Response to Inspectors' Note INSP.S14

Response to Inspectors’ Note

INSP.S14

28 June 2018

Introduction

This note sets out Cornwall Council’s response to matters relating to Penzance raised by the inspectors in relation to note INSP.S14.

This note is set out in the form of five chapters:

 Chapter 1 – sets out a review of any cumulative impact in relation to heritage and landscape

 Chapter 2 – sets out the cumulative flood impact assessment

 Chapter 3 – sets out response to questions raised with regard to transport related matters

 Chapter 4 – sets out a response to the points raised regarding over supply of industrial land

 Chapter 5 – summarises actions as a result of the assessments

Chapter 1

Landscape & Heritage Cumulative Impacts Review

Introduction 1.1 This note has been prepared in response to Note INSP.S14 from the Inspectors conducting the examination of the Cornwall Site Allocations Document (CSADPD), in particular in response to para’s 16 to 19 which raise concerns around potential cumulative impacts from allocations H4, H5, H6, H7 and H8 on the arc of landscape between Heamoor and Gulval and resulting impacts on those settlements, which could lead to conflict with strategic aims 8 and 9 within the CSADPD. Para 19. of INSP.S14 seeks further evidence relating to cumulative effect of allocations on local character, distinctiveness and heritage.

1.2 The submitted evidence base for the CSADPD, includes the Penzance Housing Evidence Base Report (ref: D15.1) including a Landscape Character Assessment (undertaken by Landscape Officers from the Councils Environment Service) of all the land adjoining the urban area of the town. The full landscape assessment is within Appendix D (ref: D15.1.4). The submitted evidence base also includes a Heritage Impact Assessment (D3) of all allocations, following national planning guidance and prepared in consultation with Historic England.

1.3 This note briefly reviews the existing evidence base in the context of the potential for cumulative impacts of site allocations H4, H5, H6, H7 and H8, together, rather than individually. For specific detail on each individual allocation, the Housing Evidence Report (D15.1) and Heritage Impact Assessments (D3.3 – D3.7, D3.9 and D3.18) should be referred to. This note has been prepared in consultation with Historic England.

Landscape Assessment 1.4 The below map shows the overall map from the Penzance and Newlyn Landscape Character Assessment with location of site allocations H4, H5, H6, H7 and H8, overlaid:

1.5 The individual landscape character assessment maps for cells 6, 7, 8 and 9 are shown below along with the location of allocations H4, H5, H6, H7 and H8 and a brief assessment comment. For further specific detail refer to the complete Landscape Character Assessment Appendix D (ref: D15.1.4) of the Penzance Housing Evidence Report (D15.1).

Landscape Assessment Cell 6 & Allocations PZ-H4 and PZ-H5

1.6 Cell 6 is split into two sub cells 6a and 6b, reflecting the different character areas within the one original cell. 6a is scored highest landscape value (red) and 6b is intermediate value (yellow). PZ-H5 is within 6a and highest value landscape. However, PZ-H5 is a relatively small site on the edge of the existing settlement and the site would still sit within the wider backdrop of rising ground, so any development would not break the skyline.

1.7 Around 60% of allocation PZ-H4 is in an area classified as having an intermediate value, within cell 6b, and 40% higher value (6a). However the western part of PZ-H4 which is higher value is quite steep and facing the A30 road, indicated by a notation on the landscape map which highlights this location’s lack of tranquillity, compared to other areas. Furthermore, the site area was previously reduced in size; drawing away from the settlement of Gulval (to the east) that is over and below a landscape ridge line, which is classified as higher value landscape and south of Polmennor Rd, in order to protect the identity of Gulval itself and the wider landscape setting.

Landscape Assessment Cell 7 & Allocation PZ-H6

1.8 Cell 7 which is the highest landscape value (red) includes Allocation PZ-H6 at its south western edge. However, PZ-H6 is a relatively small site on the edge of the existing settlement. The site sits within the wider backdrop of rising ground, so any development would not break the skyline.

Landscape Assessment Cell 8 & Allocation PZ-H7

1.9 Cell 8 which is the highest landscape value (red) includes H7 in the south east. However, the site is set within and well contained on all sides by mature trees, so would not represent a significant intrusion into the landscape; further the site boundary was drawn to minimise any impact on the adjacent listed building.

Landscape Assessment Cell 9 & Allocation H8

1.10 Cell 9 is split into two sub cells 9a and 9b, reflecting the different character areas within the original cell. The majority of the overall cell, 9a, is of highest value landscape (red), and 9b in the north east is scored low landscape value (green). Allocation PZ-H8 is mostly within cell 9b which is of low landscape value, whilst the southern of the parcels of land, within the higher landscape value, is designated as public open space (within CSADPD Proposed Policy PZ-H8). Furthermore, it should be noted that the Landscape Character Assessment represents the first of various assessments for this site; the more detailed Heritage Impact Assessment (ref: D3.3) of PZ-H8, demonstrates that the western parcel of land allocated, which is within the higher value area, has little to no impact on surrounding heritage assets, in particular Trengwainton.

Landscape Overview – Cumulative Impacts 1.11 Viewing the landscape as a whole from PZ-H4 in the east, in an arc following Polmennor Rd west incorporating H5, H6, H7, and H8 south of Boscathnoe Lane, it is apparent that the three smaller scale sites H5, H6 and H7 are all located wholly within areas designated as being of the highest landscape value. Whilst the scale of PZ-H5, PZ-H6 and PZ-H7 would help to mitigate impacts, of greater significance is that all three allocations are also situated north of Polmennor Rd, Josephs Lane and

Boscathnoe Lane. Polmennor Rd, Josephs Lane and Boscathnoe Lane represent a natural northern edge to the settlement, with only sporadic individual dwellings to the north of these roads.

