Objections and Concerns
Prior to the PA20/03747 planning proposal being decided, members of the public submitted more than 130 objections. These fell in three broad categories:
Development site viewed from the southwest. The roofs of Ramehead Cottages are on the right of the image. The caravans in the background are parked on land controlled by the applicant (Photo: Rame Protection Group)
Agricultural Tie
Is an Agricultural Occupation Condition is relevant in this case? The applicant is currently accommodated in the 5/6-bedroomed farmhouse of the farm co-tenanted to himself and his father. As the Design and Access Statement provided in support of the application makes clear, he wishes to move himself and his family one kilometre away in order to use his current accommodation to help sustain a non-agricultural business activity during the summer months (B&B and operating a caravan/camping site). Para 55/79 of the National Planning Policy Framework envisages the opposite; namely that the additional person for whom the agricultural dwelling is to be built should live at or very close to their work on that holding (for example, if looking after an intensive livestock rearing unit). In this case there is no additional worker, the one concerned is already housed on site and wishes to move further away.
Coast Path to Rame Head. Andrew Bone - CC BY 2.0
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
Many objections have focussed on the inappropriateness of a modern property on an otherwise unspoilt headland but the more substantive argument concerns the infringement of the legislation governing the conservation of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). As the Cornwall AONB Planning Officer has pointed out the proposed house will be highly visible from numerous points, including the Grade II* listed St Michael’s Chapel on Rame Head, from the sea and from numerous paths including the main footpath to the headland that passes under 10 metres away from the proposed property. The land in question is 2m higher than that of the adjacent cottages built in the 19th century by the Admiralty to house a coastguard station.
The endangered cirl bunting. Jacob Spinks - CC BY 2.0
Natural Environment and Biodiversity
A further group of objectors have commented on the impacts of a new house on the natural environment and on biodiversity (including the proximity to the neighbouring SSSI). The unspoilt headland is home to a number of rare and protected species, including the cirl bunting that had been known to nest and forage on the land in question before it was cleared. A related concern is the possibility of damage to heritage and archaeological assets.
Since the PA20/03747 planning decision, a great many people have expressed their alarm about the way the decision-making process was conducted. Among the points that have been raised are the following:
The Cornwall Council Planning Committee failed to provide adequate and intelligible reasons for its decision to grant planning permission when it did not follow the responsible officer’s recommendations for refusal.
Cornwall Council failed to consider or apply NPPF (170/172) when deciding the application.
Cornwall Council reached an irrational conclusion that the proposed development would not harm the Cornwall AONB (Rame Head) by not demonstrating that there were exceptional circumstances and that the development would be in the public interest.
Cornwall Council made an irrelevant claim that Policy 7 of the Local Development Plan justified an approval.
The Planning Committee failed to consider adequately arguments contrary to predetermined positions.
Some members of the Planning Committee attended a site meeting without a planning officer being present contrary to good practice.
The Planning Committee failed to consider public views based upon valid planning reasons opposed to the application.
The Planning Committee in giving weight to the support of the parish council failed to recognise the procedural impropriety that had led to the parish council’s decision to support the application. The process that led to the PC issuing support for the application did not follow government legislation and failed to comply with the PC’s own Code of Conduct. The conduct of the Maker with Rame Parish Council has since given rise to numerous complaints, directed both at the Parish Council and also referred to Cornwall Council.
The Planning Committee failed to consider the sensitivity of the applicant’s position as Chairman of the Maker with Rame Parish Council and therefore failed to have regard to perceived conflicts of interest in supporting the application.
Cornwall Council failed to consult relevant public interest organisations (e.g. Historic England). It is also not clear whether Cornwall Council consulted with its own Strategic Historic Environment Service.