Land South Of Number 20 Lanuthnoe Estate , St Erth Hill , St Erth , TR27 6HU

Land South Of Number 20 Lanuthnoe Estate , St Erth Hill , St Erth , TR27 6HU — Cornwall Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 February 2023 by S Harrington MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 March 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/D0840/W/22/3295428 Land adjacent to 20 Lanuthnoe Estate , St Erth, Hayle TR27 6HU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant permission in principle. • The appeal is made by Mr R Mankee against the decision of Cornwall Council. • The application Ref PA21/08482, dated 19 August 2021, was refused by notice dated 4 October 2021. • The development proposed is development of a single dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that permission in principle is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or ‘permission in principle’ stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in- principle, and the second (‘technical details consent’ stage) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages. 3.

Land South Of Number 20 Lanuthnoe Estate , St Erth Hill , St Erth , TR27 6HU — Cornwall Council — Appeal Decision The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted1. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development. Reasons 5. The appeal site is located to the south eastern edge of the village of St Erth and is currently utilised as an extended garden area associated with 20 Lanuthnoe Estate and contains associated domestic structures. 6. The Council’s spatial strategy is provided within Policy 2 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 (LP) which seeks to maintain the dispersed development pattern of Cornwall, and to provide housing based on the role and function of each place. 1 PPG Paragraph: 012 Reference ID: 58-012-20180615 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land South Of Number 20 Lanuthnoe Estate , St Erth Hill , St Erth , TR27 6HU — Cornwall Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/22/3295428 7. The appellant suggests that St Erth is a settlement for the purposes of planning policy, and given its size and constituent services and facilities I see no reason to disagree. LP Policy 3 sets out a hierarchical strategy for the delivery of new housing. St Erth is not a location named within Policy 3(1) and therefore Policy 3(3) provides that, outside these larger named settlements, housing growth is to be delivered through, amongst other criteria, the identification of sites through Neighbourhood Plans; rounding off of settlements and development of previously developed land(PDL) within or immediately adjoining settlements. 8. Policy HI1 of the St Erth Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2030 (made 2019) (NP) allocates housing sites and defines a settlement boundary around St Erth. The appeal site lies outside of the settlement boundary for St Erth as defined by the NP, although it borders it to the west.

Land South Of Number 20 Lanuthnoe Estate , St Erth Hill , St Erth , TR27 6HU — Cornwall Council — Appeal Decision My attention has been drawn to an appeal decision2 (the other appeal) relating to a nearby site to the north in which the Inspector considered that NP Policy HI1 did not engage directly with the prospect of small-scale windfall schemes outside of St Erth, and further noted that NP Policy HI2 does address this issue, with supporting text clarifying that this relates to proposals on sites other than those identified within the NP. 9. NP Policy HI2 relates to the separation of settlements, and seeks to prevent development outside of the settlement boundary from impacting on existing open breaks between settlements. While I note the Council’s argument that the objective of the NP is for sites within the settlement boundary to be developed first, given the location of the appeal site not impacting on existing open breaks between settlements, and taking NP policies HI1 and HI2 together, I find no conflict with these policies. 10. However, paragraph 1.68 of the LP defines rounding off as “development on land that is substantially enclosed, but outside of the urban form of a settlement, and where its edge is clearly defined by a physical feature that also acts as a barrier to further growth (such as a road).

Land South Of Number 20 Lanuthnoe Estate , St Erth Hill , St Erth , TR27 6HU — Cornwall Council — Appeal Decision It should not visually extend building into the open countryside”. 11. My attention has also been drawn to the Chief Planning Officer’s Advice Note – Infill/Rounding Off (December 2017) (The CPOAN). The CPOAN does not form part of the statutory development plan and is to be regarded as informal guidance. However, it does provide some clarity on the locally adopted approach in relation to matters such as rounding off of settlements and PDL, and as such I have had regard to it in the determination of this appeal. 12. I am mindful that the CPOAN advises that suitable sites for rounding off are likely to be surrounded on at least two sides by existing built development. However, that is only one of the factors that must be considered in assessing whether a proposal constitutes rounding off. 13. In terms of whether the land is ‘substantially enclosed’ I note that the appeal site is contained by a track and residential development beyond to the north west. However, the eastern boundary is only contained by post and rail fencing, with the southern boundary contained by hedgerow before the road.