1.12 In comparison PZ-H4 and PZ-H8 contain areas of both intermediate and low landscape value, while also containing some smaller areas of higher value, which are either identified primarily for open space, in the case of HZ-H8, or are recognised to be of lesser significance when further, more detailed assessment has been undertaken. Furthermore, PZ-H4 and PZ-H8 are both wholly contained to the south of Polmennor Rd / Boscathnoe Lane, a definable edge to the settlement. In terms of cumulative impacts, it is acknowledged that allocations H5, H6 and H7 do break the historic boundary of Polmennor Road, into an area of countryside which could set an unwelcome precedent for future planning related considerations, with resultant impacts on landscape character. If the three allocations (PZ-H5, PZ-H6 and PZ-H7) were deleted, there would no longer be an arc of allocations around Heamoor. In turn, the two remaining allocations, PZ-H4 and PZ-H8, are located on opposing sides of Heamoor; with the two sites being located 1km apart, together with the built land form, topography and orientation of the sites, it is not felt there would be any significant cumulative landscape impact from these two remaining sites.

Heritage overview 1.13 The following is the map from the Penzance & Newlyn Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) (ref: D3.18) showing potential for any harm to designated and undesignated heritage assets:

1.14 In relation to the sites PZ-H4, PZ-H5, PZ-H6, PZ-H7 and PZ-H8 the initial HIA concluded the following:  PZ-H4 scored yellow – with potential for minor impacts  PZ-H5 scored green - with potential for neutral impacts  PZ-H6 scored green - with potential for neutral impacts  PZ-H8 scored yellow - with potential for minor (to moderate) impacts

1.15 Further extensive heritage impact assessments have been prepared on the Heamoor site, PZ-H8, (D3.3 – D3.7) with the detailed involvement of Historic England, including their Registered Parks and Gardens Officer, to ensure harm to Trengwainton Registered Park & Garden is avoided and / or mitigated. In relation to PZ-H4, Trannack, the site area was previously reduced in size drawing away from the settlement of Gulval (and the area identified as orange hatched on PZ-Ex3A on the HIA map, with potential for moderate impacts), which is located to the east, over and below a landscape ridge line, south of Polmennor Rd, in order to protect the identity of Gulval itself and the wider historic landscape setting. In this way it is felt that PZ-H4 would not be visible from within Gulval village, so a clear separation of settlements would be retained.

Heritage Assessments - Cumulative Impacts

1.16 The following table lists the designated heritage assets that are highlighted as potentially being affected by each of the sites within the submitted evidence base. These are taken from the HIA Penzance Town Assessment (ref: D3.18) and the HIA for Heamoor (ref: D3.3):

Table 1: Designated Heritage Assets Allocations with potential for impacts Setting of Lescudjack Hillfort SM PZ-H4 Trannack; Poltair Grade II Listed Building PZ-H7 Poltair Wider setting of Trengwainton PZ-H8 Heamoor Registered Park & Garden Lesingey Round Scheduled Monument PZ-H8 Heamoor Grade II listed stone cross PZ-H8 Heamoor Roscadghill House and Cottage Grade PZ-H8 Heamoor II listed buildings Rosehill House Grade II listed building PZ-H8 Heamoor Nancealverne House Grade II listed PZ-H8 Heamoor building Castle Horneck Grade II listed building PZ-H8 Heamoor Madron Conservation Area PZ-H8 Heamoor

1.17 It should be noted that the heritage assessment (ref: D3.18) identifies non designated heritage assets in relation to each of the allocations such as altered anciently enclosed land, and buried archaeological potential. This is the case around many of Cornwall’s towns and settlements, and was not concluded to result in overall adverse impacts in relation to any of the proposed site allocations as set out in the HIA (ref: D3).

1.18 The potential for cumulative impacts arising from all the allocations together is not considered to be significant as to cause further harm to designated heritage assets within the area around Heamoor and Gulval. I.e. the potential for in-combination affects are considered no more than the impact from the individual site in question and assessed in the HIAs (ref: D3.18 and ref: D3.3), as each designated asset is only linked to a single allocation, as set out in Table 1.

1.19 The allocation at Heamoor PZ-H8 has undergone further detailed assessments (ref: D3.3 – D3.7) with the input of Historic England to conclude any harm is less than substantial on Trengwainton Registered Park & Garden and other listed assets within the wider setting, and that this can be mitigated. The HIAs prepared within the submitted evidence

11 base (D3) are considered by the Council and Historic England to be an appropriate assessment in relation to heritage assets and the allocations.

1.20 PZ-H4, PZ-H5, PZ-H6 and PZ-H7 were all individually assessed, including a more detailed assessment of H7 (Poltair) which reduced the allocation area to limit harm to the setting of a listed building. In relation to PZ-H4 the site was reduced drawing away from the higher land identified as orange (on the HIA map above) with potential moderate impacts and away from the setting of Gulval.

1.21 On review it is apparent that H5, H6 and H7 are all north of Polmennor Rd, Josephs Lane and Boscathnoe Lane (in contrast to H4 and H8 which are to the south) and as highlighted in Note INSP.S14, the HIA notes that (while there no designated heritage assets either within or in close proximity of both H5 and H6 resulting in the overall neutral HIA score) both allocations potentially break down the strong historic line between Heamoor and the open countryside; i.e. they breach the (historic and present) northern edge of the settlement defined by Polmennor Rd in a wider historic landscape context.

Planning Policy Overview & Potential for Cumulative Impacts 1.22 The Cornwall Local Plan Policy 3 Role and function of places includes criteria 3 which set out considerations for rounding off and infill in other (smaller) settlements in the CNA’s. A Chief Officers note (ref: F.6) on rounding off and infill has also been prepared by the Council to provide additional information to support implementation of Policy 3. In a similar way a modification, MM3, has been proposed through the CSADPD examination process which would allow small scale rounding off and infill within the towns subject to allocations (in the CSADPD) including the Penzance and Newlyn area.

1.23 Objective 5 of the LP:SP Community Network Area Sections includes a reference to “maintain the separate identities between Penzance, Newlyn, Heamoor, Gulval and Longrock”.

1.24 Strategic Aim 8 of the emerging CSADPD states “To respect the natural and historic environment, whilst promoting, developing and maintaining the town’s natural and man-made green and blue infrastructure”

1.25 Strategic Aim 9 of the emerging CSADPD states: “To ensure the settlements of Penzance, Newlyn, Heamoor, Gulval and Long Rock maintain their individual and distinctive characters”.

