We should be starting very shortly, I see Adrian, Councillor Parsons, your hand is up at the moment. If you're plugged in.
Yeah, I just had a question for the legal team, if possible, I don't know if now's the right time as such.
Ah..if not, best left to the end, I would suggest.
Okay, it was just regarding the AONBs. As we've got two AONB applications today, Counsellor Flashman obviously declared an interest at the start of the meeting. I didn't know if we sit on outside bodies, if if we actually, do we have to, do we have to declare an interest at, for example, we're on an AONB board, because, having listened to certain speakers you would think one or two were perhaps pushing an agenda. Ah, I, I just...do we need to declare it or not?
Sarah, do you want to clarify that or...?
Councillor Batters, it's Sarah Goodall here...um....I think I'd just refer you to the Code of Conduct Councillor Parsons...um...you know with...er...if you have a personal or a pecuniary interest. I'll get the exact detail and send it over to you during the meeting.
Fine, thank you, Sarah.
Thanks Sarah. I just, just you know, for all our sakes, wondered how we sat with it.
1:35 are we all back in Rowena? Would you like to, perhaps, do the check for us, please?
I will Chairman, I'll just do a check. Could you just please confirm that you're present when I read your name? Councillor Burden?
Yes. I'm here.
Thank you, Councillor Craker?
Yes, I'm present.
Councillor Eddy?
Present.
Councillor Flashman?
Councillor Flashman, can you confirm you are present?
Present.
Thank you, Councillor Greenslade?
Present.
Councillor Holley?
Present.
Councillor Williams?
Present.
Councillor Long?
Present.
Councillor May?
Present.
Councillor Mould?
Present.
Councillor Pascoe?
Present.
Councillor Pugh?
Present.
Councillor Parsons?
Present.
and Councillor Batters?
Present.
Thank you. That's everyone.
Fine. Okay. Well, all welcome back. And we go into our second application, which is PA20/03747 Land Adjacent to Rame Cottages Rame Head Torpoint. And it's being presented by Davina. So across to you Davina.
Thank you, Chairman. So I will just..um...share my screen with you a minute so you can see the presentation.
Okay, are you seeing that yet, Chairman?
Yes, we can see it. Thank you.
Okay.
So, as discussed this relates to a site on land adjacent to Rame Cottages at Rame Head. The application is for the development of a detached two storey agricultural dwelling with a garage and parking. So the key issues as set out in the officer report relate to the agricultural need for the development, the impact on the Cornwall AONB and the heritage coast, the impact on the historic environment, the impact on neighbour amenities, access and parking, and ecology. So here we've got the site outlined for you in red. As you can see, the whole site is within an area of outstanding natural beauty. And we've also got various designations around the edge of the site relating to county wildlife sites, sites of special scientific interest, and special areas of conservation. So we've got just a slightly more detailed plan for you. So as you can see, it's an L shaped site, there is a public footpath that runs to the immediate rear of the site, which leads through this agricultural field. To the south of the site, we have a row of, um, historic cottages, Rame Head cottages. We've got the public highway here which leads down to, um, the coast, the Coastguard Lookout at Rame Head and the associated carpark.
Here we've got an aerial shot for you. Just there so you can see the site in context.
Here's the proposed block plan for you. So the site would utilise, um, this access here. The dwelling is proposed here on the left hand side and a garage is proposed on the right hand side. New boundary treatments would be, um, created around the site boundaries with earth bunding.
These are the proposed plans, here we have elevations for you.
and floor plans.
So essentially, um, the accommodation provided, would provide sort of upside down living arrangements with bedrooms at ground floor and maybe living accommodation at first floor. In terms of materials, um, we have natural stone, um, elements and we have, um, natural slate to the roof.
And here we've got the elevations of the proposed double garage for you. Here we have a photograph of the site, at this point I am stood at the entrance to the public right of way, to the field entrance to the public right of way, which runs along the site here. The application site here is actually just sited behind this van, um, this land is sort of a area of amenity, there's a private burial in there, it's not connected with the application site. So the application site is just the land sort of in between that boundary treatment there, the vegetation and this, um, van here. In the distance just for reference, you can see, um, the Coastguard Lookout just there.
And moving on to the next photo, this is, um, we've moved to a different time of year. These, some of these things are taken from the landscape and visual impact appraisal, some are taken from my own visit to the site which occurred in summer, um, hence the sort of two different views that you get. So I've now, we've now moved into the site and this is the site itself, the access points, um, the public highway just runs the other side of that hedgerow. And you can see Coastguard Cottages just here, red brick dwelling
Rame Head cottages, and here's a view taken further along the public footpath looking back towards the site. So the site is sort of that area of bare earth, that you can just see there.
this is just a shot of the site access taken on the public highway.
and then looking in the opposite direction back towards Rame Head cottages and the car parking area that those properties use.
Again, looking towards Rame Head cottages.
Now this is, um, a Landscape and Visual Impact assessment was submitted with the application and alongside that came a zone of theoretical visibility. So this plan shows, um, where the proposed dwelling is likely to be visible from at 7.6 metres. That's the ridge height of the proposed dwelling. So the green areas depict with bare ground conditions where you are likely to see the proposed development from or where there might be views of the development. Obviously, the green areas don't take into account things such as hedgerows and trees, um so, but it just gives an indication of likely sort of visibility. Here we've got some long distance views, longer, slightly longer distance views of the site. So we're now, um, at the end of the road next to the Coastguard lookout station, you have, um, Rame Head cottages there, the application site just tucked in there. You can see in the distance, um, that's, um, Rame Church, the spire associated with Rame church just there.
and then moving on to the next photograph, um, this is taken from the car park itself just looking over the hedgerow. So the site is within there. The caravans that you can see just up here, um, the applicant, as you'll see in the report, the applicant operates a five caravan site licence within that field. Um, so those caravans are sited, um, in association with that permitted holiday use. This is the site, this is a shot rather taken from Rame Head chapel itself. So right out on Rame Head, and what you can see here is, um, the coastal lookout station just there. And if members can make out, um, just the roof there, that is the roof of, um, Rame Head cottages and in the background, the areas of white are the caravans on the five caravan site licence. So the site would effectively sort of sit in there behind that hill effectively, from these viewpoints. Moving onto another shot, um, this is taken from the road leading down to the site and looking out towards the Coastguard lookout and Rame Head chapel right out there. So the site is where that area of, sort of, bare earth is, just behind the hedgerow. This is a shot, um, within the LVIA that's been taken from the southwest coast path, um, near Home Barton Hill. Um, so this is to the southeast of the site, um, what you can see here is Rame Head cottages is there, the coastal look out there. So the application site is effectively sort of behind that hill. This is a shot taken from Whitsand Bay on Military Road. So above Whitsand Bay on Military Road, um, in terms of what you're seeing there, you have Rame Head Chapel, that point there. You have the coastal look out there. And what you see here are the roofs of the Rame Head cottages, and the white dots that you can see in that field are, um, the caravans on the five caravan site licence. So I then, um, maximised the zoom on my camera. So this is at full maximum, just so that you can see it in a little bit more detail, although obviously this isn't the eye view that you would get from that road because it's zoomed in. So you've got the roofs associated with Rame Head cottages there, the application site would sit sort of in here. The main issue here is the impact on the AONB landscape. The County Land Agent is content that there is sufficient agricultural justification for a proposed dwelling in association with the applicant's agricultural business, which operates from Penmillard Farm just down the road. Um, however, officers are of the opinion that notwithstanding that agricultural justification, the harm to the AONB from siting a dwelling in this position, um, is too great, um, and therefore the application is recommended for refusal as set out in your agenda.
Thank you, members.
Thank you very much Divina. Um, a good selection of photographs there too, I think, most helpful considering we're not attending. Um, right we move on to our public speakers now and our first speaker is Jim Wood. Can you drop your, um, your display down, Davina, for the moment, please? Thank you. We have Jim Wood our first, um, our first speaker. Are you there, Jim?
Chairman, Sarah Goodall, meeting producer. I don't believe we have any of our public speakers yet. I have spoken to all three of them about five minutes ago. So I will just go round the, round and call them again to see what the issues are joining the meeting. If you could just bear with me one, one moment.
