Letters

1o. The following letter has been sent by a TA Supported and copied to us (Edited to preserve anonimity) An answer has been received informing the author that the PI will investigate the concerns and report findings:

The Planning Inspectorate
Room 3/19a Hawk Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6PN

Dear Sir/Ms

Initially may I ask is the documentation in the form of a planning committee report a legal document? In that the contents have to be factually correct and that the matters to be considered by councillors cannot be altered at any stage during a planning meeting. If any important information relative to the documentation and application has to be altered, does this mean rewriting the relevant parts of the submission and resubmitted for consideration at the next planning meeting?

For example, at a planning meeting held at the Old Kerrier Offices, Camborne, on 2 March 2010, an application relating to reserved matters for phase 2 of an development, following granting of an outline plan for the entire project on 19 October 2007, four matters were to be considered, namely

siting of the building
design and external appearance of buildings
landscaping
the means of vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access together with associated roads.

Following a debate, which in itself was very unsatisfactory as far as members of the public present were concerned and indeed some county councillors, the vote was carried. The planning officer had recommended strong acceptance, and in the view of many present had disregarded and verbally stated that county councillors were only to consider the design of the buildings. Indeed when one councillor challenged the design, she was told that this was not relevant as this had been addressed at the outlining planning meeting on 19 October 2007.

One councillor who spoke against the proposal, was interrupted during his three minute presentation by the planning officer and told his concerns relating to air pollution were not relevant to the extra vehicular movements within and surrounding this site. Which already is located within an area that is regularly monitored for air pollution and its findings show a high level of air pollution.This is one example of how the meeting was conducted. It then leads me to my crucial question in which I, as a member of the public and a Town Councillor, but not a member of any planning committee, seek your expert and considered advice.

While a councillor may speak, but not vote on an planning application, when it is an conflict of interest to that individual. What is the position as regards a planning officer? Planning Officers work with major developers, or individuals that wish to seek permission to construct ninety houses, or simply put up a porch against their existing dwelling. They give advice in relation to planning laws, environmental and other such issues as its impacts on a particular application. Having worked closely with the appellant over a number of weeks, or months, surely this is a conflict of interest? In that the officer is going to recommend approval as it is in many instances his/her decisions that are being presented to councillors. If challenged by councillors, as in this instance the planning officer was, surely the same rules should be applied to planning officers, as indeed they are with councillors? Should the planning officer be even present within the chamber during the planning meeting? If so, simply as an observer?

During the meeting, a member of the public passed, relevant to the application, information to a councillor for him to consider and present to the council officers. Immediately one planning officer that was sitting in as an observer during the meeting, snatched the document away and gave it to the the council officers. The response from the chairman was that this is not allowed. That no member of the public can pass any information to a councillor during a planning meeting. Another issue that I seek your advice on.

Recently the Cornwall Council agreed that county councillors may during a meeting keep their computers or mobiles on-line to “twitter” etc. Surely this would mean information can be transmitted from a member of the public to a councillor? Therefore surely a councillor can be allowed to present any paper information received from a member of the public, while a meeting is in sitting?

Finally, it was very concerning to learn during the meeting that CABE, Commission for Architecture for the Building Environment were asked to comment on the proposed design development and declined to do so. Which itself gives cause for concern the reasons for why they declined to give an opinion, as they had recently given constructive advice on another major development within the same locality?

Other issues that occurred during this meeting gave me cause for concern. Leading to me writing to seek your legal advice and considered opinions on such issues. Thank you.

Yours faithfully

9. Copy of a letter sent by a TA supporter to the Western Morning News and copied to us

Dear Sirs

I was horrified at the antics displayed at the Cornwall Council planning meeting last Tuesday in Camborne.
The planning officers were blatantly trying to bully the councillors into passing this highly controversial application; the microphones, with the exception of the chairman’s, appeared to have been turned off so the many public who attended were unable to hear the proceedings clearly!
It is an unaccepted fact that Democracy in the UK is nearly dead; it has been overridden by the Republic of Europe with its unelected leaders ruling us. BUT even in its death throes, we still claim to be governed from the bottom up! Cornwall even has a highly paid (from the rates) team whose sole remit is ‘Localism’ that is supposedly getting local opinion heard!!
Well. Camborne Council refused this application twice, there have been several public meetings where the vast majority voted against this development; how much more localism do they need?
When it was eventually passed by the Old Kerrier Council, it was subject to conditions that are still outstanding; so how can the Cornwall Councillors who voted for this application through claim in any way to be working for the benefit of the electorate?
I am reliably informed that only seventeen of these homes are for local residents, with the remainder allocated for more immigrants, if this is so where are they going to work? Where are their children going to be educated? Who is going to fund their social benefits and health care?

