Four-storey houses dubbed “beach huts on stilts”, which are being marketed at over £1m each, have been considered out of character with the village in which they were planned. During a discussion by Cornwall councillors, it was argued that the development would bring more people into a “dying village”.

Proposals by developer Stephens and Stephens to build eight three-storey townhouses (with a parking storey beneath) on land at a former quarry on the entrance to Malpas, near Truro, were back on the table at a meeting of Cornwall Council’s central sub-area planning committee today (Monday, October 23).

The committee heard fears from residents and St Clement Parish Council in August that the development could be used as second homes, in a riverside village which already counts over half of its houses as second residences or holiday lets. Members decided at that meeting to defer the application to receive more images showing the scale of the proposal.

After showing councillors photo montages of how the houses would look, a planning officer recommended approval as there were no issues with developing on the brownfield site. He said the houses would enhance the appearance of the site, which members had previously heard was used as a dumping ground for rubbish and attracted rats as a result.

The site is within an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) and Cornwall’s own AONB unit was critical of the application.

Malpas resident Lesley Ibbotson, who represents MALPAG, a pressure group for traffic and parking issues in the picturesque village which contains around 100 houses, said: “We owe it to future generations to take great care of these areas of natural beauty – they are our equivalent of national parks in legacy and planning terms.

“This development would completely change the nature and character of the approach to Malpas and the setting within the AONB forever.

“The case officer’s report suggests that it satisfies a need to build new housing. However, these properties will almost certainly be sold as second homes and by accepting the affordable housing contribution, is the council saying that unless you have £1m you can never live in Malpas? It could seem so.”

She added: “This is a major development when viewed in relation to the size of Malpas. As previously stated, it represents an increase of 8% of the dwellings; 16% if seen through the lens of full-time occupied homes … and yet there was no consultation with the community, no respect for the village’s democratic will or its full-time residents.

“Should you choose to ignore our objections, we invite you to visit the site on a wet autumn night to see how many lights are on and then tell us we were wrong to oppose it.”

Hugh James, from St Clement Parish Council, which opposed the application, returned to address councillors. He said: “I would argue that this is a major development in the context of this area.

“Just ask yourself if this development would be allowed in a National Park area such as Pembrokeshire or the Lake District – or do you consider Cornish AONBs to be second-class sites with regard to beauty and importance to the community?

“On weekends in the summer, there are countless walkers who walk along the Malpas road to the village because they want to see the beauty of the river estuary and the wooded slopes which surround it. Or have they walked there to look at a brand new set of townhouses that have just been built into those same wooded slopes?

“Are you prepared to sacrifice something that you can never recover? There is no local requirement for houses of this type and size according to the Neighbourhood Development Plan.”

Alan Rowe, agent for Stephens and Stephens, said Malpas was described as a “dying village” at the previous meeting. “What better way to bring more people in,” he argued, adding that three local families, one with school-age children, wished to buy three of the homes.

“In a parish of 1,175 people there are 14 objectors and there are also ten responses in support. The site is in an AONB but are we saying the best thing for the beauty of this landscape is this brownfield site is left with derelict buildings and hoardings?

“We should all be agreed that the site is a blot on the landscape which should be used for well-designed and attractive homes,” said Mr Rowe.

“Any development should enhance an AONB, and the scheme before you will help revive a dying village, get rid of a landscape eyesore, create beautiful, well-designed homes that reflect the maritime setting, bring biodiversity net gain of 21%, reduce the local rat population and fly tipping, and release Section 106 money which can be used to open the public toilets or create a scheme to provide better foot or cycle access to the village,”

Divisional member Cllr Loic Rich responded that he supported the local resident and parish council. “I think it’s a shame that this site isn’t being developed into affordable homes. They are going to cost a lot of money. It’s not something I wanted to be a councillor to do – to help build £1m houses.

“It’s also a shame we can’t put a condition on that they’re only for full-time occupancy. I appreciate that the agent said there were some local families wanting to move in, which is great, but there’s no guarantee they won’t be used for holiday homes as well.”

The application split the views of committee members. Cllr Peter Perry said: “What I see are riverside villas that look more like beach huts on stilts. I cannot support this application – I do not think they are appropriate for that setting.”

However, Cllr John Fitter replied: “It looks okay to me. I’m satisfied it will not have a negative effect on the ability of the community to continue to address the critical shortage of affordable housing.”

Cllr John Martin added: “As a designer, I have concerns with the aesthetic and if there is to be building there it should be more sensitive to the environment.”

Cllr Michael Bunney said: “I’ve got no objection at all to development on this site. I think the issue is whether this development is sensitive; whether the scale and massing is appropriate.”

Ultimately the committee refused the planning application with six in favour, four against and no abstentions. They cited it was out of character with the setting of Malpas andvin conflict with the area of outstanding natural beauty.