1.26 In a policy context, maintaining the separate identities of settlements is a key objective. This will need to be given due consideration within the context of any speculative proposals (outside of the CSADPD) that could emerge in the future (for consideration through planning applications) under the proposed CSADPD modification MM3 windfall, rounding off and infill. However, in that context it is apparent that allocations PZ-H5, PZ-H6 & PZ-H7 could create a settlement pattern that could give rise to further pressure to allow additional small scale rounding off in the future beyond and to the north of Polmennor Road / Josephs Lane / Boscathnoe Lane, which could have a cumulative and detrimental impact on the identity of the community, as it would further breach the historic northern boundary of the settlement area.

1.27 In a similar way and in the context of PZ-H4 Trannack, while the Council is content that the allocation as defined is drawn away from higher ground and the settlement of Gulval to the east with clear separation over and beyond a ridge line; to further strengthen this separation in the context of proposed modification MM3, a more defined green buffer area set out in the CSADPD could provide further planning certainty, ensuring that Gulval retains its own identity in the context of any future speculative small scale proposals (outside of the CSADPD).

Overall Assessment & Conclusions 1.28 In the context of the Inspectors provisional findings in Note INSP.S14, the Council has reviewed the existing submitted evidence base in relation to allocations PZ-H4, PZ-H5, PZ-H6, PZ-H7 and PZ-H8, and has revisited the plan making assumptions within the context of any cumulative effect of the allocations on local character, distinctiveness and heritage. The following conclusions have been reached:

 The three allocations PZ-H5, PZ-H6 and PZ-H7 are all within areas of higher landscape value, as identified in the urban extension assessment; although there are some mitigating circumstances due to their location and in particular their size.

 Allocations PZ-H4 and PZ-H8 are within areas of landscape that contain predominantly intermediate value landscape character, along with smaller areas of high value landscape, but these higher value areas have either been identified as open space (PZ-H8); have been considered to have less than significant impacts on more detailed assessment (PZ-H8); or in the case of Trannack (PZ-H4) is an area that is subject to existing noise and intrusion arising from the A30 road.

 Allocations PZ-H5, PZ-H6 and PZ-H7 are all situated north of Polmennor Rd, Josephs Lane and Boscathnoe Lane, breaching the historic (and present) northern boundary of the settlement area, as identified in the Councils Heritage Assessment

 Proposed modification MM3, ‘windfall, rounding off and infill’ could (if adopted) enable relative and small scale proposals to be considered around the edges of Penzance and Newlyn in the future. Therefore when considered alongside proposed modification MM3, the intrusions north of Polmennor Rd, Josephs Lane and Boscathnoe Lane as proposed by allocations PZ-H5, PZ-H6 and PZ-H7, could be viewed with potential to create a settlement pattern and precedent in the area north of and between Heamoor and Gulval, that could potentially lead to conflict with the CSADPD Strategic Aims 8 and 9. Furthermore any speculative proposals at the western edge of the existing Gulval settlement area could intrude towards the ridge line on higher land to the west, potentially lessening separation with the Trannack site PZ-H4, which could also lead to future conflict with CSADPD Strategic Aims 8 and 9.

1.29 For the landscape, heritage, adopted and emerging policy reasons listed above, and in response to the Inspectors Note INSP.S14, it is proposed that the three allocations: PZ-H5 Polmennor Rd, PZ-H6 Joseph’s Lane and PZ-H7 Poltair, be deleted as allocations from the CSADPD, and the residual housing requirement be redistributed within the Penzance and Newlyn existing urban area. It is also proposed that a ‘green buffer area’ be added to the CSADPD Penzance Strategy Map (PZ1) (and associated GI and Transport maps) in the area of higher land between Trannack PZ-H4 and Gulval, south of Polmennor Road and north of the A30, in line with more sensitive areas identified on the Landscape and Heritage Assessment Maps (ref: D15.1.4 & ref: D3.18).

1.30 A revised strategy for Penzance without allocations PZ-H5, PZ-H6 and PZ-H7, and a green buffer between Trannack and Gulval, would have potential to more fully align with meeting Strategic Objective 8 and 9 for of the CSADPD within the plan period up to the year 2030.

1.31 As the revised strategy would remove allocations from the CSADPD for the stated reasons, it is not viewed as necessary or appropriate to undertake a Sustainability Appraisal review, as removal of the sites and introduction of a green buffer would have potential for positive impacts in relation to landscape, heritage, and design in relation to character and identity of settlements.

Recommendations A. Delete the following site allocations from the CSADPD o PZ-H5 Polmennor Rd o PZ-H6 Josephs Lane o PZ-H7 Poltair

B. Include a green buffer area in the area of higher land between Trannack PZ-H4 and Gulval, south of Polmennor Road and north of the A30 (set out in Appendix 8).

Chapter 2

Cumulative Flood Impact Assessment

Introduction 2.1 The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2) (SFRA2) (ref: D4), within the submitted evidence base for the CSADPD, sets out the sequential approach to site selection avoiding areas of highest risk of flooding, following national planning guidance. Further to the SFRA2, this note has been prepared in response to Note INSP.S14 from the Inspectors conducting the examination of the CSADPD requesting further information: para 20.ii. notes the absence of a Flood Management Strategy for Penzance and a robust cumulative assessment of the likely effects of all the allocations (in Penzance) together, as opposed to individually.

2.2 As Penzance is within a Critical Drainage Area, this Flood Impacts Note looks at the potential for any cumulative impacts of all the site allocations together, rather than individually. For more specific detail on each individual allocation site, the SFRA2 (D4) should be referred to. The note has been prepared in conjunction with Cornwall Council’s Hydrologist and the Council’s Sustainable Drainage Lead Officer, and in consultation with the Environment Agency.

Penzance Site Allocations 2.3 The allocations that are assessed are identified on the below Map.

2.4 Map1: Penzance Strategy Map (note the below map is amended removing allocations H5, H6 and H7 as a result of the conclusions of the associated Landscape Note – within Chapter 1 of this document)

Map 1 – Penzance & Newlyn Strategy Map

2.5 The type and quantum of development of the allocations is shown in Table 2.

Rivers, Watercourses and Catchment Areas

2.6 Map 2 identifies the principal rivers and the Critical Drainage Area covering Penzance. Map 3 identifies the principal rivers and the Catchment Areas. Both maps overlay the site allocations.

