St Eval Neighbourhood Development Plan

St Eval Neighbourhood Development Plan – Consultation Statement

1 - Introduction

This Consultation Statement has been prepared to fulfil the legal obligations of the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations 2012 (set out in Section 3) relating to the St Eval Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).

Extensive community engagement and consultation work has been undertaken and this is summarised in Section 4.

2 - Background

The rural, coastal Parish of St Eval is situated in North Cornwall, adjacent to Mawgan in Pydar, St Ervan and St Merryn in the Community Network Area of Wadebridge and Padstow.

The Parish has a population of 8041. The largest settlement in the Parish is Trevisker St Eval, located between the larger settlements of Newquay and Padstow. Padstow is approximately 4 miles northeast of the site and Newquay approximately 8 miles to the south west.

The original motivation for a Neighbourhood Plan came about because of the MoD’s intention to sell some of their land at Trevisker St Eval. The Parish Council and St Eval Area Community Action Forum (SEACAF CIC) saw this as an opportunity to be proactive in shaping future development, as well as a way to help safeguard and enhance the area.

With the relocation of the post office/shop and community centre on to the area being marketed for sale, the parish were keen to ensure that these facilities were protected for existing and future residents of the parish.

With the MoD Development Brief defining a potential for development of up to 100 houses, the need for facilities was seen as ever more key to the future of the parish.

Initially, the parish considered undertaking a Neighbourhood Development Order (NDO) to influence the development on the MoD site but, following consultation with the community in December 2012, decided to widen this out to an NDP in order to set policies across the whole of the parish and encourage all parish residents to have an active say in the future. The Parish Boundary/Neighbourhood Plan Area is shown in Figure 1.

1 Cornwall Council Parish Population 2010 figures: http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.asp x?page=28029

1 Figure 1 - St Eval Parish Boundary and Neighbourhood Plan Area (Source: Cornwall Council, 2013)

2 The NDP has not only been driven by the need to protect and enhance parish facilities. The withdrawal of the majority of MoD personnel from the area has changed the make-up of the parish and there is an awareness that the area would benefit from some growth and a range of residents, which will aid the sustainability of the parish and in fact, bring positive change.

It is intended, through the NDP, to shape development through the policies themselves and by engaging with potential developers to look at how the area can be developed to the mutual benefit of the developer and the community. Good quality development that works positively with the environment and conditions, and adds social value will make St Eval a better and more sustainable place to live and should be embraced.

3 – Consultation on the proposed St Eval Neighbourhood Development Plan - Legislative Requirements

Section 15(2) of Part 5 of the 2012 Neighbourhood Planning Regulations sets out what a consultation statement should contain:

(a) contains details of the persons and bodies who were consulted about the proposed neighbourhood development plan; (b) explains how they were consulted; (c) summarises the main issues and concerns raised by the persons consulted; and (d) describes how these issues and concerns have been considered and, where relevant, addressed in the proposed neighbourhood development plan.

Consultation and community engagement has been fundamental to the development of the Neighbourhood Plan and has gone far beyond the requirements of the regulations. The work that has been carried out over 4 years is outlined below. The requirements of the regulations are covered in Section 4.12.

4 - The Development of the St Eval Neighbourhood Development Plan – Community Consultation

4.1 - The consultation process

Figure 2 shows the evolving process of developing a plan for St Eval over 4 years, including extensive community engagement and consultation at every step along the way.

A summary of the issues that were identified throughout the community engagement and consultation is included in Section 4.2. More detail on each stage of consultation is included in Sections 4.3 – 4.12.

3 Figure 2 –Chart showing key milestones in the process undertaken in St. Eval

4 4.2 - Summary of Consultation Results by Theme

Below is a summary of the key issues that were identified throughout the various stages of consultation and engagement, which formed the basis for the policies in the St Eval NDP.

Housing

 Support for a maximum of 100 houses  Support for affordable housing for local people  Development mainly accepted as being on the area shown in the original NDO as per Development Brief (although the exact location and grouping of houses may be negotiable)  Some interest in small scattered housing developments in the parish  Support for environmentally sustainable build  Some interest in self build  Support for use of local materials and design that is sympathetic to needs whilst factoring in well-being of community: tenure, type, appropriate spacing, garden and parking facilities

Environment and Open Spaces

 Protection and enhancement of natural environment  Protection and increase of trees (as natural wind-break and to enjoy for aesthetic and environmental reasons)  Pathways and cycle trails to link up facilities and to provide walks/leisure routes – ensuring that the natural environment is accessible for local use, and potentially link into a tourism initiative.  Protection of playing field  Outdoor leisure space - linked to sports

US Navy/American Buildings

 Of significant importance to residents as part of their heritage  Should, where possible, be made practical use of  Community usages highlighted for various buildings e.g. sports hall could once again be used as a sports gym, sports facility; church could provide a media/cultural venue etc  Also support for buildings to be considered for employment space use

Energy

 Support for renewable energy initiatives (such as solar PV) subject to defining appropriate options and having this endorsed by the community  Energy efficiency to be considered in relation to any housing development

5 Employment/Business

 Local employment likely to become more important with future growth of population  Support for small tourism initiatives  Support for small-scale employment space and business development  Business growth supported but sympathetic to the area i.e. no large scale development. Primarily local shops, small workshops, non- industrial businesses and office space supported

Infrastructure

 Mobile phone reception and broadband services need to improve in order to enable business and economic growth  Ensure that transport and road network (inc. traffic safety) considered as part of the wider housing and business development.  More facilities or improved facilities (shopping, health, leisure and social) to be considered as part of the sustainability of the parish.

4.3 - Initial Development Brief Consultation – March 2010

In March 2010, having been made aware of the fact that the MoD intended to close the NAAFI (Navy, Army and Air Force Institute) building, which was the only community use building for Trevisker St Eval, a survey was conducted to discover whether the residents and other local people felt that it was necessary to maintain certain community activities and services.

Approximately 120 surveys were distributed throughout Trevisker St Eval and the Parish; 72 were returned (60%).

4.4 – Further Development Brief Consultation – August 2011

SEACAF CIC was formed from an existing community group in order to provide an appropriate structure to produce a business plan and to acquire a new community building, due to the closure of the NAAFI building.

