Up to six homes at Land North West Of Trehorner Close Lower, Metherell, Callington

“Permission in Principle (PiP) is sought for between 3 and 6 open market dwellings. The application site is a field adjacent to the village of Metherell. The Permission in Principle consent route is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development which separates the consideration of matters of principle for proposed development from the technical detail of the development.”

“This application seeks to determine the acceptability of the principle of the scheme and therefore assessment is limited to location, land use and amount of development.”

“The site lies outside the defined settlement boundary for Metherell. As such, the proposal conflicts with Policy HP1 of the Calstock Neighbourhood Development Plan.”

“Significant weight is afforded to the delivery of new housing in the context of Cornwall’s acknowledged housing crisis. The proposal would make a modest but positive contribution to housing supply and aligns with the objectives of Cornwall’s Housing Crisis Plan and the Interim Policy Position Statement, which encourage housing delivery at all scales and across a wider range of settlements.”

“- PA16/03847 - Outline application (with some matters reserved) for the stationing of eight mobile homes for holiday purposes together with four dwellings and improvement to access – Approved – 07/07/2016”

“- PA16/03850 - Outline application for the stationing of eight mobile homes for holiday purposes together with two dwellings and improvement to access with some matters reserved – Approved – 07/07/2016”

“Principle of Development and Main Assessment: Beginning with Policy 3 of the Cornwall Local Plan, the proposal does not comprise infill and the site is not previously developed land. Neither is the proposal affordable housing led. In respect of rounding off, the site only adjoins existing development on one side. Nevertheless, the site is well related to the settlement, being directly adjacent to it and accessed from another recently approved housing development.”

“Development in this respect would accord with Policy 21 c) which encourages proposals to increase building density where appropriate, taking into account the character of the surrounding area and access to services and facilities to ensure an efficient use of land. In this case, on balance, the proposed development is considered to present rounding off, where the number of dwellings proposed is considered appropriate to the size and role of the settlement.”

“A number of objections to the proposal have been received. The key planning related points have been summarised below:”

“The proposal is outside of the development boundary and is contrary to policies of the Neighbourhood Development Plan. It would lead to gradual expansion away from the village, blurring the boundary. The development needs to be assessed cumulatively with the neighbouring scheme. • The permission in principle route is unacceptable due to needing more details to assess the impact on this edge of village location.”

“Clarification on the process of assessing applications in terms of adjacent sites with existing planning permission; Clarification that matters relating to sewerage and drainage would be considered at the technical details stage of the application; Clarification that the application was to be assessed purely in terms of location, land use, scale; Any reasons to refuse a PiP needed to be based upon fundamental planning reasons.”

“The planning constraints under which Members could consider PiP applications; The comments from the Parish Council and Electoral Divisional Member were noted and sympathised with; It would be difficult to win an appeal on this application in a refusal situation; Whilst there were no planning material reasons to refuse the application, the comments relating to existing sewerage and poor connectivity issues highlighted valid concerns.”

“RESOLVED that Permission in Principle for Application No. PA26/00099 be granted…”

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