# Rosemellyn Fisheries, Roche Road, St Austell (holiday wagons and caravans)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Harrington
- **Authority:** Cornwall (South West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010729
- **Application reference:** PA25/05532
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Shower block, two disused railway wagons, a shepherd's hut and two caravans for holiday accommodation at a fishery (part retrospective)
- **Site context:** open-countryside, flood-zone-3, rural-lane
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** TR3, F7, S5(1)(b), E4
- **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan 2010-2030 Policies 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 27, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, CC3, T1
- **Main issues:** location and accessibility, flood risk safe access
- **Tags:** sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, rural-tourism, flood-safe-access, retrospective, small-scheme

## Summary
A part-retrospective scheme for holiday accommodation (railway wagons, a shepherd's hut, caravans and a shower block) at a rural fishery near St Austell was dismissed. There were two reasons: heavy car reliance, and flood risk to the access route. The units were in Flood Zone 1 but the only access crossed Flood Zone 2/3 and there was no formal emergency plan, so F7's safe-access requirement was not met.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** Parties had the opportunity to comment on the revised Framework (DL ¶3).
- **Location: FAIL.** The route to Bugle "would not be conducive to safe pedestrian use due to the distance involved, lack of pavements and safe refuge, as well as lack of street lighting" (DL ¶11). "future occupants would be heavily reliant on private vehicles" (DL ¶12).
- **Flood safe access: FAIL (F7).** F7 requires refusal unless "any residual risk can be safely managed, and safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan" (DL ¶16). "in the absence of a robust formal emergency plan, I cannot be sure that future occupants would be safe during a flood event" (DL ¶19). Overnight occupation changes the risk compared with daytime angling (DL ¶20).
- **Rural economy.** S5 and E4 support rural tourism, but the benefit got "modest weight" given the small scale (DL ¶22). "whilst the Framework recognises development proposals to meet business needs in rural areas may need to be located outside settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport, the Framework at policy TR3 also seeks to locate development in sustainable locations" (DL ¶23).

## Planning balance
This was a s38(6) plan-led decision. Modest economic weight was set against conflict with the development plan and substantial weight on flood-risk public safety (DL ¶22-25). The inspector did not run a formal S5 "substantially outweighed" balance.

## What made the difference
The flood access issue was an independent and decisive reason. A site-specific emergency plan agreed with the authority, and a dry egress route, would have been needed. The car-dependence finding follows the same pattern as the other Cornwall tourism dismissals (PINS-6000903, PINS-6009443).

## Transferable points
- F7 applies to access routes, not only the footprint of the units. A Flood Zone 1 plot reached only through Flood Zone 2/3 with no agreed emergency plan fails (DL ¶15-19).
- Overnight holiday occupation raises flood safety risk compared with an existing daytime leisure use (DL ¶20).
- E4's acknowledgement that rural businesses may be poorly served by public transport is balanced by TR3. It is not a trump card (DL ¶23).

## Policy findings
- **TR3: fail.** facilities in Bugle reached along a fast road with no pavements, refuge or lighting; not well served by public transport; heavy car reliance (DL 10-13, 23)
- **F7: fail (substantial weight).** units in FZ1 but access track in FZ2/3 floods to 0.68-0.69 m ("Danger for Most"); no robust formal emergency plan; public safety given substantial weight (DL 15-21, 23)
- **S5(1)(b): neutral.** noted as supporting rural tourism where a location outside settlements is necessary; not applied as a formal gateway (DL 22)
- **E4: benefit (moderate weight).** small-scale economic benefit to appellant and local economy, "modest weight"; E4's acceptance of poor public transport does not override TR3 (DL 22-23)

## Key facts
- Extension of an existing fishery and smallholding; wagons had permission only as shelters, and holiday use had already been advertised
- Holiday units treated as having the characteristics of dwellinghouses for local plan purposes (DL 6)
- Access track 0.68 m deep in a 1-in-100-year fluvial event, rising to 0.69 m in a 1-in-1,000-year event
- Council raised no character or amenity objection

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010729
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b4683567-f2ec-4196-b589-a1e9b55880eb

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010729.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.