Map 2: Penzance Allocations, Rivers and the Critical Drainage Area

Map 3: Penzance Allocations, Main Rivers & Catchment Areas

2.7 On review of the above maps the Councils Hydrologist confirms that the sites drain to the following rivers / watercourses and Catchment Areas identified in Table 2, with further brief commentary below:

Table 2: Site Allocation No of Main river / ordinary Catchment Area dwellings / watercourse (CA) use PZ-E4 Long Rock Employment Varfell Stream Varfell Stream CA East PZ-H1 Long Rock 150 Varfell Stream / Varfell Stream / Marazion Marsh Marazion Marsh PZ-E1 Long Rock Existing Longrock Stream and Longrock Stream / Ind Estate employment Longrock urban Longrock urban CA (existing) drainage PZ-H2 Posses Lane 30 Unnamed Stream Unnamed Stream / A30 highway drainage system PZ-H3 Gulval 68 Ponsandane Brook Ponsandane CA Central PZ-H11 Barn Site, 13 Ponsandane Brook Ponsandane CA Gulval PZ-H4 Trannack 290 Chyandour Stream Chyandour CA PZ-H8 Heamoor 350 Larrigan River Larrigan CA PZ-H9 St Clare 197 Heamoor Stream Larrigan CA PZ-H13 Bellair 40 Heamoor Stream / Larrigan CA Penzance urban PZ-H14 Jennings St 80 Penzance urban None PZ-M1 Harbour Car 30 Penzance urban None Park PZ-M2 Coinagehall 10 Penzance urban None St PZ-M3 Wherry Town Retail / Larrigan Stream / Majority of site/ Employment Penzance urban None PZ-E2 Stable Hobba Employment Newlyn Coombe River Newlyn Coombe CA Extension PZ-H12 Gurnick 30 Newlyn Urban None PZ-E3 Sandy Cove Employment Coastal None

a. PZ-E4 is bisected by the Varfell Stream which flows through the site. This stream has been diverted from its natural course downstream of the site to Marazion Marsh to provide additional water to the Marsh. b. PZ-H1 was in the natural catchment to the Varfell Stream but now drains to the Longrock Stream.

c. PZ-E1 drains partly to the Longrock Stream, partly to the western Unnamed Stream to the west and partly directly to the coast through the existing urban drainage network. d. Gulval Central PZ-H3 and the Barn Site PZ-H11 are both within the Ponsandane Catchment Area in proximity to Ponsandane Brook e. The Trannack site PZ-H4 is within the Chyandour Catchment Area along the Chyandour Stream, which is the southern boundary to the site. f. Four sites Heamoor PZ-H8, St Clare PZ-H9, PZ-H13 Bellair and PZ- M3 Wherry Town are all within the Larrigan Catchment Area, though PZ-H9 drains to the Heamoor Stream, which is a tributary to the Larrigan River. g. Stable Hobba PZ-E2 is within the Newlyn Coombe Catchment Area in relation to the Newlyn Coombe River. h. Five sites, PZ-H14, PZ-M1, PZ-M2, PZ-M3 and PZ-E3 are not within any defined catchment as they naturally drain to the coast with no significant watercourses.

2.8 It is apparent that the allocations across the Penzance and Newlyn area, due to their different locations and the varied topography across the settlement area, drain to a number of different Catchment Areas, rather than any specific Catchment cumulatively. In relation to the Heamoor area (and the provisional findings within the Inspectors Note INSP.14), it is apparent that in relation to the two allocations, PZ-H8 Heamoor and PZ- H4 Trannack, that each site drains to a different Catchment Area, highlighting that cumulative impacts would not result in combination. It is noted that the Heamoor site is in the same Catchment Area as PZ-H9 and PZ-H13; PZ-H13 is a relatively small site within the urban area and the combination of all three sites would not result in negative cumulative impacts.

Cumulative Flood Impacts Assessment 2.9 Cornwall Local Plan Policy 26: Flood risk management and coastal change, criteria 2.c) states that “Development should be sited, designed, of a type and where necessary relocated in a manner that: c) enables or replicates natural ground and surface water flows and decreases surface water runoff, particularly in Critical Drainage Areas, through sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS), utilising green infrastructure where possible and as guided by local standards, including Cornwall drainage; and..”

2.10 Policy 26 will apply to all allocations in Penzance effectively requiring proposals to decrease surface water runoff from the existing situation, due to them being in a critical drainage area, i.e. achieving betterment from each site. In this way, and after reviewing where each of

20 the allocations will drain in relation to principal rivers and their Catchment Areas, the Council’s Hydrologist confirms that there will be no cumulative negative flood related impacts resulting from the allocations across the Penzance area. Furthermore it will be likely that cumulatively there will be an improvement or betterment, as a result of the need for each allocation to manage surface water run-off in a more effective and controlled manner.

2.11 The Council are aware that locally significant flooding occurred at Heamoor during January 2013. Around 25 properties were flooded from the Heamoor Stream. Fluvial and surface water combined to flow down Treneere Lane flooding properties on route to returning back to the main river.

2.12 In order to assist in the management of future flooding issues in and around Heamoor and Treneere Lane, 23 properties received property level resilience measures. In addition to this the weir beneath the private access bridge to Hea Barton was removed to increase the capacity for the watercourse below. Several flap valves where fitted to the highway drainage system to manage backflows. De-siltation of the watercourse was considered but following site investigations undertaken by CORMAC it was established that silt removal would have offered little of no benefit.

2.13 It should be noted that, unlike the Heamoor (PZ-H4) and Trannack (PZ-H8) allocations, these existing properties are located within the fluvial flood zone and so would not have received planning permission if they were proposed to be constructed today. The proposed allocations will be required to improve the surface water run-off from each site and would therefore not exacerbate any similar future flood event, instead they should reduce any impact that the existing properties could experience in the future.

Policy / relevant guidance & requirements 2.14 The following lists the relevant flood related policy and guidance that will apply to all allocations in Penzance:

 Cornwall Local Plan Policy 26 ‘Flood risk management and coastal change’ will apply to all allocations. In particular criteria 2.c)  Environment Agency Critical Drainage Area Note 2015: https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/media/16936475/penzance-cda- 2015.pdf  Drainage Guidance for Cornwall Council Jan 2010 – This document is currently being updated and is due to be published later in 2018.