Yes, certainly. Thank you. Thank you.
Um, Mr. Chairman, Jim here.
Yes.
I need, I need to declare an interest as I am also a countryside access team member for Cornwall Council.
Right, Loretta, anything you wish to say on legal on that one?
Thank you, chair. Um, you'll need to, um, decide whether you've got, er, an interest that would result in you being unable to vote within the meeting, what type of interest you have, Councillor Flashman?
Only a member of Cornwall Council, representing Cornwall Council at the access team meetings.
Mmmhmm. So, are you declaring an interest as a non, as a pecuniary interest or a non disclosable interest, or is it simply as, the fact that you're a member so you don't actually feel that you have an interest that prevents you from participating?
I have no, I have no interest, I'm only representing Cornwall Council at these meetings
Then it does sound like you wouldn't need to declare an interest for the purposes of the meeting because you'd need to say whether your, it's a disclosable interest or a non disclosable pecuniary interest. So in your view, um, your, your connection to this application wouldn't affect your participation.
Not whatsoever.
Thank you.
Fine. Thank you Loretta.
....chair.
That's helped to fill up the gap, you might say that was the commercial break covered.
Any news, Sarah?
Mr Charmain. I believe that Mr. Wood is just joining the meeting now.
Fine.
Good morning to you, Jim.
Hi, are you there, Jim?
Sorry, it's, er, er. I'm John. One of the, one of the speakers.
Chairman, I believe Mr Wood has just joined, the person, we've also got Mr. Shepherd in who is the parish council speaker, but I believe Mr Wood may just have joined the meeting.
Who...the gentleman who just introduced himself. His, I don't think his name appears on my list as a point of interest, does it?
Yes Chairman. We've got Jim Wood, who's our first speaker
Yeah
and then John Shepherd, who...
Ah, fair enough.
is from Maker with Rame Parish Council.
Apologies. I mis..misheard what he said. Right. Good morning to you, Jim. Are you there?
Good morning, Chairman. Yes, I'm here.
Good morning, you, you, as you're well aware, you have three minutes, we'll give you 30 seconds warning, er, just prior to the three minutes ending, um, and it's over to you, away you go and if, and obviously if you can hold on at the end, for any forthcoming questions? Thank you.
Of course, of course. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Jim Wood, I'm the planning officer for the Cornwall AONB unit and a chartered member of the Landscape Institute. Unusually in speaking at this planning committee, I find myself in complete agreement with your professional officer's analysis, that the proposal, as a result of the position, scale, materials and design fails to conserve or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB and should be refused. The proposed dwelling would, by virtue of its scale, mix of materials and extensive glazing, and glazed balustrade, form an assertive and prominent new skyline landmark, paying little respect to its setting on the iconic ridge between Rame Head and Rame Church. The suggestion by the parish council that the effects of the proposed developments are considered to be very localised with minimal impact on the landscape do not accord with my findings from my site visit. Importantly, the strength of local opinion regarding this application, as evidenced by the 137 letters of objection, also bear out my findings. Important serial views of the proposed dwelling as a conspicuous new element will be extensively available from the road above Whitsand Bay, approaching Rame, and from the Military Road to the east. In addition to these extensive wider views, , excuse me, there's a network of public rights of way extending towards and onto Rame Head, and within these the combination of the position and height of the dwelling and its architectural form will ensure that it is not assimilated into the sensitive landscape of its setting, but will form a conspicuous and discordant additional element. Cornwall Council's own landscape character assessment for Rame Head, identifies that the objective must be to restrain development along the coast and encourage the retention and restoration of its wild landscape character. Development Plan policy requires great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty. Your officer's recommendation for refusal correctly reflects this. Paragraph 172 of NPPF confirms that areas of outstanding natural beauty have the highest status of protection in relation to these matters, equal to that of national parks. Paragraph 79 of NPPF is clear that policies and decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside, unless the design is of exceptional quality and would significantly enhance its immediate setting, and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area. This proposal patently fails both of these tests. The proposed development would give rise to unacceptable harm to the AONB, it does not respect and enhance the quality of place, as required by Cornwall Local Plan Policy 2...
30 seconds remaining
Nor is it appropriately located to address the AONB sensitivity and capacity as required by Local Plan Policy 23. In summary, this development is in conflict with NPPF 79, 170 and 172, Cornwall Local Plan Policies 2, 3 and 23, AONB Management Plan Policies MD 2 and MD 9, and as recommended by your officer should be refused on this basis. Thank you very much.
Thank you Jim. If you could hold for a moment for any clarification, clarification questions, um, hands up for those who wish to, I see, Councillor Parsons, your hand is up.
Chairman...
Thank you Jim. I'll be with you shortly.
Hello, Mr. Wood. Er, I was wondering, er, could you explain your view on agricultural importance with maintaining this headland please?
Er, clearly the, um, the management of the agricultural landscape is, is, is very important to the appearance, er, of the headland and, and this part of the AONB. But, but this isn't the matter I've, um, we've been asked to consider in this application.
I am, I am slightly bemused with that, as the application is for an agriculturally tied property, which is supported by the County Land Agent. Um, and there were reasons within this why he considers or why, it's felt the parish council, the County Land Agent, and...
And if I could interrupt you, if I can interrupt you a second
Yeah you can
It needs to be clarification of anything that, that Jim Wood has spoken about, rather than, er, side issues on the Parish Councils.
Yeah, well, all I would say is I actually disagree. I think if agricultural importance does weigh in on this application with managing that headland.
Right, did you want to reply to that, Mr. Wood, or not?
Um, I've made my comments on that within within the pre-application consultation, which the applicant has seen fit to put into the public domain, but but my expertise is on matters of the AONB, and I've reported on that in what I've said to the committee this morning.
Fine thank you, Councillor Flashman, Jim.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Jim. How are you?
Good morning. Yeah. Good. Thank you.
Good. I'm a bit perplexed that, er, most farm houses are viewable from somewhere, unless they're in the pit of a valley, but how far out to sea can this be seen? Or how far out could the ridge height be seen from the access from the sea? And how high are the cliffs at, uh, at that area? And how far back from the cliffs is the application site?
I'm afraid I can't clarify how far out to sea you'll be able to see this site. It was clear from the ZTV that Davina Pritchard showed to the meeting earlier that there is visibility from the sea. I have absolutely no, no doubt that's the case understanding the topography here. I'm afraid equally, I can't tell you what the height of the cliffs are locally, although obviously that's a matter of public record on the OS mapping.
Thank you Jim, I think Councillor Flashman, I think you, I think you, um, I say, Councillor Flashman, I think we've got two Jims here, of course, Councillor Flashman I think those are questions you could ask of Davina, perhaps later on, on the officer's questions. Um, are there any other questions? I've got no hands up, er, vice chair at the moment. I take it there's no, no one I'm missing.
No, no, there's no one else missing. I'm just wondering, could I ask another question, Chairman, please?
Yes, certainly. If it's for clarification purposes, yep.
Well, it is for clarification. When I visited the site last week, much of the coastland is covered in bracken and it's becoming almost inaccessible. The nature of the area that ran out to the St. Michael's chapel was grazed with ponies. I'm just interested to know how Mr. Wood thinks if we do not provide levels of accommodation for agricultural workers to live within these almost becoming exclusive areas, how does he propose we maintain these areas of outstanding natural beauty going forward if we don't have the custodians to do it?
Uh, I'm, I'm, I was very clear in the pre-application advice I gave, which again, the applicant has put into the public domain, we're absolutely not against, um, accommodation for agricultural workers. Our objection here is to the the scale and the location of of the chosen development, we, we provided some thoughts on alternative possibilities. We're absolutely not against appropriate accommodation for agricultural workers. It's just that in our view, er, that the harm that will be caused to the AONB landscape is such that this is, this is not the correct site for that.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. Er, okay. Er if you, you can obviously listen on livestream, Jim, as you're aware. Thank you very much for your attendance.
Thank you very much.