Congratulations to the few Councillors who did the decent thing, shame on the rest.

8. The following is a letter passed to TA which has been sent to the Planning Inspectorate regarding the planning meeting held on Tues 2nd March which agreed building on the old Holmans site in Camborne

While I am writing to you as an individual and member of the public, seeking your advice relating to the legality of planning documentation given to councillors, the conduct of a planning meeting, the rules and regulations surrounding planning officers, it should be noted that I was elected as a town councillor for Camborne in August 2009.Initially may I ask is the documentation in the form of a planning committee report a legal document? In that the contents have to be factually correct and that the matters to be considered by councillors cannot be altered at any stage during a planning meeting. If any important information relative to the documentation and application has to be altered, does this mean rewriting the relevant parts of the submission and resubmitted for consideration at the next planning meeting?
For example, at a planning meeting held at the Old Kerrier Offices, Camborne, on 2 March 2010, an application relating to reserved matters for phase 2 of an development, following granting of an outline plan for the entire project on 19 October 2007, four matters were to be considered, namely

siting of the building
design and external appearance of buildings
landscaping
the means of vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access together with associated roads.

Additionally, and this comes to the real crux of my concern, the document stated that the range of designs and building heights are two and three storeys in height. No where throughout the planning officers report does it mention four storey high buildings. Which the developer had now included within the design presented.
Following a debate, which in itself was very unsatisfactory as far as members of the public present were concerned and indeed some county councillors, the vote was carried. The planning officer had recommended strong acceptance, and in the view of many present had disregarded and verbally stated that county councillors were only to consider the design of the buildings. Indeed when one councillor challenged the design, she was told that this was not relevant as this had been addressed at the outlining planning meeting on 19 October 2007.
One councillor who spoke against the proposal, was interrupted during his three minute presentation by the planning officer and told his concerns relating to air pollution were not relevant to the extra vehicular movements within and surrounding this site. Which already is located within an area that is regularly monitored for air pollution and its findings show a high level of air pollution.
This is one example of how the meeting was conducted. It then leads me to my crucial question in which I, as a member of the public and a Town Councillor, but not a member of any planning committee, seek your expert and considered advice.
While a councillor may speak, but not vote on an planning application, when it is an conflict of interest to that individual. What is the position as regards a planning officer? Planning Officers work with major developers, or individuals that wish to seek permission to construct ninety houses, or simply put up a porch against their existing dwelling. They give advice in relation to planning laws, environmental and other such issues as its impacts on a particular application. Having worked closely with the appellant over a number of weeks, or months, surely this is a conflict of interest? In that the officer is going to recommend approval as it is in many instances his/her decisions that are being presented to councillors. If challenged by councillors, as in this instance the planning officer was, surely the same rules should be applied to planning officers, as indeed they are with councillors? Should the planning officer be even present within the chamber during the planning meeting? If so, simply as an observer?
During the meeting, a member of the public passed, relevant to the application, information to a councillor for him to consider and present to the council officers. Immediately one planning officer that was sitting in as an observer during the meeting, snatched the document away and gave it to the the council officers. The response from the chairman was that this is not allowed. That no member of the public can pass any information to a councillor during a planning meeting. Another issue that I seek your advice on.
Recently the Cornwall Council agreed that county councillors may during a meeting keep their computers or mobiles on-line to “twitter” etc. Surely this would mean information can be transmitted from a member of the public to a councillor? Therefore surely a councillor can be allowed to present any paper information received from a member of the public, while a meeting is in sitting?
Finally, it was very concerning to learn during the meeting that CABE, Commission for Architecture for the Building Environment were asked to comment on the proposed design development and declined to do so. Which itself gives cause for concern the reasons for why they declined to give an opinion, as they had recently given constructive advice on another major development within the same locality?
Other issues that occurred during this meeting gave me cause for concern. Leading to me writing to seek your legal advice and considered opinions on such issues. Thank you.

7. Homes must come first - Letters page West Briton 11^th Feb 2010

MIXED feelings as building work begins (Camborne-Redruth West Briton, January 28) at the old Holman’s No 3 works; and about time, to!

The “mixed feelings” seemingly stem from yet another minority group (where do they all come from?) calling itself the Trevu Action Group, and which would see a heritage centre as its preference, as opposed to affordable housing. That this group is doubtless composed of those of mature years, no longer of child-bearing age themselves, is yet another case of people not only living in the past, but only wanting progress backwards, rather than catering for the real, here and now world for young and old people, needing, as so many of them do, decent accommodation. The members of the group are nicely ensconced in their own homes, yet ready to deny others the basic luxury of a home of their own!

