HOUSING developer Wainhomes has been blocked from building two homes on a piece of land that locals thought was guaranteed to be kept as open space.

The company had applied for planning permission to build the two four-bedroom properties on land which is currently home to its sales office at Swanvale in Falmouth.

Cornwall Council’s planning officers had recommended that the central sub-area planning committee approve the plans when they considered them yesterday.

But the committee went against the recommendation and refused planning permission with councillors saying they felt the land should remain undeveloped.

Falmouth town councillor Roger Bonney said that when planning permission was originally granted for the development it was thought that the land would be “dedicated open space”.

He said: “It would be an open area for people to congregate, to talk and sit and enjoy the view.”

Cllr Bonney said it wasn’t right for Wainhomes to come back more than 10 years after planning permission was granted for the main development and try to build more.

Andrew Tilbrook, from Wainhomes, said the plans were an “infill” development and would be in keeping with the local area.

He said: “It is not public open space, it is private land and owned by Wainhomes. We can’t find any documentation that states that it would be open space.”

Local Cornwall councillor Alan Jewell said that when the plans for the estate were granted they indicated that the patch of land would not be built on.

He said: “It was shown that it would be open space. It was open space for many years before the sales office was put on it.”

Cllr Jewell said that if the land was to be built on Wainhomes should be providing it to allow locals to build affordable homes on.

He added: “They are building two four-bedroom homes that will cost who knows what and local people won’t be able to afford them.”

Planning committee member John Fitter said the council should protect the land for open space.

“We do have evidence that previously to that (development) going in there it was used as open space. Are we prepared to extinguish that open space and allow it to be built on?”

Cllr Fitter said he felt the council should “insist” that the land is restored as open space.

Fellow councillor Dulcie Tudor said she supported that view adding: “I hope that we can find a reason to refuse this.

“At some point surely we have to draw a line. Even if we are unable to refuse this today we should use this as an opportunity to tell developers what we think of them railroading local people and railroading people who bought houses around that land thinking it was open space who are outraged by this.”

Cllr Tudor said she was not surprised by the application and that almost every councillor had seen similar applications on developments in their areas.

But Joanna Kenny was not so sure and was “sorry to say” that as it was not a formal open space there was nothing to prevent the development.

Chris Batters agreed, saying he admired the passion of councillors Jewell and Bonney but the committee had to look at it in planning terms.

He said: “I can’t see any other option but going for what our planning officer recommends (to approve permission).”

Committee vice chairman Fred Greenslade agreed and seconded Cllr Batters’ proposal to approve permission. But when it was put to the vote it was lost with four votes in favour and nine against.

A proposal to refuse was tabled by Cllr Fitter and seconded by John Dyer and was passed with nine votes in favour and four against.