EACH week, hundreds of planning applications come before Cornwall Council’s planning department, seeking to win approval for various plans right across the Duchy, with some concerning Holsworthy handled by Torridge District Council.

These plans can comprise of a number of different reasonings – ranging from permission to replace windows or listed building consent ranging up to large house building developments or changing of use of a building, for instance, from an office to a café, or flats.

Within this large and often complex system, there are a number of formats from which planning advice and approval can be sought.

These range from full applications where all the details which comprise a proposed development or work to a building are submitted, to outline applications, where further details are yet to be confirmed, for example, an outline application with reserved matters for appearance may not confirm the final proposed development but rather seek permission in principle.

An example of this is one for an outline permission for 20 dwellings on land with reserved matters for appearance and scale; the reserved matters would require further permission later for their inclusion.

Other types of applications include pre-application advice requests, where would-be developers submit often outline proposals to a local authority to ascertain whether it is likely to gain support or not prior to submitting a planning application.

The vast majority of applications are decided by planning officers employed by a local authority under ‘delegated powers’, meaning they do so on behalf of their employer, however, some applications are ‘called in’ by local councillors to be discussed at an area’s strategic planning committee meeting, meaning the final decision rests with a committee of councillors.

AN application for the construction of a rural cabin on the grounds of a property for residential use in St Teath has been refused by Cornwall Council’s planning department.

The agent for the applicant said in a planning statement: “Jon Hughes Architectural Services has been instructed to act on behalf of Mr Z Perisic to prepare and submit this planning application for the proposed construction of a cabin on land adjacent to Gwyn Fenton, Whitewall. St Teath.

My client has lived in the property for many years with his wife who sadly has recently passed away.

“My client is now struggling to continue living in the property but due to his work commitments and workshop located on the adjacent land wishes to construct a simple cabin which will enable him to remain in the immediate area.

“He does spend time in Los Angeles where he is a multi-award winning special effects director but his daughter lives in St Teath and the construction of this cabin will enable him to remain close to her.

“The hamlet of Whitewell lies to the west of the village. Gwyn Fenton is situated within the hamlet and composes of a detached dwelling and a workshop situated on the adjacent section of land owned by my client.”

St Teath Parish Council neither objected to or supported the scheme, merely telling Cornwall Council: “Councillors wanted to check that Planners are aware of the proximity to the stream as the road is continually wet”

The planning officer responsible for the case, Craig Hewitt concluded: “The proposal is considered contrary to the development plan when read as a whole. The proposal as a result of its size and location, fails to represent genuine ancillary development, resulting in the creation of a new dwelling in the open countryside, without and special justification.

“The proposed development is in a rural, countryside location detached from the nearest settlement of St Teath which offer a range of services, facilities and access to public transport. Furthermore, the applicant has not submitted a nutrient calculator, as is required by virtue of being situated within the River Camel catchment area. Consequently, this application is recommended for refusal under delegated authority. All other matters raised have been taken into account, but none is of such significance as to outweigh the considerations that have led to the conclusion.”

Refusing the application, Cornwall Council told the applicant: “The proposed development would result in a large self-contained unit of living accommodation which, given its excessive scale, degree of self-containment, physical separation from, and lack of functional link with, the main dwelling, would be tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling in an unsustainable location in the open countryside without any special overriding justification, where future occupiers would be heavily dependent on private vehicles to access local services and facilities. The proposal fails to represent a genuine ancillary development. Furthermore, the applicant has not submitted a nutrient calculator, as is required by virtue of being situated within the River Camel catchment area.”

THE change of use and conversion of a piggery to form a holiday cottage near Tintagel has been refused by Cornwall Council.

It concerned land east of Kilcummer, Tregeath Lane, Trewarmett, Tintagel.

The planning agent for the applicant stated: “This application seeks planning permission to convert a redundant piggery into a two-bedroom holiday cottage (C3 dwelling in holiday use). The proposed works include internal remodelling, thermal upgrades, and minor external improvements.

“There is no planned extension beyond the existing footprint, and surrounding areas will be landscaped with wildflower planting and a rockery using local Cornish stone. Full landscaping and design reports, prepared by a local planner, are included with this application. The conversion would be an extension of the existing holiday cottage business successfully run by the owner of the redundant barn and land.”

However it was refused by Cornwall Council citing two reasons for doing so.

It was stated: “The proposed development is in a rural, countryside location detached from the nearest settlements of Trewarmett and Tintagel which offer a range of services, facilities and access to public transport.

“The site is not in a sustainable location in respect of accessibility and would perpetuate over reliance on the private vehicle and unsustainable traffic movements, failing to address the environmental aspects of sustainability in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and contributing towards a reduction in carbon emissions.

“In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the existing building is not considered appropriate to retain, neither has it been demonstrated that the building is suitably constructed to enable its re-use without a significant level of structural work.

“The development therefore represents an undesirable and sporadic form of development which would promote a reliance on private vehicles. The limited beneficial aspects to the tourist economy do not outweigh the identified environmental harm. The proposal fails to provide a well-balanced mix of economic, social and environmental benefits.

“The application fails to demonstrate that the proposal would benefit from the demin imis exemption in respect of Biodiversity Net gain. Based on the information submitted and that available to the Local Planning Authority, it appears that the site is likely to impact more than 25sqm of habitat and it has not been demonstrated that the existing habitat on site would have a biodiversity value of zero.”