Self-build dwelling at Amalebra Stamps, Nancledra, Penzance

What was proposed

The application sought permission for a new two-floor, three-bedroom open-market dwelling on countryside land near Nancledra.

“This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a new 2-floor, one and a half sto rey, 3- bedroom, open market dwelling on land lying in the open countryside to the south of a historic farmstead collectively known as Amalebra.”

“This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of an open market detached dwelling house on land located in the countryside, lying approximately 250 m to the north-west of Nancledra.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier application for permission in principle for a self-build dwelling and associated works was refused.

“Relevant Planning History PA24/00860 Application for Permission in Principle for construction of self-build dwelling and associated works. (Refused)”

Officer report

What consultees said

The parish council supported the modest design and local family, while the National Landscape body objected over rural character, landscape, heritage and dark skies.

“Cornwall National Landscape (AONB) (22 January 2026) Summary The proposed dwelling in this outlying location would harmfully erode the strong rural character of the area; it would be insensitive to the sinuous pre-historic field pattern and create an intrusive suburbanising development (with associated paraphernalia), fail to reinforce the strong rural vernacular of West Penwith (in terms of building design and integration with landscape) and fail to conserve dark skies…”

Officer report

What people said

Representations described a well-designed family home that could help a young family and support the local community and school.

“The key planning related points have been summarised, below: • Well designed and thought-out family home; • Will provide an opportunity for a young family to get on the housing ladder and will help to ensure the continuing vitality of the community, the village and its school; • The applicants have been improving the site since taking it over.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A supporter spoke for the application and answered committee questions; the electoral division member was absent.

What members debated

Members cited screening, housing need, family use and medical needs, while also discussing design changes and officers’ concerns about access and light.

“Clarification that the site did not have permission for garden use; 2. The lack of 5 year housing supply had been addressed within the report; 3. Clarification that Policy 7 was a strong one and should be adhered to; 4. Clarification that Officers were of the opinion that the site was 250m from the edge of the settlement; 5. If minded to approve, Members should approve the application before them via delegated authority; 6.”

“Having visited the site, it was considered to be well hidden and had adequate screening; 2. In terms of meeting the housing target, the application should be supported; 3. The application should be supported; 4. The application was a modest development for family use and similar applications had been supported. The medical needs of the family would be met if the application was approved; 5.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillors voted nine in favour, none against and one abstention on a motion to approve the application through delegated authority.

“Arising from consideration of the report and debate it was moved by Councillor Ball, seconded by Councillor Thomason-Kenyon, and on a vote of 9 votes in favour, none against and 1 abstention, it was:-”

“6 RESOLVED that that delegated authority be granted to the Service Director for Planning and Housing (Chief Planning Officer) to grant planning consent in relation to Application No. PA25/09340 subject to the following conditions:-”

Minutes

Why members supported it

The proposer said the site formed part of a settlement, rural communities were supported, the design was satisfactory and dark skies would not be significantly affected.

“The reasons given by the Proposer for wishing to approve the application were the development is considered to form part of a settlement, paragraph 83 of the NPPF 2024 supports rural communities, the design is satisfactory and the proposal will not have a significant impact on dark skies.”

Minutes