CPIR Housing Evidence Base Report

Camborne Pool Illogan & Redruth (CPIR) Housing Evidence Report

May 2017 Contents

Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 1 - CPIR’s Urban Capacity Assessment ...... 2 Chapter 2 ...... 11 Introduction ...... 11 Step 1: Mapping Review ...... 13 Step 2: Identify Cell Areas ...... 14 Step 3: Desk Based Environmental Assessment ...... 15 Step 4: Discount Worst Performing Cells ...... 16 Step 5: Landscape Character Assessment ...... 18 Step 6: Discount Worst Performing Cells ...... 20 Step 7: Accessibility Assessment ...... 22 Step 8: Initial Stakeholder Engagement ...... 24 Step 9: Discount worst performing sites ...... 26 Step 10: Public Consultation ...... 29 Step 10a: July 2008 Public Consultation ...... 29 Step 10b: February 2009 Public Consultation ...... 29 Step 10c: January 2012 Public Consultation ...... 36 Step 11: Site Prioritisation ...... 38 Chapter 3 – Summary of CPIR Housing Delivery ...... 40

Introduction

This report reviews the ability for the Camborne Pool Illogan Redruth (CPIR) area to accommodate future housing growth.

These assessments were prepared to support the development of the CPIR Town Framework and the Cornwall Allocations DPD.

The report consists of two main chapters 1. An assessment of the existing urban area’s ability to accommodate growth 2. An assessment of land surrounding the existing built area to accommodate urban extensions

Chapter 1 - CPIR’s Urban Capacity Assessment

This chapter sets out an assessment of the urban capacity in Camborne-Pool-Illogan-Redruth (CPIR). In planning for the future development of the town it is firstly important to consider what growth can be accommodated appropriately within the existing urban area, in order to minimise the town’s future encroachment on further greenfield land.

Elements identified as contributing towards the potential capacity are as follows:

a) The number of completed dwellings (1st April 2010 – 31st March 2016); b) The number of committed dwellings, i.e. both under construction and permitted by existing planning permissions (full and outline) but not yet started (31st March 2016) - on sites under 10 dwellings; c) The number of committed dwellings, i.e. both under construction and permitted by existing planning permissions (full and outline) but not yet started (31st March 2016) - on sites over 10 dwellings; d) The number of dwellings which can potentially be accommodated on sites identified through the Strategic Housing Land Availability (SHLAA), which are also within the existing urban area and which are also not sites included a-b, above; e) Any other sites, with potential to accommodate over 10 dwellings in the existing urban area; (including any urban site allocations); f) Site Allocations (Urban Sites); and, g) Windfall allowance for final 9 years of plan period.

Dwelling Completions and Commitments (a) (b) and (c). Regular annual monitoring of housing completions and permissions is carried out by Cornwall Council and is regularly reported in the Cornwall Monitoring Report (available at www.cornwall.gov.uk). Data relating to completions through the plan period, to date (1st April 2010 – 31st March 2016) is presented within Table 1. It sets out that 4,274 dwellings were built or committed at CPIR as of 31st March 2016.

Table 1: Dwelling Completions and Commitments in CPIR Urban Area (2010-2015) No of CPIR Urban Area Dwellings

1,412 (a) Dwellings Built (1st April 2010 - 31st March 2016) 274 (b) Net Extant planning permissions - Under 10 (31st March 2016) 2,588 (c) Net Extant planning permissions - 10 or more Committed Dwellings (31st March 2016) Total Built and Permitted 4,274

2 d) Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Sites The SHLAA data provides a theoretical assumption of the development capacity on sites in and around CPIR. Due to the nature, purpose and process of the SHLAA there are a number of sites identified (i.e. those outside of the urban area, on greenfield land) that are not considered suitable to contribute to the urban capacity figure. In addition to these greenfield SHLAA sites, some urban SHLAA sites have been discounted due to other reasons which suggest that they may be inappropriate to come forward for housing development. The SHLAA sites and a consideration of whether they can be assumed to contribute to the urban capacity of CPIR is presented within Table 2, with these SHLAA sites being illustrated in Figure 1. Table 2 sets out that the SHLAA sites could contribute up to 390 dwellings to CPIR’s urban capacity (subject to usual planning application procedures).

Table 2: The assumed contribution of the CPIR’s SHLAA sites to the town’s urban capacity

SHLAA Site Ref Address Gross Potential Reason Area (Ha) Dwelling No.

