Up to five homes at Land East Of Tregoddick Farm, Vingoes Lane, Madron, Penzance

What was proposed

Permission in Principle was sought for between three and five homes on land east of Tregoddick Farm in Madron.

“4) This is an application for Permission in Principle for a housing scheme of up to 5 dwellings (minimum 3, maximum 5) at land east of Tregoddick Farm in the Parish of Madron.”

Officer report

Neighbourhood plan context

Madron’s protected neighbourhood plan identifies housing sites within the village boundary and generally does not support open-market housing outside it.

“28) The preamble to policy H1 at paragraph 9.33 on page 28 of the NDP sets out the intention of the policy as follows: ‘The intention is to create a development boundary around Madron village in order to ensure the sustainable location of development in the preferred locations, and to protect the open countryside. Within the village the brownfield site of the old workhouse/abattoir is the preferred location for development.”

“Information Classification: PUBLIC 36) The application site is located to the west of the existing settlement – sharing boundaries with the detached dwelling known as Tregoddick and the housing development at Victory Close. The development boundary, as defined in the NDP, runs along the western boundary of the application site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal would harm the countryside, conflict with the protected neighbourhood plan and lack a suitable access.

“1) This is a Permission in Principle application for an open market housing development for between 3 and 5 dwellings in the parish of Madron. The Madron Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) is a ‘Protected NDP’ and therefore the plan continues to have full weight applied to its housing policies, including development boundaries.”

“Information Classification: PUBLIC in the open countryside. It would appear as an intrusion into the countryside altering its undeveloped character and appearance of the site to its detriment failing to protect the open countryside. In addition, the principle of the proposed access, constrained by the current red line boundary, is considered unsuitable to support the principle of the new residential development proposed.”

Officer report

Main planning issues

The key issues were whether the site was suitable for housing in principle and whether access within the application boundary could be safe and suitable.

“41) Given the scope of the PiP consent, any access arrangements to be detailed at the Technical Details Consent stage must fall within the red line boundary shown on the site location plan submitted at this stage. There would be no opportunity to amend or extend this boundary later to accommodate adjustments or improvements.”

Officer report

Support for the scheme

Supporters described the proposal as a positive, small-scale addition that would fit the village and logically extend it.

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

“16) Support: • Positive addition to the community • A small-scale development, as proposed, is far more in keeping with the village • Proposal is a logical extension to the village…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A supporter spoke in favour, while the electoral division member highlighted the scheme’s small scale, location and lack of public objections.

Members’ debate

Members considered the scheme finely balanced but concluded that the protected neighbourhood plan should lead to refusal, with access also a concern.

“There had been ongoing issues with the site in terms of development as identified within the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP); 2. There were two sites which had been identified within the NDP which would provide the required housing for the area; 3. Clarification of the relevance of a protected NDP.”

“A small scale scheme could be considered a good thing, however, in this case, the NDP should be protected. Therefore, the application should be refused; 2. This was a finely balanced application; 3. If this was approved, access could pose an issue for any further development on what was a large site.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted eight in favour and one against, with no abstentions, on a motion to refuse the application.

“Arising from consideration of the report and debate it was moved by Councillor M Thomas, seconded by Councillor Gow, and on a vote of 8 votes in favour, 1 against and no abstentions, it was:-”

“RESOLVED that Planning in Principle for Application No. PA25/04620 be refused.”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

Permission in Principle was refused because the development would intrude into the countryside and its access was unsuitable within the current boundary.

“1) The proposed development would introduce open market residential development on a greenfield site beyond the Madron Village Development Boundary in the open countryside. It would appear as an intrusion into the countryside altering its undeveloped character and appearance of the site to its detriment failing to protect the open countryside.”

“2) The principle of the proposed access, constrained by the current red line boundary, is considered unsuitable to support the principle of the new residential development proposed. It is considered that the proposal would conflict with the aims and intentions of policy 27 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 – 2030 and paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) as it has not been demonstrated that a safe and suitable access to the site can…”

Officer report