Higher Bal Farm, Higher Bal, St Agnes (PIP, one dwelling)

Decision

dismissed, 28 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: C Butcher

Authority

Cornwall (South West)

Appeal reference

6010498

Application reference

PA25/07856

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for one dwelling on a former mineworkers' smallholding plot in the hamlet of Higher Bal

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside, national landscape, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

HE6(4), DP3(1), DP3(3), S5(1)

Development plan policies

Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 Policies 2, 3, 7, 21, 23, 24, 27, St Agnes Neighbourhood Development Plan Policies 10, 11, Cornwall Climate Emergency DPD T1

Main issues

suitability of location - WHS; transport; spatial strategy; National Landscape

Summary

Permission in principle for one dwelling on a plot in the hamlet of Higher Bal, near St Agnes, inside the Cornwall Mining World Heritage Site and the Cornwall National Landscape. The plot was almost certainly part of a mineworkers' smallholding, an attribute of the site's Outstanding Universal Value. The inspector accepted S5(1)(e) infill, but found WHS harm that very limited benefits could not outweigh, a DP3(1) conflict engaging DP3(3), and some car reliance. The harm substantially outweighed the benefits. Dismissed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "In the interests of fairness, I provided the main parties with an opportunity to provide comments on the new Framework" (DL ¶4).
• WHS: HARM. "Given that the appeal site almost certainly formed part of a smallholding, and that the relevant features of the site can still be appreciated today, I must conclude that the appeal site does contribute positively to the OUV of the WHS" (DL ¶8). "the visual loss of an attribute of the WHS resulting from the proposal before me would amount to ‘harm’. However, given the limited scale of the development, I find that the extent of this harm would not be substantial" (DL ¶10). HE6(4): "it is clear that the harm outweighs the public benefits in this instance" (DL ¶11).
• Transport: limited harm. The walk to St Agnes is along "a relatively narrow lane which is unlit and has no pavement" (DL ¶12), so occupiers "would be largely reliant on private vehicles" (DL ¶12). But "due to the scale of the proposal, any additional journeys would be small in number, while their length would often be very short. As such, the amount of ‘on the ground’ harm associated with this issue would be very limited" (DL ¶12).
• Settlement. "the glossary of the Framework makes it clear that the definition of a settlement does not include hamlets" (DL ¶22).
• S5(1)(e): PASS. "I am satisfied that the proposal could constitute limited infilling in accordance with this policy" (DL ¶23).
• DP3(1)/(3). "Part 3 of the same policy indicates that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1. This is therefore clearly a very important matter within the overall planning balance" (DL ¶25).

Planning balance

S5(1) balance for a scheme within category (e). HO7 and L2 substantial weight applied, but "the identified harm would substantially outweigh the benefits, even when applying substantial weight to the aforementioned policies within the Framework" (DL ¶26).

What made the difference

The site's WHS significance as a surviving smallholding plot. The same plot outside the WHS would likely have passed as (e) infill: the spatial strategy and the National Landscape raised no objection.

Transferable points

• A hamlet can be a settlement for a local plan but not for the Framework; S5, not S4, applies (DL ¶14, ¶22).
• An S5(1)(e) pass does not guarantee approval: WHS harm plus DP3(3) can substantially outweigh HO7 and L2 substantial weight (DL ¶23-26).
• Plots can contribute to a WHS's OUV through historic land-use pattern even with no mining structures on them (DL ¶8).
• Weak on transport: short car trips used to reduce car-reliance harm to "very limited" (DL ¶12); do not cite for TR3.
• The reading of S5(1)(j)(i) as needing a "defined settlement" (DL ¶23) does not match the Framework, which says existing settlement.

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• PIP stage 1 - location, land use and amount only (DL 2-3)
• WHS Site Office objection based on tithe maps and census; site reads as part of the smallholding landscape (DL 7-8)
• Council lacks a five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 23)
• Letter writes "H07" for HO7 (DL 24)
• Penhale Dunes SAC zone of influence; no appropriate assessment needed on dismissal (DL 19)
• Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 4)

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.