SHL8(Rev) Park Holly, Treswithian 0.5 25 Include: Well related to existing urban area U0122 Camborne Fire Station 0.3 11 Include: Located in the urban area with residential all around the site; Fire Station relocated S378 Trevu House, Trevu Road, 1.4 20 Include: Located in the urban area with residential all around the site, with Camborne good access U8 Vean Road Works, Camborne 10 Include: Well related to existing urban area CPIR_SO12 Lower Rosewarne 3.2 78 Include: Well related to existing urban area, with the A30 on the north representing a natural edge to the settlement SHL23 Higher Pengegon, Camborne 34 Include: Well related to an existing residential area CPIR_SHL11 Forge Industrial Park 0.5 18 Include: Change of use from poor quality industrial would be positive for the surrounding dwellings SHL5 Former Mine Blgs, South 1.2 35 Include: Well located within the centre of a residential area Roskear Tce, Camborne SHL2 Lidl, North Roskear Road, 0.5 20 Include: Well located within the centre of a residential area Camborne SHL15Rev Tolgarrick Park, (Gas Lane), 0.9 20 Include: Formed part of a masterplan, which highlighted the land for Tuckingmill residential development S1301 Murdock & Trevithick Centre, 0.7 41 Include: Site well located within the centre of Redruth, close to other Lower Cardrew Lane, Redruth residential development SHL30 Drump Road Timber Store, 1 20 Include: Site well located within the centre of Redruth, close to other Redruth residential development CPIR_U3 Fmr Flowerpot Chapel/ Belmont 0.4 22 Include: Site well located within the centre of Redruth, close to other Gardens, Redruth residential development CPIR_C26 Raymond Road, off Sandy Lane 0.7 17 Include: Site well located to other residential development, with good (infill) vehicular access S375 Falmouth Road Depot, Redruth 0.5 20 Include: Site well located to other residential development, with good vehicular access

SHLAA Site Ref Address Gross Potential Reason Area (Ha) Dwelling No.

CPIR_SO1 Camborne West (north of 52.5 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the railway line) urban extension assessment U0004 Land off Tregenna Lane, 4.5 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the Camborne TR14 7QT urban extension assessment CPIR_SO2 Camborne West (south of 15.6 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the railway line) urban extension assessment CPIR_SHL12 Former Trevithick School 0.7 Exclude: Used for educaiton purposes S735 Land off Beacon Square 3.5 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the urban extension assessment CPIR_M3 Dolcoath (CompAir) site 3.5 Exclude: Permitted development CPIR_M4 Tuckingmill H6 & H7 2.2 Exclude: Site now mainly contains part of East-West Link Road or an education allocation CPIR_M1 Boilerworks 2.8 Exclude: Permitted development CPIR_M9 DLIP (West of Dudnance Lane) 5.4 Exclude: Part permitted development, part identified as a commercial allocation CPIR_M11 Trevenson Road Frontage 0.6 Exclude: Site contained a MacDonalds fast food restaurant, so unlikely to come forward CPIR_U6 Off Station Road, Pool 0.5 Exclude: Site identified as part of a employment allocation CPIR_SHL16 Carn Brea Leisure Centre 5.2 Exclude: No intention of the leisure centre closing / moving CPIR_SHL17 Adj. Carn Brea Leisure Centre 1.7 Exclude: Majority of site now has the East West Link Road running through it, making developable area very small CPIR_SO3 Illogan: Tolvaddon and Park 67.6 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the Bottom urban extension assessment S078 Land at Halgoss, South Tehidy 4.4 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the urban extension assessment CPIR_SHL46 South of Park Road/ Illogan 22.7 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the Downs urban extension assessment CPIR_SHL41 Merrose Farm - Illogan Downs 39.9 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the urban extension assessment

SHLAA Site Ref Address Gross Potential Reason Area (Ha) Dwelling No.

CPIR_SO4 West Tolgus Road 5.9 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the urban extension assessment S219 Land at Lambourne, Merrits Hill 0.6 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the urban extension assessment S738 Land at Paynters Lane End 3.7 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the urban extension assessment S185 Land off Church Road 1.1 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the urban extension assessment CPIR_DIS34 Off Bridge Road, Illogan 0.3 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the urban extension assessment U0124 Land at Stamps Lane, Illogan 0.4 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the urban extension assessment CPIR_SO7 Tolgus 14.8 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the urban extension assessment CPIR_DIS38 Off Avers Roundabout, Redruth 4.8 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the urban extension assessment S396 Land adj to Adams Row, Treleigh 0.8 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the urban extension assessment S212 Land to northern side of Basset 2.7 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the Road urban extension assessment CPIR_SHL36 Redruth Rugby Ground 2.2 Exclude: Land used as a training pitch for Redruth Rugby Club U0041 Unit D Bartles Ind Estate, North 0.2 Exclude: Existing industrial use that shouldn't be promoted for change of Road use U0129 East End Playing Field, Redruth 2.3 Exclude: Recognised as an important public open space CPIR_M6 Redruth Brewery 2.4 Exclude: Permitted development CPIR_M8 Penventon 0.8 Exclude: School playing field CPIR_SHL37 Former Redruth Grammar 0.9 Exclude: Now developed as Krowji School S377 Nursery Gardens, West 0.4 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the Trewirgie Road urban extension assessment

SHLAA Site Ref Address Gross Potential Reason Area (Ha) Dwelling No.

