Protecting Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB):
Application PA20/03747 and a Guide to the Evidence Supporting a Refusal of Planning Approval
Executive summary
1. The application breaches local and national planning policies and does not meet the tests outlined in the judicial review.
2. The report of the County Land Agent cannot be relied on as a basis for assessing the need for further accommodation.
3. The original support of the Maker with Rame Parish Council was achieved in a highly irregular manner.
4. The judgment by the professional planners concerning the visibility of the proposed building is upheld.
5. There is no evidence for other claims concerning the consequences of refusal, the manner of the land acquisition or the level of formal opposition.
1. The context
It must be stressed that the proposal was bound to be highly controversial. The application is for a 180sqm modern farm house that was designed to have six rooms in addition to a living area, kitchen, bathrooms etc. It features broad terraces to maximise the views and large picture windows, together with a double garage on a green field site within 100 metres of Mt Edgcumbe Country Park and not ‘in the middle of the farm’ as is sometimes claimed. It is within the Rame Head AONB. If built it will be the only new residential building on the headland since the Admiralty at the end of the 19th century constructed for their staff what now forms Ramehead Cottages.
The application was strongly opposed by the Principal Planning Officer, the Planning Specialist of the Cornish AONB (see Document tab of PA20/03747), by the local councillor asked for comment and 137 local citizens. Since then the Rame Protection Group (RPG), a loose network of approximately 250 concerned individuals has been created to help co-ordinate opposition to damaging the AONB. The crowdfunder formed to help pay for the judicial review received more than £30k from 650 donations and its success was welcomed by many local residents (see appendix A).
The vote in favour of granting permission was won by 7 votes to 6 at a meeting of the Sub-East Planning Committee on the 17th August 2020. Permission would not have been granted if one councillor had not been called away on family business during the proceedings. The decision was subsequently overturned by the High Court on the 21st of May on the grounds that the council provided inadequate reasons for not heeding specialist advice and did not follow its own policies on the protection of the AONB.
2. Claims and Evidence
2.1 Claim: That national and local development plans provide for permissions of this kind.
The current National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) permits exceptions to the ban on houses in rural areas outside villages where there is an ‘essential need’ for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside (para 79) but subject to the ‘great weight’ that should be given to ‘conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty’ in AONBs and national parks. The local development plan (S. 7 and S. 23) follows national policy.
There is no evidence that this application meets these criteria. ‘Essential need’ refers to rural workers whose job requires them to be close to their work (e.g. for animal welfare). The applicant is not responsible for animal welfare on a day-to-day basis (see below 2.2). He is not proposing an additional worker but rather wants to move from the three rooms with en-suite facilities in the farmhouse he currently occupies in order that these rooms may be let for B&B. The normal functional test for a new agricultural dwelling is that all other potentially available dwellings on the holding are totally committed or unsuitable. That is clearly not the case.
The High Court judgment has made it clear that the decision to grant planning permission breached the requirement of S.23 of the local plan and therefore also of para 172 of the NPPF on which it is based. The Principal Planning Officer’s conclusion is also clear on this point:
The proposed development is contrary to Policy 5 of the Rame Peninsula Neighbourhood Development Plan 2017- 2030 (made 28th June 2017), Policy 23 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030, Policy MD9 of the Cornwall AONB Management Plan 2016-2021 and paragraphs 170 and 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.
The High Court judgement stresses that even if the case for an ‘essential need’ (para 5 of Policy 7 of the Cornwall Development Plan) was established, for which there is little evidence, then all development proposals must demonstrate in addition that they conserve and enhance the landscape character and natural beauty of the AONB (see https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/media/ozhj5k0z/adopted-local-plan-strategic-policies-2016.pdf).
2.2 Claim: That the report of the County Land Agent can be relied on to support the application.
The County Land Agent was requested to assess the viability of the applicant’s business and to consider its implications for further accommodation. He was informed that the farm contained livestock numbers as follows:
16-18 Dartmoor ponies
300 commercial breeding ewes
16 horses at livery.
On this basis he concluded that the livestock component of the farm would require 1.75 staff. This, together with the other requirements of the agri-tourist business, was then used to justify the conclusion that ‘a good case could be made for a second unit of accommodation’. The Agricultural Need Appraisal can be found under the Documents tab (2nd entry labelled CLS) here.