Land South Of Number 20 Lanuthnoe Estate , St Erth Hill , St Erth , TR27 6HU — Cornwall Council — Appeal Decision Although it has been put to me that the appeal site is also contained to the north / northeast, notwithstanding development associated with the other appeal, I observed that due to the spatial relationship between existing built form and intervening vegetation, the appeal site does not have the character of 2 APP/D0840/W/20/3251220 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Land South Of Number 20 Lanuthnoe Estate , St Erth Hill , St Erth , TR27 6HU — Cornwall Council — Appeal Decision Although it has been put to me that the appeal site is also contained to the north / northeast, notwithstanding development associated with the other appeal, I observed that due to the spatial relationship between existing built form and intervening vegetation, the appeal site does not have the character of 2 APP/D0840/W/20/3251220 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Land South Of Number 20 Lanuthnoe Estate , St Erth Hill , St Erth , TR27 6HU — Cornwall Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/22/3295428 being substantially enclosed to the northern boundary by existing built development. 14. Furthermore, both the site being elevated above the highway, and the adjoining track separating development to the northwest, contribute to the appeal site visually appearing as part of a larger area of agricultural land that extends eastwards. Notwithstanding the modest structures on the site, the track provides a clear visual edge between the character of built form in St Erth, and countryside to the east. Therefore, the proposed development, rather than being seen to be within the settlement itself, would harmfully visually project residential built form into the countryside. 15. Consequently, I find that the site is not substantially enclosed in the manner anticipated by LP paragraph 1.68 and nor would there be a clear barrier to further growth, given the adjacent open field. As such, the proposal does not meet the LP definition of rounding off. 16. LP policies 3 and 21 also permits the development of PDL within or immediately adjoining a settlement providing that it is not of high environmental or historic value.

Land South Of Number 20 Lanuthnoe Estate , St Erth Hill , St Erth , TR27 6HU — Cornwall Council — Appeal Decision The definition of PDL in the glossary of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) notes that PDL is land which is or was occupied by a ‘permanent’ structure, including the curtilage of the developed land. The definition excludes land in built-up areas such as residential gardens. 17. The Council state that the existing use of the land and associated structures do not benefit from any planning permissions and are therefore unauthorised. No substantive evidence has been put before me to lead me to a differing view, and I note the appellant directs me to the Framework definition of PDL. 18. In the absence of any planning permissions or lawful use, I cannot be certain that the structures would be on the land permanently or the use continue given the potential for the Council to take enforcement action to seek removal of the structures and cease the use of the land if they found it expedient. Therefore, on the evidence before me, I find that the appeal site is not PDL as defined within the Framework. 19. Policy 7 of the LP permits the erection of dwellings in the open countryside but none of the special circumstances listed apply to this appeal proposal. 20.

Land South Of Number 20 Lanuthnoe Estate , St Erth Hill , St Erth , TR27 6HU — Cornwall Council — Appeal Decision I have considered the benefits of the proposal including the accessibility of the location to services, facilities and public transport, the contribution that a new dwelling would make to the supply of housing in Cornwall, the economic benefits and social benefits, including to community facilities that the development would provide. These are recognised benefits of rural housing. 21. Furthermore, I note the appellants comments that the appeal site is capable of providing a net biodiversity gain across the site. However, I find that these benefits do not outweigh the harm which would arise from the development in terms of the adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area, even taking into account the appellants suggestion of, at technical details stage, a landscaping scheme to enhance the sites visual appearance and soften the impact of the development. 22. I conclude that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and the appeal site is not suitable for residential development having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Land South Of Number 20 Lanuthnoe Estate , St Erth Hill , St Erth , TR27 6HU — Cornwall Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/22/3295428 amount of development. Although I find no conflict with NP policies HI1 and HI2, it would not accord with LP Policies 1, 3, 7 and 21 and NP Policy HT2. These policies seek, amongst other things, to take a hierarchical approach to direct development based on the role and function of places while ensuring development does not harm the character of the countryside or its natural resource. Furthermore, the proposed development would also in this respect be contrary with the provisions of the Framework in relation to achieving sustainable development. Other Matters 23. While similarities with the other appeal decision are cited by the appellant, it differs from the current proposal in several ways noting the Inspectors comments in relation to the context of that site with existing housing, as well as physical barriers to prevent future growth. Furthermore, the full details of the other case are not before me. This limits the equivalence of the other case to the current proposal. Moreover, the current appeal proposal has its own circumstances and I have assessed it on its own merits. Conclusion 24.

Land South Of Number 20 Lanuthnoe Estate , St Erth Hill , St Erth , TR27 6HU — Cornwall Council — Appeal Decision There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Land South Of Number 20 Lanuthnoe Estate , St Erth Hill , St Erth , TR27 6HU — Cornwall Council — S Harrington INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4