“The objects of the Company are to carry on activities which benefit the community and in particular (without limitation) to provide community facilities and activities for the residents of Trevisker St Eval and the surrounding area”

In order to acquire a replacement building, the MoD required SEACAF CIC to produce evidence for a Development Brief. A further, more wide-spread survey was undertaken.

6 Consultation took place in St Eval on the 13th August 2011 at the local village fete in order to better understand the type, scale and position of development that people living within the area would like to see happen.

Additionally, approximately 120 surveys were distributed and 82 were returned (68%). This survey concentrated on development, community facilities and infrastructure brief. This informed the production of the Development Brief for the former MoD land, which was then adopted by Cornwall Council in December 2011.

Following this work, SEACAF CIC, supported by Cornwall Council’s Localism Team, successfully negotiated a 5 year lease on one of the American Buildings, with a peppercorn rent. The Trevisker Community Centre opened in January 2012 and includes meeting rooms, hairdressers, social club, Post Office and shop.

4.5 –Formation of the Neighbourhood Planning Steering Group – March/April 2012

Initially it was felt an NDO was the most appropriate plan to take forward, to influence the development on the MoD site. In March 2012, a public meeting was held at Trevisker School to discuss following up the Development Brief by embarking on an NDO. The purpose of the meeting was to:

 Raise awareness of the process, what this would entail and what it could achieve;  Explain what impact this might have; and  Attract volunteers and interest.

The first official meeting of the Steering Group was held in April 2012. At this meeting the group discussed how they would function i.e. their terms of reference; engagement strategy; and the types of themes that might need to be covered.

The Steering Group has continued to meet regularly (with minutes taken) throughout the process.

The Steering Group is made up of a core of members, but they have also co-opted members informally to undertake tasks e.g. seeking youth input.

4.6 –Neighbourhood Planning – Preliminary Community Engagement and Consultation – May/June 2012

The Steering Group held events held in May and June 2012 to inform the initial Neighbourhood Planning work – these included:

 Consultation with school children at Trevisker Primary School in May 2012;  Consultation at the Church Rooms, St Eval in May 2012;

7  Consultation at the Jubilee barbeque and beach party (Porthcothan) in June 2012.

Additionally, there have been on-going displays at the Trevisker Community Centre to both inform and to gather views; information on the SEACAF CIC website and general publicity throughout the entire process.

4.7 – Parish Survey and Housing Needs Survey – November/December 2012

In November 2012, the Steering Group worked with officers from Cornwall Council and Cornwall Rural Community Council to devise an in-depth Parish Survey which, although primarily focused on the NDO, went much wider in order to identify more holistic community issues and aspirations.

The survey was distributed in hard copy but residents were also given the option to complete the survey online. There was also an evening session held at the Community Centre where residents could get independent assistance with the survey.

The survey was distributed to residents in both St Eval and St Ervan parishes. In total, there were 482 household questionnaires distributed – 346 of these in St Eval, of which 86 forms were completed (a response rate of 25%). The remaining 136 questionnaires were distributed in St Ervan with 10 forms returned (a response rate of 7%). As the MoD land falls predominantly in St Eval parish, interest from St Ervan parish residents was low and therefore the lower response rate was not unsurprising.

The results were analysed, showing similar results to those of the Development Brief. Residents were keen to influence future development.

A housing needs survey was also undertaken during this period to establish the need for possible future housing and identify the extent and nature of the housing needs, and establish the attitude towards residential development. 482 surveys were distributed to each household on the electoral role with 63 surveys returned (13%).

4.8 – Consultation Days – December 2012

Two Christmas Consultation events were held at Trevisker School and at Trevisker St Eval Community Centre, which were both well-attended. Displays and information on themes/issues that might go into the NDO made available for community members to view, discuss and comment on. This was linked to the content of the Parish Survey.

8 4.9 - Change to NDP – February 2013

Following analysis of the Parish Survey results and consultation at the Christmas events, it was agreed that an NDP would be more appropriate for St Eval, rather than an NDO.

To publicise this change, posters were displayed in various places within the parish, it was publicised on the SEACAF CIC website and displayed in the Trevisker community building. The results of the various consultations were also displayed, explaining the plan was now an NDP, what that was and that the evidence was still relevant.

4.10 – Business Survey – September 2013

A business questionnaire was delivered to 40 local businesses in the area to identify needs and future development. 18 responses were received (45%).

4.11 - Consultation on Draft NDP Policies – December 2013 and January 2014

A community consultation event to get feedback on the draft policies was held at Trevisker St Eval Community Centre on Saturday 14th December 2013 between 2.00 and 8.00pm. The event was timed to coincide with the community children’s Christmas Party and Christmas Draw taking place at the centre.

There were photographs and maps on display, explanations about each of the 7 policies, the policies themselves and opportunities for people to say if they agreed or didn’t agree and to make comments.

A record was kept of who attended (gender, age and where they lived). It was staffed by members of the Steering Group, along with a planning officer from Cornwall Council and a Community Planning Manager from Cornwall Rural Community Council to answer questions. The event was visited by 60 people and the comments were all positive and supportive of the NDP.

On Saturday 18th January 2014, the event was replicated at St Eval Parish Hall between Porthcothan and Treburrick. The event was attended by 12 people and feedback was generally positive although the respondents’ issues and concerns were different from those who had attended the event at Trevisker St Eval, and based more on the wider parish.

Both of these events were publicised on the SEACAF CIC website and through posters and flyers.

As a result of the consultation events, some of the policies in the NDP were adjusted slightly to reflect feedback received.

9 4.12 - Formal Consultation on the Proposed Neighbourhood Development Plan – Jan – March 2014

The St Eval NDP was submitted to St Eval Parish Council for approval at their meeting on Wednesday 5th February 2014. The NDP then went out to formal consultation for 6 weeks, as per the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations. This formal consultation began on Monday 10th February 2014.

The plan was sent to the consultees detailed in the table below, along with their responses and actions taken as a result.

The plan was also available to all members of the public to view and comment on at the Trevisker St Eval Community Centre foyer and also on the SEACAF website. This was publicised by posters within the parish, on the website, and in the parish magazine.

