custom-build unit, very limited to other benefits; no exceptional circumstances against very substantial character harm (DL 22-23)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** custom-build unit secured by UU; Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act duty noted (DL 4, 23)
- **N2(1)(a): harm (very-substantial weight).** mapped: domestication and suburbanisation of an open rolling field; angled siting and sweeping drive uncharacteristic; solar array utilitarian; "very substantial negative weight" (DL 10-12)
- **TR3: not-engaged.** TR3 not cited; access judged under plan policies CLP 27, CEDP C1(6), T1 and passed on short car trips to Bude and two-hourly buses "given its rural context", despite no footway or lighting on the A39 (DL 13-18)

## Key facts
- Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply; figure not stated (DL 19)
- Unilateral undertaking dated 25 Aug 2026 secures the custom-build unit (DL 4)
- Buses about every two hours, weekdays and weekends; northbound stop needs a crossing of the A39 (DL 14-15)
- CLP policy 1 carries the 2024-style "significantly and demonstrably" test as a plan policy; conflict found (DL 19, 24)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010020
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/05b0cfc8-2b97-41a9-af22-4fceebe8e6db

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010020.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.