BY TA: Ignoring the idiotic suggestion that only property owning wrinklies form minority groups, there appears to be a contradiction of terms. ie ‘yet another minority group (Where do they all come from)’ would imply that there are lots of them, which, when combined, make up a significant number of people. If we take the more major groups as indicated on our external links section, it runs into many thousands of supporters.

The headline ‘homes must come first’ is another oddity - if there is no employment, how is the upkeep and maintenance of these homes going to be funded? So, it would seem to us that it is the employment opportunities which must come first.

It is also worth pointing out that TA has many supporters in the younger age group, even some teenagers, who are far sighted enough to see that mass building to meet government targets, rather than building for local need, will destroy communities and the rural aspect of life in the Duchy.

There are 68,200 new builds planned under the RSS, of which 30% would be so called affordable, local need (That’s 20,460) A public statement from the member holding the portfolio for housing says that the requirement for the entire Duchy is 6,000.This is in addition to our normal year on year growth. However, we would assume that the author of the letter has full command of the situation and could therefore perhaps tell us what the local need for homes actually is, where they could be placed to minimise effects on existing communities, the effect on emergency services, general services, utilities, waste disposal, hospitalisation, dentistry, schools, employment, voluntary services, recreational spaces and activities, - the list goes on but ,we are confident that the author can provide the answers.

6. What is MP doing to fight government homes plan?

The following is a copy of a letter sent to the West Briton on 28th Jan 2010 and is followed here by our comments

IN response to Julia Goldsworthy’s comments on Cornwall Council’s housing and planning strategy (Council ‘rolled over” in backing homes plan, the West Briton, January 21): Cornwall Council has not adopted the Government’s Regional Spatial Strategy The meeting referred to by Julia Goldsworthy was part of a consultation process being carried out on the Treswithian Urban Extension site to test options and to allow the council to better understand what alternatives exist. It was clearly stated at the meeting that the work and action plan would not be taken any further forward until there was greater clarity around the Regional Spatial Strategy.

In the meantime, the council is gathering evidence and developing a strategy for Cornwall which is not dependent upon the top-down targets from the Regional Spatial Strategy, but relates to the needs of the area for key elements such as supporting economic growth and the provision of affordable housing.

It was also made clear at the meeting that before the formation of Cornwall Council,

all the district councils in Cornwall had already formally objected to the RSS. Cornwall Council

is steadfast in its opposition to the housing targets in the RSS, which indicates that 68,000 homes need to be built in Cornwall.

The council is producing its own 20-year housing action plan that is specifically tailored to the housing needs of the people of Cornwall. We do not accept that central Government is in the best position to dictate a housing policy for Cornwall.

We need to address the need for housing across Cornwall and look at what will most benefit the local communities.

We would like to ask Ms Goldsworthy what she is doing, as a Member of Parliament for Cornwall, to address the Government-imposed housing quota on Cornwall? This needs to be fought at a national as well as at a local level.

Cornwall Council has made its objections to the RSS known, and Cornwall needs the support of its MPs in challenging this - not headline-grabbing name-calling.

MARK KACZMAREK

Cornwall Council cabinet member for housing

GRAEME HICKS

Cornwall Council cabinet member for highways, transport and planning

BY TA: Firstly we are a little confused about the status of Councillor Kaczmarek who signs the letter as member for housing, as stated on the Cornwall Council website, but at a recent public meeting, when asked if that was his title was he stated the he was Portfolio holder for ‘Affordable’ housing (Whatever that is) and Councillor Hicks had the portfolio for the rest of the housing. We therefore assume that the statement at the public meeting was made to avoid a question that was put on general housing.

Initially the RSS draft recommendation as defined by the SWRA did not call for 68,000 new build houses. But for a lesser figure of 46,000. This translated to a requirement of 6,000 new homes in the CPR area.
The Government then instructed that the total number for Cornwall be increased to the 68,200 - not the incorrect figure of 68,000 stated above.

The higher total figure of 68,200 for Cornwall, which was released as the issued RSS and translates in the CRPI area (The CPR suddenly becomes CPRI) to 11,100 new builds

Councillors Hicks and Kaczmarek, as then Kerrier District Councillors, between them, proposed and seconded that 9,400 homes be accepted as a requirement for this area, so in effect agreeing to over a 50% increase on what the SWRA had initially felt to be the correct level.

We assume that 9,400 homes were proposed for CPRI as a derivative of the Kerrier District local need home survey, which had established that a figure of 595 new builds were required per year.