John Shepherd, um, you're there, I hope.
Yes, I am.
Lovely. Um, you have three minutes to talk to us about your concerns, and the, you will have a 30 second warning before the end, um, so when you're ready away you go, thank you very much.
Thank you. um, the parish council, er, overwhelmingly supported this application. In overall terms we felt that the applicant's need for an essential dwelling for the local farm, as confirmed by the count, Country Land Agent at the pre-app outweighed the limited effect to the AONB. The proposed dwelling is opposite an existing terrace of six houses on the south side of the main ridge, minimising greatly the areas where the dwelling could be seen. The buildings sit tightly into the hedge bank and are effectively screened for many ground level views. We considered the impact of the development on its surroundings to be negligible, and needs to be weighed against the benefits in providing additional accommodation, and necessary infrastructure in direct support of a local and rural business. Um, we believe the harm to the AONB is well overstated, and ignores the work that farms do in preserving it. The site itself sits in a hollow with a natural ground levels rising to the north, west and east with the existing Rame cottages to the south. With this in mind, we were happy that the development sits nicely within the setting and benefits from natural screening. This view I believe was demonstrated within the Landscape Visibility and Impact Assessment and it included, it concluded that the impact on the AONB as low. The proposed development is distant from Rame Head itself, and is nearby the old Coastguard cottages. In particular, the change of view from users of the South West Coast path would be very low or negligible and will always be in the context of the view of the roof, roof profiles of the existing Rame Head cottages. We are satisfied that being an agricultural worker's dwelling, it is an exemption site and would not set any kind of precedent for further dwellings being built. I have spoken with many residents of the parish, and the vast majority I've spoken with are supportive of the applicant and his application, many speaking highly of him and his family and the hard work that they've put into maintaining the AONB and managing Rame Head over many decades. In summary, we strongly supported this application, we considered its effects to be minimal, minimal by virtue of its location and detail, the necessary supporting...
30 seconds remaining
impact reports have been undertaken, and were very positive in their conclusions. Pre-application advice was sought and acted upon. The application needs to be weighed against the benefits of the proposed developments in providing additional accommodation and necessary infrastructure in direct support for rural business, as well as providing accommodation for a local farm and his young family, who have for many generations lived in the immediate area, and who have contributed greatly to it.
We've reached 3 minutes Chairman.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Shepherd. Um, are there any questions for clarification please to the speaker? I would, I would like to ask a question of you, Mr. Shepherd, myself and that is considering, I can understand your parish council, um, obviously knowing the, er, the area so well and knowing the applicant so well, and probably seeing the benefits of an agricultural dwelling, but might you not be a bit concerned as to the size, design and the major impact of this design on the area itself. I mean, might not have, we'll say a three bedroom bungalow might have been considered to have been different? This is, to me, a somewhat larger than one might have expected in a very, very, very sensitive area. So might you not consider this development an overdevelopment?
Er, no I mean, I..we considered that the site itself, is is quite, erm, large. Um, and it, it, it does sit in a kind of a dip.
Yeah, that's, that's okay. You've answered my question. It's obviously your, you're of opinion it is not over development. Er, thank you very much. Councillor Greenslade, Fred Greenslade.
Yes, thank you Chairman. Erm, my question to the parish council representative is, did the AONB, erm, people come to any of your parish council meetings or have you met with them to discuss the issues please?
Um, they didn't come to the parish council meetings, um, primarily because, um, we were in, um, lockdown, um, at the time, so public meetings and public gatherings weren't actually being held. I believe, I believe they actually visited the site and actually visited the applicant. But they certainly didn't visit the parish council.
Not even virtually?
Er, no.
Thank you. Thanks very much.
Might I ask Mr. Shepherd, did you hold virtual meetings when this was considered? Or was it a matter of people emailing their decisions into you?
Er, it was more than just emailing decisions, um, we actually operated at that time by email, um, but there was, um, a sort of fairly full and frank, um, exchange of views and other things on, on, you know, actually on the actual application itself...
Yes, yes but by email rather than a meeting?
It was by email. Yes.
Fine. No other questions of clarification, Vice Chair?
No Chairman, that's it. If, Councillor Greenslade could.. thank you Fred.
Yes. Lovely. Thank you very much, Mr. Shepherd. You can obviously listen to the remainder of the debate on the livestream. We come now to the next speaker, Chris Wilton, Chris Wilton. Are you there, Chris?
I am. Thank you, thank you Mr. Chairman.
Hi, You may well have heard me say earlier but you'll have three minutes, we will give you a 30 second warning before the end. Um, so when you're ready, away you go and if you can hang on at the end for any questions or clarification, thank you.
Thank you. Good afternoon. I have lived at Penmillard Farm all my life, and I returned to, from uni to the farm in 2000, and have worked there ever since, having been granted a tenancy on the farm in 2014, continuing the family tradition since 1812. My parents having the right to live in the in the house for the rest of their lives. I lived in a static caravan adjacent to the farmhouse for 18 years, because the farm properties that had always been with the farm was taken back by the state in 1997, until my second child Amy was born, and the mobile home was no longer suitable or large enough to accommodate two adults and two children. We moved into the farmhouse with my parents, who are in their 70s, which also meant closing a bed and breakfast that has operated since 1923. It became apparent after about a year that having three generations living under one roof was not sustainable or acceptable long term. An opportunity to purchase the only piece of land to come up for sale within the farm since the 70s arose, and I was able to buy it. We did a pre-app with the planning officer, who said the design was acceptable, and that we should pre-app with the County Land Agent and the AONB team, as well as commissioning an LVIA to gauge the impact on the AONB. The land agent confirmed that there was an essential need for the farm to have a second dwelling and the location was central to the farm's landholding, and is suitable, and is a suitable location. The AONB would not support any development on this site, except a Paragraph 79 E Building of Design Excellence, which is not a farm workers dwelling. The LVIA resulted in a low level of impact but, listening to the AONB officer, the ridge height was lowered from 9 metres to just 7.6. At pre-app I proposed a one and a half storey, or a single storey, and coloured recycled cladding. Both were unacceptable. Our work with the RSPB from 2002 to 2012 bought the rare Cirl Buntings to the peninsula. The important points in this application. The identified harm to the AONB is low, with minimal impact from distance views, as confirmed by the planning officer's report and the LVIA. This is the only land I own and is the only place I can build a home for my family while safeguarding the management of the scenic beauty of the AONB. Short range views can be mitigated by planting four metre plus established trees on the west and east boundaries, also improving biodiversity, biodiversity and habitats. The dwelling is not an isolated building in the open countryside, being adjacent to an existing terrace of six cottages. The design incorporates aspects of recent approved planning within the AONB, such as gable windows and low reflective glass balustrades. The planning officer confirmed in the pre-app that the design of the house is acceptable.
30 seconds remaining.
Not one statutory or non statutory consultee, except the AONB, has objected. Immediate neighbours are in support of the application. For welfare and security of the Dartmoor sheep and equines I must live close, in close locality, to deal with emergencies usually caused by dog attacks. The home is to satisfy an identified essential need for an agricultural worker to live at his place of work, confirmed by the County Land Agent for the required care necessary for the Dartmoor Ponies and sheep on the farm, Rame Head and wider farm operations....
3 minutes Chairman.
which include...
I'm afraid I'll have to cut you off there, Mr Wilton, that's the three minutes, I'm afraid.
That's ok.
The three minutes are up. Um, I'm sorry to interrupt you. But questions of clarification please. Um, you have Councillor Parsons to start with.
Thank you again Chairman. Hello, Mr. Wilton.
Hello, Councillor Parsons.
Firstly, could you explain please in what you've just said what you mean by safeguarding the management and the scenic beauty of the AONB? And if I could also slip another question in, when I visited the site last week, I counted six dog, six people with dogs out on the headland. None of which, any, were on leads, just out of interest.
Do you, do you get issues with dog worrying?
and, obviously, with, within that, I would imagine there probably is a need to be near the site but, uh, first, the first..
