East Sub-Area Planning Committee - 5 August 2025

The meeting opened with the Chairman wishing Councillor Long a speedy recovery and the Democratic Officer reporting on the emergency evacuation and domestic procedures. No declarations of interest were made. A motion moved by Councillor Pascoe and seconded by Councillor O’Keefe resolved that the minutes of the East Sub‑Area Planning Committee meeting of 7 July 2025 were correctly recorded and should be signed by the Chairman.

The first application considered (Item EPL/18) was presented by the Principal Development Officer (SF). The officer outlined the proposal, displayed plans and photographs, and recommended that permission in principle be granted. Opposing views were voiced by Grenville Stanbury, Councillor Welch of Wadebridge Town Council, and Councillor Moorcroft, who raised concerns about loss of agricultural land, traffic safety at The Culvery/Trevanion Road junction, lack of sustainable location, and non‑compliance with several planning policies. Officers clarified issues concerning skyline impact, highway improvements, parking rights, and road‑safety audit results. After a full debate, Councillor Candy moved, and Councillor O’Keefe seconded, that the motion to approve the application be carried; the motion was passed unanimously.

The second application (Item EPL/19) was presented by the Principal Development Officer (SK). The officer summarised the proposal and recommended that the Chief Planning Officer be delegated authority to grant outline planning permission subject to the conditions in the report. Stakeholders included Grenville Stanbury, Councillor Welch, and Robert Collett, who spoke against and in favour of the application respectively. Councillor Moorcroft again highlighted concerns about local character, traffic, school capacity, and lack of bus routes. Officers answered questions on skyline changes, highway improvements, parking rights, and traffic ratios. The committee debated the difficulty of finding planning reasons to refuse, the risk of ribbon development, and the proximity to a wildlife site. The motion moved by Councillor Candy and seconded by Councillor O’Keefe was carried unanimously, resulting in the application being approved in principle.

The third application (Item EPL/20) was outlined by the Senior Development Officer, who recommended refusal. Laneast Parish Council could not attend but submitted a supportive statement. Mike Gerry spoke in favour of the proposal, while Councillor Paynter highlighted community support, relevance to the National Planning Policy Framework, and the sustainability of the location. Officers clarified the planning history, the open‑countryside setting, the nearest bus stop, and the impact on the AGLV, noting that the site was previously developed land and that policy had shifted since the last assessment. The discussion noted the balanced nature of the application and the need to consider vehicle use and housing crisis contribution. No formal motion was recorded for this item; the committee noted the information and retained the recommendation for further consideration. The meeting concluded with an update on appeals information and no further business.