Plans by a Cornish aparthotel to host weddings and other events on a lawn directly next to new homes have resulted in neighbours suffering mental health difficulties and sleep deprivation due to anxiety, a Cornwall Council meeting has been told.
St Ives Assets Ltd, which owns the Treloyhan Manor Hotel in St Ives, submitted the application for modifications that would include outdoor alcohol sales until 1am.
Over 60 local residents contacted the council's licensing department expressing concerns about noise disturbance and potential antisocial conduct should the former hotel be permitted to utilise its external space for occasions including film screenings and wedding ceremonies.
READ MORE: {}
The manor is situated directly beside the South West Coast Path.
A licensing committee received testimony from numerous residents stating that with no barriers separating their properties from the apartment complex, the proposal could result in intoxicated visitors creating disturbances in the tranquil location and potentially lead to individuals urinating in their doorways. Local residents went so far as to claim it would "destroy" their lives.
Treloyhan Manor was built by local maritime entrepreneur Edward Hain as his private family residence in 1892. Throughout the Second World War, the manor accommodated pupils relocated from Sussex and transformed into a guest house shortly afterwards.
Methodist Guild Holidays ran the manor as a Christian sanctuary until 2021. In 2024 it relaunched as a 76-bed aparthotel under St Ives Assets Ltd's ownership following a £25m refurbishment, featuring five additional lodges.
In response to the significant local opposition to the application, the firm's solicitor Joe Harvey proposed a number of modifications. These include limiting alcohol sales to 11pm, eliminating live and recorded music (with exceptions under the Live Music Act), and reducing the annual event count while capping attendees at 100.
Most Read
Mr Harvey stated that prior to his clients' acquisition, the business was failing and its long-term survival relied entirely on investment. This was achieved by selling a portion of the land for residential development.
Many residents of these new homes are now objecting to the licensing proposal.
"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 conveyed during 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 modifications would enable the business to operate in a manner beneficial to the local community and economy, positioning it as a "good neighbour". The establishment now functions as an aparthotel, offering 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, a resident of one of the new homes on Treloyhan Manor Drive and the closest neighbour to the manor's lawn, said the application suggested the grounds were separate from the 16 residential properties surrounding the manor.
Don’t miss
Mr Craig presented the committee with an aerial drone photograph, highlighting the proximity of the area designated for weddings and other events to the homes, with no boundaries in between.
He pointed out that all amenities were removed from the building when it was converted into an aparthotel – including the 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 resides in one of the properties that border the manor's grounds, said: "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 local resident, Claire Wright, addressed the meeting. she said: "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 tranquillity."
She criticised the applicant's solicitor for "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 voiced worries about noise impacting the nearby coast path, stating it "which affects everyone in St Ives, people leave St Ives for the silence of the coast path here".
Cornwall councillor based in St Ives, Andrew Mitchell, speaking on behalf of 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 added, noting 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 solicitor for Treloyhan Manor, Mr Harvey, addressed the issues raised during the meeting, stating: "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."
After more than an hour's discussion, the licensing committee rejected the application. The members believed that even with the proposed changes, the use of the outdoor area would contravene the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective and could negatively affect the local residents, some of whom live in close proximity to the manor.