“Are we going to allow the coast path to crumble away just so that two second home owners can build a larger holiday home?” 

Those were the emotive words of an opponent to plans to build a three-storey house at a prominent site in one of Cornwall’s most popular and historic seaside villages.

Cornwall Council’s central sub-area planning committee was discussing an application on Monday, February 12, to demolish an existing two-storey house, Ancarva, on School Hill on the clifftop at Mevagissey, and replace it with a larger three-storey eco-friendly home. Councillors heard the property is a second home.

A planning officer had recommended approval, stating it would not be out of proportion with neighbouring properties and boundary vegetation would restrict views from public vantage points.

There are 16 public comments on the council’s planning portal, a mix of those for and against the proposal. Two comments come from neighbours in support, with one stating: “The proposed new dwelling is like a breath of fresh air for the area.”

However, Cornwall Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) partnership – now known as the Cornish National Landscape – objected to the application on the grounds that the “enlarged and conspicuous” home was not right for the location. The  South West Coast Path Association also had concerns but acknowledged that any threat to the coast path was “very limited, given the existing neighbouring development”.

Dr Barbara Dunn, who has lived in Polstreath House next door to Ancarva for 25 years, disagreed that any threat would be limited.

She told the planning committee: “This development is a very large holiday home for two people who do not live in Mevagissey. It provides nothing of benefit to Mevagissey and there are multiple issues and problems in this application. The case officer himself raises 11 material planning considerations which oppose the development, but hasn’t provided clear evidence as to why he’s disregarded them. The integrity of this application is deeply concerning. The facts weren’t thoroughly checked.”

Dr Dunn said the size of the development site was incorrect and had been artificially enlarged by including land which doesn’t belong to the applicants.

“This development will be the largest private dwelling in the neighbourhood sitting on the smallest plot, crammed into its boundaries within touching distance of its neighbour,” she added. “The addition of an intrusive third storey is out of keeping with dwellings in the neighbourhood, all of which are two-storey and have been renovated sympathetically.

“These second home owners would like us to believe they’re building a nice eco-house on a large stable plot, but this isn’t true. They’re cramming an enormous three-storey glass box into a tiny unstable plot sitting on a crumbling coast path.

“The land stability and coastal erosion on or around the site has been highlighted by a geo-technical report and this has been red-flagged by the Coast Protection Authority because the report could not guarantee that Ancarva wouldn’t fall into the sea during the next 100 years.”

She said: “On two recent occasions in Mevagissey, Cornwall Council has allowed risky cliff-top development after which the cliff face collapsed, but Ancarva is more dangerous because it includes demolition, so when the inevitable collapse takes place it won’t just be Ancarva’s land falling into the sea, it will be Mevagissey’s coastal path used by Mevagissey people.

“So are members going to allow Cornwall Council to make a third mistake. Are we going to allow the coast path to crumble away just so that two second home owners can build a larger holiday home?”

Cllr Gareth Williams represented Mevagissey Parish Council, which considers the application to be “significantly detrimental” for a number of reasons. He said the size of the development was at odds with the area’s own neighbourhood development plan policy and would be visible across the harbour, from the water and on the coast path.

“I’m a trained and qualified architect, but I don’t need that background to see that the proposed new development is significant in its massing and size,” he added.

An agent for the applicant said that following the parish council’s objections, “we wrote setting out how we’d met all of the policy’s four critical requirements”. He said there would be net zero carbon emissions from the property every year due to thermal efficiencies and added that an engineering report found there wasn’t any plausible risk of coastal instability from the development.

Responding to concerns that the plans include an area not owned by the applicants, he said the measurements recognised the connection from the site to the public highway as a requirement of planning.

The agent added that the property would be home to a family of four “and my understanding is they’re moving there”.

Local member Cllr James Mustoe, who grew up nearby, questioned whether Cornwall Council should have done more to ensure the existing house could have been enhanced rather than allowing “wholesale demolition”.

He said the site was not only in the AONB but in an area given extra protection by Mevagissey’s neighbourhood development plan due to its “special character”. He said an expansive objection from the AONB partnership should hold great weight as the replacement would be far more conspicuous than the property it would replace.

During debate, Cllr Michael Bunney said: “The level of concern here is that it is such a prominent site. You’ve got Mevagissey bay, the harbour just around the corner, the headlands either side and Polstreath below is Mevagissey’s only beach, so it all makes the area so sensitive. I think this application is not sensitive enough for such a sensitive site.

Cllr Peter Perry added: “I find it a little ironic that with all the conversations about second homes in Cornwall we’re being asked to approve a quite significant change to this landscape purely for a second home. We’ve been told that the owners may move into it – I underline the word ‘may’. But currently it is an empty second home and we’re looking at a change to that quite protected landscape. I do have a problem with that.”

Chairman Cllr Alan Jewell reminded him that the possibility of it being a second home had no bearing on the planning decision.

A recommendation to refuse was tabled by Cllr Bunney on the grounds of excessive scale, height and glazing, poor spatial relationship between dwellings which would lead to an overly prominent, cramped and jarring development to the detriment to the character of the Cornish National Landscape. Councillors agreed and voted unanimously against the application.