Comments for Trelawney Alliance http://trelawney-alliance.org Objections to mass building in Cornwall Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:36:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 Comment on Comments by Stuart Guppy http://trelawney-alliance.org/?p=1&cpage=1#comment-63 Stuart Guppy Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:27:18 +0000 http://trelawney-alliance.org/?p=1#comment-63 I took the matter of the lack of microphones and the general conduct of this appalling meeting up with the councillors. One told me that the application was approved a few months ago. The meeting on 2nd March was to tidy up design points etc. Well, I did not get that impression. Why did councillors make objections about air pollution ? Why did Cllr Jean Charman have to plead her case so well ? A complete waste of everyone's time if it was already done and dusted. Local democracy has gone out of the window and needs clawing back smartly. I took the matter of the lack of microphones and the general conduct of this appalling meeting up with the councillors. One told me that the application was approved a few months ago. The meeting on 2nd March was to tidy up design points etc. Well, I did not get that impression. Why did councillors make objections about air pollution ? Why did Cllr Jean Charman have to plead her case so well ? A complete waste of everyone’s time if it was already done and dusted. Local democracy has gone out of the window and needs clawing back smartly.

]]> Comment on Comments by Via email http://trelawney-alliance.org/?p=1&cpage=1#comment-62 Via email Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:53:55 +0000 http://trelawney-alliance.org/?p=1#comment-62 I had a phone call this evening from Cllr Dolley in response to my letter concerning the conduct of the Camborne Planning Committee meeting. She explained that she voted for it as she was on the committee that approved it in principle a few months ago. So, she said, " it would have been undemocratic of me to vote against it this time. In any case, it was approved then and so is going ahead anyway. " So I then asked her what the purpose of having last Tuesday's meeting was, and she replied " I'm not prepared to discuss it " Local democracy has gone out of the window ! I had a phone call this evening from Cllr Dolley in response to my letter concerning the conduct of the Camborne Planning Committee meeting.
She explained that she voted for it as she was on the committee that approved it in principle a few months ago. So, she said, ” it would have been undemocratic of me to vote against it this time. In any case, it was approved then and so is going ahead anyway. ”
So I then asked her what the purpose of having last Tuesday’s meeting was, and she replied ” I’m not prepared to discuss it ”

Local democracy has gone out of the window !

]]> Comment on Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) by Blog Kernow http://trelawney-alliance.org/?page_id=348&cpage=1#comment-58 Blog Kernow Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:31:29 +0000 http://trelawney-alliance.org/?page_id=348#comment-58 [...] by 2026 or the almost equally as bad 9,400 houses proposed by the old Kerrier District Council.The Trelawney Alliance is more suspicious of the postponed work on the plan. And rightly so. Consult the Council’s paper [...] By TA - For the full story see the Blog Kernow website. [...] by 2026 or the almost equally as bad 9,400 houses proposed by the old Kerrier District Council.The Trelawney Alliance is more suspicious of the postponed work on the plan. And rightly so. Consult the Council’s paper [...]

By TA - For the full story see the Blog Kernow website.

