Up to six affordable homes at Land North Of Hendra House, Hendra Lane, Ashton, Helston

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for between one and six affordable-led dwelling houses on land at Hendra Lane.

“Permission in Principle (PiP) is sought for between 1 and 6 dwellings, comprising an affordable led development. The application site is a part of a flat field adjacent to the village of Ashton. 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.”

“The proposal seeks Permission in Principle (PiP) for the erection of up to 6 affordable - led dwelling houses (minimum of 1, maximum of 6) on land at Hendra Lane, Ashton.”

Officer report

An earlier application

A previous application for the same number of affordable-led homes was refused because safe pedestrian access had not been demonstrated.

“The proposed development is considered unacceptable in principle due to its location and context, which would result in an adverse impact on pedestrian safety. The site is situated adjacent to a highway that is restricted in width and lacks adequate pedestrian infrastructure, including safe and continuous footways and street lighting.”

“Given the nature and scale of the proposed development, it is likely to generate increased pedestrian activity. In the absence of safe and accessible pedestrian routes that future occupiers will have a legal right of access to, the development would conflict with paragraphs 115 and 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 and policy 27 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010- 2030, which seek to ensure that developments provide safe and suitable…”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered Ashton a suitable location, the scale appropriate, affordable housing needed and highway effects unlikely to be unacceptable.

“Given the Council’s current lack of a five‑year housing land supply, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies and significant weight must be given to delivering new homes. The housing supply policies of the Cornwall Local Plan are considered to be out of date.”

“Although Ashton has limited facilities, it functions within a wider network of nearby villages, including Breage, and benefits from public transport links. The site represents a logical extension to the settlement and the scale of 1–6 dwellings is considered to be appropriate and would deliver affordable housing to the community.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The parish council and Electoral Division Member opposed the proposal, while highways raised no observations and Natural England sought mitigation for recreational impacts.

“Natural England No Objection subject to securing appropriate mitigation in respect of the recreational impacts on the Fal and Helford SAC.”

Officer report

Concerns from residents

Residents raised concerns about access, construction traffic, pedestrian safety, habitat, drainage, facilities, infrastructure and cumulative development.

“The key planning related points have been summarised below: • Site has poor access • Construction traffic may cause highway safety issues • There is no Public Access to Hendra Close as this is a private road • Limited pedestrian pavement puts users at risk…”

“Information Classification: PUBLIC • Transport Statement does not include unreported incidents and near misses • Transport Statement uses photos taken from private land at Hendra Close • Neighbours would welcome a Green transport Plan • Loss of habitat and countryside • Site has poor drainage and surface water issues • Limited facilities in the settlement • Proposed scheme includes executive houses which are prevalent in the area • No Mains drainage on the site • Cumulative…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A neighbour and the parish council representative spoke against the application, while the agent spoke in support and answered questions.

What members debated

Members debated pedestrian safety, highway conditions, affordable housing need, the site’s suitability, flooding and whether further development would have a minimal impact.

“The Council had previous ruled that this was an unsuitable location for this type of development; This was because it would pose an unacceptable impact on pedestrian safety due to the location and context; None of this had altered in the re-application, and therefore the decision should not alter either; 4.”

“Members raised concern over the expectation of pedestrians to use the grass verge to allow traffic to pass, especially for pushchair/wheelchair users. However, officers stated that this was only an option and not an expectation; Concern was raised that statistically there were more accidents on country lanes than there were on main roads; Concerns were shared, but the lane already served 25 properties, so 6 more would have a minimal impact; 4.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Harrison proposed approval, Councillor Crawford seconded it, and members voted seven in favour, three against and no abstentions.

“Arising from consideration of the report and debate it was moved by Councillor Harrison, seconded by Councillor Crawford, and on a vote of 7 votes in favour, 3 against and 0 abstentions, it was:-”

“RESOLVED that Application No. PA25/08905 be approved.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved application PA25/08905, giving the proposer’s reasons as those set out in the report and committee update.

“The reasons given by the Proposer for wishing to approve the application were as set out in the report and Committee update.”

Minutes