Yes, if I answer the second point first, if that's okay. Um, dog worrying is a major problem. Erm, we obviously have a lot of people enjoy the scenic beauty of Rame Head and they bring their dogs up and walk on the open area. As soon as they see an open area, the dogs come off the lead, we've had, we've lost ponies that have been chased over the cliff, uh ponies get chased into the barbed wires and require medical treatment. Um, it is one of the reasons why we have to check the ponies three times a day. Erm, just to make sure that it...
Er, can I, could I interrupt there and say I think you've covered that point, because it wasn't in your original report, for clarification purposes. I think you've covered that report. So can you go back to question one from Councillor Parsons?
Yep, question one. Um, yeah, safeguarding the management of the scenic beauty of the AONB is really, really dependent upon keeping the livestock here, the Dartmoor ponies manage and maintain Rame Head in areas that we cannot do with machines and we don't use the chemicals. Um, if I had to leave the area because I just can't afford to live here, and I'm outside the prescribed limits for the welfare and care of the animals, including the sheep flock that we've got, um, Rame Head would suffer so quickly with becoming overgrown and impassable for the public at large, um, and also the the loss of income from the sheep would mean that all the country margins, the wildlife buffer strips, the extensive cutting every three years of the hedges as opposed to every year, would all have to change to make up for the loss of income, erm, from the loss of the livestock enterprises.
Right, o, okay Adrian?
Thank you.
Councillor Pugh, Richard?
Uh, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Good morning, Mr. Wilton. Could you just tell me when you, h, discussed your planning with the County Land Agent, had you purchased the plot by then or was he using maybe the house as an area for you to live in or an area near, close by to the house please?
Uh, no, I, uh, when I met the County Land Agent, I'd already owned that piece of land for about a year or just under.
Okay, thank you.
Councillor May, Mary?
Thank you, Chairman. I..good morning Mr Wilton, I just wondered if there were any, um, dilapidated buildings that you could have used to convert or don't you have any of them?
Uh, good afternoon Councillor May. Um, no, we are a tenanted farm. Um, all the buildings here are in use for, erm, horses and at times, sheep and Dartmoors, if they've got to come in for injuries. Erm, and I would probably, it'd be highly unlikely that I would get landlord's consent to convert any buildings. And if I was, I wouldn't be able to get any funding because I don't own the land.
Thank you. You've, you've answered it.
Just, just one more question, Chairman but I don't know whether it'll be allowed.
Yes, certainly, well alright, yes, go on.
Yes, no, it's fine. Um, it's to do with the RSPB. You manage their land so Councillor Parsons was emphasising. Uh, now my neighbour did that and they get, they, they were able to get funding for that, so you kind of, yeah, you have funding. So, my question is yes or no. Did you get funding?
Do we get funding for...from the RSPB...
For managing the land, for managing land for, for, on behalf of RSPB enhancing?
Not from the RSPB, no.
Alright.
We, we, we...
Ok, no it's ok, she just wanted a yes or no answer, Mr Wilton
No, we got no money from the RSPB
Um, are you happy with Mary, are you? Mary?
Yes. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you.
You were allowed to, you were allowed to ask it because of course RSPB was mentioned in, in Mr. Wilton's address. Uh, Councillor Craker, Nick.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Mr. Wilton. I just wanted to clarify, um, the materials that you're proposing to use, I know the, um, the adjacent property, as in the coast, the Coastguard cottages there are, um, all red brick. Did you consider, um, using a similar material for your plot?
Good afternoon Councillor Craker. Yes, we did during pre-app, we discussed with the planning officer, um, the materials used within the design. Um, red brick was suggested, and we were told no, because that's the only place that has it in the area. And the planning officer was quite adamant that the farmhouses in particular are painted white, erm, white render, she would not go with cladding, coloured cladding, to help blend it into the area at all. So the design of the house was led with what would be deemed acceptable during pre-app.
Okay, thank you very much. Thank you.
Are there any other questions or clarification to the speaker please?
Jim here.
Jim. Yes, Jim.
Yeah. Er, Good morning. Erm, Jim Flashman here.
Erm, the AONB officer mentioned about, um, better design. Did you approach the AONB with a better design? Or a different design from what you're actually applying for and what, what was the answer? Thank you.
Er, good afternoon Councillor Flashman. Erm, yes, we had long and frank discussions with the, um, AONB officer and...no design that would fit an agricultural worker's dwelling would be acceptable. His words, his parting words to me were, you would be better off to put in a 79 E building of design excellence, which we might support, erm, but no development on that site for an agricultural worker's dwelling would meet their criteria.
Right. Okay, Jim?
Thank you very much.
Fine. No other questions of clarification, Vice Chair, I take it and if we could have hands down on the....
Chairman
Oh, Councillor Parsons, yes.
Jane Pascoe's hand is up
Yes, beg your pardon Jane, I took my eyes off the screen. Over to you.
No, no, it's quite alright chair. I, I have only put it up just recently, most of my questions have been answered but I just wanted a bit of that's ok. A bit of clarification. Can, can Mr. Wilton confirm that the ridge height is below the Coastguard, uh, the the uh, the cottages please?
Good afternoon Councillor Pascoe. Yes, uh, we had a height, um, survey done and I can confirm that it's about two hundred mil, three h.., sorry, a foot below the existing ridge height of the cottages, as they are now.
Thank you.
Thank you, um, Richard, Councillor Pugh your hand's up again, away you go.
Are you there Richard? Are you there?
I think Richard's lowered his hand Chairman. I think it was still possibly raised from his previous...
Yes. Sorry. I'm okay, Chairman.
Ah right, fine.
Are there any other questions then for clarification purposes, I can't see any on my screen. That is correct, Vice Chair, is it?
That is correct.
Lovely. Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Wilton for attending, obviously you can stay on air and listen to the, the rest of the debate on livestream. And, we now move to the, well, the adjoining division member, uh, which is Councillor Foot, Jesse Foot. Jesse, you're there I take it?
I am here, Chair.
You, you have five minutes, by which time I will expect you to have wound done by, um, so away you go, sir.
Thank you Chair. I won't be using that whole five minutes. So I am here in Councillor Trubody's place, uh, because of his close relationship with the applicant. So I thought it would be appropriate if I perhaps quoted some words from, from uh, from Councillor Trubody, which is at the start of the Rame Peninsula NDP plan, so he says the Rame Peninsula is one of the most beautiful and iconic areas in, in the country, and this document will help preserve and enhance all that is great about Cornwall's Forgotten Corner. So I say that because, uh, one of the first policies, um, that we would be looking at in relation to this, or we would be looking at the neighbourhood development plan as the most recent bit of policy adopted in June of 2017. I have to say, I do agree with the officer's recommendation for refusal on this one, um, and on page 53, the officer sums up, uh, those reasons quite succinctly. So, based on its sighting, scale, materials and design it's prominent, incongruous, visible from long distances, and does have a big impact on the Cornwall AONB Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast. So various plans, or policies, are quoted that it is contrary to, so contrary to Policy 5 of the Rame Peninsula Neighbourhood Development Plan. Contrary to Policy 23 of the Cornwall Local Plan, policy MD9 of the Cornwall AONB and paragraphs 170 and 172 of the NPPF. It also sounds like this policy could, could be contrary to policy 12 and policy 24 of the Cornwall Local Plan. Um, I did have a question about the, the timing of the parish council meeting, the, the application was actually validated on the 20th of May, and the PC held a meeting, the parish council held a meeting to discuss this and approve it two days later. So it didn't seem like there was much time for, um, some public engagement with that, with the parish Council. But that's it. I don't have any, anything else to say except that I support, um, the AONB officer's view on this one, and I also support the officer's recommendation, balanced recommendation for refusal. Thank you.
Thank you, Jesse. Are there any questions of, um, Councillor Foot, as a adjoining member, and obviously aware of the locality.
Erm yes, I'd like to ask him a question, Chairman.
Yes, Jim, yes, Jim.
Erm, good morning, Jesse.
Good morning, Jim. It's good to hear your voice.
Yeah. Erm, I understood that, that you were representing, uh, Councillor Trubody, is that Councillor Trubody's view or your view?
That's my view.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
Um, Councillor Pascoe, Jane.
