Cornwall Council has won a court case validating its plan to stop developers from building more holiday homes in the town of St Ives.
The lawsuit was brought by Penzance-based developer RLT Built Environment, which claimed that the stipulation violated EU law and wasn’t compatible with human rights legislation.
Specifically, the developer was challenging the legality of the St Ives Neighbourhood Development Plan, which was backed by 83% of voters in a referendum in May 2016.
However, in a ruling handed down last week at a High Court hearing in Bristol, Mr Justice Hickingbottom dismissed the arguments of RLT’s lawyers, saying that the case was not strong, and some of the points were “unarguable”.
The plan, according to the ruling, is a “substantial document, “covering many proposed policies in respect of a variety of matters including general development, culture and heritage, local economic development, land allocations, open spaces, well-being, sports and leisure, transport, as well as housing”.
The developer challenged two policies, one which imposed “principal residence requirements” and another that stipulated housing built in St Ives should be affordable once 1,100 new dwellings are built.
The council, quoted in the ruling, explained the principle residence requirement thus:
“Due to the impact upon the local housing market of the continued uncontrolled growth of dwellings used for holiday accommodation (as second or holiday homes) new open market housing, excluding replacement dwellings, will be supported only where there is a restriction to ensure its occupancy as a Principal Residence.”
The developers argued that this stipulation is not compatible with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The article stipulates “everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”. It states:
“There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
According to the ruling, the developer’s argument “was not straightforward” as the stipulation was only potentially in breach of human rights laws.
According to the ruling, the developer’s lawyer argued that it is possible “to envisage a future occupier of a dwelling with that restriction attached who, as result of changes in family or work circumstances, finds that his or her family and private life are circumscribed by the principal residence requirement, e.g. if he or she wished to keep the house in St Ives as a home, whilst being required to work away from the area during the week.”
The judge, in his ruling, said he was “not convinced” by the argument.
The judge also dismissed claims that both policies were in breach of the EU’s Significant Environmental Effect directive, which is designed to ensure that environmentally-preferable options aren’t discarded at an early stage in the planning procedure.
The developers argued that the council hadn’t considered the “obvious alternative” of increasing housing to the extent that it saturates the second-house market, thus making affordable houses for locals available.
The judge dismissed this argument, saying that that option was not a “reasonable alternative”.
RLT Build Environment Limited v The Cornwall Council Planning Court in Bristol (Hickinbottom J) 10 November 2017
