8 residential dwellings at Land East Of Mevagissey CP School, Mevagissey

What was proposed

Permission in Principle was sought for exactly eight residential dwellings, with detailed proposals reserved for a later stage.

“The development would grant Permission in Principle for eight dwellings which would contribute to the delivery of homes during critical housing shortage;”

“The application is for Permission in Principle for eight dwellings. Minimum eight – Maximum eight.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site was rough agricultural grassland outside Mevagissey’s settlement boundary, opposite the primary school and within the National Landscape.

“The site is situated towards the edge of Mevagissey and currently has the appearance of rough, unmanaged agricultural grassland. It is opposite Mevagissey Primary School and between an older dwelling (Bosmaen) and a more recently constructed residential development namely Bay View granted planning permission following an appeal, referenced APP/D0840/W/15/3139301 (the 2016 appeal).”

“The MNDP is made and applies a settlement boundary around Mevagissey. This site is outside the boundary. Policy HO2 of MNDP requires that development outside the settlement boundary provides for 100% affordable housing (subject to viability). The PiP does not provide for any affordable units. There is conflict with the MNDP.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals for residential development on the site were refused, including one appeal that was dismissed.

“The development if permitted due to the amount of development proposed, would fail to make efficient use of land and as a result would fail to provide an adequate mix of dwelling type to serve the local community. The site lies in the national landscape which is afforded the highest level of protection and for which harm is identified as a result of the site location.”

“PA19/01977 Proposed cross-subsidy residential development comprising 7 dwellings (4 affordable), access and landscaping. The proposals include associated driveways, car parking and private gardens – Refused and Appeal dismissed - Appeal Ref: APP/D0840/W/19/3239229”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the site was accessible, used land efficiently and would provide eight principal-occupancy homes during a housing shortage.

“The development would provide public benefits by the provision of eight dwellings which would all be principal occupancy dwellings (secured at TDC) and would help to support the services within the village. Furthermore, small and medium sized developments can often be built out relatively quickly whilst supporting small enterprises and would also make a small but nevertheless important contribution to housing supply given the shortfall.”

“Objections have been received regarding the lack of affordable housing provision. The Framework advises that provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer)(para 65). This area is not a designated rural area. The threshold for affordable housing provision in this location is ten dwellings or more.”

Officer report

Residents’ objections

Residents raised concerns about repeated applications, extending the village, the lack of affordable homes and limited need for further housing.

“At this time it was not felt that the number of houses built would have limited impact on an AONB, however, I would suggest that any further building works would, and that this is a further attempt to extend the village outside it's natural boundaries and in an AONB.”

“There does not appear to be any social / affordable housing, and indeed, WestCountry's houses that were supposedly affordable, are now being offered on the open market - in a village that already has 24% of housing stock empty for most of the year, any more would surely impact the sustainability of the village…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, a Parish Council representative and the applicant’s representative spoke, while the Electoral Division Member raised landscape and affordable housing concerns.

What members debated

Members debated the lack of affordable housing, landscape objections, the site’s character and the limited scope of Permission in Principle.

“It was acknowledged that this was a PiP application; given the scope of the PiP there was no reason to refuse the application; Concern that the proposal would not deliver affordable dwellings; The Cornwall National Landscape team had raised objections to the development of this site; the benefits of developing this site would not outweigh the adverse impact on the designated landscape; 4.”

“Officers had concluded that there would be harm on the National Landscape; the level of overall harm would be limited to a few localised vantage points, nevertheless, harm was present and great weight should be given to this in the planning balance; The views of the Inspector in respect of PA19/01977 were outlined to the committee in relation to the impact on the character of the area; 3.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A first motion to grant was tied and lost on the Chair’s casting vote; a second motion to refuse passed by four votes to three, with one abstention.

“Arising from consideration of the report and debate it was moved by Councillor Ball, seconded by Councillor Trevelyan that Planning in Principle be granted in respect of Application No. PA25/08858. On being put to the vote the motion was tied 4 votes in favour, 4 against and 0 abstentions, on the Chairs casting vote the motion was lost.”

“RESOLVED that Permission in Principle in respect of Application No. PA25/08858 be refused.”

Minutes

Why permission was refused

Permission in Principle was refused because the homes would harm the National Landscape by removing open space from an elevated, prominent skyline position.

“The development, if approved, would give rise to harmful impact on the Cornish National Landscape by reason of loss of open space in an elevated and prominent position on the skyline of the settlement.”

Minutes