10 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response Environment Agency Email No Response N/A Sir John Moore House Victoria Square Bodmin Environment Shaun shaun.pritchard@environment- Cornwall Agency Pritchard agency.gov.uk PL31 1EB English David Stuart [email protected] English Heritage Email Thank you for your consultation on Heritage 29 Queen Square this Plan and for forwarding me Bristol the Sustainability Checklist. BS1 4ND We do not have many comments on the Plan and these can be summarised as follows:

We are pleased to note that the heritage of the area is valued by its community and that this is reflected in the Plan’s policies and proposals.

We note that the focus of planned development is the ex MOD site and that a development brief has previously been produced outside of the Neighbourhood Plan preparation process. The Plan is intended to build on that document and makes provision for up to 100 new homes within the village boundary of St Eval (SENDP2).

What is less clear as an evidence Comments gratefully received. In base is how the Plan through that response to the concerns over the policy can demonstrate that such harm to heritage assets through an ambition can be delivered housing proposals; the NDP has without generating an undesirable holistically looked at the area, its degree of harm to heritage assets constraints and limitations. This in which allows conformity with the turn has informed the settlement parent Local Plan and National boundary. In terms of heritage Planning Policy Framework and assets in this boundary, there is 1 also with policy SENDP5 on scheduled monument (Trevisker heritage within the neighbourhood Round) and it is not envisaged Plan itself. I note from SENDP 2 that housing development will be itself and the relevant objective proposed in its setting, due to the within the Sustainability Checklist current use as Trevisker (P21) that “housing proposals Community Primary School. If in must have clearly considered the the unlikely event that a housing existing context” but there are a proposal was submitted in the number of nationally designated setting of this scheduled heritage assets around the village monument, a planning application whose settings may well be critical would be dealt with under the to their significance and upon existing framework of planning

11 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response which the development of such a and conservation. number of new homes may well have a substantial and possibly Regarding the former American negative impact. buildings that are regarded as undesignated heritage assets; As the development brief is being these assets do not hold the same referred to as major influence in protection as nationally the formulation of the designated heritage assets. As Neighbourhood Plan but is not such, the buildings have been seemingly being used as a formal identified and supported by two evidence base to substantiate the policies. As this is a NDP, rather proposals and does not appear to than a Neighbourhood be available for access through Development Order, it would be this consultation process, it is up to the land owner/developer to difficult to know how on this point demonstrate how the buildings are the Plan can demonstrate either considered, if they form part of a deliverability of its aspirations or planning proposal. its conformity with parent policy considerations. The Development Brief formed the starting point of the NDP and the This does not constitute an NDP has grown from that, objection to the Plan or its informed by extensive research, contents – merely the highlighting surveys and public engagement of the desirability of clarification in and consultation. The fundamental the relationship between the points that underpin the NDP are: development brief and the Plan the number of new homes that and a demonstrable narrative the community would support; between the assessment of reinforced community support for relevant issues – such as heritage existing community facilities and assets – and how the Plan’s services; the importance of the proposals have been informed. American Buildings; and the green assets. Please feel free to contact me again on this or other points associated with the Plan process if this would be helpful. Natural Consultation [email protected] Natural England Email Thank you for your consultation on England Service Hornbeam House the above dated 10 February 2014 Electra Way which was received by Natural Crewe Business Park England on 11 February 2014. Crewe Additional information was Cheshire received on 22 March 2014. CW1 6GJ Natural England is a non- departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

12 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response Neighbourhood Plan Thank you for your comments and Natural England was consulted input from the MoD Development upon the original Development Brief and with the NDP. Brief for the proposed 100 houses on the former Ministry of Defence As a result of your comments as Land. The development brief is the part of the MoD Development basis of the Neighbourhood Plan Brief, a Phase 1 Habitat Report with the additional intention of has been undertaken and in providing greater guidance for consequence, identified development in the wider parish environmental valued areas that area and to ensure the provision of are within and outside the village community facilities in St Eval. In boundary. Whilst we appreciate our response dated 1 November that further evidence will need to 2011, we explained the be provided at application stage, importance of a full evaluation of this is something that the land the potential impacts of the owner/developers would need to scheme on landscape and ecology, provide under the framework of including protected species to planning, with specific regard to inform any subsequent planning the saved polices within the North application. Whilst it is appreciated Cornwall District Plan, emerging that this is a neighbourhood plan policies in the submission rather than application, sufficient document of the Cornwall Local evidence must accompany the Plan and policies contained within Planning Framework to ensure that the NPPF. Therefore we believe it is deliverable. In the absence of that sufficient evidence has been such work accompanying the provided to support this NDP. Cornwall Local Plan, which has not yet been examined, more evidence than is normally required for a neighbourhood plan is expected.

Some further ecological work has Policy SENDP2 sets the housing been undertaken. This is welcome. policy within the village boundary However that work has not been and therefore we as a community fully completed. Mitigation are unsure of the exact proposals which might inform the positioning of future development. Plan with a view to obtaining best As a consequence, it would be possible outcomes for biodiversity very costly for the parish to resulting from changes in land use encounter the costs of biodiversity and developments are not surveys and this is something that included. the land owner/developers would need to provide whilst submitting SENDP2 a planning proposal. The Ecological Assessment reveals some discrepancies between its The positioning of the housing in findings and the original the MoD Development Brief has development brief proposals. That changed in the sense that the brief proposed ( land A) 60 village boundary now takes dwellings on the land to the east of precedence; this is primarily due the main road, south of the sports to the evidence revealed from the pitches and (land B) 40 houses to Phase 1 habitat survey and further the south of the American consultation and engagement

13 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response buildings west of the main road. events with our community. This However the ecological statement therefore explains that there are shows that land A is important for discrepancies whilst comparing Chamomile, a rare plant, the information contain within the important in Cornwall and that MoD Development Brief and the land B south of Orion Drive draft NDP. provides a significant area of lowland meadow priority habitat. Figure 3 in the Neighbourhood Plan shows the land south of Orion Drive as of environmental value but not the land A save for the conifer woodland which is of lesser value. In light of these specific The Sustainability Framework comments, we agree that the received on 22 March notes these Environment Policy (SENDP4) surveys but does not show how could be strengthened. As such the Plan will mitigate for the your recommendations for the findings, and therefore how these modification of wording to environmental areas can be SENDP4 (on page 15 of this protected whilst still providing for document) have been made in the number of dwellings which can order to address the concerns still relate to the rest of the raised. village. We advise that policy SENDP2 should be strengthened and specifically seek both to protect priority habitat and to develop habitat suitable for chamomile in appropriate places around the village. We also advise that the plan should provide protection for European Protected Species, particularly dormice, which may be present in hedgerows in the military base. Planning proposals should maintain, protect and enhance significant hedgerows especially in the old military base and be accompanied by a landscape evaluation. Further appropriate survey work must accompany any application. Following the recommendation of SENDP3 - Housing in the rest the amended wording, we have of the parish. since amended point c to the At point c, we recommend a following: The size and design modification so that the character of the replacement dwelling is as well as the visual impact of in keeping with its replacement homes is considered surroundings and there is no in relation to Cornwall’s landscape increased character or visual

