Farmer's plans to build on Rame Head go to High Court

The Rame Protection group had secured a judicial review in the High Court over Cornwall Council’s decision to approve plans for a four-bedroom house on the Rame Peninsula last summer.

The council’s  east sub-area planning committee had approved the plans by just one vote going against the council’s own planning officers who had recommended it should be refused due to the impact it would have on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Chris Wilton, whose family have farmed in the area for more than 200 years, had applied to build the property which he said was needed to provide a home for his family.

He said he had been forced to live in a caravan next to the farmhouse, which is used by his parents, and this was no longer suitable for his family.

Under planning guidelines AONBs are given protected status which prevents them from being impacted by unsuitable development.

The Rame Protection Group had objected to the application saying that the proposed house was too big and an inappropriate design for the location.

However the planning committee decided to go against the officers’ recommendation saying that the need for a home for the farmer outweighed the harm to the AONB.

The Rame Protection Group applied for a judicial review saying that the full reasons for the approval had not been provided by the committee when it made its decision.

It also said that the minutes of the meeting provided by the council also failed to provide the full detailed reasons for granting planning approval.

They said that the committee had not explained fully why they were going against the recommendation to refuse the application made by the professional planning officers.

Mrs Justice Tipples, sitting in a virtual hearing of the High Court, heard the details of the case on behalf of the campaigners and Cornwall Council over February 25 and 26.

The proposed design of the new house to be built at Rame Head

Ben Fullbrook, acting on behalf of the Rame Protection Group, explained to the court that the vote had been “extremely close” with seven votes in favour of approval and six against.

And he highlighted that three of the councillors who voted in favour “gave no indication for reasons, they didn’t contribute to the discussion at all, they didn’t say anything”.

He then added: “One of those councillors voting in favour, Councillor Eddy, spoke only to express his concern about the mass, size and design of the development.”

Mr Fullbrook said that Cllr Eddy’s comments made during the meeting were only giving reasons for refusing permission but he then voted to approve it.

Looking at the minutes from the meeting Mr Fullbrook he said that the five points from the debate had by the committee three were on issues which would be grounds to refuse the application.

And he highlighted that when Mr Parsons proposed that the application should be approved the only reason he gave was because it was essential for the applicant to work on the farm.

Mr Fullbrook said that the minutes should have provided the reasons for the committee deciding to go against the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

He said that the committee should have explained fully why they did not consider that the application would harm the AONB.

With the planning officer having set out a clear reason for why the application should have been refused due to the harm to the AONB it stood to reason that the committee should have to provide full reasons why they did not think that was the case in making their decision to grant planning permission.

And he added that the decision to approve the application went against the council’s own planning policy and there had been no explanation as to why the committee decided to go against those guidelines.

Sancho Brett, acting on behalf of Cornwall Council, said that while planning policy gave great weight to the need to protect the AONB from harm it did not prevent any development from happening in the AONB.

Mr Brett said: “It is not saying that development should not be allowed it is saying that it can be permitted where required.”

He said that there had been a clear need identified for the new home and that this had not been disputed by the planning officer.

And he said that from the discussions at the committee meeting the councillors felt that the application did accord with development policy as councillors felt that there was a need for the home to support the agricultural enterprise and works.

Mr Brett also argued that elected councillors are allowed to make their own decisions based on the information that they receive at a committee meeting.

He said that the councillors had provided reasons for granting approval showing that the need for the home outweighed the potential harm on the AONB.

But Mr Fullbrook had argued that the decision to approve the application also included a series of conditions which had not been considered by the committee when granting approval and were added to the minutes after the meeting.

Mr Brett said that it was standard practice for planning permission to be granted in line with conditions which could then be drawn up by planning officers after the meeting and then inserted.

He said that it would be “too burdensome” for the planning committee to fully consider all applications and provide reasons for them being applied.

Mr Brett highlighted that in making their decision the committee had agreed a condition that the property could not be used as a holiday or second home and that occupants would have to have a link to the farm.

He added that councillors “are not planning professionals, they are elected councillors addressing a number of applications”.

However he did later add that councillors sitting on planning committees have to undergo full training and are assisted by the council’s planning officers.

But he said that councillors should not be expected to give detailed and full reasons for their decisions and any conditions that they might attach to applications which are approved.

Mr Fullbrook said that when the committee indicated that it was going to approve the planning application the meeting should have been paused in order for legal and planning advice to be provided to councillors so that they could draw up full reasons for approval as well as the conditions which should be attached to the approval.

Mr Brett, for Cornwall Council, dismissed this and said that all the appropriate steps had been taken by the committee.

He said that the legal claim from the Rame Protection Group was an “effort to get the matter back to the committee for a different result because the complainant doesn’t like the application”.

Mrs Justice Tipples said that she would reserve her judgement and inform all interested parties in writing by Easter.