PLANS by a St Ives aparthotel to hold weddings and other events on a lawn right next to new houses have led to neighbours experiencing mental health problems and a lack of sleep due to the worry, a Cornwall Council meeting heard yesterday (Wednesday, September 3).

St Ives Assets Ltd, owner of the Treloyhan Manor Hotel, applied for the changes which would include the outdoor sale of alcohol until 1am. More than 60 people living in the area wrote to the council’s licensing department with concerns about noise and possible anti-social behaviour if the former hotel was allowed to use its external area for events, such as cinema screenings and weddings. The manor stands right next to the South West Coast Path.

A licensing committee heard from a number of residents that with no boundaries between their homes and the apartment building, the application could lead to drunken guests causing noise in the quiet spot and even see people urinating in their doorways. Neighbours went as far as to say it would “destroy” their lives.

Treloyhan Manor was built by local shipping magnate Edward Hain as his private family home in 1892. During the Second World War, the manor was used to house pupils evacuated from Sussex and became a guest house shortly after. Methodist Guild Holidays operated the manor as a Christian retreat until 2021. In 2024 it reopened as a 76-bed aparthotel under the ownership of St Ives Assets Ltd following a £25 million renovation, incorporating five new lodges.

Due to the level of local concern at the application, the company’s solicitor Joe Harvey offered to make a series of changes, including reducing the sale of alcohol to 11pm, withdraw live and recorded music (though there would be exemptions under the Live Music Act) and reduce the number of events a year and limit attendees to 100.

Mr Harvey said before his clients took over the premises, it was a failing business and its long-term survival was wholly dependent upon investment, which was secured by selling off part of the land for houses. Many of the residents of those houses were now complaining about the licensing bid.

“It’s very difficult to read some of the submissions and the accusations which are levied about the premises, many of which – possibly all of which – are not founded. Nonetheless concerns have been raised and it’s important we address those concerns,” he told the meeting.

“We’ve been accused of licensing half a football field, turning the premises into a nightclub or accusations about the behaviour of the clientèle and public urination and late-night partying. That is not what this application is all about.”

He said the changes would allow the business to trade in a way which would benefit the local community, local economy and allow it to be a “good neighbour”. The premises now operates as an aparthotel with self-catering luxury apartments. “It is not operating as a B&B, it is not operating as a Premier Inn, it is operating as a luxury development and attracts clientèle consistent with the nature of that business.”

Paul Craig, who owns one of the new houses at Treloyhan Manor Drive and lives closest to the manor’s lawn, said the application gave the impression the grounds are detached from 16 residential properties which encircle the manor. Mr Craig showed the committee an aerial drone photo which showed the area earmarked for weddings and other events situated very close to homes with no boundaries separating them.

He said that all facilities were removed from the building when it was turned into an aparthotel – restaurant, function room, bar, commercial kitchen, toilets, lounge and reception. “Everything we are discussing today is to be placed outside. To describe this place as a hotel or even an aparthotel I personally think is verging on fantasy.

“We have all lost sleep over this application. You’ve received 60 representations from members of the public which is a clear sign of local concerns. It is not nimbyism – it is to stop the destruction of a quiet residential area that is not and has never been suitable for an events space. Would you really want any of this in your front garden?”

Alison Dedman, who also lives in one of the houses which adjoin the manor’s grounds, added: “I considered myself extremely lucky to be living in the grounds of the Treloyhan Manor. The lawn is very much our front garden, so from our point of view not only is noise an issue but obviously so is the visual impact – never did I ever think we’d be overlooking weddings, events and a cinema when we bought our plot.

“Treloyhan is no longer a hotel – it was redeveloped as a block of flats with a caretaker in a peaceful residential area with protected wildlife and planning restrictions on lighting and noise. I stress again there are no boundaries, so guests would be able to wander out, over our properties, and cause a huge security and health and safety risk.”

She added: “I would feel unsafe. It’s pitch black and that’s deliberate – we weren’t allowed any street lighting; the manor is not allowed any lighting apart from at its entrance. This is due to it being a heritage asset sat within a woodland with protected species. So how on earth is the manor going to hold events without lighting? Are they going to have dark and silent weddings and cinema evenings?

“I’m not going to want to go outside my front door with people wandering about drunk, probably urinating in my front door way. That’s what people tend to do when they’ve had a drink. The application is so unneighbourly and it has already affected my mental health, all my neighbours and loads of the surrounding neighbours. Our life will basically be ruined … destroyed.”

Another neighbour Claire Wright addressed the meeting. “Reducing the licensed area, which the applicant has just done, won’t make a difference because sound travels. Essentially the application is to make the manor a noisy wedding venue for every summer weekend night of the year. Weddings aren’t quiet and tranquil – we’re talking about people celebrating with a live band and people having drinks from about 3pm to 11pm. So I do not believe it is suitable to have an extension to be an outdoor venue at all. It will wreck the tranquility.

She said the applicant’s solicitor “implying that residents have made untrue statements about Treloyhan Manor is disingenuous. I read every 60 or so representations and most of them are stating facts and not making any comments about Treloyhan Manor or being inflammatory”.

She raised concerns about noise affecting the nearby coast path “which affects everyone in St Ives, people leave St Ives for the silence of the coast path here”.

St Ives-based Cornwall councillor Andrew Mitchell, representing the division’s own councillor Luke Rogers, said: “As every speaker has said, this is not a suitable venue for any outside events. I don’t think any conditions could be imposed that would actually meet licensing requirements to prevent public nuisance.

“I don’t think they can have a variation of the licence as I don’t think they have a valid licence,” he said, adding that it was no longer a traditional hotel but apartments. “They are trying to use the planning and licensing process to be able to generate as much money as possible without any regard to neighbours or the larger community in St Ives.”

The Treloyhan Manor’s solicitor Mr Harvey responded to the concerns raised during the meeting: “There have been a number of suggestions that I’ve misled this committee or I have been disingenuous. At no stage have I provided any false information or been disingenuous. Quite the opposite, we have listened to what the concerns are and cut back from the original application in a very measured manner.”

Following over an hour’s deliberation, the licensing committee refused the application. Members felt even with the amendments, the use of the outside area would undermine the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective and would have a negative impact, particularly on neighbouring residents some of whom, it was noted, live very close to the manor.