]]> Comment on Comments by Via email http://trelawney-alliance.org/?p=1&cpage=1#comment-40 Via email Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:03:28 +0000 http://trelawney-alliance.org/?p=1#comment-40 <strong>Homes take away land for food</strong> THE UK is entering an age of austerity: 'Make and grow' will become the watchwords of the era. But there is a limit to what Britain can do for itself. Hilary Benn, the agriculture secretary, said that to secure its food security, the UK needs to start producing more of its own food. The UK's ability to feed itself relies on the country enjoying access to a well-diversified mix of deep markets and existing greenfield land; and its ability to manufacture relies on industry surviving and growing. The UK buys food from around the world -mostly from the EU, which provides 69% of the country's food imports. However, this does expose our country to global food price spikes. DEFRA has just published results that because of the EU inflated food prices we paid £3.2 billion more in 2007 than we should have: that's another £57 each. In the year to July 2008, UK food prices rose by 12.8%. This placed a strain on all families. Market food prices may one day rise and stay high. But, in that case, marginal land - in Britain and elsewhere - will come into use to keep them in check. The more houses we build on greenfield sites, the less food we will be able to grow. Therefore, Mr Benn should focus his efforts on making sure that the current system works and that all of these area action plans to build thousands and thousands of houses are torn up. Food markets must remain open, land must be farmed. DEREK ELLIOTT By TA: Well researched and is a clear example of Government departments not talking to each other and stiking a sensible balance. One department says we must grow more food and another says build on the fields ! Total lack of joined up thinking ! Homes take away land for food
THE UK is entering an age of austerity: ‘Make and grow’ will become the watchwords of the era. But there is a limit to what Britain can do for itself.
Hilary Benn, the agriculture secretary, said that to secure its food security, the UK needs to start producing more of its own food. The UK’s ability to feed itself relies on the country enjoying access to a well-diversified mix of deep markets and existing greenfield land; and its ability to manufacture relies on industry surviving and growing. The UK buys food from around the world -mostly from the EU, which provides 69% of the country’s food imports. However, this does expose our country to global food price spikes. DEFRA has just published results that because of the EU inflated food prices we paid £3.2 billion more in 2007 than we should have: that’s another £57 each. In the year to July 2008, UK food prices rose by 12.8%. This placed a strain on all families.
Market food prices may one day rise and stay high. But, in that case, marginal land - in Britain and elsewhere - will come into use to keep them in check. The more houses we build on greenfield sites, the less food we will be able to grow.
Therefore, Mr Benn should focus his efforts on making sure that the current system works and that all of these area action plans to build thousands and thousands of houses are torn up. Food markets must remain open, land must be farmed.
DEREK ELLIOTT
By TA: Well researched and is a clear example of Government departments not talking to each other and stiking a sensible balance. One department says we must grow more food and another says build on the fields ! Total lack of joined up thinking !

]]> Comment on Comments by Via email http://trelawney-alliance.org/?p=1&cpage=1#comment-39 Via email Sat, 30 Jan 2010 15:59:10 +0000 http://trelawney-alliance.org/?p=1#comment-39 I agree with all you have said and all you are working for as the Trelawney Alliance. I attended the meeting on the 15th and have to say my main disappointment was that the "speakers", one in particular, exceeded the allocated time and thus shortened the public speaking time considerably. Luckily, a good number had their say. I feel that more of these meetings would be beneficial in letting the powers that be know that we are not prepared to sit down to be stepped on and dictated to. It is very important to concentrate on the employment side of the area before considering the infrastructure and then the housing. Regarding the construction of new houses, could it not be considered that the rate band system could be used and that lower rate band houses should be sold to local people only leaving the more expensive properties only on the open market. This has worked for many years in places like Jersey and Guernsey so could not this be investigated? I cannot believe the Crofty site has even been contemplated as a place to build properties. Where does the fact that there are holes and tunnels underground as well as high radon and arsenic levels on this site come into the equation. Who will be prepared to supply mortgages on these properties? Probably no one, leaving the developers to let the properties at high rentals so we will still be getting nowhere. Lastly, the latest Government wishes is to grow more food and cultivate more land. If most of the greenfield sites are to be concreted over, how are we supposed to manage that? Needed to air my views, keep me posted BY TA: Thank you for your comment regarding time allowed to speakers has been noted and this was discussed at our last committee meeting. We have devised a method of improved control and this will be inplemented at our next public meeting. I agree with all you have said and all you are working for as the Trelawney Alliance. I attended the meeting on the 15th and have to say my main disappointment was that the “speakers”, one in particular, exceeded the allocated time and thus shortened the public speaking time considerably. Luckily, a good number had their say.

I feel that more of these meetings would be beneficial in letting the powers that be know that we are not prepared to sit down to be stepped on and dictated to.

It is very important to concentrate on the employment side of the area before considering the infrastructure and then the housing. Regarding the construction of new houses, could it not be considered that the rate band system could be used and that lower rate band houses should be sold to local people only leaving the more expensive properties only on the open market. This has worked for many years in places like Jersey and Guernsey so could not this be investigated?

