4–9 dwellings at Yellow On The Broom Blythes Farm, North Hill, Launceston

What was proposed

Permission in Principle was sought for between four and nine dwellings, with the report describing a proposal for five dwellings.

“Permission in Principle (PiP) is sought for between 4 and 9 dwellings. The application site is a sloping field adjacent the village of North Hill. 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.”

“Overall, the proposal would contribute positively to housing supply and support the aims of Cornwall’s Housing Crisis Plan. At this Permission in Principle stage, there are no adverse impacts related to the principle of development which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies of the NPPF and the Development Plan when taken as a whole. The application is therefore recommended for approval.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Three earlier applications for one dwelling were refused, including one appeal that was dismissed; officers gave those decisions limited weight.

“E1/86/0834/OOP Erection of a dwelling Refused 04/04/1986 Appeal ref: T/APP/C0820/A/87/067851/P4. Dismissed 24/08/1987”

“Officer Note: These applications were refused on this site. However, the policy context has changed significantly since they were determined and therefore these decisions should be given limited weight.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker against the application, a parish council councillor against it and a speaker supporting it addressed the committee.

Committee discussion

Members discussed the site’s history, flood risk, policy limits, sustainability, sewerage, housing need and the restricted scope of Permission in Principle.

“This application was for Permission in Principle (PiP) on which there was strong local feeling and he felt the decision should be made openly and transparently by the Committee; There was limited scope for planning policy consideration for PiP applications; The site has a chequered planning history as it was considered to be outside the development boundary; 4.”

“Clarification on the relevant planning policies for this PiP application; Clarification on what the tilted balance means for this application; Clarification that sewerage was a consideration for the technical details stage of the planning application process, and not the PiP process; Clarification that sustainability was a consideration however, an element of realism must be applied; 5.”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to grant permission in principle was supported by six votes, opposed by two, with two abstentions.

“Arising from consideration of the report and debate it was moved by Councillor O’Keefe, seconded by Councillor Emery, and on a vote of 6 votes in favour, 2 against and 2 abstentions, it was:-”

“RESOLVED that Application No. PA25/06850 for Permission in Principle be granted.”

Minutes

The decision

Permission in Principle was granted, with the proposer’s reasons being those set out in the officer report.

“The reasons given by the Proposer for wishing to grant permission in principle of the application were as set out in the report.”

Minutes