S380 Land adjoining Redruth Cricket 1.7 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the Club urban extension assessment S054 Town Farm Fields, Off Buckett's 6.7 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the Hill urban extension assessment CPIR_SHL35 SJ Andrews Works, Bucketts Hill 3 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the urban extension assessment CPIR_DIS42 Bucketts Hill/ Trewirgie Hill, 36.2 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the Redruth urban extension assessment CPIR_DIS32 Off Carn Marth Lane, Lanner Hill 2.7 Exclude: Site on the edge of the conurbation, so considered through the urban extension assessment (d) Potential houses from SHLAA sites: 390

Figure 1: Map of CPIR’s Included & Excluded SHLAA sites & Existing Planning Permissions (for over 10 dwellings)

8 e / f) Other sites / Urban Site Allocations Due to the scale of permitted development and the lack of larger sites within the existing urban area necessary to deliver housing development, there are no further urban sites identified.

g) Windfall Allowance for CPIR When estimating future housing delivery, a ‘windfall allowance’ is considered – this is an assumption regarding the number of other unplanned permissions that will granted through the plan period. The windfall allowance is based on an analysis of past trends in terms of the actual housing delivery in the 10 years between 2004 and 2014 on sites of less than 10 dwellings. For CPIR the windfall allowance through to 2030 is estimated at 594 dwellings. A more detailed explanation of the windfall allowance is contained within the Strategic Housing land Availability Assessment (available at www.cornwall.gov.uk).

Summary – Potential Urban Capacity of CPIR The Urban Capacity Assessment demonstrates that, at 31st March 2016 there is the potential to accommodate approximately 5,141 dwellings from permitted development and other urban sites within CPIR. Table 3 sets out these findings, whilst Figure 1 illustrates the main sites.

It should be noted that a discount rate has been applied to sites which have planning permission (with a capacity under 10 dwellings). Discount rates are used across Cornwall’s towns and have been arrived at by looking back at historical trends for each category to gauge average non delivery, which has then been projected forward.

Table 3: CPIR Urban Capacity Gross Discount Net Total Total Rate a) Net Completions (From Apr-10 to Mar-16) 1,412 1,412 b) Net Extant planning permissions - Under 10 304 10% 274 c) Net Extant planning permissions - 10 or more 129 2,588 d) Urban SHLAA Sites 390 30% 273 e) Other sites 0 0 f) Site Allocations (Urban Sites) 0 0 g) Windfall allowance for final 10 years of plan 594 - 594 period (Excluding windfall in gardens) Estimated Urban Capacity 5,141

The assessment indicates that approximately 5,141 dwellings could be delivered from sites within the existing urban area, existing permissions, as well as completions up to March

2016. To ensure the delivery of the Local Plan housing target of 5,200 dwellings, it means that a small amount of development beyond the existing urban area is required. Chapter 2 sets out the assessment to identify a site or sites on the edge of CPIR.

Chapter 2

Introduction

To support the preparation of the CPIR Town Framework and the Cornwall Allocations DPD an assessment was undertaken of the land surrounding the existing built area of CPIR to review the land’s appropriateness for housing development

This Chapter and appendices sets out the assessment undertaken and conclusions that have been made, which has resulted in certain allocations being identified within the Cornwall Allocations DPD

The paper documents a staged assessment process, this is set out in a flow chart in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Assessment Process

Step 1: Mapping Review

The first part of the assessment is to understand the general structure of the existing conurbation, this can act as a foundation from which future assessments are undertaken and in turn will help to understand how potential sites will work with the existing community (See Figures 3 & 4).

Figure 3 Outline Structure of Camborne, Pool, Illogan & Redruth

Figure 4: Neighbourhoods within Camborne, Pool, Illogan & Redruth

Step 2: Identify Cell Areas

A desk based exercise was undertaken to review all of the land surrounding the town to identify appropriate and workable areas (cells) which can be used to base further assessment work on. In determining the extent of the individual cells, consideration was given to features that would potentially create barriers between cells, such as significant transport corridors and landform features such as topography and watercourses. Once these features had been identified, it provided definition to the boundaries for the cells surrounding the town. The cells identified for CPIR are indicated in Figure 5. It should be noted that these cell boundaries would potentially be amended and or refined as the assessment progressed. It should also be noted that these cells do not represent potential development sites at this stage, just areas defined for assessment.

Figure 5: Cells for Assessment

Step 3: Desk Based Environmental Assessment

Step 3 involved a desk based assessment to record the relationship of the different cells with significant and less significant environmental features. The main intention of this step is to identify any land where significant environmental features are present which would make it highly unlikely that development would be appropriate.