I cannot believe the Crofty site has even been contemplated as a place to build properties. Where does the fact that there are holes and tunnels underground as well as high radon and arsenic levels on this site come into the equation. Who will be prepared to supply mortgages on these properties? Probably no one, leaving the developers to let the properties at high rentals so we will still be getting nowhere.

Lastly, the latest Government wishes is to grow more food and cultivate more land. If most of the greenfield sites are to be concreted over, how are we supposed to manage that?

Needed to air my views, keep me posted

BY TA: Thank you for your comment regarding time allowed to speakers has been noted and this was discussed at our last committee meeting. We have devised a method of improved control and this will be inplemented at our next public meeting.

]]> Comment on Comments by Via email http://trelawney-alliance.org/?p=1&cpage=1#comment-37 Via email Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:43:39 +0000 http://trelawney-alliance.org/?p=1#comment-37 Via email 25th Jan 2010 Trelawney Alliance is against the mass build on green field sites. Eleven thousand houses planned for Camborne Redurth area. The Treswithian green field sites should be a worry to all the residents of Camborne and Redruth. There is no indication where the employment for these people, who would require mortgages would come. No obvious plans for the infrastructure to go with this large development, this too would require even more land for the building of schools, doctors surgery's, fire station, dental surgery's, have you tried to get a National Health Service dentist recently? No luck eh! Just think what it would be like with an extra twenty thousand residents in our area. No doubt Tesco's would love to build another large store for all these new customers. More land gone! Yes, that would bring employment, but at what cost, low wages and part time employment again. This would keep the new population on the bread line, at least then the long term residents of Camborne and Redruth wouldn't feel too hard done by, they are already on the bread line. So no change there then. The other reasons for protecting our green fields are so obvious, our great prime minister says we should be growing more food for the increasing population. He just doesn't mention where. He and his government have plans to concrete over most of it. Once the green fields are gone, they are gone forever. We in Cornwall have such wonderful pasture lands. Let's fight to keep them. We also rely on the tourist industry. Love it or dislike it, Cornwall needs the tourist industry. We don't have any other industry left, so we must ensure that Cornwall remains a green and pleasant place to visit. To get away from the concrete jungles that, for example, where the people of Birmingham live, for two weeks holiday in Cornwall, to spend money getting here, spend a fortune on accommodation to stay here and to feed themselves whilst here, costs them a great deal. In fairness we need to make it a pleasurable experience, so that they return to us and spend that fortune again year after year. If we become a long string of housing from Redruth to Penzance, will they find us so appealing? I don't think so. We really must take an interest in the plans for the area in which we live. If our feelings are not made known, the powers that be will do whatever they want with our Cornwall, after all it's not in their back yard is it? <strong>By TA </strong>- This email typifies the comments we we hear on a regular basis and we consider to be the viewpoint of the (unfortunately) silent majority. We agree without question that the mass build planned is unsustainable and our tourist industry will be severely damaged Via email 25th Jan 2010
Trelawney Alliance is against the mass build on green field sites. Eleven thousand houses planned for Camborne Redurth area. The Treswithian green field sites should be a worry to all the residents of Camborne and Redruth. There is no indication where the employment for these people, who would require mortgages would come. No obvious plans for the infrastructure to go with this large development, this too would require even more land for the building of schools, doctors surgery’s, fire station, dental surgery’s, have you tried to get a National Health Service dentist recently? No luck eh! Just think what it would be like with an extra twenty thousand residents in our area. No doubt Tesco’s would love to build another large store for all these new customers. More land gone! Yes, that would bring employment, but at what cost, low wages and part time employment again. This would keep the new population on the bread line, at least then the long term residents of Camborne and Redruth wouldn’t feel too hard done by, they are already on the bread line. So no change there then.