A considerable proportion of the planning meeting on August 17th 2020 involved the care of the Dartmoor ponies and the burdens of maintaining a large flock of ewes. It would appear that the County Land Agent had misunderstood the actual position since none of this livestock is owned by the applicant and thus he has only minimal responsibilities for its care and well-being:
i) The Dartmoor ponies are provided for Penlee Point and Rame Head under stewardship schemes run for Natural England by Mount Edgcumbe Country Park (Penlee area) and by the applicant on behalf of the park (Rame Head). The Mount Edgcumbe scheme does not require day-to-day management and neither does the one at Rame Head (due to expire in under two years). Contrary claims were made at the planning meeting on the 17th August 2020 with stories of dog attacks, but police records show no evidence of these and there is no reason to believe that the ponies on Rame Head require more welfare and support than those on Penlee Point.
ii) The flock of 300 breeding ewes is not owned by the applicant and nor is he responsible for lambing or for the other onerous duties for a flock of this size (e.g. shearing, gathering, tailing, injecting, foot-bathing, marketing, record-keeping etc). He provides summer grazing only on a field rental basis. This is evident from the Introduction of the Design and Access statement prepared for the applicant by LAH Design as well as by other evidence. The Design and Access statement can be viewed via the Documents tab linked to the PA20/03747 application or here.
iii) The horses are listed as ‘DIY livery’ that implies minimal day-to-day responsibilities based on stabling and grazing in season.
RPG was informed by a relative of the applicant that ‘he could live in Plymouth and still run the farm’. At the very least, the estimate of a 1.75 person requirement for livestock, which might have been appropriate if the sheep were owned, is unreliable.
2.3 Claim: That the Parish Council of Maker with Rame was supportive
A great deal of attention at the planning meeting in August 2020 focussed on this claim. There is a strong case, however, for the view that the decision of the PC to support the application breached a number of the Nolan Principles (the Seven Principles of Public Life) and because of this the case for reconsidering the decision is overwhelming as no other planning application has been considered in this manner. Summary details are as follows:
1) The councillors had known the applicant for a long time and had sat with him for a number of years while he had been their chairman. This created a perceived conflict of interest that should have been declared.
Nolan Principle 1.2 Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
2) The chairman of the planning sub-committee excluded any reference in his report to critical observations made by the only councillor to provide a considered opinion, other than himself. In preparing his report he used evidence from a report prepared for the applicant designed to present the application in the best possible light.
Nolan Principle 1.3 Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.
3) Members of the public were specifically excluded from comment and advised to send their views to the planning authority directly, thereby ensuring that parish councillors had no knowledge of what local citizens may have thought.
Nolan Principle 1.4 Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.
4) The view of the parish council was relayed to the planning authority on the 22nd May 2020, only two days after it was received and there was no meeting or debate within the planning committee or the council itself. The law required a consultation period of 12 working days and a meeting to consider local views before making a decision.
Nolan Principle 1. 5 Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.
2.4 Claim: That the development will only have a minimal impact as far as visibility is concerned
It was suggested to the applicant that he obtain a Local Impact Visibility Assessment (LVIA). This report was commissioned from a company that specialises in helping hard to get planning permissions. It therefore presents a best case scenario and cannot be regarded as objective. Unsurprisingly, its findings suggested a minimal impact. The report can be viewed under the Documents tab of PA20/03747. The AONB Planning Officer disagreed with this conclusion and the Council’s Principal Planning Officer wrote:
The sentiments of the AONB team in relation to the closer distance viewpoints including the views from Ramehead Lane itself, from the public footpath which runs to the immediate north of the site and from The Lookout at Rame Head and the associated public car park are endorsed. From these viewpoints, the development will be highly visible and dominant and will introduce new built form on the opposite side of the road from the existing cottages, where the proposed development as a result of its position, scale, materials and design will form a prominent and incongruous addition that will be harmful to the landscape and scenic beauty in this part of the AONB.
The proposed development as a result of its siting, scale, materials and design will result in a prominent and incongruous addition to the coastal plateau that will harm the landscape and distinctive scenic beauty of the Cornwall Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast. The social and economic benefits of the development do not outweigh the landscape harm.
These views were repeated in many public objections and also in comments received from a number of other charities and organisations, including the CPRE. For example, the spokesperson of the SW Coastal Path wrote
‘the impact of the proposed development on … views from the SWCP from both east and west would be clearly adverse, both in terms of intruding on the skyline pattern and impinging on the character of the location by reason of the detailed appearance and character of the proposal, alien to the environment’.
2.5 Claim: That without the building of the proposed property, the applicant may be forced to leave the area, leading to Rame Head becoming overgrown and impacting negatively on the AONB
There is no evidence in support of this proposition, although it has been referred to in a number of submissions. The applicant will eventually become the sole tenant of the farm in question in which case his family will be required as a condition of the tenancy to occupy the traditional farmhouse. If the proposed property is built it will then become surplus to requirements since it is not suitable for a farm employee and no such increase in staff has been proposed. The usual pattern is for an agricultural tie to be lifted and for the property to be sold or let with the other accommodation units on the farm.
As a sitting tenant, were the applicant to leave the area, responsibility for Rame Head itself would be managed along with the rest of the country park. The applicant is not paid directly to support the AONB but is in receipt of environmental subsidies for land maintenance and environmental protection that would continue under any new farm tenancy.
