MEMBERS of a Cornwall Council planning committee have voiced concerns that they felt coerced by the government’s new house-building policy into approving an application for homes in a village which has previously been refused twice.

The permission in principle (PiP) bid by E Trewin & Sons for five open market houses in Marhamchurch proved unpopular with the council’s new east area planning committee today (Monday, June 9) but members felt stymied by Labour’s new house-building framework, which aims for 1.5-million new homes by 2029. The figure equates to 4,421 new homes being built annually in Cornwall.

The council’s planning department stated that residential land use was appropriate for the site and recommended approval. However, local Liberal Democrat member Cllr Nicky Chopak brought it before the committee due to various concerns, echoed by Marhamchurch Parish Council.

She said the planning committee had seen the application twice before, in 2016 and 2017, when it was refused due to concerns about development in the open countryside, lack of sustainability and the unknown impact on at least eight listed heritage assets, including the “important Bude inclined plane, one of only a few remaining in the world”. Heritage impacts weren’t given as a reason for refusal with the second application as those concerns had been addressed, a planning officer stressed.

The Bude Canal, which is close to the application site, uses the inclined plane to overcome elevation changes instead of traditional locks. The inclined plane is one of only four in the country.

She said: “We have a PiP before us with no apparent changes made from those previous applications and no mitigation offered for any of the impacts which were highlighted at refusal. A PiP appears to be a way of providing planning without any detail and provides permission through the back door.”

Cllr Chopak said the government’s new housing numbers, announced last year, are being used as a “big stick for these type of developments to be given the green light. This is unacceptable in my eyes and Cornwall Council needs to be strong in resisting this application”.

She added that Marhamchurch Neighbourhood Plan clearly showed the application was outside the defined development boundary. The councillor for Poundstock said that 28 properties had already been approved for the village and Marhamchurch could not cope with an additional five. She urged the committee to refuse.

James Trewin, for the applicant, said the development would be a modest extension to the village and would be immediately adjacent to an existing development. He added it was not an isolated incursion into the open countryside and, if approved, would respect the character of the area.

Mr Trewin said concerns had been raised about access but the site was served by an existing road and is connected to the public right of way that leads to the village centre and canal path. Mr Trewin added that the proposal would contribute to the housing need in the area without causing harm.

Newly elected committee vice-chair Cllr Mark Gibbons (Independent, Looe East & Deviock) said the council was in a very different planning environment than it had been: “I hate to see the Neighbourhood Development Plan being overturned and compromised as they take a great deal of effort, but we’re in a legal position where it’s very difficult to stand against some of this.”

He added: “We’re all going to have to get used to having an allocation of housing applied in our areas that we probably feel is unrealistic and unrequired in some way, and is going to be almost impossible to deliver in terms of logistics, materials and workforce.” Cllr Gibbons said the planning goalposts had been moved by the Government and “we’re seeing it very clearly in this application”.

Cllr Adrian Parsons (Liberal Democrat, Altarnun and Stoke Climsland) – who was elected as committee chair at the start of the meeting – said the whole issue was “incredibly frustrating”. Members aired their concerns that they felt “coerced” by Government policy to allow the application.

The chair said he was unhappy that there was so little detail at the PiP stage and he was “really not comfortable” with the application, particularly its possible impact on the landscape, but he didn’t think the committee had enough planning policy reasons to go against it.

The application was approved somewhat begrudgingly by six votes in favour, four against and no abstentions. The full technical details will be discussed at a later stage.