The assessment considered the following factors:  Landscape designations (Local and national)  Historic designations  Nature conservation value  Topography  Cornwall County Council’s Landscape Character Study  Mineral considerations  Agricultural land classifications  Current land cover  Settlement type and distribution

Each cell was assessed for its appropriateness for housing development against the above criteria. The assessments for each cell can be seen in Appendix 2; plus some of the maps used in this process can be seen in Appendix 3.

Step 4: Discount Worst Performing Cells

As a result of the desktop study (Step 3), certain cells could be discounted from further analysis as a result of their obvious inappropriateness for housing development, of a scale being sought as urban extensions. Figure 6 highlights the conclusions of the desktop study; with the cells coloured red representing those that were discounted from further assessment.

Figure 6: Cells for Detailed Analysis

Cell 1 – Contains Carn Brea Hill, including the Scheduled Ancient Monument and its immediate setting

Cell 4 – Within an Area of Great Landscape Value; its steep topography would give concerns over its deliverability

Cell 6 (part) – The long linear form of the discounted area would not be conducive to creating a good quality urban extension; further exacerbated by the land being split by the railway line. The site is characterised by small field pattern and sporadic tree cover. Discounted from the identification of land for urban extensions, but smaller parcels of land still might be appropriate for development, but should be tested through the Planning Application process

Cell 10 (part) – Challenging topography on a significant proportion of the land. Area is highly visible; Disconnected from existing communities

Cell 12 – Land designated as an Open Area of Local Significance; visually prominent; plus a significant proportion of the site is topographically challenging

Cell 16 – Majority of site contains sporadic housing, with its curtilage, interspersed with tree cover, preventing any significant delivery of housing growth

Cell 22 – It is designated as an Open Area of Local Significance; it is an Area of Great Historic Value; plus it is in the World Heritage Site. The site contains the village of Beacon, so the complete development of the cell could significantly change the character of the village. (small scale development within the cell might still be appropriate, but should be assessed through the planning application process)

Cell 23 – It is within the World Heritage Site, with a listed mine building within site. It is also designated as an Area of Great Historic Value. Significant part of the site is very steep

Cell 24 – It is an Area of Great Landscape Value, within the World Heritage Site. It is very steep, which in turn makes it highly visible.

One cell that was deemed inappropriate in the desk study, but still taken forward for further analysis, was Cell 5. The reason for undertaking detailed assessments of this cell was that when the results of the study were presented to various stakeholder groups, questions were raised as to why this area was deemed inappropriate; so to ensure the right conclusion was made on this cell, it was agreed that an on-site assessment would also be undertaken.

Step 5: Landscape Character Assessment

A landscape character assessment was undertaken by Landscape Architects from the Council’s Environment Service. Each cell that had not been discounted already was assessed by a detailed site visit

Factors considered as part of this assessment included:  Landscape features/pattern  Settlements  Routes  Visual prominence  Tranquillity

The results of these detailed assessments can be seen in Appendix 4. Figure 7 below summarises the conclusions of this detailed study.

(Figure 7: Conclusions from Detailed Site Assessments)

The areas highlighted in Red were considered inappropriate for housing development, from a landscape character perspective; areas highlighted in Green were considered appropriate for housing development (on the grounds of landscape character); whilst areas highlighted as Amber were deemed to have some potential for development, but not as good as the green areas.

Landscape mitigation measures will always be required for both green and amber areas, for developments of this scale. This is because these potential extension areas fall within areas of established rural character, where valuable landscape features are common. As a result, mitigation measures would be an

18 important part of any development proposal. The exact nature of the ‘mitigation’ will depend upon the site in question; however examples include:  Retaining Cornish hedges, trees and copses;  Providing new areas of copse/ small community woodland/ community orchards/ meadow  Integrate drainage system of ponds and ditches designed to improve species diversity  Careful design and positioning of these elements in the landscape will assist in integrating the new layouts with existing settlements and will act as a buffer

Step 6: Discount Worst Performing Cells

As a result of the previous assessments, the next stage was to prioritise the better performing cells (or parts of cells) to generate a range of site options for further assessment.

Using the detailed landscape character assessment as a key evidence based to undertake the prioritisation it was recognised that the areas highlighted in Green (Figure 7) might not constitute appropriate parcels of land that are deemed deliverable (e.g. the isolated area of ‘green’ near Rosewarne, Camborne [Cell 18 in figure 7]). As a result, it was recognised that some Amber areas would also need to be encompassed to offer a range of options for further consideration.

