A CORNWALL Council planning committee found itself in an “awful position” today (Tuesday, August 5) when it approved an application for almost 100 houses it originally voted against. The meeting heard that the new development could cause “misery” and “awful problems” for existing residents of a Cornish town.

Knowlton Holdings Ltd had applied for outline permission to build 92 homes on 4.4 hectares of land directly to the south of Wadebridge abutting The Culvery and Meadowhead residential estates. The meeting at Cornwall’s Chy Trevail offices in Bodmin heard that 4.3 hectares of the site was on best and most versatile agricultural land.

The application was brought before the east area planning committee by local member Cllr Robin Moorcroft due to his concerns relating to transport and public safety, and also because a similar, albeit larger, proposal was refused on the site a few years ago.

Mayor of Wadebridge Cllr Ian Welch said his town council did not support the application on the grounds of public safety, based on pedestrian safety along nearby Trevanion Road especially at a pinch-point known as The Narrows. Cornwall Council’s highways and planning departments had advised the application would not cause any road safety issues in the area.

“Whilst we note the planning officer’s report, we’ve yet to see the substantive proposals for pedestrian paths which will ensure that safety,” said Cllr Welch, who added there is not enough space at points along Trevanion Road for two cars to pass.

Rob Collett, from agents Luken Beck on behalf of the applicant, said there had been a comprehensive consultation process and the proposal had been revised where possible. He stressed the development – which includes 30% affordable housing – would help meet demand in the area.

He said the works would include a new pavement along Trevanion Road, adding that access and road works have been audited as safe and the council’s highways officers had raised no objections. Mr Collett said the development would include open recreation space alongside well-designed homes, as well as delivering the required 10% biodiversity net gain. He added there had been no objections from any technical consultee.

Cllr Moorcroft said there had been an overwhelming number of representations and objections from Wadebridge residents. “In May 2017 an application to build on this land was rejected on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. That was for 192 dwellings, yet the principles for refusal are the same,” he told the committee.

“The development would result in huge conflict of additional traffic using The Platt, which is a popular and intensively used area by pedestrians, cyclists and mobility scooter users. In addition, conflict would be created at The Culvery/ Trevanion Road junction,” he added.

The Independent councillor for Wadebridge West and St Mabyn said the application failed to produce an adequate design to ensure the safety of all road users at that part of Wadebridge’s road network. “The Culvery junction with Trevanion Road is totally inadequate to safely deal with the increased number of vehicles,” added Cllr Moorcroft, who said that land to the north of Wadebridge would be much more suitable for housing development and would provide safer transport links.

Cllr Jane Pascoe said: “If you put in another pavement in Trevanion Road to make it safer for walkers and cyclists, you are really going to be hindering motorists, particularly if cars have to park outside the houses.”

“I bet the residents of Trevanion Road haven’t been told there’s a possibility they won’t be able to park outside their properties,” responded Cllr James O’Keefe. “I don’t think those residents are going to be very happy when they find out they’re going to have to park in other roads outside someone else’s properties.”

Councillors heard that residents have no right to park outside their properties. The committee was advised it was at risk of being seen as unreasonable if it turned down the application on highways grounds when it had heard from the council’s experts that the proposal was safe.

“I don’t like that we’re losing best and most versatile agricultural land,” added Cllr Pascoe. “Once it’s gone, it’s gone. Food and farming is essential to this area of Cornwall.” She agreed it would be wrong to refuse on highways grounds, but added she felt it would be “misery” for people living on Trevanion Road. “I think it will create awful problems – we’ve seen it time and time again with other developments, but Highways are saying it’s safe and there is room for an extra pavement.”

Cllr Jim Candy noted the officers’ reports about highway safety and recommended approval, which Cllr Pascoe “reluctantly” seconded. The vote for approval was lost by four votes in favour and five against. The committee broke for 20 minutes to discuss reasons they could suggest for refusal.

On their return, committee members mooted a number of possibilities including overall impact on Wadebridge, the size of development and increase of infrastructure pressures on schools and healthcare in the town as well as the impact on the skyline. The meeting heard that mitigations had been agreed concerning infrastructure pressures in the town, so it wouldn’t form a reason for refusal. Officers added there would be little planning defence for their other suggestions.

Cllr Candy said as there were no solid reasons for refusal being suggested and the council did not have a five-year housing land supply under the Government’s new planning directives, he would recommend approval again with the inclusion of a construction management plan. “I think a lot of us would like to abstain from some of these tricky ones as we don’t want to support them, but planning is about policy.”

“There is no reason we can possibly defend by refusing it,” added Cllr Pascoe, saying the committee was in an “awful position”. A new vote approved the application by five votes in favour and four against.

Under the Government’s new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Cornwall Council must now plan for 4,421 homes annually, a significant increase from the previous 2,707. This shift is prompting a review of the current Local Plan, as older plans may not meet the new housing requirements.