The other reasons for protecting our green fields are so obvious, our great prime minister says we should be growing more food for the increasing population. He just doesn’t mention where. He and his government have plans to concrete over most of it. Once the green fields are gone, they are gone forever. We in Cornwall have such wonderful pasture lands. Let’s fight to keep them. We also rely on the tourist industry. Love it or dislike it, Cornwall needs the tourist industry. We don’t have any other industry left, so we must ensure that Cornwall remains a green and pleasant place to visit. To get away from the concrete jungles that, for example, where the people of Birmingham live, for two weeks holiday in Cornwall, to spend money getting here, spend a fortune on accommodation to stay here and to feed themselves whilst here, costs them a great deal. In fairness we need to make it a pleasurable experience, so that they return to us and spend that fortune again year after year. If we become a long string of housing from Redruth to Penzance, will they find us so appealing? I don’t think so.

We really must take an interest in the plans for the area in which we live. If our feelings are not made known, the powers that be will do whatever they want with our Cornwall, after all it’s not in their back yard is it?

By TA - This email typifies the comments we we hear on a regular basis and we consider to be the viewpoint of the (unfortunately) silent majority. We agree without question that the mass build planned is unsustainable and our tourist industry will be severely damaged

]]> Comment on Comments by Via email http://trelawney-alliance.org/?p=1&cpage=1#comment-35 Via email Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:17:55 +0000 http://trelawney-alliance.org/?p=1#comment-35 <strong>Via email 20th Jan 2010</strong> Thanks for organising the meeting last Friday - it was very useful. The way forward must be political. We can safely assume that if the Cornish Electorate were asked 'Are you in favour of 68,000 new houses in Cornwall as directed by the Government' at least 80% would vote against it. If however they were asked 'Some housing is needed and it should up to local Government (i.e. the Council) to decide' then I expect that 80% will be for it. On that reasonable presumption then by all County Councilors must also be against the 68,000 as they are elected to carry out the wishes of the electorate and not their own should they be different. Thus the whole Council (incl. the Cabinet) must be against it.. Maybe this should be pointed out to each councilor. Clearly the Council have no option but to tell Government that Cornwall do not want this, we should refuse to do it and delay any work towards implementing this. One would ask, with the Council in dire financial trouble, why are our planners spending time and money on something that Cornwall does not want? This work should be stopped. I hear the cry from Council - 'We cannot do that' - well lets try and see what happens. We stood up to Hitler. This is the greatest threat to Cornwall since 1940. What is Government going to do - put the Chairman and the Cabinet in jail? Hardly. Also the Council's Chairman should be speaking to other councils that are in a similar position and say 'Cornwall are not going to do it - come and join us with the fight against Government'. I bet the Government would back down when faced by a country wide revolt! When the plans for the Unitary Authority were fought and the Districts had their polls, I wrote to Ben Bradshaw, then Minister for the SW, suggesting that he should take note of local opinion. In a standard letter reply he said that they had carried out their own poll, by Mori I think, and it gave a different answer. Government like official polls - so why don't we pay someone recognised, like Mori, to carry out a poll for us? The results could be useful ammunition. There could be two questions something on the lines of: 1. Do you want 68,000 extra houses ( a population increase of about 150,000) - or 10 Helstons) to be built in Cornwall at locations selected by the Government? Yes or No 2. Do you accept that Cornwall needs some additional housing and that the amount, location and type should be decided by local people? Yes or No. They are not loaded questions but I think that we can be sure of the answers. <strong>BY TA:</strong> We are in complete accord with this viewpoint. We know for a fact that there are members of the CC who state that they are opposed to this level of mass build, but when it comes to a vote, many vote in favour. They did so at the old District level, and they are now doing so at CC level. No matter what the local electorate say, it seems, many CCs are not prepared, on our behalf, to challenge the Government on this. What we suggest is for the electorate to challenge their respective councillors on this very topic. With respect to the question of a poll, TA will look at this to see if it is a feasible option. After 12 months of talking with local residents and other groups around the Duchy, we agree that, assuming the questions are not slanted or ambiguous, the answer regarding the presently proposed plans would overwhelmingly align with the viewpoint of TA. Via email 20th Jan 2010

Thanks for organising the meeting last Friday - it was very useful.

