The Cottage, Harris Mill, Illogan, Redruth, TR16 4JF

The Cottage, Harris Mill, Illogan, Redruth, TR16 4JF — Cornwall Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 24 September 2021 by C Cresswell BSc (Hons) MA MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 19 October 2021 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/D0840/W/21/3275724 The Cottage, Harris Mill, Illogan, Redruth TR16 4JF • The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). • The application is made by Mr & Mrs Treve and Sarah Dunstan for a full award of costs against Cornwall Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of grant of permission in principle for construction of dwelling. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is refused. Reasons 2. The appellants say that the Council has been inconsistent in how it has assessed the appeal case and surrounding development. Particular reference is made to the planning permission which was granted for three dwellings on the opposite side of the road from the appeal site. 3. The Council’s Statement indicates that the site across the road was considered to be well enclosed on all sides.

The Cottage, Harris Mill, Illogan, Redruth, TR16 4JF — Cornwall Council — Costs Decision The extent to which a site is enclosed is one of the criteria used to determine whether a development comprises the rounding off of a settlement under Policy 3 of the Local Plan. This particular policy does not require development on the edge of settlements to be accessible, provided it meets the criteria for rounding off, infill or previously developed land. If a proposal complies with the Local Plan spatial strategy it can be reasonably implied that it is sustainable in that context. 4. In the current appeal, the Council emphasise that the site appears, in visual terms, to be part of the countryside and not well related to other development. The Committee Report notes that the appeal site is bordered by open fields and that the development to the immediate west is sporadically arranged and not well-defined. Reasons are therefore provided to substantiate the Council’s view that the site is not on the edge of a settlement where Policy 3 applies. Although the Council say that the road acts as a barrier to the site across the road from expanding any further, this was not the main reason for deciding that the appeal site is separated from a settlement. 5.

The Cottage, Harris Mill, Illogan, Redruth, TR16 4JF — Cornwall Council — Costs Decision There is evidence that the Council had previously treated surrounding development (including Trehidy Holiday Park) as settlement for the purposes of Policy 3, which was not the case in the current appeal. However, I agree that each case must be assessed on its own merits, especially given the planning https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

The Cottage, Harris Mill, Illogan, Redruth, TR16 4JF — Cornwall Council — Costs Decision There is evidence that the Council had previously treated surrounding development (including Trehidy Holiday Park) as settlement for the purposes of Policy 3, which was not the case in the current appeal. However, I agree that each case must be assessed on its own merits, especially given the planning https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Costs Decision APP/D0840/W/21/3275724 judgements that are necessary in interpreting Policy 3. The Committee Report makes it clear enough why the Council did not consider the appeal site to be situated on the edge of as settlement in this case. This is a planning judgement which the Council was entitled to take. 6. Overall, it seems to me that valid reasons are provided to substantiate the Council’s view that the site is not on the edge of a settlement and why Policy 3 does not apply. The Council therefore acted reasonably in considering the accessibility of the proposed dwelling in the context of Policies 1 and 2, even though this was not a consideration for the development opposite. Conclusion 7. For the reasons given above, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has not been demonstrated.

The Cottage, Harris Mill, Illogan, Redruth, TR16 4JF — Cornwall Council — C Cresswell INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2