Considerable concerns have been raised about the above planning application by the local
community, arts and heritage groups and in the media. As a result, a number of comments are
being circulated and information shared which is not factually correct. This includes comments
that the decision maker is St Ives Town Council and the Planning Committee will consider an
application on the agenda for the Planning Committee meeting 22nd January 2026.
The Town Council accepts that council decision making can be confusing. But, for the
avoidance of doubt, the Town Council is not a planning authority and does not make planning
decisions. In Cornwall, the Planning Authority is Cornwall Council and it has not yet
determined this application. The Town Council is a statutory consultee. This means that
Cornwall Council is required to consult the Town Council, which then meets to consider
planning applications and provides comments to the planning officer.
The Town Council’s Planning Committee met in December 2025 and considered this application. It
resolved to object strongly on the grounds that the cumulative changes proposed were worthy
of a new application based on a comprehensive re-assessment of the site. In addition, that
given the importance and heritage significance of the adjacent Talland House and the elapse
of time since the original planning permission, Cornwall Council should consider the case for
quashing the permission. These comments have already been submitted to Cornwall Council.
This means that the Town Council has made its comments and cannot consider these again.
The Town Council has decided to publish this statement, including information provided by
Cornwall Council. The aim is to provide more clarity and correct inaccuracies. We have set this
out in a questions and answer format.
Q: What kind of planning application is this?
A: This is a s.73 Planning Application which can be used to vary or remove planning conditions
attached to an existing planning permission, allowing for minor material changes without a full
new application, but it cannot alter the fundamental description of the development. This has
been made to allow the applicant to make changes to the approved plan drawings from the
original application. It does nothing to bring to an end the existing approved planning
permission under decision notice W1/08/1569-P.
Q: Hasn’t the number of housing units on site increased?
A: No. The current scheme is for 12 residential units and is in accordance with the description of
development approved under decision notice W1/08/1569-P. A later application for 6 units was
submitted and approved under application ref: PA15/04337. The later development was not
commenced within the statutory 3-year period and on that basis it would now have expired.
Q: What is the evidence that the existing planning permission commenced? If not, after so
much time wouldn’t this permission have also expired?
A: The applicant has argued (successfully) that the permission was implemented and a start on
site was made (this is called a material start). The applicant submitted a certificate of lawfulness
arguing that they had made a material start on site between 10th December 2009 when the
application was approved and 10th December 2012.
A certificate of lawfulness was granted under application reference PA18/11780. In reaching
their conclusion on whether to grant the certificate the planning case officer advised as follows:
“Following review of the evidence, I am satisfied that the installation of the kerbstones at the
entrance to the site was carried out before the expiration of the planning permission 08-1569-
P which was approved on 10 December 2009 and which expired on 10 December 2012. There is
no evidence before me to reach a different conclusion or disprove the evidence that the
applicant has supplied. No evidence has been provided stating that works did not commence
on the site before the expiration of the planning permission. I would conclude that the weight
of evidence submitted with this application is considered sufficiently precise and
unambiguous to discharge the applicant’s duty to establish that, on the balance of
probability, a material commencement of the development was made in respect of planning
permission referenced 08-1569-P prior to expiration of the permission, and it is considered that
the permission is therefore extant and this certificate of lawfulness application should be
approved.”
Given this, it is not legally possible to argue that the planning permission has lapsed.
Q: Why didn’t the original planning application consider the loss of views and the impact on
the setting of the listed building. Because it didn’t, surely this can be legally challenged?
A: The original planning officer’s report stated the reasons for approval as follows:
The site is located in a sustainable location close to the centre of St Ives where new residential
development is supported by development plan policy. Further, the principle of residential
development has been established by the previous grant of permission for a dwelling on the
site. The density of the proposed development is high, but in the context of the surroundings,
and relevant government and development plan policies, it is considered to be acceptable.