Over the 20 year planning period, this actually equates to 11,900 as the requirement for the whole of Kerrier.

These figures would imply that CPRI is to get 9,400 and the remainder of the Kerrier area will receive the balance of 2,500. ie 39 new builds per month for CPRI and 11 per month for the remainder of Kerrier.

The question of the validity of the survey needs to be brought into question. Did, and more to the point, does CPRI actually need 39 new houses to be built every month for the next 20 years?

We also note that this so called need will accommodate an inward migration figure of 82% (Presentation to Camborne Town Council Parish Plan Working Party Meeting by Mr M Brown - minutes of 3^rdJuly 2008 refers) This will result in CRPI, per month, getting 32 new homes for inward migration & 7 new homes for existing need and in the rest of Kerrier, 9 new homes per month for inward migration and 2 new homes for local need. Why are we building new homes for inward migration, when a glance at the local newspaper will show at least 500 homes for sale each week !

We would like to see how the questions on the survey were worded and how the replies were formulated to produce a need of 11,900.

CC is to be congratulated that they are now saying that they are developing a planning process which is not dependant on the ‘Top down’ strategy. This is a point which TA has been labouring for the last 12 months and we felt that it had fallen on deaf ears. That said, by definition, presumably, the CC will now introduce a strategy of ‘Bottom up’ planning.

It would be nice to know if this will mean that local area residents will be able to communicate what they perceive to be correct for their particular area, and relay that information, via their own Cornwall Councillor, and as a result the county planners will be instructed to plan accordingly.

This would be a democracy ! Or is this a step too far along the route !!

In summary, TA will:

1. To establish a fair balance, we will research into the voting records of both councillors of the subject of the RSS, AAP and related topics.

2. Request the detail of questions asked in the Kerrier survey, author(s), and how the requirement figure of 11,900 were formulated from the replies

3. Establish why the new home building requirement for the area requires that only 18% of total is for local need and 82% is required for inward migration to the area

Note: With respect to CPRI, on these percentages, 1,692 will accommodate local need and a massive 7,708 will accommodate inward migration to the area. This equates to 32 new families moving into CRPI every month for 20 years. One family every day for 20 years! How likely is that! In the headlong rush to build houses, COMMON SENSE HAS BEEN IGNORED.

We feel that the council needs to justify why it is felt necessary to build this large number of houses, mainly on Greenfield land, to accommodate such a high projected figure of inward migration and where the evidence is located defining this requirement.

TA will be writing to the appropriate councillors to obtain further information.

5. NOTES ON MEETING JOHN BUDDLE WITH MATTHEW BROWN - CORNWALL COUNCIL PLANNING DELIVERY TEAM MANAGER AT OLD KERRIER OFFICES, DOLCOATH AVENUE, CAMBORNE - THURSDAY 19 NOV 2009.

I had a useful hour long meeting with Matthew Brown (MB) during which we discussed the following:

TONIGHT’S MEETING

The purpose of this meeting is part of an ongoing process of looking at various sites identified in the present Area Action Plan (AAP proposals). If the AAP is eventually approved and in whatever form then the Council will have to prepare master plans for the development of each area/site. The Council have already done this on many sites eg Boiler Works, Dolcoathetc. In order to prepare master plans it is necessary to meet withall landowners within the particular site from the major land owners to owners of individual properties within the site area to assess what issues will need to be considered and dealt with to bring forth an overall development of the site - there cannot be piecemeal development of large sites. They will help identify any specific problems that could cause difficulty in the eventual development of the site.

It appears that this is a closed meeting of the landowners but Stuart Cullimore will be there. MB is not sure whether any other councillors are invited or will be there.

MB says that they have already done a similar exercise on the Redruth greenfield site and will indue course repeat the exercise on the Illogan/Park Bottom sites - however this may come later because here it is not clear which sites would be in or out of the plan until the Regional Spatial Strategy determines whether their figure of 11,100 houses or the old Kerrier preferred figure of 9,400 houses is adopted.

He proposes to make the broad details and outcome of this meeting available to all local interest groups at sometime, probably within 2/4 weeks. He assures me TAG will be kept informed and has my details on his records.

GENERAL PROGRESS OF THE RSS AND AAP

Things are well behind schedule. He had hoped to have heard from the Regional Assembly by now as to which number of houses was to be the target after all the submissions, representations and change of economic circumstances but this is not forthcoming and his guess that it will not be until early in the New Year. The process is also being held up by the legal challenge to the RSS mounted in the east of England . He acknowledges that the political climate, forthcoming general election could also have a major influence over what happens next.

