Central Sub-Area Planning Committee - 22 September 2025

**Procedural matters** – The meeting began with the Democratic Officer reporting on the emergency evacuation and domestic procedures. No declarations of interest were recorded. A motion moved by Councillor Webb and seconded by Councillor Kenny was carried, resolving that the minutes of the Central Sub‑Area Planning Committee meeting held on 28 July 2025 were correctly recorded and should be signed by the Chairman.

**Planning applications – decisions** – The Committee considered six planning applications. The Senior Development Officer (SH) recommended approval of Application PA25/03870 subject to the conditions set out in the report. The Senior Development Officer (AL) recommended approval of Application PA25/00472, conditional on the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement. The Principal Development Officer (PB) recommended approval of Application PA24/02955 subject to the report’s conditions. The Senior Development Officer (CB) recommended approval of Application PA25/03847, also conditional on a Section 106 agreement defining age restrictions and care‑package terms. The Senior Development Officer (CB) recommended approval of Application PA25/02295 subject to the conditions in the report, and the Senior Development Officer (CB) subsequently recommended advertisement consent for Application PA25/02296, again subject to the report’s conditions.

**Key debates and objections** – Several councillors and members raised concerns across the applications. Councillor Wimberley (St Enoder Parish Council) and Councillor Cole questioned the consistency of the proposal with the St Enoder Neighbourhood Development Plan, the impact on local character, and the adequacy of the “tilted‑balance” test. For the PA25/00472 scheme, the Affordable Housing Officer confirmed compliance with Policy 13 of the Cornwall Local Plan and the provision of accessible homes, while the Principal Development Officer addressed design, land classification, open‑space provision and a Section 106 contribution to education infrastructure. In the PA24/02955 case, objectors Mrs Clarke and Councillor Hughes highlighted concerns about the net gain of care beds, the scale of the nursing‑home design, visual impact on neighbouring dwellings, loss of mature trees and compliance with local and national planning policies. Regarding the PA25/03847 proposal, Councillor German argued that the scheme did not meet C2 use‑class requirements, questioned the level of care provision, and warned of the loss of a purpose‑built care home. For the advertising‑hub applications (PA25/02295/ PA25/02296), Councillor Webb and Councillor Rich expressed reservations about the visual character of the hubs in the Truro Conservation Area, potential street clutter, and the necessity of the structures, while also acknowledging the public‑benefit aspects and the lack of objection from the Historic Environment Officer and Historic England.

**Advertisement consent vote** – After debate on the hub scheme, a motion moved by Councillor Kenny and seconded by Councillor Martin was put to a vote. The Committee voted 7 in favour, 3 against and 0 abstentions, resolving that advertisement consent be granted for Application PA25/02296 subject to the conditions outlined in the report. The decision was supported by the Highways Officer’s confirmation of no safety objections and by the Senior Development Officer’s condition that displays be switched off between 00:00 and 06:00 hours.

**Overall outcome** – The Committee approved all six planning applications, each with specific conditions primarily relating to Section 106 agreements, affordable‑housing provisions, design mitigation, and operational requirements. The debates highlighted concerns about compliance with neighbourhood development plans, impact on local character and environment, and the adequacy of care‑home provisions, but none of the objections resulted in a refusal. The meeting concluded with the agreed‑upon conditions to be incorporated into the final approvals.