Overall, the principle of development accords with policies SS18 and HO6 of the regional
Planning Guidance for the south-west (RPG 10), with H2 of the draft regional Spatial Strategy
for the South-West, policies 3, 10 and 25 of the CSP and polices TV1. H3 and H18 of the Penwith
Local Plan and advice in PPS1 and PPS3. The proposed building form, whilst of significant
massing, is considered to be appropriate in context with neighbouring development.
The outlook from nearby Talland House will be maintained, and it is not considered that there
will be undue harm to the setting of this listed building. The design is acceptable and would
not have an unacceptable impact on the character or appearance of the area. The proposal
accords with policy EN 4 of the Regional Planning Guidance for the South-West, development
policy E of the draft regional Spatial Strategy for the South-West., policy 1 of the CSP and
policies GD1, GD2 and H18 of the Penwith Local Plan and advice in PPS1, PPS3 and PPG 15. The
building will have a greater impact on the amenities of neighbours that the previously
approved scheme due to its massing, fenestration and balconies. However, following
negotiation undertaken by Cornwall Council officers and as a result of the imposition of
appropriate conditions it is considered that the harm to neighbour’s amenities is not so
significant as to warrant refusal of the application.
The Planning Officer, therefore, did take the impact on Talland House into account, and argued
that the outlook from Talland House would be maintained. Given the elapse of time since the
decision, the commencement on site which keeps the planning application alive and the
certificate of lawfulness, it would not now be possible to challenge that decision. If a planning
permission is implemented through a start on site, it is also not possible to argue that more
recent planning policies can and should be taken into account.
Q: What is the new application for and if it is refused what happens next?
The current application keeps many aspects of the permission intact. It makes changes to the
size of the units in terms of bedrooms and balconies. The currently proposed revised scheme
maintains the height and width of the approved development and so could not be argued to
have any greater or lesser impact on the outlook from Talland House or have any greater
impact on its setting. Given this, were it to be refused, the original application would still be in
place and could be built. Individuals can decide whether the changes proposed have any wider
benefits or merit in their own right, and that is the subject of the application.
Q: Why can’t Cornwall Council as Planning Authority use its legal powers to quash the original
planning permission and what would be the consequences of doing so in this case?
A: Planning authorities in England and Wales can revoke planning permission if they consider it
“expedient” to do so under section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 but does not
define when it may be “expedient”. Local planning authorities can also use their powers under
section 97 to modify planning permission.
If they are considering modifying or revoking planning permission, section 97 provides that
local planning authorities should consider their local plan and any other relevant material
considerations. A local plan sets out a local planning authority’s policies and priorities for
development and land use in its local area. There is no set list of material considerations; it can
be anything that is potentially relevant to a planning application.
Any decisions taken by public bodies, including decisions to modify or revoke planning
permission made by local planning authorities or the Secretary of State, can be challenged in
the court by judicial review. The focus of judicial review is to consider whether decisions were
made in a proper and lawful manner. So even if Cornwall Council chose to use these powers,
they could be taken to court for doing so.
Under section 107 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, developers are entitled to
compensation to cover the cost of the works they already carried out and other losses and
damages that can be attributed to a modification or revocation order. In this case it would
involve a very considerable financial sum. Local planning authorities are responsible for paying
compensation, regardless of whether they or the Secretary of State made the order.
For these reasons, the powers to revoke or modify planning permission are used only very
rarely. The authority would need to have good cause and weigh up any cost to doing so against
the community benefit / disbenefit of quashing the application.
In this particular case, the Planning Authority has confirmed that it does not consider a
revocation order is appropriate bearing in mind the original planning permission addressed
the impact on Talland House and the lack of a 5-year housing land supply in Cornwall, which
the Council is required to take into account. In addition, in the planning case The Health and
Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council the Supreme Court argued that the planning
authority should have taken into account the cost of paying compensation and the impact on
the local community as the custodian of public funds and that this was a material
consideration.
