24 homes at Land Off Loscombe Road, Four Lanes, Redruth

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for up to 24 dwellings, with access considered now and appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved.

“Outline planning permission is sought for the construction of up to 24 dwellings on an undeveloped parcel of land adjoining the edge of the settlement of Four Lanes. Only access is sought for approval at this outline stage, and the matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are reserved for the subsequent reserved matters stage should this outline permission be granted.”

Officer report

Earlier application history

The parish council reported that an earlier single-dwelling application was refused in 2022 and its appeal was dismissed in 2023.

“Finally, we are aware of the decision to Refuse Planning Permission under PA22/02681 on 17th June 2022, in relation to an application to build a single dwelling at this location, which led to an Appeal against that Refusal, and that the Appeal was Dismissed by a Planning Inspector on 11th August 2023.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the site was accessible and sustainable, housing supply was short, and adverse impacts would not significantly outweigh benefits.

“In light of changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in December 2024, the Council are currently unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply against the new requirement of delivering 4,391 homes per year.”

“To conclude on the above, the application of policies in the NPPF that protect areas or assets of particular importance would not provide a strong reason for refusing the development and the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.”

Officer report

Objections received

Representations opposed the scheme over policy conflict, highway and pedestrian safety, infrastructure, drainage, ecology, character, amenity and other effects.

“The key planning related points have been summarised below:”

“Oppose: • Conflict with Spatial Strategy • Highway Safety/Access/Traffic/Pedestrian Safety • Impact on Infrastructure • Surface Water and Foul Drainage • Ecological Impacts • Impact on the Character of the Area • Residential Amenity Impacts • Access for Emergency Services • Impact on Air Quality • Impact on Wellbeing and Mental Health • Loss of View • Devaluation of Properties • Loss of Green Belt Land • Precedent for Future Development…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two speakers spoke against the application, while the applicant and another speaker spoke in support; all responded to committee questions.

What members discussed

Members were told highways had accepted the proposal and that layout and design would be considered later; debate found no material reason to refuse.

“Clarification that the Highways team had assessed the application and had deemed it to be acceptable; 2. Clarification that any amendments to Highways would be subject to the normal consultation process; 3. Clarification that layout and design would be dealt with at the Reserved Matters stage of the application process; 4. Clarification of the housing need identified for that area and confirmation that the Affordable Housing team were happy with the indicative housing mix.”

“There were no material planning reasons to refuse the application; 2. Knowing the area well, the proposal would improve the road safety for school children and should be supported; 3. A Member noted he hoped that the developer would liaise with the Electoral Division Member during the next stage of the planning process. It was a shame that the Electoral Division Member was not in attendance at the meeting.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Ball proposed approval, Councillor Crawford seconded it, and the committee agreed unanimously.

“Arising from consideration of the report and debate it was moved by Councillor Ball, seconded by Councillor Crawford, and unanimously, it was:-”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Authority was delegated to approve the application, subject to the report and update conditions and completion of a legal agreement.

“RESOLVED that authority be delegated to the Service Director of Planning and Housing to approve Application No. PA26/01234 subject to the conditions contained within the report and Committee update (or similar conditions) and the completion of a S106 Legal Agreement.”

“The reasons given by the Proposer for wishing to approve the application were as set out in the report and Committee update.”

Minutes

Approval requirements

The recommendation included affordable housing, health, open-space, conservation and biodiversity contributions, alongside conditions on drainage, access, ecology and design.

“Delivery of 25% Affordable Housing; • A contribution to the NHS of £6,030 to be split between Carn to Coast Health Centres – Pool Health Centre (and associated branches) and Leatside Health Centre Manor Surgery; • An off-site open space contribution to be allocated to Four Lanes Recreation Ground and/or the creation or improvement of open space within Carn Brea Parish and a playing pitch contribution to the creation of improvement or strategic outdoor sports provision…”

“In addition to the standard conditions relating to the submission of the reserved matters and the time period for doing so and compliance with plans conditons, conditions are recommending requiring:”

Officer report