2.6 Claim: That the land in question was acquired by the applicant from Cornwall Council.
RPG research has demonstrated that this is not the case. Cornwall Council did sell the land, which is 750m by lane from the farm, to a previous owner who unsuccessfully applied for planning approval including for three affordable homes. The widow of this owner approached the applicant in his role as then chair of the parish council to ask whether she could donate it for use by local citizens as allotments. Without reporting to the council itself and in breach of the Nolan Principles (selflessness and integrity), he offered to buy the land at an agricultural valuation for his own use.
2.7 Claim: That the AONB was the only statutory consultee to object
This is because it was the only statutory body dealing with environmental protection that was consulted.
St Germanus Church at Rame (listed Grade 1) and the Chapel dedicated to St Michael on Rame Head (Scheduled Monument and also listed Grade II*) are approximately 1000m apart and are connected by an ancient track that runs directly alongside the development site. They were built at similar times in the 13th century and for hundreds of years the two buildings were regarded by local citizens as part of the same spiritual space. There would be regular pilgrimages to the chapel by parishioners on saints’ days; an event that has survived up until the very recent past.
Historic England should be consulted where development is likely to affect the site of a scheduled monument. RPG believes that is true in this case because the proposed large house would break the spatial continuity between the church and the chapel.
Natural England was also not a consultee even though the site is known as a breeding ground for rare and protected bird species and is close to an SSSI. RPG has shown that Rame Head is almost unique in the variety of bird species (more than 200) that have been recorded in or immediately surrounding that location.
3. Conclusion
The issue of precedent is important. Anyone who now supports the present application would be saying, contrary to explicit policy, that any farmer in Cornwall is free to build a second farmhouse on a greenfield site in order to capitalise on the tourism potential of their existing accommodation even if to do so harms a national park or similarly protected area.
Appendix A
The High Court judgment was handed down on the 21st May at 10.00. These are just some of the supportive comments the RPG received on that day or in the few days thereafter.
What a result, thank you so much for never giving up and that the wishes of the majority was listened to (21 May).
Congratulations to all concerned on a momentous result. This will re enforce the strength of support to protect areas of outstanding natural beauty and make a stand against those looking to exploit such areas with inappropriate developments for monetary gain. (21 May)
Tears of joy! Thank you for this wonderful news, and thank you for all your hard work. This is fantastic. (21 May)
Brilliant news! Thanks for your time and enthusiasm to get this madness of a planning application quashed. (21 May)
You have put in so much time and effort which has been overwhelming. What a fabulous result! Really well done! (21 May)
I am absolutely delighted. I could not be happier. Thank you so much for your time in leading and this campaign. (21 May)
That is absolutely wonderful news! I cannot thank you enough for your tireless, committed and professional campaign. I’m not accustomed to hearing such good news relating to the environment and social justice and feel quite emotional! (21 May)
Congratulations to the whole team. A job well done. This result isn't just a local victory but important for AONB's nationwide.(21 May)
May I congratulate all of the RPG for their magnificent efforts, passion, honesty, determination and total dedication that enabled this decision. (21 May)
I can’t tell you how relieved I am. This bodes better not only for Cornwall AONB, but for the Tamar Valley AONB as well! (21 May)
Thank you to all of you for your mammoth efforts and ability! (May 21)
Marvellous news! Tremendous effort to ensure justice, and a very big THANK YOU to everyone concerned.(21 May)
Absolutely brilliant news, well done and many thanks for all your hard work and success on both counts. (21 May)
Can I just say a big thank you to you for all the work you have done to help mount a challenge against this planning approval and huge congratulations in the outcome.(21 May)
Many congratulations,that is a brilliant result. Long may our beautiful Rame Peninsula remain just as it is for future generations.(21 May).
You have done a stunning job in protecting Rame head, we and all locals and visitors will be forever grateful.(21 May)
What a good result. Well done for all your efforts and hard work.(21 May)
Wow brilliant news. You should all be so proud of this. Without you it would have just been passed... Cornwall planning and all that. When it's gone it's gone (21 May)
This is such good news on both fronts. You masterminded such effective campaigns and we all have much to thank you for. I’m sorry that you had to face unpleasantness on social media. Jubilation on the AONB outcome is widespread (22 May).
I shouted for joy when I read your news yesterday. Well done everyone! All the hard work paid off. It’s a triumph, and very good for all of us. Brilliant that the timing of the elections fitted in with maximum anger about what had happened. We have to make sure that Cornwall Council don’t forget this one. (22 May)
Congratulations (to) all the team. A huge achievement and the right result.(22 May)
Huge thanks, congratulations and appreciation for all efforts of the RPG team in sourcing funds, publicity, Flyers, communication, involvement in the legal process surrounding this issue and so much more. (22nd May)
Wonderful news! Congratulations to everyone involved! As indicated a landmark victory for ALL AONB’s! (24 May)
Delighted to hear this news. Fantastic effort but a shame it was ever needed in the first place!! (27 May)