In the interim the following Council webpage provides guidance on SUDs: https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/environment-and- planning/countryside/estuaries-rivers-and-wetlands/flood- risk/sustainable-drainage-systems/ The above link also contains the following link which sets out the locally adopted Cornwall Council Sustainable Drainage Policy, which confirms the scope and context of Cornwall Councils approach to Sustainable Drainage: https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/media/27672602/sustainable- drainage-policy.pdf  The Cornwall Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2014 can be viewed at the following web link: https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/environment-and- planning/countryside/estuaries-rivers-and-wetlands/flood-risk/local- strategy/ Part 2 of the Flood Risk Management Strategy sets out that Town based Flood Management Strategies are being prepared, including for Penzance, which is due to be completed in 2019.  The NPPF and Planning Policy Statement 25 Supplement: Development and Flood Risk Technical Guidance, which is still current through the NPPF.  Allocation PZ-H4 includes a specific criteria g) requiring an appropriate SUDs scheme reducing water run-off from the site.  The Council is aware that the Environment Agency are undertaking an extensive fluvial and surface water modelling exercise on the Penzance catchments to provide a better understanding of flood risks in this area. The results of this work are expected to be available in the autumn of 2018 and will assist in any site specific considerations moving forward and where relevant. The Council’s Hydrologist, who is leading on the work for the Council, does not anticipate that there will be any implications in relation to any of the proposed allocations.

Conclusions 2.15 This Note has assessed the potential for any cumulative impacts arising from flood water run-off from all the site allocations in Penzance. The conclusions of the assessment are that cumulatively there will not be any increase in flood water run-off from the site allocations across Penzance. This is due to the varied topography across the settlement area and the number of different Catchment Areas that different allocations drain to. More importantly this is due to the flood risk planning policy requirements that will apply to each site individually set out within national guidance; the Cornwall Local Plan Policy 26 requiring an

22 appropriate SUDs scheme, and the requirement to decrease surface water run-off in Critical Drainage Areas. With each site having to manage, control and decrease surface water run-off, where there is more than one allocation within a catchment zone, this will also relate to an in combination positive effect.

Recommendations 2.16 No amendments necessary, as all developments will be expected to conform to flood and coastal risk requirements as set out in the NPPF and associated national guidance in addition to the adopted Cornwall Local Plan and stricter local policies on SuDS.

Chapter 3

Penzance Transport Evidence Review

This chapter sets out the response to the Inspectors’ Note (INSP.S14) relating to transport related matters within Penzance. The note is organised as follows:

 Section 1 – sets out the response to para 20(iii) of the Inspectors’ note (INSP.S14) in relation to the evidence base and the assumptions relating to reduced levels of future private vehicular use.

 Section 2 – sets out the response to para 20(iv) of the Inspectors’ note (INSP.S14) in relation to junctions that would exceed design capacity by 2030.

 Section 3 – sets out the response to para 20(v) of the Inspectors’ note (INSP.S14) in relation to the cost of the transport schemes within the strategy

 Section 4 - sets out the response to para 20(vi) of the Inspectors’ note (INSP.S14) in relation to the suitability of the road network around Heamoor and Gulval

Section 1: Assumptions relating to future use of sustainable modes of transport

3.1.1 The Inspectors’ note raises questions regarding the assumptions relating to reduced levels of future private vehicular use, when assessed against the evaluation undertaken as part of the Sustainability Appraisal (INSP.S14 – para 20iii).

Sustainability Appraisal

3.1.2 Firstly, Appendix 1 sets out the response to the Transport objective within the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) for allocations PZ-H4, PZ-H5, PZ-H6, PZ-H7 and PZ-H8 (D5.10). Whilst all five sites are highlighted, it should be noted that through the other assessment work undertaken to address points made in note INSP.S14, the Council are proposing to delete allocations PZ-H5, PZ-H6 and PZ-H7 (as set out in Chapter 1 of this document). As a result, the remainder of this section focuses on Trannack (PZ-H4) and Heamoor (PZ-H8).

3.1.3 The SA for the Heamoor allocation (PZ-H8) highlighted its convenient location adjacent to various facilities, in particular primary and secondary schools, plus the site is of a scale that could promote public transport; which results in a positive SA score. Despite this, the SA still recommends that the policy includes reference to considering the possibility of creating a bus route through the site; which

would further improve the performance of this site and have wider benefit to the village.

3.1.4 The SA for the Trannack allocation (PZ-H4) highlights that without intervention the site could be more challenging in relation to access to certain facilities and its ability to support public transport measures; giving it a negative score before any mitigation measures are incorporated. In response to this, the SA recommends the inclusion of policy wording that should require:  east-west pedestrian connections, which would support sustainable travel into the rest of Heamoor  pedestrian crossing points and traffic measures over the A30, to promote north-south sustainable travel movements from the site into the rest of the town, which would provide easier / safer access to facilities in this area, such as adjacent primary and secondary schools, Truro & Penwith College, access to the existing bus network, etc.

3.1.5 As a result of implementing these measures it would help to create a more sustainable location for development, which would in turn improve the Allocations’ SA score with regard to Transportation.

Transport Assessments

3.1.6 The relatively good SA transportation score for Heamoor (PZ-H8), together with the mitigation measures proposed by the SA for Trannack (PZ-H4), supports proposals for modal shift that is set out within the Penzance & Newlyn Transport Modelling (D15.4). In particular, the methodology for the modelling (doc ref. D15.4.3) highlights the growth in modal shift anticipated:

A B C D E Growth in Growth in Current level of Usage Level of usage model shift: model shift: with proposed Mode New Existing growth Development Development Heamoor area: 4.3% Heamoor: 5.2% bike & 24.9% walking bike & 29.9% 20% 15% (Low) Trannack area: 2.6% walking Cycling/Walking (Medium) growth by bike; 19.1% walking Trannack: 3.1% growth bike & 22.9% walking Bus – Trips 50% Heamoor area: 6.3% Heamoor: 65% (High) within Penzance (Medium) Trannack area: 3.1% 10.4% growth & Newlyn growth Trannack: 5.1% Bus – Trips Heamoor area: 6.3% Heamoor: 9.5% outside of Trannack area: 3.1% Trannack: 4.7% 50% (Medium) growth Penzance & Newlyn 50% growth – as a result of Heamoor area: 1.5% Heamoor: 2.3% Rail the introduction of a half Trannack area:1.3% Trannack: 1.9% hourly service

3.1.7 The table highlights that the percentage increases (columns B & C) represent growth on the existing level of sustainable transport usage (e.g. the proposed 50% growth in rail usage would mean that the transport modelling has assumed that 2.3% of travel to work trips from the Heamoor area are made by rail, instead of the base position of 1.5%). As a result, the percentage increases actually represents a modest change in actual usage.