14 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response character assessment. Any impact on Cornwall’s replacement homes in or within landscape that is in, or within the setting of the Area of the setting of, the AONB. Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) should take account of the In response to these comments AONB management plan and its regarding a further policy on statement of significance. Any additional new homes; the parish replacement development should understands that saved policy not harm the Special Qualities of HSG4 within the North Cornwall the AONB. Local Plan will continue to be used until the Cornwall Local Plan is We note that this policy relates to adopted. Once the Cornwall Local replacement homes only. A policy Plan is endorsed, then Policy 7 will regarding additional new then be used and the community development in the wider area of St Eval believes that an added should be included if only for layer is not required for that clarification. The forum may wish particular policy. to consider a policy on changes in use of agricultural buildings to residential in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or its setting. Modifications have been made SENDP 4 - Environment to Policy SENDP4. As a result of the initial surveys we advise the following modification to the Policy Development that is likely to have either a direct or indirect adverse impact upon either  the locally designated sites identified within Figure 3 for nature conservation  priority habitats  protected species including European protected species

should ensure demonstrate that appropriate mitigation and/or compensation could will be provided and where possible achieve a net enhancement to the biodiversity within St Eval. In the case of European protected species, a licence will be required from Natural England for any works affecting that habitat. Favourable Conservation Status of protected species must be maintained or permission will be refused. Proposals which will deteriorate or

15 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response remove irreplaceable priority habitat or veteran trees will be refused.

Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. The Standing Advice includes a habitat decision tree which provides advice to planners on deciding if there is a ‘reasonable likelihood’ of protected species being present. It also provides detailed advice on the protected species most often affected by development, including flow charts for individual species to enable an assessment to be made of a protected species survey and mitigation strategy.

Standing Advice is a material consideration in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation.

The Standing Advice should not be treated as giving any indication or providing any assurance in respect of European Protected Species (EPS) that the proposed development is unlikely to affect the EPS present on the site; nor should it be interpreted as meaning that Natural England has reached any views as to whether a licence may be granted.

Policy SENDP7 – Sustainable As a result of the suggested Development sentence to policy SENDP7, a We advise that whilst renewable second point has been added to energy is likely to be acceptable on the policy which now states the existing and new buildings and in following: Renewable energy some cases brown-field land, projects that harm the Special impacts upon the special qualities Qualities of the Area of of the AONB should be considered. Outstanding Natural Beauty, in These include the area’s peaceful particular its peaceful, wild and wild nature and panoramic nature and its panoramic views. Given the character of the views will not be supported. flat plateau adjacent and within the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty we advise that proposals

16 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response for solar farms may be difficult to achieve without harming these Special Qualities. Similarly wind turbines may be acceptable in certain areas but should not affect the Special Qualities of the AONB. We therefore advise the addition of a sentence at the bottom of policy SENDP7, as follows: Development within St Eval should seek to achieve high standards of sustainable development. In particular, demonstrate in proposals how design, construction and operation has sought to: a) Reduce the use of fossil fuels. b) Promote the efficient use of natural resources, the re-use and recycling of resources and the production and consumption of renewable energy. Renewable energy projects which harm the Special Qualities of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, in particular its peaceful, wild nature and its panoramic views will not be supported.

We hope these comments are helpful.

We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us. Cornwall Area Cornwall AONB Unit Email No Response N/A of Outstanding 13 Treyew Road Natural Truro Beauty Cornwall (AONB) [email protected] TR1 2BY Email No Response N/A Five Acres Allet Truro Cornwall Cheryl cheryl.marriott@cornwallwildlifetrust. Cornwall Wildlife Trust Marriott org.uk TR4 9DJ

17 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response Email Sent an email stating they had N/A been unable to find the plan on the South West Region website and asked for weblink. Killerton House Broadclyst Weblink was sent on 17th February Exeter 2014. National Trust Michael Calder [email protected] EX5 3LE Post No Response N/A

Campaign to 69 Arundel Way Protect Rural Newquay England Cornwall (CPRE) TR7 3AG Post No Response N/A The Fuchsias Fore Street Cornwall Albaston Federation of Gunnislake Small Ann Cornwall Businesses Vandermeulen PL18 9AJ Email No Response N/A Unit 1, 1 Riverside House Heron Way Cornwall Newham Association of Truro Local Council's Cornwall (CALC) [email protected] TR1 2XN Post No Response N/A Devon And The Mount Cornwall Paris Street Housing Exeter Association EX1 2JZ Stennack House Email Thank you for contacting the N/A Stennack Road Development Team Ocean St Austell Housing Cornwall You should hear from us with a full Cornwall [email protected] PL25 3SW response within 10 working days. Barncoose Gateway Park Email No Response N/A Redruth Coastline [email protected] Cornwall Housing Laura Haynes o.uk TR15 3RQ Sport England Tom Bowkett [email protected] Email Thank you for consulting Sport Thank you for your comments. As England on the above part of the NDP process, the Neighbourhood Plan. community highlighted St Eval Playing field as being important to Planning Policy in the National the role in facilitating social Planning Policy interaction and creating a healthy Framework identifies how the and inclusive community. As a planning system can play an consequence, policy SENDP6 important role in facilitating social safeguards the playing field from interaction and creating healthy, inappropriate development, but inclusive communities. also sets out criteria for Encouraging communities to appropriate development, that can

