# 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
- **Tags:** PIP, s5-1-e-infill, world-heritage-site, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, dp3-refuse-trigger, rural-lane-no-footway, national-landscape, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, substantially-outweighed, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## 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
- **AnnexB:settlement: not-engaged.** Higher Bal is a settlement for Local Plan rounding-off purposes, but a hamlet, which the Framework glossary excludes from the settlement definition; S5 applies, not S4 (DL 14, 22)
- **S5(1)(e): pass.** "the proposal could constitute limited infilling"; possibly also S5(1)(d) PDL (DL 23)
- **S5(1)(j)(i): not-engaged.** "not of relevance given that it requires developments to be physically well related to a defined settlement" (DL 23) - the Framework text says existing settlement
- **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation of the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape WHS stated (DL 10)
- **HE6(4): fail.** plot almost certainly part of a mineworkers' smallholding, an OUV attribute; a dwelling would make it unreadable; harm "would not be substantial" but outweighs very limited benefits (DL 6-11)
- **DP3(1): conflict.** fails to respond to site history and integrate heritage assets (DL 25)
- **DP3(3): fail.** "should be refused if, without clear justification" - "clearly a very important matter within the overall planning balance"; justification not separately assessed (DL 25)
- **TR3: harm (very-limited weight).** narrow unlit lane without pavement to St Agnes; occupiers "largely reliant on private vehicles", but few, short journeys so on-the-ground harm "very limited" (DL 12)
- **N4: neutral.** Cornwall National Landscape and heritage coast; a well-designed dwelling within the settlement's extent would preserve scenic beauty (DL 15)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** HO7 and L2 substantial weight applied, but benefits of one dwelling "very limited" in combination (DL 21, 24, 26)
- **S5(1): fail.** harm would substantially outweigh the benefits even with substantial weight to HO7/L2 (DL 26)

## 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010498
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1b519df0-24fe-40b3-9d0d-2c417f63b859

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010498.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.