3.1.8 It is also important to highlight that the Penzance & Newlyn area is broken down into different zones, with each zone attributed different levels of sustainable transport usage, based upon census data (set out in Appendix 1 of the Transport modelling methodology report D15.4.3). This means that whilst the percentage growth in use of sustainable means of travel (highlighted in columns B & C of the table above) is the same throughout the area, the actual growth in the number of residents assumed to be using different modes of travel attributed to an allocation will differ depending upon past trends for the area in question. This results in the transport modelling assuming a lower level of sustainable transport usage in parts of the Penzance & Newlyn area that have traditionally not had good access to sustainable transport options.

3.1.9 It is felt that these anticipated levels of modal shift are realistic, as it only assumes medium level of growth in cycling & walking and bus travel outside of Penzance; with only bus travel within Penzance & Newlyn being given a high growth rate; which reflects the significant investment that Cornwall is making into improved bus services within Cornwall, including Penzance & Newlyn (highlighted within Table PZ3 of the CSADPD).

3.1.10 Whilst the modal shift growth percentages have been used consistently across all of the allocations, for the reasons set out above, it is still felt they are relevant. Below is commentary on the Trannack (PZ-H4) and Heamoor (PZ-H8) allocations in particular:

Bus 3.1.11 Trannack Allocation (PZ-H4) – the site is adjacent to various bus stops on Polmeere Road / Trewartha Rd area; so in combination with the proposals to improve permeability over the A30, residents would have easy access to the bus network

3.1.12 Heamoor (PZ-H8) – the allocations policy highlights the opportunity to develop a bus route through the site, which would benefit sustainable transport measures for residents within the site and the wider village (plus it will have a positive benefit by reducing congestion within the village at school opening and closing times).

3.1.13 The One Public Transport System for Cornwall (OPTSC) project (highlighted within the CSADPD (Table PZ3)) is making significant investment in the area’s bus infrastructure and services, which is anticipated to increase the appeal of bus travel.

This work will include increasing the frequency of services in and around the Heamoor and Treneere area.

Ped/Cycle 3.1.14 Trannack (PZ-H4) – The policy requires east-west routes to be created/improved, which will provide linkages into Heamoor village and the services and facilities it has, including Heamoor Primary School and Mounts Bay Secondary School (approx. 800m from site), shops, pub, etc. Furthermore, the allocation policy requires pedestrian and cycle connections to be created over the A30; this will provide pedestrian connections to the services and facilities within the town, including routes to Humphrey Davy Secondary School (approx. 600m from site) and St Mary’s Primary School (approx. 4-500m from site).

3.1.15 Heamoor (PZ-H8) – The site is located immediately adjacent to both primary and secondary schools, which will promote walking and cycling. Plus the site is within a short distance from various shops, pub, public halls etc within the village. Again this will promote walking and cycling to key local facilities.

Rail 3.1.16 Through the One Public Transport System for Cornwall (OPTSC) project, a half hourly mainline rail service will be introduced in January 2019. Penzance station is a strategic rail hub and public transport interchange, offering an attractive opportunity for modal shift for all of Penzance and Newlyn, including the proposed allocations.

Conclusion

3.1.17 Firstly, the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) ranked Polmennor (PZ-H5), Josephs Lane (PZ-H6) and Poltair (PZ-H7) allocations with intermediate and low scores in terms of the Transportation objective. However as set out in Chapter 1 of this note, the Council is proposing to delete these allocations, so any adverse impacts from these sites would be eliminated.

3.1.18 The SA gives the Heamoor allocation a positive score with regard to the Transport objective, due to its proximity to various services, including it being adjacent to primary and secondary schools, etc. As a result, this is complementary to the assumptions within the Transport assessment regarding modal shift.

3.1.19 The SA for the Trannack allocation gives a negative score in relation to the Transport objective, prior to the mitigation measures that are proposed. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, it would improve the sustainability of the site, providing improved ped/cycle access to various services and facilities within Heamoor and to the south of the site, which will also then link the site to various existing bus routes / stops. As a result, it is felt that the development of the site with the inclusion of these mitigation measures, would both improve the SA score for the Transportation objective; and in turn would offer the opportunity to deliver the model shift that is proposed within the transport modelling.

3.1.20 Finally, the percentage growth in use of sustainable transport within the transport modelling is based upon past levels of sustainable transport usage within the area of Penzance-Newlyn in question, so the modelling for Heamoor and Trannack allocations reflects opportunities and, in particular, any constraints residents have and/or will encounter in making use of sustainable transport measures.

Section 2: Junction Capacity at 2030

3.2.1 The Inspectors’ note (INSP.S14) seeks further clarity with regard the capacity of junctions within the town modelling report, as they appear to be shown as being over capacity (INSP.S4 – para 20(iv)).

3.2.2 The Penzance & Newlyn Transport Modelling report (D15.4.2) sets out the results of the town wide SATURN modelling. This highlights the various junctions that the model indicated would be over capacity when the trip generation from the proposed growth is added to the network, when also incorporating anticipated use of sustainable transport, etc. Scenario 4, which are summarised on pages 25 and 26 of D15.4.2, highlights various junctions that go over capacity, which are primarily focused on the A30 and the seafront (e.g. Wharf Road, Western Promenade Road, etc.).

3.2.3 With regard to the seafront junctions, paragraphs 4.3.9 through to 4.3.15 of the Modelling report (D15.4.2) sets out the response. In particular, it highlights that it is the simplification of the model that concentrates more traffic on a small number of the side roads, which over inflates the actual usage, so in reality traffic will be dispersed amongst a larger set of roads, so congestion is therefore highly unlikely.