18 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response become more physically active provide facilities of the right through walking, cycling, informal quality. recreation and formal sport plays an important part in this process In addition to this the Policy states and providing enough sports that development proposals within facilities of the right quality and the parish of St Eval must ‘retain type and in the right places is vital and enhance the existing walking, to achieving this aim. This means cycling and horse riding network, positive planning for sport, and make new links where protection from unnecessary loss feasible’ thus encouraging the of sports facilities and an community to become more integrated approach to providing physically active through walking new housing and employment land and cycling. and community facilities provision is important. It is however regretted that the Tennis Courts were not referenced It is important therefore that the within the draft NDP as a sporting Neighbourhood Plan reflects facility/green asset. As a result, national policy for sport as set out the text below has been added to in the above document with SENDP6: particular reference to Pars 73 and 74 to ensure proposals comply Proposals for development with National Planning Policy. It is which would result in the loss also important to be aware of of the existing tennis courts Sport England’s role in protecting identified within figure 3 will playing fields and the presumption not be permitted unless against the loss of playing fields equivalent alternative (see link below), as set out in our provision which would be national guide, ‘A Sporting accessible, convenient and Future for the Playing Fields of attractive can be secured England – Planning Policy through the use of a planning Statement’. obligation. http://www.sportengland.org/facili ties-planning/planning-for- The St Eval Parish believe that the sport/development- plan has looked holistically at the management/planning- plan area and has supported applications/playing-field-land/ housing and employment land within the village boundary which Sport England provides guidance is prescribed in policy SENDP1 and on developing policy for sport and SENDP2/3. further information can be found following the link below: In light of the comments http://www.sportengland.org/facili regarding the submission ties-planning/planning-for- document of the Cornwall Local sport/forward-planning/ Plan, it is believed that no indoor or outdoor sports delivery has Sport England works with Local been planned for in the St Eval Authorities to ensure Local Plan Parish and as such not applicable policy is underpinned by robust for this particular NDP. and up to date assessments and strategies for indoor and outdoor sports delivery. If local authorities

19 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response have prepared a Playing Pitch Strategy or other indoor/outdoor sports strategy it will be important that the Neighbourhood Plan reflects the recommendations set out in that document and that any local investment opportunities, such as the Community Infrastructure Levy, are utilised to support the delivery of those recommendations. http://www.sportengland.org/facili ties-planning/planning-for- sport/planning-tools-and- guidance/ If and when future sport facilities If new sports facilities are being are proposed St Eval endeavour to proposed Sport England work with Cornwall Council and recommend you ensure such Sports England to ensure such facilities are fit for purpose and facilities are fit for purpose and designed in accordance with our designed in accordance with Sport design guidance notes. England’s design guidance notes. http://www.sportengland.org/facili ties-planning/tools- guidance/design-and-cost- guidance/

Email No Response N/A Western Power Distribution Peter Roberts [email protected] Email Thank you for your email below. I N/A Customer Section can confirm that I have forwarded Wales and West House it to our Plant Protection team and Spooner Close they have confirmed receipt of the Wales and Celtic Springs Coedkernew enquiry and you will receive a West Utilities Newport response within the following 28 Limited [email protected] NP10 8FZ days. South West Water Email No Response N/A Martyn Dune Peninsula House Rydon Lane Alison Smith Exeter South West (development Devon Water co-ordinator) [email protected] EX2 7HR Devon and Martin [email protected] St Austell Police Station Email Thank you for the opportunity to Thank you for your comments. Cornwall Mumford nn.police.uk 1 Palace Road comment on the plan. The suggested modifications Constabulary St Austell have been made to Policy Cornwall My only thought is that it might be SENDP2. PL25 4AL useful to include a line to the effect that all new development should properly consider the need to design out crime, disorder and

20 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response anti-social behaviour to ensure ongoing community safety and cohesion.

This in itself is rather vague but deliberately so as then could apply to literally any future development be it housing, footpaths, commercial, play spaces etc. Post No Response N/A The Ride Chelson Meadow First Devon Plymouth and Cornwall Marc Reddy PL9 7JT Gables House Email No Response N/A National Grid Kenilworth Road DPM Leamington Spa Consultant Julian Austin [email protected] CV32 6JX Post No Response N/A Po Box 4805 Worthing British Gas BN11 9QW Freepost RRYZ-BRTT-CBJS Post No Response N/A Osprey House Osprey Road Exeter EDF Energy EX2 7WN Trevisker Email No Response N/A Community Primary Mrs Kaye School Pitcher [email protected] Stirling Alex Hensher [email protected] Email Thank you for consulting us on the Housing – St Neighbourhood Development Plan Eval Telephone Draft. We have attached a plan to conversation illustrate the area of land that is under our ownership and also to Meeting show the areas that are subject to safeguarding and a restricted building height of 3.4m by legal agreement due to potential for interference with the adjacent MOD aerial communications. This height restriction limits any building to a single floor which presents an additional viability challenge as single storey homes are more expensive to construct than two storey homes. All of this area was previously in use as an airfield and contained significant accommodation blocks in the past.

21 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response Our main concerns on the draft Thank you for your comments. NDP are that the areas identified Understandably, when initially for proposed development on the looking at Figure 3 there are large Development Brief for St Eval areas of environmentally valued dated October 2011 which was areas identified. However, this is also subject to public consultation not to say that development is are now largely the subject of an completely prohibited; what the ‘Environment’ designation which policy seeks to achieve is that could restrict development, we are development that is likely to have also concerned about the either a direct or indirect adverse justification of the ‘Environment’ impact upon the locally designation as the ecology report designated sites identified within it is based on is not available for Figure 3 for nature conservation public inspection and we have not should demonstrate that seen it. appropriate mitigation and/or compensation could be provided When the ‘Environment’ and where possible achieve a net designation is placed on top of the enhancement to the biodiversity height restriction little room is left within St Eval. for locating homes of more than a single storey. The Development Brief was only adopted 2 ½ years ago and when areas earmarked for development so recently are having policies proposed on them potentially restricting development within such a short time since adoption it creates complexities. We are grateful to have the opportunity to provide feedback and below we will respond to each of the policies in order. Consultation responses to proposed policies:

Policy SENDP1 In response to the suggested SENDP1a – Can the wording be amendment, the wording has changed to “Creates local been altered. employment opportunities OR community facilities.” Creating employment and community facilities at the same time is too tight a restriction

SENDP1b – This policy suggests Upon reflection of the that only ‘community enterprise’ observation regarding the will be supported in the buildings restriction of point b of but there are other potential SENDP1, this has been business uses that also provide removed. employment but will not necessarily be community enterprise and we put forward that

22 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response these normal business uses should not be precluded.