Sorry, Chair. Yes, I, I just wanted to ask Councillor Foot if he's aware of the stewardship scheme with the Dartmoor ponies, and how many are there that are keeping this area in the state of an area of outstanding natural beauty, keeping it managed, keeping keeping the scrub down, keeping the litter away, and safeguarding the whole of that Rame Head for, for the enjoyment of people walking. Um, when when you're looking after one pony, it's hard, but 21 you have to be around. Um, I also understand that he has sheep and all sorts on the field. He's an agricultural worker, um, and, and I just wondered if you understood how hard it is to manage land if it is left, it will become unwalkable and unpleasant and untidy.
Thank you for your question, Councillor Pascoe, uh, I am aware of, of the applicant's involvement with the Dartmoor ponies and the maintenance of the area, and of course, that formed part of my view. And this was a tricky one to, to come to a position on, I think as well, because that is the counterbalance, part of the reasons for support, but in the end, I did feel like the weight fell, uh, for refusal.
Thank you. And of course, in fairness, we are looking at the application as it stands for this particular property and dwelling that's on the application. Thank you very much, Councillor Foot, you are able also to ask any questions to the officer. I think you're aware of that, should you wish to.
Thank you Chair.
So we now come to questions of the Case Officer. So what questions might you have for Davina? Uh, we have Councillor Parsons up first.
Hello, Davina.
Hi, Adrian.
Davina, having, like I said, visited the site, I kind of fall into the same camp as the parish council. Can I just ask you, when you visited the site, obviously, this is a sensitive protected area. And for me, in my interpretation, I felt actually this application site was the only, only site within that head that would, would be potential, have potential for developing without having a major impact. But what I'd like to ask you is, do you feel that that site sits within a natural bowl within that headland please?
Um, thank you, Chairman. So, so I can appreciate, um, in terms of the levels put forward, there was a levels plan submitted by the applicant on Thursday. Um, and, uh, to a degree, um, from certain viewpoints, the proposal will be screened by topography. I think that was evident in the photographs that we provided. So from some viewpoints, particularly, as you see, of the southeast, sort of Home Barton Hill, Middle Barton Hill along the Southwest Coast Path, it will clearly be seen. Um, similarly, from Rame Head Chapel itself, um, I think it will be relatively well screened by the Coast Guard lookout, um, and I think you'll be achieving sort of, if anything, views of the roof, but I think the key is that there are many other spots where the proposed development will be visible, particularly at close quarters, on the range of footpaths around the site, on the public highways around the site. Um, so, so that's sort of where we've come from in making our, in making our recommendation of refusal, um, but I can accept absolutely, that from lots of views, the site won't necessarily be visible. And I think that the ZDV demonstrates that quite well, um, but not withstanding that there are still sites where it will be visible, hence the harm that we've arrived to. Thank you.
Fine, Councillor Craker, Nick, over to you.
Thanks, Chairman. Um Davina I just want to clarify about the, the pre-app and the advice that was given about the materials, were you the case officer involved with the pre-app. I don't know if you could just comment a bit more on the, um, the advice about the, uh, materials that has come forward on this application?
No, certainly. So I've actually just got up reference to the pre-app that was provided. Yes, I was the case officer so that, this was earlier this year back in February this year. And we did have some discussions about the design of the dwelling and the pre-app does actually, as quotes:
"There is nothing objectionable to the actual design of the dwelling as a design in its own right, but it's important that the design and layout of the new development starts from the bottom up, i.e. with a good understanding of the site and the potential impact of any proposal on landscape character and the beauty of the AONB. It is not clear from the information submitted at this state, stage, whether the design and layout of the dwelling proposed is actually appropriate for this site. Consequently, I would suggest that the design of any dwelling is worked up after an LVIA has been prepared and in conjunction with advice from the Cornwall AONB team, in order to reflect any identified outcomes and impacts, and very careful consideration should be given to lining up any new build accommodation with Rame Head cottages, together with the introduction of hedgerows, etc., and landscaping."
So there was some discussions regarding the design, um, but I think ultimately, the fundamental objection here is to a development of this scale on this site in light of the visibility of the, um, of the site from the viewpoints that are mentioned within the officer report, um at this stage, in my view, there aren't any tweaks of the design that, that we could encourage, um, that would make it acceptable. Beyond some really significant design changes, you know, in relation to some kind of earthmound dwelling. There was some discussions of that I know with the AONB officer, um at pre-app stage, so, so, so that's sort of the, a precis of, of the advice that we've given.
That's great. Thank you.
Lovely, thank you. And next question is from Councillor Greenslade, over to you, Fred.
Thank you, Chairman. It's for Davina. Um, the, um, the point about visibility from a lot of different points of view, er, has been, er, made quite clear to us this morning. But my question is uh, the applicant I think, said he was prepared to build with red brick or something of that colour, and yet the planning department has insisted, I think, on a white rendered finish. Now, if we want a building to be recessive, I think the last colour we need really on a, on a headland is, is a white building. Now, what was the thought process behind that please?
Well done Fred.
Councillor Greenslade, um, I think, uh, the discussion that we'd had regarding red brick as far as I can recall, um, perhaps there's some kind of miscommunication there because the discussion as I recall it, was that red brick is a relatively unusual, um, material within the Cornish landscape, particularly in this area and Rame Head cottages is, is, quite unusual being a red brick building, there aren't very many of them. It's not the case that we've steered the applicant down the line of a white rendered building. Um, I've read out earlier, in my question to Councillor Craker, the advice that we gave at pre-app confirming that the design should be worked up, um, from, from the LVIA and the AONB comments. So we haven't steered the applicant down the road of a white rendered dwelling.
Okay, Fred?
Okay Chairman. That was not my impression of the discussions. That was all. Thank you.
Fine, thank you. Thank you, uh, Neil Burden, Councillor Burden.
Yes, uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can I just ask, Ms Pritchard, is there any former history to this field, of applications or anything?
Erm through, thank you, Chairman. So in terms of the history of the site, um, my understanding is that it was a former military site, um, many years ago in conjunction with a lookout station. Um, I am not aware of, actually sorry, there was obviously the pre-app that I gave earlier this year. And then earlier in 2016, um, there was also an inquiry regarding the site, um, but there's no planning approvals that have been granted on the site.
Thanks for that. And just to say, Launceston had a red brick works at, um, Drux, at Druxton. So, uh, red bricks are in East Cornwall, if nowhere else. Thank you.
Thank you, Neil and Councillor Foot, Jesse.
Thank you, Chairman for letting me come back in. It was really a question about the agricultural, uh, use of, of the application. And I'm just wondering if, in the future, if circumstances changed for the applicant, how would, how would this building be maintained as a, you know, he moved out for, for whatever reason would this building be maintained as an agricultural dwelling?
It's not our concern.
Um, if members were minded to approve the application, um, we would be recommending conditions, um, limiting occupation to an agricultural worker, um, and also the principal, reflect the principal occupancy conditions set out within the Rame Neighbourhood Development Plan. So it would remain, as an agricultural worker's dwelling, um, for either somebody employed or last employed in agriculture, because that's the wording of our standard condition. Um, and then it would depend on whether we faced an application, um, to remove that condition.
Right. Okay. Thank you very much.
Er Councillor Mould, Carol?
Oh, counc..sorry.
That's okay. We can hear you.
Ah you've gone again now, you're on mute again.
Sorry.
That's it, you're there.
Is that better? Thank you Mr. Chairman. Councillor Foot asked my question. Thank you.
Fine, er, Councillor Long.
Yes, thank you, Chairman. Um, it was just a quick question. I think I know the answer to it, but looking at your reasons for refusal Davina. Um, are you, is it the design and the size of the property that is, that is prompting or the principle of anything on that site?
Well Councillor Long, we, it, the reason for refusal refers to the sighting, the scale, the materials and the design. So it's a combination of all those factors, um, coming together, which mean we don't consider this as a suitable development for this landscape. Um, it could be the case in the future that another application came forward that presented a different set of circumstances because of the design as such. Um, so it, it is a combination of factors that were..
