On Monday 17th August, the Chairman of Maker with Rame Parish Council obtained planning approval to build a large, modern house with a double garage on a green field site within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty on this iconic headland. This was despite the opposition of the County Councillor, the Planning Officer of the Cornish AONB, the recommendation of the Principal Planning Officer, the South West Coast Path Association, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and almost 140 local citizens. On the day, fellow farmers rallied to support one of their own and swung the vote, seven in favour to six against. The support of the parish council was also an important influence in this decision with the Vice Chairman, John Shepherd, speaking in favour of the proposal, along with the applicant himself.

Locally, there is grave concern that the Maker with Rame PC – in taking just two days to publish their unequivocal support for the application – a) failed to adhere to their own Code of Conduct; b) breached Government legislation issued 6 weeks previously that required local councils to use video or telephone conference technology to allow public participation in meetings; and c) omitted to follow the specific guidelines of the Cornwall Association of Local Councils (CALC), of which the PC is a member.

More generally, the outcry against this planning approval has been widespread and passionate. Some of the objections that have been raised by citizens are summarised under the Objections section on this page. Within a week of the planning approval more than 2000 people had signed a petition calling on Cornwall Council to reverse the decision. 

This case is particularly important because of the precedent it sets. Unless this decision is overturned, any farmer can use this example to defy protective legislation to put up a new executive style house in the most beautiful and unspoilt parts of the Cornish Coast on the grounds of wishing to use bedrooms in his or her farmhouse for tourist accommodation.

Whereas an applicant whose planning application is refused has the right of appeal, that option is not open to people who object to a planning proposal that has been approved. The only legal means by which citizens may still be able to stop this development is a Judicial Review (JR). 

Links

• Pre-application advice, including County Land Agent’s Appraisal of Agricultural Need

• Application details

• The case officer’s recommendations for refusal (including AONB report)

• Minutes of the 17th August planning meeting (partially incorrect, according to our barrister)

• Planning framework and more

• A full recording and draft transcript of the PA20/03747 meeting is available here, and is also embedded on this page to the right. If you click on the ‘Play’ button, the relevant section of the meeting is also played in audio.
  
  
  

  Updates on our legal case are made available on a regular basis to the Rame Protection Group mailing list and to CrowdJustice supporters. If you would like to receive join our mailing list, please fill out the contact form here.

A JR does not address the rights and wrongs of the decision but focuses on whether the meeting was conducted correctly, and whether the councillors took account of all relevant legislation and policy frameworks in reaching their decision. 

The Rame Protection Group believes that procedural improprieties in the planning meeting invalidate this planning approval and have instructed our lawyers to pursue a JR to seek to overturn this decision. We chose to instruct Richard Buxton Solicitors, who have an unparalleled track record of redressing environmental injustice throughout the country.

A JR claim must be filed with the Court within just 6 weeks of a planning approval being issued so swift action was necessary to have lawyers prepare the case within this timeframe.

Our claim was filed by the deadline of 28th September 2020, and we were delighted to learn of the High Court’s decision on 9th November to grant us permission to proceed with our claim.

Judicial reviews are costly. The Rame Protection Group is only able to take this legal action because of the magnificent support and generosity of the hundreds of people who have already made pledges on www.crowdjustice.com/case/save-rame-head/

If you share our belief that we owe it to future generations to leave the iconic Rame Head as we found it – free of modern housing – please consider supporting our legal case. Pledges on the CrowdJustice page can be anonymous and all funds are transferred directly to our lawyers. Every pound raised will be accounted for through the invoices and receipts from the legal team. The CrowdJustice appeal will be open until the court hearing on 24th February 2021.

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.

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 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.