3.2.4 With regard to the A30 junctions, 4.3.10 and 4.3.11 of D15.4.2 sets out the response to the Trannack roundabout, which highlights that this would be upgraded as part of the development of the Trannack allocation (which is also highlighted within the SADPD transport strategy for Penzance). The other main junctions along the A30 were subject to separate more detailed modelling.

3.2.5 The reason for this more detailed modelling is because the town wide SATURN model, highlights junctions that require further more detailed examination, using detailed junction models such as Arcady, Picady or LinSig. It should be noted that SATURN tends to underestimate the capacity of junctions, so it can highlight junctions that do not actually need improving. Therefore further examination of highlighted junctions using junction modelling software (Arcady, Picady or LinSig) can provide a more accurate picture of any impacts.

3.2.6 This modelling was undertaken and is set out in Appendix 3. Using the conclusions from the Penzance Transport modelling report (D15.4.2), the Junction Modelling report in Appendix 3 focused on the 5 junctions within Penzance that were deemed to present issues at 2030 within the SATURN modelling, plus a priority junction at Crowlas:  A30 Branwell Roundabout;  A30 / Jelbert Way (Chy-An-Mor) Roundabout (on the Trunk Road network);  A30 / A394 Newtown Roundabout (on the Trunk Road network);  B3311 / Eastern Green priority junction;  A30 / Madron Road (Heamoor) Roundabout  A30 / B3309 priority junction at Crowlas (on the Trunk Road network);

3.2.7 These six junctions were modelled in more detail, which is set out in the Appendix 3. As a result of this more detailed analysis, two of the six junctions were considered to not require improvement schemes to be prioritised:  A30 / Madron Road (Heamoor) Roundabout – the more detailed modelling of the junction indicated that there would not be a capacity problem at this roundabout  A30 / B3309 priority junction at Crowlas – when reviewed in more detail, firstly it highlighted that any issue is confined to side roads, so did not affect the flow of the Strategic Road Network. Furthermore, the junction’s location on the edge of the model area means it is loading traffic from the north-east onto the side roads, where there are no development proposed. Instead most of this traffic would in reality use the A30, where there isn’t a capacity issue. Finally, the quantum of traffic using these side roads is relatively minor, plus the development of the West Cornwall Transport Interchange (a sustainable transport park & rail scheme) would provide benefit to this area. For all these reasons it was not felt necessary to propose a junction upgrade in this location. (Moreover, this is an issue that was dealt with through the Local plan examination, as the junction is in a location that is affected by the distribution of growth to towns / CNAs, rather than specific locations of site allocations.

3.2.8 This leaves four junctions that were highlighted within the junction capacity report (Appendix 3) as continuing to be over capacity, when assessed in more detail. As a result, the report goes on to highlight improvement schemes for these junctions and re-tests them to ensure the proposals would address the capacity issues.

3.2.9 As a result of this work, these four junctions are prioritised for work within the CSADPD transport strategy for Penzance & Newlyn (summarised within Table PZ3 of the Allocations DPD).

Section 3: Cost of transport projects

3.3.1 The Inspectors’ note (INSP.S14) seeks further clarity with regard to the cost of the projects within the transport strategy for Penzance & Newlyn (INSP.S14 – para 20(v).

3.3.2 The Council previously submitted a summary of key transport projects, which is set out within CC.S3.1. This highlighted 8 projects within the Penzance & Newlyn area, together with additional countywide projects, which could have a positive influence on sustainable transport measures within the area (under the One Public Transport System for Cornwall (OPTSC)).

3.3.3 For clarity, Appendix 2 sets out all of the projects highlighted within the CSADPD Penzance Transport Strategy (Table PZ3), together with costs. The table also highlights which projects are required to address proposed growth, and in turn which are projects that support wider objectives for the town. Projects that support wider objectives are: a. Joseph's Lane speed restriction and traffic calming – supports wider safety concerns, rather than addressing impacts of growth b. Improved signage for the A30 – supports the objective of improve the entrance to the area and support more efficient distribution of traffic around the town c. Newlyn Bridge improvements & traffic management – addresses wider safety concerns and promotes pedestrian access, rather than addressing impacts of growth d. Mounts Bay Cycle Route from Marazion to Newlyn – supports objectives regarding reconnecting the town to the sea; and promoting tourism and recreation. The wider route proposal also seeks to connect Penzance, Marazion, St Erth, Hayle, and St Ives providing safe cycle facilities for inter- urban trips

3.3.4 As a result, the Council proposes the inclusion of a Minor Modification to the CSADPD (para 3.65) to clarify the position:

3.65 The measures set out above represent the strategic transport interventions needed to support growth and wider objectives for the town; however Transport Assessments for individual applications could still identify the need for further localised measures to address impacts of individual schemes.

Section 4: Suitability of road network around Heamoor & Gulval

3.4.1 The Inspectors’ note (INSP.S14) seeks further clarity with regard to the assessments undertaken of the safety or suitability of the road network and junctions around Heamoor and Gulval, as a result of the roads within the village being historic and narrow (INSP.S14 – para 20 (vi)).

Heamoor 3.4.2 As stated previously, it is now the Council’s intention to delete allocations Polmennor Road (PZ-H5), Josephs Lane (PZ-H6) and Poltair (PZ-H7). As these were the only allocations that would have been accessed through the heart of Heamoor, this means that there will no longer be any effect on the highway through the village on roads such as Madron Road, Josephs Lane or Boscathnoe Lane.

3.4.3 The Heamoor allocation (PZ-H8) would be accessed via a separate arm of the Heamoor A30 junction, via Roscadghill Road. Access at the north of the Heamoor site onto Boscathnoe Lane is restricted to a bus gate for public transport, and for pedestrian / cycle access; therefore vehicles will not go through the heart of the village. Roscadghill Road is a 6.5 metre road which was constructed with the intention of continuing through into the land now being proposed to be allocated, so is of an appropriate capacity to enable growth. Furthermore, the road already has pedestrian crossing points and road calming measures in place, which will support safety.

