A farmer who saw his plans to build a new home for his family at a Cornish beauty spot go to the High Court has lost his latest bid to build the property.

Chris Wilton had applied for planning permission to build the family home at Rame, next to the farm his family have worked and lived on for more than 200 years.

Mr Wilton said that the new home was needed as his family were currently living with his parents in the farmhouse which he said was unsuitable for three generations to live in.

He had bought the plot of land which he wanted to build his new home and argued that it was required for him to continue his conservation work on the land.

Mr Wilton also said that the new home would be no higher than the nearby Rame cottages and claimed it would not have an impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

However Cornwall Council planning officers disagreed and recommended that the plans should be refused because they would have a detrimental impact on the AONB which is one of the highest protections for land.

The application went before the council’s east sub-area planning committee this week for the second time.

Last summer it was approved by the committee, against officers’ recommendations, but that decision was quashed by a High Court judge earlier this year after local campaigners secured a judicial review against the council’s decision.

The decision to quash the planning permission was based largely on the fact that the planning committee had not provided sufficient reasons for their decision and had not been clear about why they had gone against the judgement of planning officers.

While the council’s land agent had said that there was a need for a second dwelling on the farm planning officers said that this did not outweigh the harm which would be caused to the AONB.

Falmouth Packet:

The site at Rame Head where Chris Wilton wanted to build a house but was refused planning permission

Planning officers repeatedly warned councillors to make sure that if they did want to approve the plans to provide clear reasons, referring to the relevant planning policies, for their decision.

Adrian Parsons, who had proposed approval for the plans last summer and was named in the High Court proceedings for not providing clear reasons, again told the committee that he felt they should be approved.

Cllr Parsons, who is himself a farmer, said that he thought it was “bitterly disappointing” that the committee was having to consider the application again when it had been “thoroughly discussed and debated before”.

He said that he felt that the council should “support and allow people to work in indigenous industries” such as fishing and farming as he felt they are “the backbone of our community”.

Cllr Parsons highlighted that Mr Wilton was working to help with conservation at Rame Head and he said that “the benefits of the conservation outweigh the minimal harm”.

He added: “I feel that the planning officer and AONB officer have overstated the harm.”

Cllr Parsons proposed that the application should be approved and that was seconded by Adam Paynter.

Cllr Paynter, who is also a farmer, said that he did not believe that the home “is not going to be a huge impact on the AONB”.

He added: “Just because it is AONB doesn’t mean that nothing can ever happen in that area. The AONB is a living, working environment.”

However committee member Barry Jordan disagreed and said he felt the development would cause “great harm” to the AONB.

“This is going to have a detrimental impact on that part of Rame Head, I just can’t support it. This could open the door to more applications like this.”

Councillor Andrew Long said that it was important that councillors consider planning policy around the application and highlighted that there was great weight attached to the need to enhance or conserve the AONB.

He also highlighted that this had to be proven before councillors consider whether the home would be needed for agricultural workers.

Cllr Long said that there needed to be “exceptional” reasons to allow new buildings in an AONB and said he could not see how the need for the home outweighed the impact on the AONB.

Planning officer Davina Pritchard urged councillors to remember to provide clear reasons for any decision they make.

She said: “Members must consider the actual impact on the AONB, you have to judge the built development proposed and whether that would enhance or conserve the AONB.

“It is not for the committee to find a solution to the accommodation problem on the farm. Your job is to assess the impact of this development in its environment and whether it could be justified.”

The committee had to adjourn for a time so that Cllr Parsons could draw up clear reasons for his proposal to approve the application.

When they came back he said: “Having given great weight to the AONB I feel that the benefits of this application outweigh the harm.”

He added: “I disagree with the comments of the planning officer and the AONB officer and the application defines many positives that will enhance and conserve the beauty of the AONB provided we can get the right materials in.”

Cllr Parsons said that he felt that the scale of the planned house would be in keeping with the nearby cottages and that planned screening would minimise impact on views.

And he said that there would be environmental benefits which would be supported by the farming business.

The proposal to approve the application was proposed by Cllr Parsons and seconded by Cllr Paynter but was lost at the vote with four in favour, five against and one abstention.

Cllr Jordan proposed refusal, in line with the officer’s recommendation, and that was seconded by Sheila Lennox-Boyd.

The committee agreed to refuse planning permission with five votes in favour, four against and one abstention.