One self-build dwelling at Land South East Of The Elms, New Road, Higher Downs

What was proposed

The application sought permission in principle for one self-build home on land containing a disused polytunnel.

“Application number: PA26/01585 Site address: Land South East of The Elms New Road Higher Downs St Hilary Penzance Cornwall TR20 9EA Proposal: Permission in Principle for the construction of one self- build dwelling (minimum 1, maximum 1) Application type: Permission in Principle Parish: St.”

“1 This application seeks permission in principle for the construction of a minimum of 1no and a maximum of 1no residential dwelling, on the site of a disused polytunnel in otherwise undeveloped land associated with “The Elms,” close to the southern edge of St Hilary.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site was outside the settlement boundary, and officers said it was not infill or rounding off because of its size and relationship with surrounding buildings.

“2 The application site is situated adjacent to, but outside of, the settlement boundary of St Hilary. Furthermore, the proposal could not reasonably be argued to constitute infill development within the existing built form or to round off the southern edge of the settlement, owing to the size and character of the site and its relationship with the surrounding built form.”

Officer report

The main planning question

The key question was whether the site was suitable in principle for an open-market home, considering location, land use and development amount.

“16 The key issue that requires addressing in the determination of this application is whether this is a suitable site for an open-market residential development, in principle.”

“17 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.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers acknowledged conflict with the development plan but considered housing supply, accessibility and limited harm justified granting permission in principle.

“4 With regard to the assessed conflict with the Development Plan, there are other material considerations – notably the Council’s lack of a five-year housing land supply and the lack of overriding harm arising from the proposal in this accessible location close to the southern edge of St Hilary – which are considered to justify granting the application as an open-market residential development, with reference to paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The parish council and Electoral Division Member opposed the proposal, while the World Heritage Site Office found no impact on outstanding universal value.

“12 Cornish Mining World Heritage Site Office We have reviewed the submitted information and do not consider the proposed development will impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site.”

Officer report

What residents raised

Objectors disputed the heritage assessment and described the site as a former mineworkers’ smallholding, non-infill development risking coalescence and potentially causing overlooking.

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

“13 Oppose: • Disagree with the conclusions in the submitted heritage impact assessment, in particular the level of assessed harm; • The application site is part of a former mineworkers’ smallholding, which is the principal attribute of the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site in St Hilary; • The site is not an infill plot and a development in this location would cause cumulative harm; • Proposal would contribute towards a coalescence between St Hilary and…”

Officer report

Who spoke at committee

A parish council representative spoke against the application, a supporter spoke for it, and the Electoral Division Member raised heritage and countryside concerns.

What members discussed

Members considered the proposal acceptable and supported it, while officers explained the World Heritage Site response, previous appeals and planning balance.

“Any future applications on the site would be considered on their merits; 2. The World Heritage site team had made a representation stating that they had no objection to the proposal; 3. The concerns raised by the Parish Council had been considered, but these did not outweigh the benefits of the proposal; 4. Reference was made to appeals in similar applications which were relevant to this proposal.”

“The proposal was deemed to be acceptable and should be supported; 2. The Committee should be mindful of consistency of decision making, and therefore, support the proposal.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Councillors unanimously granted permission in principle, citing the officer report’s reasons for approval.

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

“RESOLVED that Permission in Principle for Application No. PA26/01585 be granted.”

Minutes