Route decision · no settlement tier cited
An appeal to convert a former piggery in open countryside near Tintagel to a single holiday cottage was dismissed. The inspector applied the August 2026 Framework without a separate consultation round, as the issues were already in play. The site was car-dependent, the appellant did not show a countryside location was necessary for the tourism use (S5(1)(b)), and the building was not shown to be capable of conversion without, in effect, rebuilding (S5(1)(c)).
The absence of evidence. There was no structural survey supporting conversion, no reason why the tourism use had to be at this site, and no BNG baseline. The inspector read S5(1)(b) as requiring a positive demonstration of locational necessity, not a general appeal to the tourism economy. A sound structural report and a site-specific case for the rural location would have moved the scheme into S5(1)(b)/(c) and the "substantially outweighed" balance. Even then, the transport harm would have remained.
Decision on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service · case file cases/PINS-6000903.md