SENDP1c - A4 & A5 are not With regards to use classes A4 included. B2 & B8 are not and A5, the community of St included. These could be included Eval Parish consider that to maximise the chances of these these uses are appropriate buildings supporting local and, have been added to that employment. effect. However, B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage and SENDP1d – We understand the distribution) are not appropriate sensitivity of competing business uses for the former American uses but are not sure if it is the buildings, or for the neighbouring role of planning policy to restrict uses. As a consequence they will competition in the market. not be included as appropriate use classes. Policy SENDP2 SENDP 2a - In January 2014 Due to the size and rural location Cornwall Council voted to increase of St Eval, it is really important to the housing target from 42,250 to consider the existing business 47,500 homes and the housing uses and to ensure that support is target for the Wadebridge and given to them in enabling a viable Padstow CNA was increased from future. Therefore, future uses in 405 additional homes to 505 the other 3 American Buildings, additional homes and is currently must be considered as part of a in the Local Plan public change of use planning proposal. consultation. NPPF 184 states that Neighbourhood plans and orders The community of St Eval Parish should not promote less are familiar with the housing development than set out in the target for Cornwall. We are also Local Plan or undermine its aware of paragraph 184 in the strategic policies. St Eval has the NPPF which states that potential to make a larger Neighbourhood Plans and orders contribution of housing than 100 should not promote less homes. National Planning policy is development than set out in the supportive of redevelopment of Local Plan or undermine its brownfield land. We put forward no strategic policies. In addition to upper limit on the number of this, that the ambition of the homes should be put in place, the neighbourhood should be aligned number of homes should be with the strategic needs and determined as to the ability of the priorities of the wider local area. area to support the development As such, St Eval have set out of housing as identified at the time their own approach to housing of a planning application and not density to reflect local be subject to a cap. circumstances, thus in accordance with paragraph 47 of the NPPF. Policy SENDP3 - No comment Therefore 100 new homes over the 20 year plan are proposed. If Policy SENDP4 St Eval went on past build rates SENDP4. 1. - There are 4 statutory and based upon housing need and defined woodland BAP priority the services and facilities that are habitats around St Eval. These currently provided, then 20-30

23 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response have been identified on the homes would be a realistic enclosed plan and all fall outside number to consider. However, the the proposed St Eval village community of St Eval Parish boundary. There are no statutory understand that by having a land based designations within the higher number, development on a proposed St Eval village boundary proportion of the brown field land except for Trevisker Round and no would contribute to a self- SSSIs or SPAs within 500m of the sustaining and sustainable village boundary, none of the settlement. Understandably, the proposed ‘Environment’ areas have cap on 100 new homes is to a statutory land based designation. remain in SENDP2. The phase 1 habitat survey that informed the ‘Environment’ areas The NDP can designate areas of has not been made publicly importance locally and don’t have available in the consultation to be based on national or despite being requested and it is international designations. A therefore not possible to consider Phase 1 Habitat survey carried and comment in a transparent out in 2012 identified the areas manner on the results of the Phase highlighted in Figure 3 as priority 1 habitat survey. We are not habitats. The importance of these supportive of this policy and areas is also emphasised in designating large swathes of land Natural England’s consultation as ‘Environment’ when there is no response above. publicly available evidence and feel this is not following due and What Policy SENDP4 seeks to proper process. achieve is that development that We would suggest removing all of is likely to have either a direct or the areas indicated as indirect adverse impact upon the ‘Environment’ on figure 3 and locally designated sites identified replacing policy SENDP4. 1. with within Figure 3 for nature something to the effect of “All conservation should demonstrate development will require an up to that appropriate mitigation and/or date phase 1 habitat survey to compensation could be provided check for protected species and and where possible achieve a net sensitive habitats. Development enhancement to the biodiversity that is likely to have either a direct within St Eval. or indirect adverse impact for nature conservation should demonstrate that appropriate mitigation and/or compensation could be provided and where possible achieve a net enhancement to the biodiversity within St Eval.” In response to the comments made, we believe that retaining SENDP4. 2. – We agree with the existing trees is fundamental retaining the hedgerows, however to any development proposal. retaining all of the existing trees Paragraph 118 of the NPPF states creates a significant restriction on that “planning permission should development. Where existing trees be refused for development are removed we would seek to resulting in the loss or plant new trees to mitigate any deterioration of irreplaceable

24 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response loss. Any new trees should be habitats, including ancient informed by independent expert woodland and the loss of aged or opinion to ensure that the optimal veteran trees found outside species are utilised to withstand ancient woodland, unless the the local environment and soil need for, and benefits of, the conditions, paying particular development in that location attention to the windswept clearly outweigh the loss” Due to conditions and choosing tree the recommendation not being species that can stand up to this in supported by the NPPF or the the long term. We would propose community; the policy wording amending the policy to SNEDP4. 2 will remain in its current format. “Development proposals within the Parish of St Eval must retain and enhance hedgerows, where any trees are felled for development the impact shall be mitigated by planting new trees, before any new trees are planted an independent expert opinion must be sought to ensure that optimal species are utilised to withstand local environmental conditions.” Although the community recognise that the buildings are Policy SENDP5 - The American not of any particular vernacular buildings are less than 20 years architecture, they do present old. We do not feel this justifies historical value in the sense that heritage asset status due to the the buildings contribute to telling short length of time they have the story of how St Eval evolved. been in use and therefore request In addition to this, the buildings if this policy can be removed. have associational value to the Americans, due to their Policy SENDP6 - We are supportive involvement in the construction. of this policy and the contribution There is also cultural value that outdoor sport facilities with because of how the buildings good ancillary buildings can make, were used when the MoD land we would ask that this policy takes was an operating naval base. The into account national policies and community therefore regard the guidance on potential for former American buildings as alternative developments on part being of strong local significance of the playing fields where an and as such, Policy SENDP5 will excess of provision can be remain. identified in line with national policy in particular as illustrated by Whilst we appreciate that in some NPPF 74. areas a community may be Therefore we suggest if two flexible in where open space is further points could be added to provided, St Eval community the policy as: want to retain St Eval playing field due to its positioning in the SENDP6 C - (or) an assessment community. This is also supported has been undertaken which has under paragraph 76 of the NPPF clearly shown the open space, which states that local buildings or land to be surplus to communities through local and