Right, okay. Okay, so it's a, it's not necessarily simply the principle of anything on that site. It's the actual application that was presented to us, with the various tenets of it, the height, the mass, the size, the colour, the materials used, that sort of thing.
Um, yeah. I, I obviously, we
Yeah, that's understandable, we don't need to do that. Don't worry. I won't push, push you down the road on that.
Fine. Thank you, Andrew. Thank you Davina. Um, according to my, the hand, there are a couple of hands still up, which I think have simply not been put down. But there's no one else on my, uh, screen here, Vice Chair for questions. Is that correct?
That's correct, Chairman.
Fine. In that case, members, we now move into the open debate. So who would like to start the debate off?
Um, I could speak if you like, Mr Chairman.
Yeah. Okay, Jim. Away you go.
Well, as I've alread, already indicated that I've been on the AONB partnership since 2002. And we actually wrote the first management plan. And it clearly states on that management plan that we assist and enhance anyone that is managing the land, er, either through overcrowding or whatever, and the buildings can be screened. This building here could be screened, uh, on two sides, and it would be, cut the visibility down to probably zero, other than the ridge height that possibly can be seen two miles out to sea. Um, I think there's a lot of things that the AONB officer has, er, put under the table a bit. Management of the, uh, coastline is essential for the access of the footpath, and to be enjoyed by thousands of people over the years, and because the family've lived there for some 200 years, it just proves that they care and are definitely interested in everything they're doing because farming is a lifelong occupation and unless they encourage people that know the area, I should think after 200 years of experience, they're the best people to be farming that land.
You can't expect three generations to be living in the same house, especially with a Covid lockdown and one thing and another. I should think it is very difficult for everyone to agree. And I think one thing that, that is probably paramount. A farm house is like a living factory. You've got computers, office, you need to be able to have rooms for, um, used clothes, got to be, er, probably the, the farm dogs'll probably come back there to live. It's an absolute need to build it and stick it up. And the applicant could actually extend his family to, the amount of children he's got. And he needs something big enough because hopefully, at some stage, one of his family would come back there to live and farm the application site. So, um, it's very difficult when you're on a tenanted farm, that is owned by the Mount Edgecombe Estate, which I was originally on the Mount Edgecombe and Plymouth City Management Committee. And I know how the estate runs, the estate runs that they want to be in charge of everything on the estate. Although this is tenanted out, it is very difficult for anyone to get any assets of the estate because it's so tied up with Cornwall Council and, uh, Plymouth City Council. They've both put copious amounts of money into keeping the estate running, and I feel that the applicant is doing the best he can.
Uh, coming back to the, uh, horse situation. I think he's doing that basically on his own back, Dartmoor ponies certainly don't make any money. And I think he's putting a lot in from his effort as a farm person to enhance that, he probably gets some payment on that AONB strip, because it's organic. He's looking after it to the best of his ability to the enhancement of the AONB. And I'm very surprised the AONB officer didn't come up with a management plan. He's looked at it specifically on the planning issues. Now as an officer of the AONB, he should have really brought through a lot of reasons why the AONB is like it is and how it's enhanced. Um, I'll leave that to the rest of the committee to make a decision. But, if it needs be I will put the proposal forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Jim. Erm, I'd like to say myself at this time, that, um, I listened to a lot of what you've just said, Jim, and Adrian's just said, because you're both farmers, but I have, personally I look at the design, here beside me on the table, and serving on Central, Strategic over the years, occasionally on West, and of course, obviously on East in the last two councils, I've seen many such properties come up on coastal areas like Bude, Perranporth, Polzeath and everything, with the similar amounts of glass on it and similar designs that have been frowned upon and argued against. And I just, I think an agricultural worker's entitled to live in a good size home suitable to his family. And I'm not saying they should be stuck in a prefab somewhere. No, most certainly not. But I consider this development to be too grand, the scale and design for that particular sensitive location, every respect to what the gentleman's doing. And I cover a rural area where I've had to, I've had to sit in front of this committee and argue on behalf of my own landlord, my own tenanted farmers with regards to building on land they own six miles down the road. They want, they need to get out to where they are, etc. And we've been down this road many times, but I do feel that this development, the four bedroom property, balconies, all the glass that's shown on the, on the, uh, on the drawings here. That would be questioned, I feel, well, it would have been questioned earlier over at the Steven Rushworth's area with everything like that, but I personally think it's a, it's a property that is out of character, over developed for that area. Having said that, Jane Pascoe.
Yes, Chair, thank you very much. I, I, I just wanted to come in and add something to what you said. Actually, as , I probably can reassure and I have sailed around Rame Head on ve, on on a regular basis. You, you actually will not be able to see this property from the sea, the only part of the, um, Coastguard cottages you can see is barely the tip of the ridge. Um, what you do see is the Coastguard hut with its glass and its mast. And what you will see around the corner is a whole load of prefabs, which could morph themselves into posh beach huts around on Freathy. But actually this property it, it, I, I visited the site as well last week. I, I believe this property, if the ridge height is below those Coastguard cottages, you will never see from the sea. Direct on, you may see it, you'll see, you, you won't even see it walking and when I stood at the chapel on the top, you couldn't see that site, the Coast Guard, the big Coast Guard look out, the, the white building is in the way. So I, I, actually just to reassure people, I don't think it's going to stand out like a sore thumb. I, I really genuinely don't.
Thank you. Councillor Parsons.
Thank you Chair. This is frustrating for me this application. What, I totally totally agree with what Councillor Pascoe has just said. Um, I totally agree with what the parish council have said, this, this would have actually been a really beneficial, um, application to have had a site visit. Because a lot of the emails we've received on this application and a lot of the, uh, other correspondence we've had, gives the impression that this, this house is going to stick out like a sore thumb. Trust me, yes, I am a farmer. I do what I, the best I can for the farming community. But that doesn't mean I blindly support every application that comes in from the farming community. To me, this site, as I asked Davina, for me, the site sits within a natural bowl. And that's almost good enough. But with the right screening, with the right landscaping, the impact would not be anything like what we've heard some speakers say today, if this application had been in the field above where the campsite is, no way in the world I'd be supporting it. And that's what, to be truthful, I expected when I went out to visit the site, from what I've seen and read, I expected this to be on top of the hill, sticking out there for everybody to see. It's, it's not like that. Um..
Sorry.
So you know, and also, what does, what really frustrates me is do we value, do we value a farming family who have managed this landscape, this, the reason why this application has got a chance is because it's for an ag-tied property. These landscapes have been farmed for generations, much of which is for the public good, which I don't actually think is appreciated enough, more so very often than for profit. And I'm worried that so many people have become detached from farming families, they fail to understand the blood, sweat and tears that goes into keeping these businesses alive. When I visited the site last week, as I said before, six people were out there walking dogs, none on leads, none on leads, with a group of ponies, not more than 40 yards away, you know, you could see they were taking note of what was happening. What happens when a pony gets driven over a cliff? What happens, well, this guy lambs 410 sheep, what happens at lambing time? Do we expect these people to be renting in a local village 5 to 10 miles away because they can't afford to buy property. You know, we, we all know the issues then when farming families move into estates, we've got vehicle movements coming in and out at all hours of the day, that causes problems, or is it good enough for these people with young families to live in mobile homes because they've got no option of anywhere else to build? You know, for me, that's not good enough. And, for those reasons, having visited the site, having seen what the County Land Agent's report read, and said, and having seen and listened to the guy from the parish council, I fully support this application. And I would be happy to go against officer's recommendation, um, and put it forward please.
You want to propose it now, do you propose against recommendation?
Against recommendation
Right.
Jim here.
I, I would, I would like to come in at this point and say that I would be more supportive of it if there had been reports of the sheep going over the cliff on a regular basis over the years and ponies, being a great animal lover, I would have, I would have shuddered at the thought of that. And I had an application out at Blisland, Cardinham area, in my division, where a farmer had tenanted land, which he had to attend, and he needed to live closer to, because he had, in actual fact, lost about 48 sheep in the previous four years, five years, on the A30 road, breaking out, which was taken into consideration, but but there was no mention of ponies or sheep going over the cliff, which would have perhaps, supported me somewhat on this.