It was decided that the focus should remain with the best performing areas from the landscape character assessment (Green areas), but to bring adjacent Amber areas into the equation to allow for sizeable development sites to be considered (on the basis that, at this stage, it would be appropriate to highlight more land than would be collectively needed, to be able to offer genuine options during the consultation process). There were two areas that did not accord with the specifics of this approach. a) One area of green highlighted in the Landscape Character Assessment was not brought forward as part of areas for further investigation – Northwest of Rosewarne Training College (Cell 18 in figure 3). The reason for excluding this area is because the green area (and its adjacent amber area) did not relate to an existing settlement, which would either mean a large area of land deemed inappropriate for development (on landscape grounds) would need to be brought in; or it would be a development cut off from the rest of CPIR.

b) One area included for further investigation that did not have any area designated green from the Landscape Character Assessment was Redruth East (cell 5 in figure 7). The reason for retaining this area for further analysis was as a result of the interest this area generated during initial stakeholder consultation events during February 2008; as a result it was felt appropriate to retain it at this stage to allow for further analysis.

This process led to 10 areas being highlighted as potential Urban Extension options – see Figure 8.

Figure 8: Sites retained for further assessment

Step 7: Accessibility Assessment

Using the sites identified in Figure 8, an assessment was undertaken to review their performance against accessibility to essential local facilities.

The services and facilities that each site was assessed against were:  Primary Schools  Secondary Schools  Healthcare (Doctors/clinic/hospital)  Retail (Supermarkets)  Employment (Industrial Estates)  Open Space

For each service or facility a catchment boundary was established and sites were assessed against their proximity to these boundaries. As a result of these assessments each site’s access to each type of service / facility was assessed using a traffic light system, depicting good, average or poor access. Urban Extension Options that had the vast majority of its area within the catchment were classified as Green; those site options that encompassed some of the catchment area were classified as Amber; whilst the Urban Extension Options that did not encompass any of the catchment boundaries were classified as Red. Appendix 5 sets out a series of maps highlighting the proximity of each service and facility to the Urban Extension Options; whilst Figure 9 summarises the results.

Urban Extension Options

Primary School Primary School Secondary (doctors/clinic/hospital) Health (supermarkets) Retail estate) (industril Employment Space Open Score Accessibility Accessibility Overall Camborne West (north of railway line) Camborne 8 Camborne West (south of railway line) Camborne 6 Illogan (South) Illogan 7 Illogan (East) Carn Brea 6 Illogan (West) Illogan 5 Tolgus Redruth 8 Redruth East Redruth 8 North Country (Redruth) Redruth 4 Treskerby (Redruth) Redruth 4 Clijah (Redruth) Redruth 2 Figure 9: Accessibility to services & facilities

Figure 9 sets out an ‘Accessibility Score’ which assesses each option against its overall accessibility to local services and facilities; this was calculated by attributing a score to each colour and then adding these individual scores together:  Green (Good) = 2 points  Amber (Moderate) = 1 point  Red (Poor) = 0 points

Furthermore, the overall accessibility ranking was assessed as either Green, Amber or Red as follows:  Green (Good) = a score of 9 or more  Amber (Moderate) = a score between 5 and 8

 Red (Poor) = a score of up to 4

As a result of this assessment, it showed that no site performed very well against all services and facilities. However, the assessment did show that three sites performed relatively poorly: North Country (Redruth); Treskerby (Redruth); and Clijah (Redruth).

Step 8: Initial Stakeholder Engagement

Using the site areas depicted in Figure 8, some initial engagement was undertaken with certain stakeholders

Transportation Initial meetings were arranged with Cornwall Council’s Highways Department and the Highways Agency, to brief them on the emerging work and to obtain first thoughts on the urban extension options.

At this early stage none of the site options caused significant concern with Cornwall Council or the Highways Agency, although it was felt that sites on the west of CPIR were ‘generally’ better than areas to the east of CPIR for their impact upon the highway network. Furthermore, the Highways Agency preferred some of the site options around Illogan, as they could potentially provide good links to the services and facilities planned within Pool, without impacting upon the A30. However, it must be stressed that this feedback only represented ‘first impressions’ and, at that stage, was not based upon any transport modelling.

Surface Water Management Plan Due to the importance of surface water management to the delivery of sites in the CPIR area, there was engagement with officers involved with the development of the CPIR Surface Water Management Plan; to review the appropriateness of the sites to adhere to the principles of the plan. In particular the CPIR area cannot allow infiltration based Sustainable Urban Drainage schemes, due to below ground mine workings, so taking surface water back to a water course in a managed way is sought. Recognising the cost of delivering such solutions, a review was undertaken of each site’s proximity to the area’s water courses to give some guide to their ability to deliver drainage solutions of this nature.

Figure 10 below sets out the results of this assessment and the map which was used to undertake the assessment can be seen in Appendix 6.