25 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response requirements; or neighbourhood plans should be able to identify for special SENDP6 D - the loss resulting from protection, green areas of the proposed development would particular importance to them and be replaced by equivalent or better by designating land as Local provision in terms of quantity and Green Space, local communities quality in a suitable location. will be able to rule out new development other than in very Policy SENDP 7 - We are special circumstances. supportive of this policy As part of the public consultation Allotments – Paragraph 5.10 of the and community events, there was Development Brief discussed an no real demand for allotments by opportunity for allotments perhaps the existing community of St Eval along the western boundary parish. As a result, allotments abutting the American Buildings. have not been identified within There is no mention of allotments the NDP. However, this is not to in the NDP draft and this could be say that allotments would not be an aspect worth adding. supported in the future, if there Allotments may serve local needs was a demand for such provision. and also a wider area that would effectively bring in more people from outside the area to work on allotments and also support local facilities at the post office and The Dragon.

Further comments received 24 March 2014 following review of the Phase 1 Habitat Survey: The Phase 1 Habitat Survey was carried out in 2012 by qualified Thank you for releasing a copy of Ecologists from Cornwall the Phase 1 Habitat Survey Environmental Consultants. commissioned by Locality. We Natural England have also have the following comments: emphasised the importance of the habitats in their consultation 1. As the consultation is finishing response. today we have been unable to assess the report in full detail as it As previously outlined, Policy was only released to us on Friday SENDP4 does not intend to 21st March 2014 (3 days ago) prohibit development, what the policy seeks to achieve is that 2. The report includes a plan ‘map’ development that is likely to have either a direct or indirect adverse 3. listing 4 areas of conservation impact upon the locally importance including hedgerows, designated sites identified within lowland meadow, open mosaic on Figure 3 for nature conservation previously developed land and should demonstrate that plantations. Each of these features appropriate mitigation and/or will be discussed below: compensation could be provided and where possible achieve a net

26 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response Hedgerows – We agree with this enhancement to the biodiversity feature within St Eval.

Lowland Meadow – We do not agree with the findings of the ecology report, although the surveys were commissioned in July 2012 they do not seem to acknowledge latest advice and methodologies for classifying lowland meadow issued only one month before as published in the Natural England Technical Information Note TIN110 'First edition 22 June 2012' ‘Assessing whether created or restored grassland is a BAP Priority Habitat’. In particular it is not clear if the threshold of at least two frequent and two occasional indicator species were present in any sward, and if the methodology in appendix 2 of TIN110 was followed. Without utilising this up to date methodology we do not feel sufficient weight can be given to list the land with an 'environmental' designation.

Open Mosaic on previous developed land – The ecology report states at the end of section 4.2.8 that the area identified is ‘possibly not matching all the criteria..…..an argument can be made…………’ for classification as ‘Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land’. This is not a firm diagnosis of the habitat and we feel is not conclusive enough to justify its inclusion. By the measure suggested in the report any broken areas of vegetation over tarmac justifies argument for inclusion as ‘Open Mosaic Habitat’.

Plantations – The plantations as illustrated on map 3 do not show any of the qualities for inclusion as a BAP priority habitat. The woodland priority habitats are

27 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response Lowland Beech and Yew Woodland, Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland, Native Pine Woodlands, Upland Birchwoods, and Upland Mixed Ashwoods. None of these habitats are present within the village boundary St Eval, although there are three areas of Deciduous Woodland BAP Priority Habitat within 1 km of the village boundary. We are concerned at the inclusion of the ‘plantations’ and ecological justification for this.

Conclusion

We are supportive of further ecological surveys to accompany any planning application however we are not in agreement with the listing of large areas of land with an ‘Environment Designation’ for the reasons stated above Email No Response N/A St Merryn Mr W H Parish Council Hampton [email protected] Email No Response N/A St Ervan Mr Barry Parish Council Jordan [email protected] Email No Response N/A Mawgan-in- Pydar Parish Council Mr Laurie Lee [email protected] Email No Response N/A Homes and Communities Agency [email protected] Email No Response N/A

Highways Agency Ian Parsons [email protected] Post No Response N/A 2W Aviation House Gatwick Airport South Civil Aviation West Sussex Authority RH6 0YR Email No Response N/A

MOD Safeguarding Jon Williams [email protected]

28 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response

Cornwall Council Kennall Building Email No Response N/A Old County Hall Station Road Historic Truro Environment Cornwall Service [email protected] TR1 3HA Email No Response N/A Carrick House Pydar Street Truro Economic Stephen [email protected]. Cornwall Development Horsecroft uk TR1 1EB Email No Response N/A Room 718 Adult Care Old County Hall and Support Station Road Service Truro Improvements [email protected] Cornwall and Contracts Maria Harvey k TR1 3HA Email No Response N/A Room 717 Adult Care Old County Hall and Support Station Road Strategic Truro Commission- Cornwall ing Liz Nicholls [email protected] TR1 3HA Out and About Email No Response N/A Service Sue Pullen [email protected] Email Thank you for e-mailing Cornwall N/A Council. Your message has been Children, received by Children, Schools and Schools and Families and will be referred to an Families appropriate member of staff for a (Capital response to be relayed to your Strategy shortly. Team) [email protected] New County Hall Email No Response N/A Treyew Road Health and Truro Wellbeing Michelle Cornwall Board Pearce [email protected] TR13AY Email No Response N/A Community Intelligence Team [email protected] Community Bob Mears [email protected] Email No Response N/A Safety and Protection (Licensing)

Unit 6 Email No Response N/A Threemilestone Industrial Estate Community Threemilestone Safety and Truro Protection Cornwall (Enforcement) Graham Bailey [email protected] TR4 9LD Post No Response N/A Bodmin Group Centre Castle Canyke Road Bodmin Cornwall Cormac PL31 1DZ Email No Response N/A Conservation Team [email protected] Email No Response N/A Circuit House Local Planning Truro Team [email protected] Cornwall Email No Response N/A