But also, Adrian, I would point out that, Bolventor, for instance, only, only yesterday I spoke to my wife about it as we were coming down the A30 towards Bodmin. Bolventor to me was an example of, of, two issues here. One was that years ago, a big modern, light coloured house was built on the horizon which sticks out like a carbuncle. It was past pre-NPPF days and built a few years ago, sticks out like a carbuncle, ruining the head, the, the, the horizon as you come over and look at Bolventor, but even more than that, one of the main things about coming over the brow of that hill towards Bolventor was that your eyes automatically clapped on to the beautiful, world famous, ancient, built in 1839, Jamaica Inn. Now, as you well know Adrian, a very good friend of mine owns it. But, yesterday, I only commented that we, as the planning officers on this committee, passed the extension to that building for more rooms, and the extension is on the, the eastern side of it. So now when you come over the, brow of the hill you see some fantastic hotel rooms and frontage and you can no longer see the magnificent old Jamaica Inn, and I feel that things like that can affect you. That's AONB and whatnot, but it can it can affect, well, the vision of these things. The carbuncle of the house was well and truly done and we couldn't stop that, that's gone. We wouldn't allow it today. But, the, just the change to the Jamaica Inn, changed the whole approach to Bolventor, the ancient village of Bolventor suddenly became more like a, you know, a trust house 40 hotel, but, and that's how I feel I feel this house is out of character for that area. I won't be supporting it personally. But I'll go on to...
Jim here
the next speaker, Carol Mould.
Sorry.
Well, yeah, Carol, Carol Mould. Next one up.
Thank you, Mr Chairman. Erm, I feel along the lines you do of this application. And I'm always concerned that, if, if this, I would like to see a more modest design, I think this is, this is a large and light pollution is something that, they suffer from, from these houses all over. I feel, and I'm never really sure that, that the two years up the road these conditions applied to these houses don't get lifted. Now, and I don't want this to sound the way, it's it's not meant to sound in, in a detrimental way but I feel a, a smaller design, a lesser bulk development is much, is just generally much better and conditions then tend not to get lifted. You, you know, you cannot plan for the future for these things, you cannot, and I have seen conditions lifted on inappropriate buildings so many times and they've been lost and then never lost to the people that should live in them. They're lost to second homes or they're lost to people with a bigger wallet. And I feel that this is setting a very dangerous precedent. So I fully understand the need for farmers and agriculture dwellings. The farms around here, we all have them. They all have them, but they are tied to the farm and they're tied to the farm in such a way they stay with the farm and cannot be sold separately. And that's one of the concerns I have with this, along with the design. So I will be, um, voting with the uh, for refusal of, for the, um, officer's recommendation. Thank you.
Andrew Long.
Could I come in, please, Mr. Chairman?
Yes, thank you.
Yes, I'll bring you in in a moment Jim.
Thank you.
Thank you, thank you Chairman. Um, I'm looking at, I'm really, really torn with this application. Um, on the one hand, you know, with a AONB, yes there are, there are policies to protect the AONB, but set against that are policies to deal with buildings in the countryside for agricultural workers, and there is a specific policy to deal with that. So we've got two competing policies here and it's a question of where the balance lies between the two, my issue I've got with this is the size of it. I don't have an issue with the, um, with the principle, provided that it's, the building is of, suitably designed for that particular area. I,
I can't, I don't believe I can support it at the moment. I can support a principle of it, provided we get with a, a, and add a better design property that is less congruous, um, less impactful on the, on the countryside. I don't necessarily agree hundred percent with the AONB that they hold sway over all of it, but where there is competing policy, we've got to balance the two together. And, Councillor Parsons, most of what he said I completely agree with, is there is that we, we have a need for the stewardship of the countryside. Unfortunately, we've been failed miserably in the past by people not doing that. Um, as far as conditions are concerned. Yes, we need to, we need to be complete, we need to be so solid on our opposition to change of use of, especially buildings for agricultural use to go then into public, just general occupation, because in a general occupation there would never have been given permission. And as I say, there is a particular policy we're looking at here, where you are talking about, um, Policy 7, which deals with agriculture and, um, the Cornwall local plan. So I'm, I'm torn between this but I'm, I think I'm veering on the side that I can't support the current application, as it is at the moment. Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Parsons, anything new, not old, new.
Just in reply to your statement a minute ago, Councillor Batters, with regard to the cottage that we all know and see as we drive down the A30, that one is shambolic. If this was anything like that, do you think I would hang my hat on it? No, I wouldn't. I genuinely feel, I genuinely feel people are being slightly misled with the application site here. When we, I took me son with me, we walked out to...
Can I ask for new input, we've already been there.
A lot of this is being factored on the visual impact this will have, when we went out to the St. Michael's chapel, I said to my son, right when we get here, what do you look at? We look at the sea. We look at the coastline, you turn around, and you can see this monstrosity. I know it's already there. And I know we don't want to add to, to the. Well, what it is, of the Coastguard lookout centre, with an antennae, that completely obscures the view from that angle of this site. If you were to go to the west, you've got the Coastguard cottages, of which the top Coastguard cottage will be far more visible from any vantage point, than what this site would be. And that's why, what concerns me is this is gonna fall on visual impact, which I feel, I get the scale and the mass a little bit. But the trouble is, what, I get the feeling nothing is acceptable on this site. Well if nothing's acceptable, that's fine. But
I, I don't think, interrupting you. I don't think
I'll stop there.
What you've heard so far is not, not that nothing's acceptable. I haven't said that, nor has Councillor Mould, nor has Councillor Long
Totally agree.
We're concerned about the application that has been submitted for the property in front of us. That's, that's the thing but Jim Flashman.
Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman
Can I also speak Mr. Chairman.
It was pointed out by the, um, AONB officer that he would, would consider a grand design. No, I know most farming families couldn't afford a grand design, he's going to build something that he can afford to build and finish it. I see a lot of farmers that have got application sites passed, take them 20 years to finish it because of the impact, of the cost, of the, of the business. Er, he has, he has put forward his application site with a realistic cost build, that he can build and move his family into. But what is the point of putting a grand design that probably the AONB may support, just, just on a whim. I think it's absolutely wrong. If we agreed to this application site and agreed to tree screening, which the applicant has agreed that he would do, I think that the, um, conditions will be all about approving it. I would like to go. I don't know if anybody's put up, I think Adrian put up for, um, proposing it, and I would like to second it.
Right, fine. Thank you. Can I, Derek Holley, Councillor Holley, were you trying to get in there, because I thought I heard you in the background but there's no hand up.
Councillor Holley.
Hello. I'm so sorry about all that. Yes, I'm just...
You're very, very faint, Derek.
I'm having awful trouble this morning, Mr. Chairman.
That's okay.
with my, my Plusnet broadband, um, I just want to make a comment, if I may, I've listened to the arguments to and fro. I know the site really well. I've been up again to see it. But I do know it really well. And I've done some, quite a lot of scientific studies up there, uh, of various sorts on both sides of the coast, Polhawn up the top and around, around the site itself, and looking at the flora and fauna, particular the flora. So I do know the site really well, um, and it, as everything else, Mr. Chairman, this is a case of balance, as we know, and it's a case of weight we give to the different things. Um, I've listened to the arguments quite a lot of them emotive about the difficulties of farming and, um, and the difficulties with dogs and bad dog owners who let their dogs run wild and all the rest of it. Um, I give, I give that relatively little weight, I must say. Um, I do give some weight to the difficulty of the farming situation here and I appreciate the comments from the, um, County Land Agent, which are clearly valid. But what, what keeps coming back to my mind is that what we're looking at here is an AONB, which isn't just the view from the chapel. It isn't just the view from the, the headland at the top. It isn't just the view from the sea. The AONB here is a total experience and it's, it includes for example, the, the ride up or the walk up, the look at the, er, lychgate of the church there and, um, and you marvel at the twisted spire and all the rest of it. And, and as he wind away along you look at the old Coastguard cottages, which seem to sit nicely in the landscape, the AONB, there is the whole thing. And it, the whole thing if you, if you, if you bear that in mind, you've got to consider how sensitive the whole thing is to new development.