Ability for the majority of the site Site to adhere to the principles of the surface water management plan Camborne West (north of railway line) Good to Fair Camborne West (south of railway line) Good Illogan (South) Good Illogan (East) Good Illogan (West) Poor Tolgus Good Redruth East Poor North Country (Redruth) Good to Fair Treskerby (Redruth) Poor Clijah (Redruth) Poor Figure 10: Ability to adhere to Surface Water Management Plan

The assessment showed that the best performing sites, based upon this brief desk top review was Camborne West (south of railway line); Illogan (South); Illogan (East); and Tolgus.

Historic Environment Some initial engagement was also undertaken with Historic Environment officers from within the Council, which was used to understand whether any of the sites presented significant constraints.

It was indicated that all sites had archaeological potential. Plus most sites are close to or within the World Heritage Site. They were pleased to see that the land within close proximity to the Scheduled Carn Brea Castle and Mount had already been discounted.

(More detailed Heritage Impact Assessments undertaken through Cornwall Council’s Historic Environment Team were undertaken at a later stage)

Step 9: Discount worst performing sites

As a result of the assessments undertaken, five of the ten site options within Figure 8 were discounted from further assessment or consultation; these were:

 North Country (cell 7 in figure 8) – The site performed particularly poorly with regard to access to services and facilities and it was felt it would be hard to remedy this situation with the relatively small scale of site and it being located to the north of the A30, away from the main conurbation. Furthermore, there were better sites in relation to the ability to adhere to the Surface water management plan.

 Treskerby, Redruth (cell 8 in figure 8) – The site performed poorly in both the accessibility and Sustainable Urban Drainage assessments [Note: the site has subsequently secured a planning permission, which is reflected within the figures in Chapter 1)

 Redruth East (cell 9 in Figure 8) – The site only received a moderate score for access to services and facilities (i.e. there were better performing areas); the site scored poorly in its ability to adhere to the principles of the Surface Water Management Plan; and the site had no areas that was considered most appropriate (green) within the landscape character assessment, unlike the other remaining sites)

 Clijah, Redruth (cell 10 in Figure 8) – The site was the worst performing for access to services and facilities, plus it performed poorly against the principles of adhering to the surface water management plan

 Illogan (West) (cell 4 in Figure 8) – It was decided that this site should not be considered further, as a result of it representing the worst performing of the remaining sites against access to services. Furthermore, it suggests it would perform poorly when seeking to adhere to the principles of the of Surface Water Management Plan (the only remaining site to be scored ‘Poor’)

As a result of these exclusions, this left 5 sites as Urban Extension Options, which can be seen in Figure 11.

(Figure 11: Urban Extension Options)

Finally, two amendments were made to the remaining options before undertaking public consultation; this related to Camborne West (South) and Illogan South.

Firstly, Illogan South was by far the largest Urban Extension option, so to enable different variations of options to be presented within the consultation document, this site was split into two areas (divided by the existing road [Park Road]).

Secondly, various stakeholder feedback had been given relating to Camborne West (South), expressing concern that the scale of the site meant it would envelop two existing small villages (Barripper and Penponds). This was taken into consideration and as the land adjacent to these villages were only categorised as Amber in the Landscape Character Assessment, it was decided to scale this Option back to just the Green area in the Landscape Character Assessment, which meant there would be no encroachment on Barripper and Penponds from this site option.

This led to the set of Urban Extension Options, presented in a public consultation exercise, which are set out in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Urban Extension Options for July 2008 public consultation

Step 10: Public Consultation

The urban extension options were consulted upon on a number of occasions. The main public consultations were on:  July 2008  February 2009  January 2012

Through each of these consultation exercises, the Council was able to refine the sites, as a result of the feedback, as well as the emerging strategic policies of the time.

Step 10a: July 2008 Public Consultation

The sites consulted upon during this consultation can be seen in Figure 12 previously.

(Figure 12 (Repeated): Urban Extension Options for July 2008 public consultation)

As part of this consultation a range of options were presented in terms of collections of sites to deliver the housing growth. As a result of this consultation, there was significant concern regarding the scale of growth being proposed for CPIR; but of the options presented a majority of respondents wanted to see a more dispersed selection of sites, so the impact is dispersed amongst each of the communities.

Step 10b: February 2009 Public Consultation

At the time of the consultation, the Regional Spatial Strategy was still in place, which was suggesting the CPIR area should accommodate 11,100 dwellings. The Council was objecting to this level of growth, on the grounds of its deliverability within the Plan period. As a result, the February 2009 consultation put forward two scenarios for urban extensions, the first providing for the RSS growth target, the second scenario to deliver a reduced target, which was put forward at the time by the Council of 9,400 dwellings.