Planning [email protected] Email No Response N/A Neighbour- hood Planning [email protected] Email No Response N/A Affordable Housing Team [email protected] County Highways Depot Email No Response N/A Castle Canyke Road Bodmin Cornwall Highways Tim Foster [email protected] PL31 1DP Email No Response N/A Room 608 Old County Hall Station Road Cornwall Fire Truro and Rescue Cornwall Service Sarah Kind [email protected] TR1 3HA Pydar House Email No Response N/A 3rd Floor Pydar Street Truro County Farms Russell Cornwall Service Wheeler [email protected] TR11EA

30 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response Email Thank you for the opportunity to Thank you for your comments. comment on the St Eval Parish We have since reviewed the Draft Neighbourhood Development suggestions and agree with Plan 2014-2030. The the amended wording, which Transportation service has will in turn, strengthen the reviewed the draft document and policy SENDP2 and SENDP4. has the following comments to make:

Policy SENDP2 Propose amend d) to read: Adequate car parking and safe highway access is provided

Add additional condition: g) connections with existing walking and cycling routes are made and on-site infrastructure is provided to support sustainable modes of travel (see Local Plan Policy 27 and Local Transport Plan Policy 21)

Policy SENDP4 Add to 3. Development proposals within the parish of St Eval must retain and enhance the existing walking, cycling and horse riding Carrick House, network, and make new links Pydar Street, where feasible. Truro, Transportation Hannah Harris [email protected] TR1 1EB

Health Peninsula House Post No Response N/A Kingsmill Road NHS Cornwall Tamar View Industrial & Isle of Scilly Estate Health Saltash Authority PL12 6LE Email No Response N/A

Porthpean Road Cornwall Trust St Austell NHS Cornwall Partnership [email protected] PL26 6AD

31 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response Email No Response N/A Bedruthan House Royal Cornwall Hospital Royal Truro Cornwall Cornwall Hospital Trust Garth Davies [email protected] TR1 3LJ Email No Response N/A Peninsula Community Health [email protected] Email No Response N/A Chief Executive’s Department Healthwatch New County Hall Cornwall Treyew Road (Cornwall Truro Council Cornwall contact) Lyn Davey [email protected] TR13AY

Voluntary and Community Organisations 41 Penware Parc Post No Response N/A Camborne Access Cornwall Cornwall TR14 7QR Email No Response N/A 3-4 East Pool Tolvaddon Energy Park Camborne Community Cornwall Energy Plus [email protected] TR14 0HX Post No Response N/A Pavilion Centre Cornwall RCS Federation of Wadebridge Young Cornwall Farmers PL27 7JE Post No Response N/A 39 Turnpike Road Connor Downs HAYLE Ramblers Cornwall Association TR27 5DT Chy Noweth an Conteth Email No Response N/A Truro Business Park Cornwall Threemilestone Federation of Truro Women's Frances Cornwall Institute Armstrong [email protected] TR4 9NH

32 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response Chamber Office Post No Response N/A Stanley Way Cornwall Cardrew Chamber of Redruth Commerce & Cornwall Industry TR151SP Email Thank you for contacting Disability N/A Cornwall regarding the St Eval Neighbourhood Plan.

Please be aware that we are not Unit 2 able to respond to this type of Foundry House consultative feedback request, but Hayle if you would like to use one of our Disability Vaughan Cornwall dedicated Business Services, then Cornwall Temby [email protected] TR27 4HH feel free to contact me direct. Email No Response N/A Kernow Building Cornwall Wilson Way Health Redruth Promotions Cornwall Service [email protected] TR15 3QE Email No Response N/A

Lemon Street Truro Young People Cornwall Cornwall Chris Hart [email protected] TR1 2PE Unit 2 Email No Response N/A 24 Fore Street St Stephens Rural St Austell Community Cornwall Link Project [email protected] PL26 2NN Cornwall Rural Peter [email protected] 2 Princes Street Email A well rounded and thoughtful Thank you for your comments. Community Jefferson Truro plan. Just some observations if I Council Cornwall TR1 2ES may.

Para 2.4 end of 2nd para it might This has been clarified in the text. be helpful to clarify that the NDP is included in the policies referred to. You use the words "these policies" which I took to being the Cornwall Local Plan and the NC Plan.

On page 11 I was left with the In response to your comment on impression that the emphasis was community enterprise and also for Social Enterprises in other comments received Community Centre although the regarding this aspect, we have list of A3-D2 activity is clearly as removed point b from the much commercial as social. SENDP1.

Our experience is that, commercial use mixed into a community building, brings welcome income and stability.

Between 4.3 and 4.7 Housing and Agreed sustainability there is always a tension between modern eco design and local character when considering design. A method of bridging this could be to aspire to modern buildings presented in a local vernacular. CRCC's view is that modern sustainable materials in buildings and low energy use structures lead the requirement and this is followed by designing the visual impact to make the building suitable for the location.

Additionally in the middle of page As a result of this suggestion, 17 could we suggest that it might the ‘Intention’ text has been be more positive "to reduce energy amended. consumption" rather than "increase energy savings". Our view is that it makes the aspiration more tangible

It is great to see the focus on Community space and Building use in your policies and plan. County Welfare Office Email No Response N/A 66 Lemon Street Truro Royal British Cornwall Legion [email protected] TR1 2PN Email No Response N/A

Youth Cornwall [email protected] Email No Response N/A

Cornwall Buildings Preservation Trust [email protected] 2 Princes Street Email No Response N/A Cornwall Truro Playing Fields Cornwall Association Sharon Davey [email protected] TR1 2ES

34 Method of Consultation Response Action taken as a result of Organisation Name Email Address Address Consultation Consultation Response Email No Response N/A

Locality Peter Jones [email protected]

Members of the Public Sounds fine to me N/A

Resident Terry Maguire I agree with the plan as a whole. N/A St Eval, and Trevisker in particular, has not evolved naturally as a settlement and I believes needs a structure in place to ensure any development is appropriate for both its residents and its Resident Paula Nederpel environment. The plan clearly covers all areas I N/A would expect and seems thorough Resident Zoe Ashmore and fair.

35 5 – Conclusion

The Consultation Responses that were received have been thoroughly considered and the response of the Steering Group and resulting actions detailed in the table above.

This Consultation Statement is considered to comply with Section 15(2) of Part 5 of the 2012 Neighbourhood Planning Regulations.