The way forward must be political.

We can safely assume that if the Cornish Electorate were asked ‘Are you in favour of 68,000 new houses in Cornwall as directed by the Government’ at least 80% would vote against it. If however they were asked ‘Some housing is needed and it should up to local Government (i.e. the Council) to decide’ then I expect that 80% will be for it. On that reasonable presumption then by all County Councilors must also be against the 68,000 as they are elected to carry out the wishes of the electorate and not their own should they be different. Thus the whole Council (incl. the Cabinet) must be against it.. Maybe this should be pointed out to each councilor.

Clearly the Council have no option but to tell Government that Cornwall do not want this, we should refuse to do it and delay any work towards implementing this. One would ask, with the Council in dire financial trouble, why are our planners spending time and money on something that Cornwall does not want? This work should be stopped. I hear the cry from Council - ‘We cannot do that’ - well lets try and see what happens. We stood up to Hitler. This is the greatest threat to Cornwall since 1940. What is Government going to do - put the Chairman and the Cabinet in jail? Hardly.

Also the Council’s Chairman should be speaking to other councils that are in a similar position and say ‘Cornwall are not going to do it - come and join us with the fight against Government’. I bet the Government would back down when faced by a country wide revolt!

When the plans for the Unitary Authority were fought and the Districts had their polls, I wrote to Ben Bradshaw, then Minister for the SW, suggesting that he should take note of local opinion. In a standard letter reply he said that they had carried out their own poll, by Mori I think, and it gave a different answer.

Government like official polls - so why don’t we pay someone recognised, like Mori, to carry out a poll for us? The results could be useful ammunition. There could be two questions something on the lines of:

1. Do you want 68,000 extra houses ( a population increase of about 150,000) - or 10 Helstons) to be built in Cornwall at locations selected by the Government? Yes or No

2. Do you accept that Cornwall needs some additional housing and that the amount, location and type should be decided by local people? Yes or No.

They are not loaded questions but I think that we can be sure of the answers.

BY TA: We are in complete accord with this viewpoint. We know for a fact that there are members of the CC who state that they are opposed to this level of mass build, but when it comes to a vote, many vote in favour. They did so at the old District level, and they are now doing so at CC level.
No matter what the local electorate say, it seems, many CCs are not prepared, on our behalf, to challenge the Government on this. What we suggest is for the electorate to challenge their respective councillors on this very topic.
With respect to the question of a poll, TA will look at this to see if it is a feasible option. After 12 months of talking with local residents and other groups around the Duchy, we agree that, assuming the questions are not slanted or ambiguous, the answer regarding the presently proposed plans would overwhelmingly align with the viewpoint of TA.

]]> Comment on Comments by Via email http://trelawney-alliance.org/?p=1&cpage=1#comment-34 Via email Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:16:07 +0000 http://trelawney-alliance.org/?p=1#comment-34 <strong>Received by email- Fri 22nd Jan 2010</strong> This evening local news was about Wadebridge, apparently, the Council up there want to sell off the Council offices and move to another plot 15 miles away and build a new Council office building. That is going to cost several millions. The reasoning behind that is that the offices cost too much to run. It didn't look in bad repair or old at all, in fact in made the Council offices in Camborne look geriatric. The interesting part of it is that Tesco's have shown great interest in the old Council offices and would like the plot to build yet another store. Apparently it would appear that Tesco have offered vast amounts of money for the site. Obviously the population of Wadebridge are up in arms and intend to fight this decision of the Council tooth and nail. It will be interesting to see who wins, Council, Tesco's, or the people that actually live in the town. Good luck to the residents of Wadebridge is what I say!!!!! <strong>BY TA:</strong> On the subject of who will win, there will need to be a concentrated effort by the local residents because recent history would indicate that the planners and many of our locally elected representatives take precious little notice otherwise. A combination of Tesco and the CC would prove to be a heavyweight adversary, but the local residents of Wadebridge have strength of numbers if they are motivated to oppose this. Received by email- Fri 22nd Jan 2010
This evening local news was about Wadebridge, apparently, the Council up there want to sell off the Council offices and move to another plot 15 miles away and build a new Council office building. That is going to cost several millions. The reasoning behind that is that the offices cost too much to run. It didn’t look in bad repair or old at all, in fact in made the Council offices in Camborne look geriatric.

