I have sent the below letter to Noah Law MP setting out my concerns about the impact of top-down planning policy changes on the planning process in Cornwall.
The planning system in Cornwall
We have previously discussed my concerns about how Cornwall’s planning system has been undermined by the top-down imposition of an inappropriate, unsustainable and frankly unachievable housing target by central government.
I am writing to formally request that you make representations to the UK Government on this important matter.
As you are aware, the annual housing target in the Cornwall Local Plan [2010-2030] was 2,625 housing units, but this has been changed to 4,421. This means that Cornwall is no longer deemed to have a five-year-land-supply and paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework is being applied.
The actual wording of this section of the NPPF states the following [my underlining]:
Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For plan-making this means …
d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.
Put bluntly, this “tilted balance” as it is so often called, means that locational / housing policies in the Cornwall Local Plan and Cornwall’s many Neighbourhood Development Plans (NDPs) are deemed out-of-date and are no longer being given weight in the planning process.
In many areas, such as the division that I represent in Clay Country in the heart of the St Austell and Newquay Constituency, proposals are being allowed in locations that, 12 months ago, would have been protected from development except in exceptional circumstances [such as if a proposal was an exception site with a majority of the scheme coming forward as local-needs affordable housing].
Some communities in areas with “national landscapes” may continue to have some protection from developments that fail to meet local-needs and/or are not supported by local people, but that is most certainly not the case in the China Clay Area. Speaking for myself, I spent hundreds of hours leading the process to produce an NDP for my home parish of St Enoder. It was backed by over 90% of the local residents who voted in the resultant referendum and I am extremely exasperated that key elements of the document have been rubbished by recent planning changes. A number of the people involved with the process have said to me that they now wonder why they bothered.
It is hardly as though we have not had development in our locality. The St Enoder NDP had a housing target [linked to the target in the Cornwall Local Plan] of 350 dwellings between 2010 and 2030. I can confirm that by April 2025, a total of 334 dwellings had been completed – 95% of the target reached in three-quarters of the plan period – while, as of April 2025, there were also extant consents for a further 329 housing units that have yet to be built.
Government Ministers frequently speak about the need for affordable housing, but the “tilted balance” approach is actually undermining the provision of such homes while making it easier for developers to bring forward open-market housing. Land previously considered only acceptable for exception sites is now being rebranded as in “sustainable” locations and we are instead seeing open-market schemes being brought forward instead.
I would like to bring to your attention what is happening in St Enoder Parish in more detail. In recent months, there have been a number of successful planning applications in areas outside of the development envelope of the St Enoder NDP and some twenty open-market properties have been consented. Not one of the properties will be affordable.
One of the schemes allowed was a low-density development of seven-to-nine detached properties in three-quarters of a hectare in open countryside to the east of Indian Queens [see above image]. It, unsurprisingly, fell below central government’s threshold [of ten] for local-needs housing. Another was a low-density scheme for five units in Higher Fraddon. It had an indicative layout which showed dwellings that mirrored other nearby bungalows that have recently been on the market for £525,000-£550,000. I must ask – how exactly is this helping people in housing need which should be the priority?
I made various arguments against such developments at meetings of the Central Planning Committee, which included concerns about inappropriate locations and the deliberately “inefficient” use of land to avoid needing to provide affordable housing as referenced in paragraph 11 d) of the NPPF. But such representations were also given little or no weight by the planning officers and, as a result, the members of the planning committee. I feel this relates in no small part to the “top-down” pressure, in the words of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, to “build, build, build.”
It is clear to me that the approach of the UK Government is flawed. I understand that ministers want to see the delivery of more housing, but making it easier for landowners and developers [often already with significant land-banks of consented proposals] to get additional planning permissions does not necessarily lead to a greater delivery of units. This is definitely the scenario in Cornwall.
I can also confirm that planners at Cornwall Council are presently assessing three further applications in the parish of St Enoder that together total another 20 housing units – all of which would be open-market properties and none of which would be affordable. Again, these proposals are in localities not allocated for development in our NDP.
Eight of the proposed properties would be at the top of Higher Fraddon, near another site where the owners have recently sought pre-application advice for a further 19 properties [25% affordable]. There is a strong local view that this is not an appropriate place for an intensification of housing, but I am fearful that planning officers will recommend such schemes for approval. And this would be in spite of it (i) being in an area where local people have already had to cope with difficult applications [ie. a biogas plant sourced by lorries past residential properties] in the recent past, and that it (ii) would be accessed along an increasingly busy road which does not have a pavement for pedestrian safety.
This is an area, which needs a breathing space from development, but the present free-for-all in planning will probably mean that this does not happen. I am presently challenging this at Cornwall Council.
I would like to make a couple of further points. The first relates to NDPs. I was also leading on the production of an NDP for the parish of St Dennis, but the shift in governmental policy has meant that we have suspended this work. Also in Clay Country, the members of St Stephen in Brannel Parish Council remain unhappy that their NDP, which went through referendum in October 2024, was deemed out-of-date within 12 months of it being agreed. In my view, this situation is intolerable.
And second, as you will undoubtedly be aware, Cornwall Council has commenced work on a new Local Plan but this will take three years and, in the meantime, many communities will continue to be defenceless against inappropriate developments.
I am nonetheless engaged in the process of developing this new Plan, and I am a member of a cross-party panel advising the Cabinet Member with responsibility for planning policy. But I think it is ridiculous that we are being instructed to work to central government’s problematic target, which would force us to plan for over 88,000 properties within the next 20 years. I believe it is also a strong likelihood that – given the inappropriate, unsustainable and unachievable housing target; and delivery rates – as soon as the new Plan is completed, we will likely be told that we don’t have a five-year-land-supply and the “tilted balance” will continue to be applied and the policies in the new document will be immediately out-of-date.
It is my view that this is all so wrong and the UK Government really does need to rethink its entire approach to planning.
Obviously, it remains my view that the nation of Cornwall merits meaningful devolution, as in Scotland and Wales, which would allow all decisions about planning policy and housing targets to be taken in Cornwall. I would be pleased to hear an update about how representations for more powers for Cornwall are going.
But as a matter of urgency, I would appeal to you to make strong representations to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reconsider his top-down approach to housing and planning, and allow Cornwall to regain more control over the planning process.
I would be willing to meet you to discuss my concerns in more detail and I look forward to hearing from you soon.