If and when Cornwall Council gets the figures for the old Kerrierarea the Council will then get on, as quickly as possible, with the preparation and publication of the final AAP. He doubts if this will happen before next summer. That then has to go out again for final public consultation and then finally the AAP goes to the Public Enquiry locally before it can be approved - that he thinks is very unlikely to happen for at least a year and possibly a good deal longer (by which time a new government will be in power and could scrap the RSS and start again!)

GENERAL PLANNING STRATEGY

MB says what ever is happening now is simply preparatory work and does not have any direct and overall affect of the proposals already published. However he acknowledges, when I questioned him, that the current plan was developed and established in very different economic times and may therefore need to be reconsidered in terms of overall housing needs for the period up to 2026. This is already being discussed informally and as a result of the very large number of representations that have been received. They may however be ordered to implement the RSS target of 11,100 houses and that would be that.

I pointed out the very major objection we have is that it would appear, whatever the final numbers, all the land identified and allocated by the AAP, for the period up to 2026, would be effectively released on day one after the plan was finally approved. He acknowledged this was basically correct though it was not quite as straightforward as that! MB says that they are developing a strategy to try and weight the attractions of sites so that developers would be persuaded of the benefits of going for the brownfield sites first. This could happen because the detailed master plans for these sites are already done or in the process of being done and this would enable them to come forward in the development process much quicker than the greenfield sites. In addition they were considering putting much higher demands for affordable housing on the greenfield sites that would not be sustainable on the brownfield ones. MB speculated they could demand 40/50% affordable housing on say the Treswithian site whereas say 20% or less on a brownfield site. In his view this would then put developers off the greenfield sites where they would make a lot less money. (I see his point but not sure if this is the way developers work in the real world and I believe developers might successfully challenge what they felt were unreasonable demands as to the number of affordable houses on a site).

I raised the issue of phasing and reminded him that in early versions of the AAP Kerrierhad actually proposed phased release of sites by listing certain sites to be released in the period up to 2016 and others, including the main greenfield sites not to be released until 2017. He volunteered that they were looking again into the possibility of some form of phasing but not so specific as the earlier proposal and maybe over shorter time periods. He acknowledged it was a way of seeing whether demand did match forecasts and might mean that less development needed to take place on greenfield land, though he could not see any scenario where all new housing needs could be dealt with entirely on available brownfield land. I reminded him TAG had made a big point in our representations that our overall objection would be significantly influenced if some form of acceptable phasing was introduced. We believe that time will demonstrate that the current housing targets are not needed and are unsustainable and if adopted would open the possibility of a whole load of people coming down to Cornwall to live in a nice environment, possibly to retire, possibly without work and this would put enormous strain upon an already overburdened local economy, social and public services. We urge that jobs must be created ahead of greenfield sites being concreted over. There is little or no indication in the current economic outlook to justify the sort of job expansion envisaged in the plan. MB smiled as if he sort of agreed!!

Finally I asked him to confirm that the meeting tonight is not an indication that the Treswithian site is the No 1 preferred greenfield site in the AAP and he assured me it is not and this is all simply a matter of ongoing work on the AAP ready for any final conclusion. He denies that there is some sort of dual policy for whether the AAP comes to fruition or not. We shall see.

Stuart Cullimore will be at the meeting and hopefully will be able to report back to us all and confirm whether MB is leading me up the garden path or not!!

Finally I asked him how the residents of 1800 houses on the Treswithian site would get to do their shopping in Camborne town centre and Tesco? He acknowledged that whatever the plan may say about public transport and being within walking distance of town they would inevitably use their cars!! We speculated that whilst access to the A30 might be OK people shopping locally would need to use Treswithian Road , College Street or Pendarves Road, South Terrace, Trevenson Street etc . Obviously that would only add to the chaos that already exists in that area.

4. RESPONSE TO AREA ACTION PLAN FOR CAMBORNE, POOL, ILLOGAN AND REDRUTH. The preferred strategy consultation document, February 2009.

Background.

The Area Action Plan is part of the LDF process, which is subject to further consultation before adoption. It will also form part of the single Core Strategy for Cornwall now being prepared by the Unitary Authority. We do not regard the housing provision or the level of employment growth as written in tablets of stone. The CPRE will continue to campaign for a rigorous and proper assessment of the implications of the RSS proposals particularly in terms of their environmental sustainability.

The CPRE was represented at the South West EIP conducted over 10 weeks in 2007. In our submission we stated that any increase in the house building provision over and above those in the 2004 Structure plan was unjustifiable and unsustainable.

