AN argument over the use of cheaper reconstituted stone to complete a housing estate rather than originally agreed granite dominated a Cornwall Council planning committee meeting on Monday, November 10.

The area’s local councillor said there was “deep concern” over the “continued disregard for planning conditions” by developer Devonshire Homes.

The company was granted planning permission in 2019 to build 30 properties on land at Mabe Burnthouse, near Penryn. The company has now applied to amend the agreement so that 14 of the houses are built using reconstituted stone rather than the previously agreed natural stone.

Cornwall Council’s west area planning committee discovered that part of the application was retrospective as a number of the houses have already been built using the cheaper stone.

A planning officer was unable to say whether the request to change the type of stone used was made before or after the new houses were built.

Aaron Puffett, on behalf of Devonshire Homes, said the reason for the change was due to viability in order for the scheme to still go ahead and allow for an affordable housing element to be completed. Mr Puffett stressed that building costs have increased a lot since the application was first approved.

The stone would be on around half of the plots in mainly screened areas, with the colour tying in with the local area, he added. “We believe it will be in keeping within this area.”

“It seems incredible that with granite quarries just down the road, you can’t source granite locally,” said Cllr Loveday Jenkin. Mr Puffett replied it wasn’t just down to sourcing but the volume that would be needed and the associated cost.

Local councillor Anna Thomason-Kenyon spoke in objection on behalf of Mabe Parish Council and residents “who are deeply concerned by the continued disregard for planning conditions, national policy and our local Neighbourhood Development Plan. It is clear that this application fails to meet the conditions imposed under the original consent.

“The use of reconstituted stone does not reflect our landscape. It does not respect our design code and it does not meet the sustainability test of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The applicant chose to ignore both Mabe Parish Council and the local community as well as a previous condition requiring consultation on external failures.”

Cllr Mike Thomas added: “I remember very clearly this application – we spent a lot of time debating this and it was taken as an accepted feature that there’d be local stone and nobody queried that. The implication is they didn’t meet the condition by demonstrating what kind of stone they were using. Would the previous committee have approved this application with reconstituted stone?”

He was told that from an officers’ point of view, the planning department would have been happy with a suitable composite of stone as they don’t think it’s harmful. A member of the council’s legal team stressed that the committee should put aside thoughts of enforcement as that was a decision to be made separately.

“The effect of this stone being used may not be as dramatic visually, but there is still a concern in principle,” said Cllr John Martin. Cllr James Ball said he felt it was in keeping with the area: “There is a mish mash in Mabe. Do I think there is any harm in using this reconstituted stone? No I don’t.” He proposed approval.

Four councillors voted to approve, but six voted against with one abstention. The committee was warned the applicant was likely to appeal a refusal as the houses were already being built and can’t be seen from outside the estate, so visual impact was not a consideration.

The committee then voted to defer to ask the developer for more clarity about the availability and viability of using local stone. That was won by seven votes to three with one abstention.