And again, like Councillor Long, I'm not against new development, but I, I've got, I'm coming down to the idea, and I think I'm, I've also read and I do thank the people who have written to me about this for the, for the comments, I've noted them all. I'm coming down to the idea that simply by it's sort of size and design this is, it doesn't respond properly to the sensitivity of the AONB here. Um, it's a rounded thing we've got to consider, it's not just the view from here or the view from there, or how, how bad the, um, Coastguard Station is, which we know, we know that, we know these things. It is an extremely important part of Cornwall and, in it's AONB. Some parts of the AONBs in Cornwall, you know, look more or less like countryside , but this is such a sensitive site. It's an iconic site in many ways, and we've got to remember that when we consider it, and like Councillor Long says, basically this this, what this comes down to is the fact that this building doesn't reflect the needs of the AONB there. It's too big, it's too high, it's too modern. It's, it's something that would sit very well on a, in a, in a really expensive estate on the outskirts of London. It'd look really nice, you know, but not here. I think this, I think this is in its whole, if you take the whole approach of the AONB, this is just the wrong design in the wrong size in it for this. I don't, I just can't support it in that case, Mr. Chairman, so I'll be backing the officer's recommendation on this, which I think is right, the officer's got it about right on this.
Thank you Derek.
Difficult balance. Thank you Mr Chairman.
Councillor Burden, followed by Councillor Greenslade, I, your hand was up, Fred but it's back down, but I'll come to you in a moment if you like. Councillor Burden.
...you Mr Chairman. We're in a conundrum really. Uh, the, the farmer qualifies, he ticks all the boxes. But my concerns two, one is, uh, if I was lambing all these sheep I would want to be living beside, or very near walking distance of the sheep shed . And therefore, something within the Penmillard Farm or very close by would be essential. And I, I don't understand that if you, uh, are a tenant of a farm, the tenant is expected to live in the main house. That is one of the conditions of being a tenant farmer. But I, I just feel that it's odd really, the farm ticks the boxes. Er, you know, he, he has the need, etc, etc., and now has chosen the site, and I just wonder if there's some way around, getting the estate to allow, uh, him to convert a, a, a building. The other issue, and that is more serious, really, if we agreed to this application to what land is this agricultural condition connected to? What land, because, uh, we assume that the applicant doesn't own any of the land but this plot, and therefore how can we, how, how can he fulfil that condition? That's the two things. Thanks.
Thank you, Neil. Fred, coming across to you.
I don't wish to comment now, Chairman. Thank you.
Fine, thank you. Right. Are there any other comments? Fresh comments anyone wishes to add to this, for the moment? Anything on your scre, I can't see any on mine Vice Chair?
That's it Chair. Oh, Councillor Eddy has come in.
Yep, Councillor Eddy? Come on in Martin.
Yeah. Thank you, Chairman, I've listened to the debate with, with great interest and, and listened to everyone's comments with great care. Erm, I find myself with an application here that has 27 windows in it. 27 windows. Er, I'm, i'm concerned that, uh, about the visibility of this, the mass of it, the style of it in this, in this very sensitive area, and I, I, I do have some serious concerns. The last, the last slide that, um, Davina put up, um, showed some white cottages nestled into the cliff there and I was struck how they, how highly visible they were being rendered white. Um, so if, if we're minded to pass this application, I don't know if we can condition it so that it actually isn't white, that it's some other colour that fits more naturally into the landscape. I mean, those five caravans, you can see those from miles away. Um, and so I am, I'm, I'm, I am concerned, I'm not against putting, uh, a building on this site of, uh, that would meet the need, but that I'm concerned about the mass, the size and the design of it, Chairman.
Thank you, Martin. Right. I think we've come to, uh, the last of our speakers now, in that case. If you could drop your hand down please, Martin. Um, Councillor Parsons, would you like to come forward with your reasons to oppose recommendation, please?
Yeah, will do Chairman. Policy Seven. The, the, the development of new homes in the open countryside will only be permitted where there are special circumstances, full time agriculture and other rural occupation workers where there is up to date evidence of an essential need of the business for the occupier to live in that specific location as supported by the County Land Agent.
Fine, Davina, did you want to say anything on that? On those, er, those reasons?
Um yep, certainly. I mean, I think those those, that reason is reasonable. Um, the issue here, as everybody knows is about the balance of considerations, so the agricultural need versus the AONB landscape. Um, I do have some suggestions for conditions Chairman, if you'd like to hear them now?
Erm, yes, if you wish.
Okay, so, um, we would recommend a standard time limit condition, um a condition requiring the development to be built in accordance with the approved plans, um conditions limiting occupancy to an agricultural worker, um, and also reflecting the principal occupancy requirements set out in the NDP. Um, removal of permitted development rights to ensure that the size of the dwelling remains commensurate with the agricultural need, uh landscaping to include the new boundary treatments, um bund, the bunding and the, the planting, um the recommend, condition to secure the recommendations set out in the ecology report. Um, and finally perhaps to reflect Councillor Eddy's comments, um a condition requiring details of the finishes to the dwellings, including the colour, um, with a, with a view to trying to secure a muted colour to the elevations. Thank you.
Lovely, thank you very much. Right members. We have a proposal from Councillor Parsons, seconded by Councillor Flashman, and the proposal is to approve this application against officer recommendation. So you're approving it against officer recommendation or you are against it. So across to you Rowena.
Thank you, um when I call your name, please indicate how you wish to vote. Councillor Burden.
Uh, against the recommendation.
Councillor Craker.
For.
Councillor Eddy.
For.
Sorry, can you repeat that my, my audio isn't perfect. Councillor Eddy.
Sorry, I'm for the recommendation.
To approve?
Yes, Chairman.
Thank you. Councill...Councillor Flashman?
For approval.
Councillor Greenslade?
For.
Councillor Holley?
Councillor Holley?
Against the recommendation for approval.
Thanks, Councillor Williams?
I'm for the, uh, application.
Councillor Long?
Against.
Councillor May?
Councillor May?
Councillor May said she's left, Mr Chairman.
Councillor May, can you indicate how you wish to vote please? I can't hear you.
Sarah Goodall, Meeting Producer. Councillor May
I'm getting error signals.
Councillor May has left the meeting, Rowena. Can you hear me? It's Sarah?
Can you, can I just confirm you said for, Councillor Pascoe?
Yes, I'm, I'm, I'm for the recommendation against the officer.
Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Pugh?
Against
Councillor Pat, Parsons?
For
and Councillor Batters?
Against.
Mr, Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question?
Yes.
I think there was some confusion at the beginning about how people voted.
Well, that's why I questioned it actually Neil, I thought that, um.
Councillor Eddy said he was against it, and then voted for it.
Yes.
Could you double check on that, Rowena? Because I think there was, that's why I mentioned it at the time.
Okay, I'll go through the list again, I will disregard what I've just noted down and if we could go through members in favour of the proposal, which is for approval of this application, so indicate whether you're for or against approval of this particular application. I will read the names again. Councillor Burden?
Against the..
Councillor Craker?
For the proposal.
Councillor Eddy?
I'm for the proposal
Councillor Flashman?
For proposal
Councillor Greenslade?
For, for the second time.
Councillor Holley?
Against
Councillor Williams?
For the proposal
Councillor Long?
Against
Councillor Mould?
Against, against.
Councillor Pascoe?
For
Councillor Pugh?
Against
Councillor Parsons?
For
and Councillor Batters?
Against
So the application has been approved by seven votes to six.
Could I have my name registered please as being against?
Okay, yes.
And mine, Councillor Holley's, as being registered as being against. Thank you.
And mine please, Councillor Mould.
Yeah.
Okay
Noted Chairman.
Fine. In that case, it brings us to the end of today's business, members. Thank you very much for your attendance. And, um, we'll wait for Sarah to tell us we're off the air, before we go into any casual conversations. Thank you very much for your attendance. And thank you to all the speakers today as well. Thank you very much.