The draft RSS prepared by the South West Regional Assembly proposed that 8,200 dwellings should be built in Kerrier from 2006 - 2026, which represented an increase in house building rates from an historic average of 300 pa to 410 pa., of these 6000 would be built in the Camborne - Pool - Redruth[ C/ P / R ] urban area.. The panel report approved by the GOSW proposed an additional urban extension of 5,100 dwellings for C/ P / R. This was considered as being both necessary and justified on the grounds that it reflected the need to comprehensively plan for the regeneration of C / P / R and that there was much previously developed land within and around these towns.

The CPRE in their reply to the EIP submitted that the proposed urban extension lacked adequate justification and that the environmental implications had not been properly assessed. There is a popular concept that because C / P / R represents an industrialised area and there are many buildings showing this, it follows that there are abundant brownfield sites. This is unfounded and in fact the urban extension would have to be built over approximately 130 hectares of versatile, productive agricultural land and no previously developed land.

Cornwall County Council in their assessment of the Panel Report strongly criticized the proposal for an urban extension at C / P / R as unjustified on the grounds of infrastructure deficienses, economic consequencies and environmental effects. They further questioned the deliverability and sustainability of the proposals as being well above past development rates.

We are submitting our response to the Action Plan in the context of our strong objections to many of the GOSW and now SWRDA proposals and fully recognise that Kerrier District Council has to bow to pressure to abide by government requiments.

Vision.

We welcome every effort to reinstate the area as an economic driver and every effort to promote more employment opportunities, but bear in mind heavy competition from Truro now defined as a growth area. Large numbers of C / P / R residents commute to work in Truro and some mention of this is applicable, whether desirable or not.

We would like to see more indication of open space such as green corridors, proposed parkland and playing fields in the map showing the preferred strategy as the plan report recognises this aspect to be in deficit. It is stated that green space is a recurring theme with networks of greenspacelinking open spaces in the urban area with the countryside and coast, but where are they ? The Red river valley offers a challenge requiring much remedial work.

Most of the area is within the World Heritage Site, but there is little or no mention of any plans to build up and promote this designation for the benefit of the area.

Employment Growth.

We fully support the aspiration to increase the quality of job opportunities within the area, but consider the proposed level of employment growth as unrealistic, even before the present economic downturn. We would emphasize that employment growth should precede housing growth and not the reverse. You do not build houses and then expect that to induce prosperity. The first priority is to create jobs and that should be the objective of regeneration assisted by Convergence Funding

We would support the inclusion of some light industrial space and business premises within new housing developments, but request that the buildings be well designed to fit in with the local environment and that energy saving be included in any specifications. This latter should be incorporated for all industrial and commercial buildings.

Housing Growth.

We do not accept that the lower housing provision of 9400 dwellings [ reduced from 11,000 ] is necessary, acceptable or achievable. We recommend that the urban extension of 5100 dwellings be deleted and then we might have a realistic and environmentally sustainable objective.

We support the intention that the search for development sites should be on brownfield land. It is stated in the Action Plan that approximately 5,500 dwellings can be accommodated in the Urban area and that 5,600 dwellings will be built in Urban Extensions to comply with the government provision. We would point out that the so-called Urban sites are by no means all brownfield. The largest site at Boilerworks road is entirely rough pasture apart from a large play area, which should certainly be retained. The Rosewarne and Pengegon and Sandy Lane sites are within open countryside. Overall the selected sites for urban housing do come within the government guidelines that 60 % of the land be previously developed.

The Urban Extensions proposed for housing are quite another matter. They are entirely on Greenfield land and much of this is good quality, versatile agricultural fields given over to crops of potatoes, daffodils and grain. We cannot accept that housing and associated roads covering the fields between Park Bottom and Tolvaddon could possibly be described as environmentally sustainable. It would represent the loss of good quality farmland under an urban sprawl linking Tolvaddon, Illoganand Park Bottom with Pool.

Likewise the Treswithian and Killivose urban extensions cover good quality, versatile, productive farmland and include the playing fields of Holmans Sport Club. It would represent yet another urban sprawl attached to Camborne with few nearby employment opportunities. The TolgusUrban Extension covers rough pasture with unutilised areas of gorse and brambles sandwiched between the A 30 and the old Redruth bypass. It is well located for educational and employment opportunities so could at least be regarded as socially and economically sustainable

Housing Density.

