Replacement agricultural building at Field Shed NW Of Bos Arvorek Boscaswell Village, Pendeen

What was proposed

The application sought to replace an existing field shed with a building for agricultural machinery, a workshop and storage.

“West Sub-Area Planning Committee Report 20 July 2026 Application number: PA25/08523 Site address: Field Shed NW Of Bos Arvorek, Boscaswell Village, Pendeen, Penzance, Cornwall, TR19 7EP Proposal: To replace an existing field shed with new to accommodate agricultural machinery, workshop and storage. Application type: Full Application Parish: St.”

“Planning permission is sought for the erection of a replacement agricultural building to accommodate agricultural machinery, workshop and storage.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the building was suitably designed, only marginally larger and not considered to cause adverse visual harm.

“The proposed building is of an appropriate design and scale for its intended use and would only be marginally larger than the structure it replaces. Whilst it is acknowledged that the applicant does not operate an agricultural business, the presence of an existing building on the site represents a significant material consideration.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The town council objected over the lack of agricultural evidence, while the landscape team continued to oppose the scheme because of its size and setting.

“St Just In Penwith Town Council (17 March 2026) The Town Council objects to this application due to lack of evidence to sustain agricultural use.”

“Given the size, design and location of the proposed barn, it is considered that the proposal has the potential to be a prominent feature on the landscape which does not complement the historic and intimate setting. It also has the potential to cause harm to the historic field boundaries.”

Officer report

Other views raised

Objections concerned lack of justification, harm to the area’s character and appearance, and the risk of incremental or precedent-setting development.

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

“Support: N/A Oppose: • Not justified • Harm to the character and appearance of the area • Risk of incremental and precedent-setting development…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A town council representative spoke against the application, and the electoral division member raised concerns about need, location, size and protected landscapes.

The committee debate

Members considered that the proposal would cause great harm, while officers said the concerns did not outweigh the benefits and conditions would control use.

“The concerns for the proposal were not considered to be so great as to outweigh the benefits; 2. The ridge line of the proposal was considered to be similar to the existing; 3. Information relating to the use of the proposed structure had been requested early in the application process, but nothing had been submitted by the applicant; 4. The proposed conditions would alleviate potential concerns relating to the use of the site in terms of commercial use.”

“The proposal would cause great harm to the area and it should not be supported.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillors voted seven in favour of refusal, none against and two abstentions.

“Arising from consideration of the report and debate it was moved by Councillor Ball, seconded by Councillor Hodgetts, and on a vote of 7 votes in favour, none against and 2 abstentions, it was:-”

“RESOLVED that Application No. PA25/08523 be refused.”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

The application was refused because the enlarged building would be prominent and intrusive, harm the protected landscape and lack robust agricultural justification.

“The reasons given by the Proposer for wishing to refuse the application were that the proposed replacement building, by reason of its increased scale, overall massing and appearance, results in an unduly prominent and intrusive form of development within a highly sensitive and exposed location within the Cornwall National Landscape. In the absence of robust agricultural justification, the harm to the landscape is not considered to be outweighed by any benefits.”

“The proposed development fails to complement the historic character of the area and would neither conserve nor enhance the landscape character and natural beauty of the Cornwall National Landscape in conflict with the aims and intentions set out within Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, Policies BD1, AD3, AD8, CD6 of the St Just-in-Penwith Neighbourhood Development Plan 2021-2030, Policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document 2023,…”

Minutes