Based upon the growth scenarios of the time, it showed that neither scenario needed all of the sites. In turn, the Illogan East site (cell 5 in figure 6) was discounted on the basis that, of the remaining sites, it had the joint lowest score regarding accessibility. In addition, compared with the other site that had the same accessibility score, Illogan (East) is further away from the public transport network, particularly the rail network. Furthermore, it was felt that Illogan (East) would be more problematic to link in to the existing highway network than the other remaining site options. Finally, work relating to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment indicated that there may be issues regarding deliverability of this site; with the majority of land within the other urban extension sites being highlighted as available.

As a result of further detailed assessment of the original sites, there was greater definition given to the site boundaries, to aide clarity for the public.

The two scenarios presented are shown in Figures 13 and 14:

Figure 13: Sites to support the delivery of 11,100 dwellings

Figure 14: Sites to support the delivery of 9,400 dwellings

During the February and March 2009 public consultation many responses were received from the engagement activity undertaken. Some of the site specific issues that were raised included:

UE1: Treswithian  Concern was raised regarding the proximity of the site to Penponds, which respondents felt would result in a loss of identity for the village  Concern regarding the lack of employment space proposed for Camborne  Loss of important farmland  A density of 45 dwellings per hectare (proposed at the time) was too high and out of keeping for the area  Wished to see brownfield sites coming forward before this site

UE2: Killivose  Some concern raised about the sites suitability for commercial development [consultation at the time suggested the possibility of a small amount of employment space on site]  A small number of responses concerned about the rural nature of the area and the potential loss of agricultural land

UE3: Tolvaddon & Park Bottom  Considerable concern was raised regarding the scale of development as it is a parish with relatively small rural communities  Concern regarding the loss of identity as a result of the scale of development, but also the perceived merging of the communities of Tolvaddon and Park Bottom [particularly relevant to the larger version in Figure 13]  Concern that the drainage system would not be able to cope with the scale of development  Concern over the loss of good quality agricultural land

UE4: Tolgus  Concern from the Town Council regarding the ability for the site to link appropriately with the town, due to the barrier created by the ‘Redruth Bypass’ (Objection was later withdrawn)

Conclusions

As a result of RSS not being taken forward and emerging work suggesting a lower housing target for CPIR is likely, it resulted in a reduced pressure to identity sites. Furthermore, with the responses received from the Feb-09 consultation, the following amendments were made to the urban extension site options.

Treswithian Figure 15 below sets out the revised boundary for the site. The main change relates to the south-western edge, which has been pulled back from Penponds to ensure there is greater definition between Camborne (including the urban extension) and Penponds. The other change is that the site is split into two development parcels; however this element does not result in any change in the proposed developable area, as the previous proposal was indicating a green link through the centre of the site, connected to the existing school land.

Figure 15: Revised Treswithian site boundary

Killivose Figure 16 below shows that there have been no proposed changes to the site boundary.

Figure 16: Killivose site boundary

Tolvaddon & Park Bottom Figure 17 below shows the revised site boundaries for this area. During the consultation period there was significant feedback from the local community regarding the scale of growth and the resulting loss of identity that they felt would be created by the urban extension that would span Tolvaddon and Park Bottom.

As a result, the first amendment was to break the proposed site into two urban extensions, which will help to maintain the separate identities of the Tolvaddon and Park Bottom. Furthermore, the scale of the urban extensions have been reduced, this will also enable the urban extensions to be of a scale that would be more in keeping with their existing communities; plus it will draw development away from the higher quality agricultural land. Furthermore, by splitting the sites it would enable them to draw away from a Flood Zone 3b area, which ran north-west to south-east through the original site.

Figure 17: Revised site boundaries for Tolvaddon & Park Bottom site options

Tolgus There were few objections to the proposed urban extension, apart from the Town Council, who subsequently indicated that they would be supportive of the proposal, as long as it was of a high quality and issues regarding the road being a barrier can be overcome. Furthermore, work was commissioned by CPR Regeneration and Cornwall Council to undertake a feasibility study into the ability to downgrade the A3047 (Redruth Bypass) next to the site, but still maintain appropriate capacity for the area; this work indicated that such a downgrade is possible. As a result, it is felt there is no need to amend the proposed urban extension (see Figure 18).

Figure 18: Tolgus site boundary

In summary, these amendments have resulted in the following set of urban extension sites (See Figure 19) to be incorporated into the January 2012 consultation for the Camborne-Pool-Illogan-Redruth area.

Figure 19: Refined Site Options

Step 10c: January 2012 Public Consultation

In January 2012 Cornwall Council undertook its Core Strategy consultation, which included a Core Strategy Area Based Discussion Paper. Within this paper, the emerging strategy for CPIR was set out, together with the urban extension options:

Figure 19: Site options presented in the January 2012 consultation

As part of this consultation process, a Sustainability Appraisal of the options was also undertaken and made available. This January 2012 sustainability appraisal of the site options can be accessed within Allocations DPD evidence base.

