Planners Unswayed By Well Cross Objections As Permission Granted

the strand 3Two social housing units can now be built at Well Cross after councillors were unswayed by a string of objections from neighbours.

And Cllr Richard McCarthy voiced concern that dealing with the latest representations from the owners of next-door Lemon Hall could jeopardise the Council’s grant money for this and future housing schemes.

Last July, Cornwall Rural Housing Association was granted planning permission to convert the sheds and barns in Tom Chudleigh’s yard into a two-bedroom unit and one-bedroom home.

The Council received written objections at the time from some businesses on The Strand, which back onto the yard, and from Lemon Hall’s owners.

Many of the protests were over a loss of privacy, security concerns over creation of open access to the rear of the Lower Strand properties and complaints that the site was too small to fit two homes.

A reworked application was submitted by the housing association. It added skylights and ensured that the new units would no longer use the Lemon Hall boundary wall.

Councillors attended Tuesday’s meeting with guidance papers recommending that they should defer any decision, to give the housing association time to address the latest written objections.

But the association’s response was tabled on the morning of meeting, as it arrived when planning staff were away on leave. Consultant Bill Wilson changed his recommendation, suggesting that members should now back the revised plans.

Cllr McCarthy felt enough had been done to address Lemon Hall’s new owners’ concerns and they should have expected the development, as the site had been earmarked for social housing for 10 years.

Cllr Steve Sims wasn’t convinced by their 25 points of objection, which included concerns over provision of a fire escape and allegations that the proposal contained inaccuracies and was at odds with the Council’s own design guide.

Steve said they were, “throwing mud against a wall and seeing what sticks” and he added that a loss of privacy was always an issue, “if you put houses with windows near houses with windows.”

Richard went further, alleging that the complainant had backed-up their objections with claims which were, “factually totally inaccurate.”

He was concerned that hold-ups could jeopardise the £280,000 Homes and Communities Agency cash granted for the work.

Councillors voted through the required Listed Building consent but there will be further discussions delegated to the Chairman and Vice Chair of Planning, and the Director of Place, Craig Dryden.

Richard wasn’t in favour of more talks, claiming enough had been done to find a compromise on two occasions. He said the complainant would probably, “be in touch whether we consult with them or not.”

Steve Sims asked whether the complainants could go to appeal, but Planner Bill Wilson said he felt that, with approval being granted, it was the end of the story.

8 Responses to Planners Unswayed By Well Cross Objections As Permission Granted

  1. flower March 10, 2014 at 6:01 pm

    What I do not understand is why people expect to be housed- isn’t that your own responsibility !

    • Nobby Nobbs March 10, 2014 at 7:33 pm

      If you’ve got a spare £100k for a deposit or you have rich parents that can buy a house for you, then most people these days have to rent unless they are lucky enough to be able to get onto a social housing scheme.
      So you could say people are being responsible in trying their very best to get a foot on the housing ladder.

    • Soemone who was helped March 10, 2014 at 8:24 pm

      Heaven forbid that you should ever need any compassion.

  2. Fiona Robson March 10, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    I am sure anyone who is at this moment in time waiting to be housed is delighted with this news. Please remember, people who live and work here cannot be expected to live in staff accommodation once they have decided to make these islands their home and bring a family up here.

  3. Mary J.B. March 8, 2014 at 12:56 pm

    probably because Mundersley is in use and providing a valuable service to all the children of the school (yes the St Marys children benefit from it as well!) whereas Well Cross is not. Then again, we could shut Park House, get the old people to be looked after by their children (in a reversal of the Mundersley situation) and turn Park House into social housing

    • Freddy Farqwar March 10, 2014 at 2:59 pm

      How do the St Mary’s children benefit?
      The off island children all have homes to go to and parents to look after them, unlike a lot of the elderly folk in Park house, so I think your statement is rather inaccurate and childish.

      Just except the inevitable, Mundersly will close, if not this year then the next.

    • LINDY March 10, 2014 at 6:34 pm

      Mary J.B.
      A country and in turn community is judged by the way it treats its elderly and your comment is offensive to those of us that live by that standing.
      The majority of residents of Park House have for decades of years paid into the system that provides the much needed care they require at the latter end of theirs lives so there is no comparision to Mundersley.

  4. Freddy Farqwar March 7, 2014 at 12:39 pm

    Why not turn Mundersley into social housing?
    The money the council would make from the sale could go a long way to reducing the council deficit, which I believe is some where in the 6 zero region