29th January 2025
Tudor Lodges owner brands affordable contribution as ‘ridiculous’
MIKE and Molly Tudor, who recently lost a planning appeal to be able to sell-off seven of their holiday lodges near the Snooty Fox, Morval, on the open market, have hit back at any suggestion that they were against making a contribution to affordable housing.
Following a public planning appeal heard in Liskeard last September, Mr M Aqbal, the Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State, clearly had some sympathy with the Tudors’ plight, concluding in his summing up: “I have found that the appeal site is in a suitable location for housing and would not unacceptably harm the tourism economy or an Area of Great Landscape Value.”
But he added: “On the other hand, the proposal fails to make any contribution towards affordable housing.
“For this reason and conflict with the development plan, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.”
Mr and Mrs Tudor have since claimed that the County Council’s original decision to refuse planning consent was based on ‘errors and unscrupulous’ decisions and they branded the County Council’s suggestion that they should make an affordable housing contribution of £644,000 as ‘ridiculous’.
Said Mr Tudor: “We accepted we would have to make an affordable homes contribution and were prepared to, but the Local Planning Authority (LPA) used this as a divisive tool to refuse planning.
“This (an e-mail not disclosed to the Tudors until the appeal hearing) highlights the difference in what should have been the correct affordable housing contribution and the ridiculous sum of £644,000 originally proposed.
“Had we been given the privilege of this information earlier we could have had a draft Section 106 (agreement) in place for the hearing and, therefore, our appeal most definitely would have been upheld.
“Instead we are now forced to go back through the planning system and delay the outcome even further, costing more money than it should.”
Added Mr Tudor: “The LPA has clearly made an error in judging the correct policies applicable to our planning (application) and, therefore, their attempt is to block our planning outright.
“The Planning Inspector has negated all the County Council's arguments against us and made it clear where the LPA were incorrect, and given clear direction now for future submission.
“We fully intend to action this again and are currently taking advice.”
The Tudors wanted to sell off the holiday lodges, which had been specialist accommodation designed for those with disabilities, but had failed to find a buyer.
When they applied to Cornwall Council for permission to vary the conditions imposed on the development to allow the units to be sold on the open market they were refused.
Mr Aqbal said that he had considered whether the site was suitable for (open market) housing; the loss that the existing business would have on the local tourism economy and the effect of the proposal on an Area of Great Landscape Value.
But while he seems to have been able to argue against the County Council on those points, he came back to the issue of whether the proposal made appropriate provision towards affordable housing.
“Although I do not dispute the appellants’ intention to provide an agreed affordable housing financial contribution, at the time of the hearing this had not been agreed and secured,” he said.
“Therefore, the proposal fails to make appropriate provision for affordable housing …for this reason and conflict with the development plan, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.”
Planning consent was initially obtained for six holiday lodges in 2004. Subsequently, an additional unit was granted consent as the manager’s accommodation. Under a separate application, that was later varied from manager’s accommodation for use as a holiday lodge.
The holiday lodges benefit from a consent permitting them to be let for a full 12 months per year.
The appellants’ have obtained further planning consents, including the current manager’s dwelling and three additional holiday lodges. The Inspector noted that the manager’s dwelling was completed in 2016 and was occupied by one of the appellants.
He acknowledged that future residents of the site would need to leave the Gellies Hill settlement area in order to access work, education (beyond primary school) and many other routine health and retail facilities, and that would require the use of private cars.
“(But) I am also mindful that because the appeal site is used for holiday accommodation with limited on-site facilities, it is likely that visitors are already undertaking considerable journeys by private cars,” he said, adding: “ Accordingly, I am not persuaded that the proposal would undermine the (County) Council’s aims to minimise greenhouse gas emissions.”
He noted, too, that the Tudor Lodges business had been struggling financially for a number of years and was trading with limited operating profits.
The Lodges had been offered for sale for in excess of nine months and the asking price, which was based on a number of valuations, was subsequently reduced; even so, there have been no viewings, and no offers.
“This should have been a simple change of use permission taking
only a few weeks, but Cornwall LPA…
has turned it into a battle of several years.”
The Lodges had been offered for sale for in excess of nine months and the asking price, which was based on a number of valuations, was subsequently reduced; even so, there have been no viewings, and no offers.
“This should have been a simple change of use permission taking
only a few weeks, but Cornwall LPA…
has turned it into a battle of several years.”
Said Mr Iqbal: “As such, the appellants assert that Tudor Lodges is not only unviable as a business but it is also unviable to sell.
“The Council considers that the business was marketed at an excessive value. However, I have no substantive evidence to support this.
“The decline in occupancy suggests that despite Tudor Lodges providing specialised accommodation, demand for this is falling. This may be due to similar but newer accommodation with better facilities located closer to other larger nearby settlements being available, as suggested by the appellant.
“Indeed, I have not been provided with any clear evidence that suggests that there is demand for the specific type of accommodation available at Tudor Lodges.”
Because his information was that the occupancy of the unit was in decline, the inspector said it might follow that there would be a reduction in visitor spend.
“On the other hand, the (appeal) proposal would bring new residents to the area who are also likely to support the local economy,” he said, adding he was ‘not persuaded’ that the loss of the holiday accommodation at Tudor Lodges, would unacceptably undermine the local tourism economy.
The Inspector noted that Policy No.8 of the Cornwall Local Plan required that for developments of between six and ten dwellings a financial contribution in lieu of on-site provision of affordable housing should be sought.
“The main parties agreed that… a financial affordable housing contribution is required and necessary,” he said.
“Nevertheless, the appellant disputes the amount of the financial affordable housing contribution requested by the Council.
“Irrespective of this, and although I do not dispute the appellants’ intension to provide an agreed affordable housing financial contribution, at the time of the hearing this had not been agreed and secured. Therefore, the proposal fails to make appropriate provision for affordable housing and conflicts with Policy No.8.
“I have found that the appeal site is in a suitable location for housing and would not unacceptably harm the tourism economy or an Area of Great Landscape Value.
“On the other hand, the proposal fails to make any contribution towards affordable housing. For this reason and conflict with the development plan, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.”
Commented Mr Tudor: “This should have been a simple change of use permission taking only a few weeks, but Cornwall LPA for whatever reason has turned it into a battle of several years.”