Government guidelines recommend that 30 dwellings per hectare should be recognised as a national minimum density. The Council has indicated that it will seek a density of 50 dwellings per hectare based on both historic and recent developments. We suggest that expectations have changed dramatically since the industrialisation of the area in the 19^thcentury and we must not contemplate any repetition of the closely packed terraced, back to back houses built at that time. Many of the houses built in the industrial heyday are now substandard and require renovation and have inadequate or no parking space. We do recognise that current designs can achieve quite high densities, which may be acceptable, but we would prefer densities of between 30 - 40 to be regarded as the norm and adequate space be allowed for the off road parking of 2 cars. This may mean increased pressure to build on a Greenfield site and if so, then Tolgus Urban extension site could be considered as an Urban site.

We fully support the concept of community hubs in each new development with local shops, pubs, halls and playing fields, which the Council has enthusiastically embraced.

Affordable Housing.

The CPRE has persistently campaigned for the recognition that in Cornwall the priority is Local need, which is only too often disregarded in favour of building more lucrative market housing to be occupied by more affluent in comers. We are well aware that owing to the lack of satisfactory levels of grant aid, the most effective way of building affordable housing is to oblige developers to contribute a proportion of social housing for rent or subsidise affordable housing through a variety of schemes. The RSS has proposed that 35% of new housing should be affordable so the Council should not set a target for 20% - 25% within urban areas, which is contrary to government guidelines, although we acknowledge this is in practice realistic.

We doubt that the forecast need for only 9100 affordable dwellings by 2026 is accurate. There are presently over 20,000 households seeking affordable housing within Cornwall and although the figure of 9100 applies to the 4 districts of West Cornwall, it seems very optimistically low.

House building rate.

The 2004 Structure plan recommended a rate of 340 dwellings pa for the period 2001 - 2016. The 2006 RSS document proposed a rate of 410 pa for the period 2006 - 2026. The final draft RSS proposes a rate of 720 pa for 2006 - 2026. All of these for the Kerrier district.

We suggest that this rate is totally unachievable and unrealistic and should be modified to lower levels.

Summary and recommendations.

Every effort needs to be made to insist that the 5,100 dwellings proposed for the Urban Extension be deleted from the RSS. as unsustainable and unjustifiable. The target figure of 9,400 proposed by the Council is also unacceptably high and would result in the loss of much good quality farmland.

The Tolgus Urban Extension should be included in the Urban area, so that the required 6000 dwellings can be achieved at an acceptable density.

The target housing density should be reduced from 50 per hectare to between 30 - 40 per hectare.

The level of affordable housing in the Urban area should be increased from 20% - 25% to 35% to conform with government guidelines.

Green areas such as buffer zones between housing, green fingers giving access to the countryside, proposed parkland and playing fields should be indicated on the Masterplan.

Actions proposed relating to the World Heritage Site designation should be included in the plan

Projects regarded as eligible for Convergence Funding should be mentioned particularly those associated with Regeneration plans, which receive little mention.

Some reference to the relationship of this Action Plan to the Truro and Threemilestone Plan would be of interest as the two areas are closely related in terms of employment, education and health

3. Dear Sir

When discussing rural schools closures in a recent press report in the Western Morning News you made a statement which was reported to be:

“When it comes to making decisions, it has to be transparent and considered”

Trelawney Alliance welcome this aspect of transparency, however in another report from the West Briton there is a story which is reported as:

“Council put in bid for homes but keeps the location secret”This would appear to be in conflict with your statement.

When Trelawney Alliance spoke to a County Councillor about this he informed us that, ‘At this time, council members had not been made aware of the locations planned for affordable housing’. This is despite the news report claiming that a list of 17 sites had been drawn up.

Trelawney Alliance fully supports the need for local need affordable housing on ‘brownfield’ land so welcomes this initial move.

In the light of the press reports perhaps you would be kind enough to respond to the following questions:

a) If a list of 17 sites has been drawn up. Who has produced this list and what parameters were used?

b) If such a list is in being, why is it not being disclosed to council members so that, in turn, it can be discussed with the residents they represent?

c) Why is it considered necessary for this list to be kept secret from the public and who has made that decision on the publics behalf?

d) Surely, if this list is in being it should be in the public domain so that the residents of Kernow can voice their opinions on the matter to help the council make an informed decision on their behalf. Kernow council members are elected to carry out the wishes of the people who have elected them, or do you consider this not to be the case?

From this, It would appear that the real policy of the council is that portfolio holders, in conjunction with senior council employees, make decisions behind closed doors and inform the public when it is done. This seems to be a throwback to the bad old days of local politics and destroys public confidence in the very people elected to work on their behalf. This, at a time when public confidence in politicians, both nationally and at a local level, is at an all time low.