The interesting part of it is that Tesco’s have shown great interest in the old Council offices and would like the plot to build yet another store. Apparently it would appear that Tesco have offered vast amounts of money for the site.

Obviously the population of Wadebridge are up in arms and intend to fight this decision of the Council tooth and nail.

It will be interesting to see who wins, Council, Tesco’s, or the people that actually live in the town. Good luck to the residents of Wadebridge is what I say!!!!!

BY TA: On the subject of who will win, there will need to be a concentrated effort by the local residents because recent history would indicate that the planners and many of our locally elected representatives take precious little notice otherwise.
A combination of Tesco and the CC would prove to be a heavyweight adversary, but the local residents of Wadebridge have strength of numbers if they are motivated to oppose this.

]]> Comment on Comments by Philip R Hosking http://trelawney-alliance.org/?p=1&cpage=1#comment-26 Philip R Hosking Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:22:46 +0000 http://trelawney-alliance.org/?p=1#comment-26 Hello all I'd just like to bring to your attention a blog article on the Cornish Democrat that I think is relevent to your respective campaigns. Kernow's not for sale!: http://thecornishdemocrat.blogspot.com/2009/10/kernows-not-for-sale.html Please note that your campaigns are linked to on my blog -- Oll an gwella Philip Hosking Hello all

I’d just like to bring to your attention a blog article on the Cornish Democrat that I think is relevent to your respective campaigns.

Kernow’s not for sale!: http://thecornishdemocrat.blogspot.com/2009/10/kernows-not-for-sale.html

Please note that your campaigns are linked to on my blog

–
Oll an gwella

Philip Hosking

]]> Comment on Comments by Doris Butler http://trelawney-alliance.org/?p=1&cpage=1#comment-19 Doris Butler Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:02:39 +0000 http://trelawney-alliance.org/?p=1#comment-19 It seems once again that the developers have the upper hand with the council and the local residents and people who know the area are ignored - County officials do not seem to get the message that local people need jobs to enable them to buy a house, building houses for people without an income is futile - promises of jobs in the future does not sell houses now. It is not affordable houses that are needed it is social housing for all the people that are unable to find work and for those who are losing their homes because the jobs in the area are disappearing. This is a vicious circle that needs to be broken - houses being built and laying empty until people from out of county buy them and the area slowly dying. An average good wage for a young couple must surely only be £30-40,000 an affordable house large enough to raise a family would have to be £70,000 (so the family can eat and have some kind f life) - such a property just does not exist. Even if they could get a mortgage, which I understand is very difficult for a 'tied affordable house.' Surely housing the people on the housing list should be the first priority - then 'shared ownership' then 'affordable' then open market. Cornwall County must look after its own first -something that Councillors seem to forget - and do it now - before there are no Cornish young families left in Cornwall. It seems once again that the developers have the upper hand with the council and the local residents and people who know the area are ignored - County officials do not seem to get the message that local people need jobs to enable them to buy a house, building houses for people without an income is futile - promises of jobs in the future does not sell houses now. It is not affordable houses that are needed it is social housing for all the people that are unable to find work and for those who are losing their homes because the jobs in the area are disappearing. This is a vicious circle that needs to be broken - houses being built and laying empty until people from out of county buy them and the area slowly dying.

An average good wage for a young couple must surely only be £30-40,000 an affordable house large enough to raise a family would have to be £70,000 (so the family can eat and have some kind f life) - such a property just does not exist. Even if they could get a mortgage, which I understand is very difficult for a ‘tied affordable house.’

Surely housing the people on the housing list should be the first priority - then ’shared ownership’ then ‘affordable’ then open market.

Cornwall County must look after its own first -something that Councillors seem to forget - and do it now - before there are no Cornish young families left in Cornwall.

]]>