THE Mayor of Camelford Town Council has expressed his hope that the trees surrounding a potential development site in Lanteglos would be retained during discussions at the April 1 meeting.

The council welcomed Lisa Solly from Situ8 Ltd, to the meeting were she was offered 15 minutes to speak.

She outlined the plans for PA21/02180, permission in principal for the erection of two dwellings at land adjacent to the Field House in Lanteglos, on behalf of her clients Mr and Mrs Ely, which was due to be discussed by councillors later that evening.

Lisa said: “My clients, Mr and Mrs Ely, have lived there since 1979 when they purchased the house and proposal site along with the hotel. The land that forms the proposal site has been used as an extended garden area by the applicants and their family since then. However, as my client’s children have grown up it is no longer used as a formal garden.

“My clients approached Cornwall Council in 2016 on pre-application basis in respect to the site and was given encouragement for the erection of a dwelling and the allowances for rounding off under Policy 3 of the Cornwall Local Plan.

“We are of the view that this type of development is entirely appropriate for the area where the site would provide for either one or two dwellings, with established boundaries and without extending into the countryside.

“There are residential properties to the north and west, the golf course is to the east and the lane is to the south where there is an existing safe access into the site, which has been used by the applicants for a number of years.

“We appreciate the advancement of the Neighbourhood Plan, however, at this moment in time, the premise of the development plan rests with the Cornwall Local Plan, which supports in-fill and rounding off — as was encouraged at the pre-application stage, under Policy 3.

“The Cornwall Local Plan recognises the dispersed nature of development in the region and is supportive of the organic growth of hamlets and villages, where they contribute to the function of larger settlements with more services.

“The applicants were keen to ensure the site was suitable for development, hence undertaking ecological surveys, including bat surveys, with recommendations that can be incorporated into any future development.

“In respect of either one or two dwellings being proposed, under the permission of principal process, you can stipulate a maximum and minimum, with the site restraints helping to determine what would be appropriate at technical consent stage. In this particular case the immediate dwellings sit within half an acre site, and so two on this site would be appropriate with respect of density, however may be limited to just one due to the proximity of neighbouring properties and tree root protection areas and also the need to comply with ecological recommendations.”

Responding to comments received on the online planning portal from nearby residents, Lisa said: “We have noted the comments from the residents of Trenance House, which came online today to the west and we will say most of these comments will be mitigated at technical consent stage when a design and layout were actually formulated — and certainly my clients are willing to involve neighbouring residents in the planning process moving forward, however I was disappointed to have found out today that this particular neighbour has removed the fence that separates the site from his garden and has started to use the land as part of his garden without any authorisation from my client.”

She concluded: “The development of the site, in our view, would help support and sustain the local facilities including the church, the golf club and the hotel, with restaurants and bars opening for each of these open to members of the public — obviously not the church.

“Certainly these and many other facilities and services in the area need additional investment and support as we hopefully move into a post-COVID era. And in addition employment would be created through the construction process.”

She said she hoped the councillors would grant approval for this proposal.

Mayor Cllr Rob Rotchell said: “I think most of us are aware of the site and there are quite a few mature trees in that area, so we would be, I’ll put it out now, pretty concerned if there was intention to remove many of the trees, given that we are committed to a programme of encouraging people to plant trees. We would expect, whenever an application comes in, due consideration is given to whether they need to remove trees. And if they do need to remove trees, how are they going to mitigate that — by planting other trees elsewhere on the site?”

Lisa said in response her client had confirmed they wish to retain all the significant trees on the boundary and that this may influence strongly whether it is one or two properties proposed.

Later that evening, councillors discussed at length the proposal.

Cllr Andy Shaw raised concerns over the environmental impact and the increase of traffic in the area should two properties be approved.

Summarising the council’s decision, Cllr Rotchell said: “We’d have no objection to one property but due consideration needs to be demonstrated to the flora and fauna.”

However, Cllr Claire Hewlett said how many dwellings were proposed was ‘moot’ and she couldn’t support the application as the property falls outside of the development boundary set out in the Neighbourhood Plan which would have been ratified had COVID not impeded progress.

Cllr Rotchell responded: “My worry is inevitably, because we are in purdah and the Neighbourhood Plan didn’t go through, then the Local Plan is there. So whether that’s going to be seen as consistent with the Local Plan as opposed to the Neighbourhood Plan, well that’s up to the planners to decide.

“We can assume our own position.”

Cllr Shaw said he didn’t consider the boundary, but said he could see where Cllr Hewlitt was coming from and it had made him ‘more hesitant’ to support the application.

Cllr Hewitt proposed, seconded by Cllr Shaw, that the council object on the grounds that the site falls outside the development boundary.

Six voted for, with one abstention.