Yours Sincerely

On behalf of

Trelawney Alliance
We say NO to mass building in Cornwall
www.trelawney-alliance.org

2.To date 18th October only one Councillor (M. Williams - Troon & Beacon) has had the curtesy to respond. TA will respond to the letter from Councillor Williams as we consider that some points have not be answered. TA will also be writing again to the other councillors who voted to accept the Boiler Works Road Development to ask for a reply to our initial letter detailed below. If this fails to achieve a reply we will make that fact known to the leader of the council and ask you all to send a copy of the letter below to see if you can get a reply from the Councillors elected by you to represent you and your views.

1.As many of you will be aware, A Camborne Town Council recomendationto oppose the mass building at Boiler Works Road was over turned by the Cornwall County Planning Committee with council members from Ludgvan, Wendron, Hayle South, Newlyn & Mousehole, Constantine, Troon & Beacon & Carn Brea South voting that it should proceed. TA have written to these council members to ask why they have seen fit to vote against the Town Council recommendation. The letter is as follows:

SUBJECT: MASS BUILDING PLANS AT BOILER WORKS RD. CAMBORNE

Dear Councillor (Name)

It has been brought to the attention of Trelawney Alliance that you were one of the Councillors who saw fit not to confirm the Camborne Town Council recommendation of a refusal for the planning application of 270 new homes on Greenfield land at Boiler Works Road, Camborne.

As a result, this area of Greenfield land will now be developed into homes, adding to the 90 already planned. As the precedence has been set, Trelawney Alliance believe that further homes are planned which could increase the total in this area alone to approximately 500.

The magnitude of this build is likely to attract at least 1,000 new residents and 600 cars to the area. (Excluding service vehicles such as refuse and re-cycling and tradesmen)

The reason for Trelawney Alliance writing to you is as a result of many adverse comments received from the existing residents of Camborne. We have agreed to contact you with a number of questions, the answers to which we will promulgate on our website and passed on to those attending our next public meeting. Having voted not to back the local Councillors recommendation, we presume that you will have investigated the following questions and will know the answers. So, whilst appearing at first to be a little daunting, we feel that it will be quite straightforward for you.

Should you wish to do so of course, you are cordially invited to attend our next public meeting and answer the members of the public in attendance directly. Should you wish to take this opportunity, please let us know and we will amend our agenda accordingly.

Questions are as follows:

1. Have the members of the public resident in the area been contacted for their opinion?

2. How long was spent in committee actually discussing the Boiler Works Road application before a decision was reached?

3. Did you attend any site meeting prior to making your decision?

4. If not, are you familiar with the geographical location and the existing road infrastructure?

5. Do you consider that road infrastructure will need to be changed to accommodate the increased population and vehicular traffic in the immediate area?

6. Do you consider that the level of existing emergency service iePolice, Ambulance, Fire Fighters Emergency Doctors cover; is adequate to cope with the increased population given all the other development plans currently in the pipeline?

7. Public Services such as Refuse and recycling will be needed. Will these additional costs require extra ratepayer funding, and if so what will be the predicted rise to existing ratepayers?

8. Has the public transport situation been considered and have the appropriate company’s been contacted and agreed to increase services to this area?

9. Do you consider that there are adequate recreational facilities, ie: green spaces, public houses, cafes, play parks etc; in the area?

10. Given that there will almost certainly by young people making up a percentage on the new residents have you considered:

a) What percentage this is likely to be? And:

b) Do you consider the existing pre-school facilities, Junior and Senior school facilities adequate?

11. As an estimate, 500 people living in this new build will require employment. Given the present day need for a ‘greener’ environment to meet the Governments targets in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol Agreement, ideally, transport to and from a place of work needs to be minimised. Do you consider that this number of employment opportunities will exist in the immediate area when these houses will be put onto the open market?

12. Can you advise us what percentage of the housing complex will be ‘affordable’ and what will this price range be?

13. If there is ‘affordable’ housing planned, will ownership be restricted to local residents who meet the requirement and do the numbers align with the build total?

14. By definition, if 25% are ‘affordable’ the remaining 75% (375 homes based on a total of 500) must be ‘unaffordable’. Does your research indicate that there is a local area need for these homes, plus the 500 or so already on the market in the area, or is it intended to encourage further inward migration?

Additional issues have been raised regarding the knock on effect on the County but we feel that these were the major points of local concern. We would be pleased to hear of any additional points you investigated which helped in your decision making process.

We look forward to your reply at your earliest convenience.

For, and on behalf of Trelawney Alliance

Etc.

Mailing List

Trelawney Alliance

Objections to mass building in Cornwall

Letters

Pages

External Links

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Meta