As a result of this consultation, feedback on the sites included:  Treswithian (UE1a / UE1b) o Camborne Town Council, objected to having greenfield development, including Treswithian o Concern raised about creating a north-south road through the site, as it was felt it would generate more traffic going through adjacent communities o The site represents good quality agricultural land o The site would ruin the setting of Penponds o Felt there was a lack of facilities on the west of Camborne o Would adversely affect the rural landscape o Felt the access to the town centre, along the A3047, is not suitable; plus people would get in their car to go to many of the town’s services and facilities

 Killivose (UE2) o Camborne Town Council, objected to having greenfield development, including Killivose o Brownfield sites should come forward before greenfield sites o The site represents good quality agricultural land

o Felt there was a lack of facilities on the west of Camborne

 Tolvaddon (UE3) o -

 Park Bottom (UE4) o Many responses expressing concern over loss of agricultural land

 Tolgus (UE5) o Redruth Town Council indicated that they did not want to see sites coming forward without appropriate infrastructure accommodating it

There were also many respondents that were indicating that brownfield sites should be developed before any of the greenfield sites

Step 11: Site Prioritisation

(Work undertaken post 2012 consultation)

As a result of the continued development of the Cornwall Local Plan: Strategic Policies, a housing target has been established for the CPIR area, which is 5,200 dwellings.

As a result of the assessment of CPIR’s urban capacity (Chapter 1), it indicates that fewer than 100 dwellings need to come forward on urban extensions to achieve the Local Plan target.

The urban extension options presented within the January 2012 consultation (figure 19), would provide significantly more housing than is needed. As a result, a final prioritisation exercise was undertaken, which can be viewed in Appendix 7 and summarised in the table below.

Treswithian Park Killivose Tolgus Tolvaddon Nth / Sth Bottom Climate Factors + + + - - Waste +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Minerals & Geodiversity + + +/- ++/- + Soil ------/+ - -- Air --/+ - - ++/- +/- Water +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Biodiversity + + + + + Landscape + +/- + + + Maritime o o o o o Historic Environment - - --/+ - - Design + + + + + Social Inclusion + + + +/- + Crime & Anti-social Behaviour ? ? ? ? ? Housing + + + + + Health, Sport & Recreation + + + + + Econ Dev, Regeneration & Tourism + + + - + Education & Skills + + --/+ + ++/- Transport & Accessibility + + + +/- +/- Energy ++/- ++/- + - +/-

Furthermore, when considering other factors affecting deliverability:  Treswthian – some deliver interest in a parcel of land within the south of the site, but no other known activity on the majority of the site  Killivose – No known developer interest in the site  Tolgus – Site has been masterplanned, as part a phase 2 of a permitted scheme; landowners for part of the land are known to have been activity marketing the site for sale  Park Bottom – No known developer interest or activity from the land owners  Tolvaddon – No known developer interest and no activity from the landowners in the recent past

As a result of this prioritisation exercise, the following sites were taken forward into the Cornwall Allocations DPD:  Tolgus (remaining part of site not already permitted) – 280 dwellings o The site represented one of the best performing options when reviewed through the Sustainability Appriasal criteria. o Prioritisation of this site will enable the remainder of a well located masterplan site to come forward; in turn this will support a scale of development that will support it as a sustainable neighbourhood. o Finally, the key concern previously was the barrier created by the adjacent ‘bypass’; however the adjacent permitted development (and grant funding) is addressing this issue.

In turn, this means the remaining sites were discounted, on the basis of not performing as well as the selected site.

Chapter 3 – Summary of CPIR Housing Delivery

Based upon the assessments in Chapters 1 and 2, the following table sets out how the Local Plan housing target of 5,200 dwellings for CPIR will be delivered within the Plan period.

Gross Discount Net Total Rate Total

A Local Plan Target 5,200 - 5,200

B Net Completions (From Apr-10 to Mar-16) 1,412 - 1,412

C Net Extant pps - Under 10 304 10% 274

D Net Extant pps - 10 or more 2,588 - 2,588

E Total of Completions and Permissions (b + c + d) 4,274

F NET REQUIREMENT (a - e) 926

G Windfall allowance for final 10 years of plan 594 - 594 period (Excl. windfall in gardens)

H Total of undeveloped SHLAA sites 390 30% 273

I NET REQUIREMENT (a - (e+g+h)) 59

J Site Allocations

Tolgus 280 280 K Net Requirement (A – (E+G+H+J)) -221

The summary shows that the combination of permitted development, completions, SHLAA site, Windfall, together the Tolgus Urban Extension will deliver the Local Plan housing target for CPIR.

If you would like this information in another format please contact:

Cornwall Council County Hall Treyew Road Truro TR1 3AY

Telephone: 0300 1234 100

Email: [email protected] www.cornwall.gov.uk