Land west of Pits Mingle Bungalow, Tregoss Moor, Roche

Decision

dismissed, 14 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Nick Davies

Authority

Cornwall (South West)

Appeal reference

6010442

Application reference

PA25/07857

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for one self-build dwelling

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

3.9 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(j), S5(1)(e), S5(4), TR3

Development plan policies

Cornwall Local Plan 2016 Policies 2, 3, 7, 21, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, T1, Roche Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2018 A1

Main issues

suitability of location - PIP stage 1

Summary

Permission in principle for one self-build home on grassland next to a small cluster of buildings west of Roche, beyond the new A391 bypass. Dismissed. Cornwall's supply was 3.9 years and HO7 carried substantial weight. But the site was not physically well-related to Roche, so S5(1)(j) did not apply. Building next to the last house would extend the group rather than infill within it, so S5(1)(e) failed. The walking route (900 m, unlit, no footway, then an unsignalised four-lane crossing at a roundabout) was a TR3 failure given substantial weight, and S5(4) was not met.

Issues and findings

• Transition. Parties commented on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶5).
• Relationship to Roche. "The small cluster of buildings is not a settlement in its own right, and the site is a considerable distance away from the built-up edge of Roche … There is … a substantial tract of land between the western edge of the settlement and the new highway" (DL ¶10).
• TR3: FAIL. "the walking route to the centre of the village … is about 900 metres, and the school is 1.25 km away … Tregoss Road is unlit and has no footpaths" (DL ¶12). "The main deterrent to walking, however, is the need to cross the A391 close to a busy roundabout junction … pedestrians must cross four lanes of traffic" (DL ¶13). The bus stop, 450 m away, is across the same crossing, and cycling is deterred for less confident riders (DL ¶14).
• Weight to plan. "Paragraph 2 of Annex A … says that development plan policies should not be given reduced weight simply because they were adopted prior to publication … However, it is not delivering a sufficient supply of homes … I can only afford moderate weight to the conflict with the development plan policies that govern the spatial location of housing" (DL ¶16). The climate DPD transport policies are consistent with TR3, so "substantial weight to the harm" (DL ¶17).
• S5(1)(j) and (e): FAIL. "the site lies outside the settlement and … is not physically well-related to it. Consequently, the approach … in Policy S5.1.j … does not apply … Whilst the site is adjacent to a dwelling, the proposal would be an extension to the group of buildings, rather than being within the cluster, so would not be infilling" (DL ¶20).

Planning balance

S5(4). For the scheme: HO7 substantial weight (self-build, local family) and modest economic benefits. Against: moderate weight to the spatial strategy conflict and substantial weight to the TR3 conflict. "the benefits of the proposal do not substantially outweigh the harm" (DL ¶21).

What made the difference

The A391 crossing. The site is only about 280 m from Roche's edge, but the bypass severs it physically and functionally. That defeated both "well-related" and TR3. Distance alone might have been tolerable. The unlit lane and unsignalised dual crossing at a roundabout were decisive.

Transferable points

• A major road with an uncontrolled multi-lane crossing can sever a site from a nearby settlement for both S5(1)(j)(i) and TR3 (DL ¶10, 13-14, 20).
• S5(1)(e) infill must lie within the group. A plot on the edge of a cluster extends it (DL ¶20).
• Annex A para 2: pre-Framework plans keep their weight, but the weight can be moderated where the spatial strategy is not delivering supply (DL ¶16).
• Plan transport policies consistent with TR3 can attract substantial weight on a one-dwelling scheme (DL ¶17).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Council supply 3.9 years
• Former kennels site, now grassed; not shown to be PDL or lawful garden (DL 9)
• Annex A para 2 cited - plan policies not reduced in weight for pre-dating the Framework, but spatial strategy given moderate weight as it is not delivering supply (DL 16)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.