3.4.4 Trannack (PZ-H4) would not have any vehicular links on to Heamoor or Gulval. The main access would be on to the Jelbert Way A30 junction. The transportation strategy highlights that this junction will be upgraded to cater for the town’s growth, including the Trannack site.

Gulval 3.4.5 The Penzance transport modelling, set out in D15.4.2, considered the impacts of growth, including development within Gulval and it highlighted the need for improvement to the Branwell junction, which is located to the south of Gulval; but the modelling did not raise any specific concerns relating to the network within Gulval.

3.4.6 The Posses Lane site (PZ-H2) would only generate approximately 20 trip movements in a peak hour (representing on average 1 car every 3 minutes). It is not considered that the scale of growth would generate any significant adverse impacts on the network. Furthermore, the site would be accessed off of Posses Lane, which means traffic would not go through the village. Moreover, the policy for the site requires pedestrian access north, back into the heart of the village, including the primary school, which supports the sustainability of the site.

3.4.7 The Barn Site, Gulval (PZ-H11) allocation would be accessed via Branwell Lane. The site would generate approximately 9 trip movements in a peak hour (representing on average only 1 car every 7 minutes). However, the site is currently

32 in use as a retail store, which generates its own trip movements, including HGV’s. As a result, the redevelopment of the site is likely to have a positive benefit to the local road network, in particular, taking HGVs off this stretch of road.

3.4.8 The Gulval Central (PZ-H3) allocation would be accessed from the west of the site on to Branwell Lane, which means it minimises traffic going through the heart of the village. The site would generate approx. 47 trip movements in a peak hour, which represents less than 1 car movement per minute. The route to the site already benefits from traffic calming measures. Furthermore, the site is sustainably located adjacent to Gulval Primary School; plus the policy requires various pedestrian connections, which will offer the opportunity to improve pedestrian and cycle links / permeability within the village, which will benefit both the site and the village as a whole.

Chapter 4

Industrial Land within Penzance

4.1 The Inspectors’ note INSP.S14 highlighted a potential oversupply of industrial land in Penzance (INSP.S14 – para 20i).

4.2 The Employment Land Review (doc ref E3) does highlight a significant oversupply of employment land in Cornwall as a whole, which includes a small oversupply of industrial land in the Penzance area.

4.3 However, the area of analysis used in the ELR is the Penzance Travel To Work Area (TTWA) and the TTWA is larger than the West Penwith Community Network Area (CNA) (i.e. the TTWA also covers Hayle and St Ives). Furthermore, the main area of surplus land that the ELR highlights within the Penzance TTWA is at St Erth, which sits within the Hayle CNA.

4.4 Moreover, the land identified in St Erth is, in part, now being developed as a Park & Ride, whilst the remaining land is not considered deliverable (this is set out in the Hayle Employment Evidence Report (doc ref. D11.2: sites H7-10 in Table 3a)).

4.5 Within the ELR there is only one site of any size that was highlighted as vacant within the Penzance CNA, referred to as Poniou Road, Longrock Industrial Estate. At the time of assessment, this site had permission (PA10/06329) for 850sqm of office space and 5,346sqm of industrial space; as set out in the Penzance & Newlyn Employment Evidence Base Report (D15.2, page 7).

4.6 As a result, the only vacant land of any size identified within the ELR, which is located within the West Penwith CNA, already formed part of the permitted supply; which means there is not an oversupply of employment land within the CNA and, in turn, the sites allocated are required to ensure the Local Plan employment space targets for the CNA are achieved.

Chapter 5

Summary of Modifications

5.1 As a result of this further assessment work, the Council intends to delete three allocations:  PZ-H5 – Polmennor Road  PZ-H6 – Josephs Lane  PZ-H7 - Poltair

5.2 To compensate for the loss of 79 dwellings from the three sites highlighted above, the Council intends to allocate a new site. As a result of work undertaken on behalf of Penzance Town Council and Penzance Regeneration Board, a brownfield, town centre, site has come to light, which is referred to as Jennings St (PZ-H14).

5.3 As a result of assessment and masterplanning work it is anticipated that the site could accommodate approx. 80-90 dwellings, through primary flatted development. With it being in a sustainable location, using underutilised land, the Council considers this to be an appropriate site to allocate. The proposed policy for the site is as follows:

Policy PZ-H14 Jennings Street Site area: 0.6 hectares Allocation: Approximately 80 dwellings

Additional Policy Requirements: a) A residential development to deliver approximately 80 dwellings. In addition, the ground floor use of any property fronting on to Market Jew Street must be retained / reprovided for commercial purposes (A1-5, B1, C1, D1-2); with the preference for a retail use. Commercial uses within the remainder of the site will be acceptable, if they are compatible with adjacent residential uses

b) At least 25% of the dwellings should be provided as ‘accessible homes’, in line with Policy 13 of the Local Plan Strategic Policies document

c) An off-site contribution should be provided for the delivery of new/upgraded open spaces. The sum sought will be equivalent to 69.4sqm of public open space per dwelling, in line with the Penzance & Newlyn Green Infrastructure Strategy.

d) The site is in the Penzance Conservation Area and within the setting of Grade II listed buildings which should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. Particular regard must be given to the wider views of the harbour and the impact of development on Market Jews Street, which are important to the significance to the conservation areas special architectural and historic interest. The design, layout and quantum of development should be informed by an appropriate assessment of the historic assets’ character and significance. The scheme should respond positively to these points utilising the existing evidence base that should inform the design, which includes the Penzance Conservation Area Appraisal; Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Urban Survey; and the Penzance THI Final Report.

e) Planning permission for the development of only part of the site will not be granted, unless it is in accordance with a masterplan / concept plan for the entire site

5.4 To support the allocation of the site, the detailed assessment work can be seen in the following appendices:  Appendix 4 – Jennings St Heritage Impact Assessment  Appendix 5 – Jennings St Habitat Regulations Assessment  Appendix 6 – Jennings St Strategic Flood Risk Assessment  Appendix 7 – Jennings St Sustainability Appraisal

5.5 Furthermore, as a result of the assessment work, the Council proposes the inclusion of a green buffer between the western edge of Gulval and the eastern edge

36 of the Trannack allocation (PZ-H4). This will help to preserve the separate identities of the settlements and in turn support SADPD objectives 8 and 9.

5.6 As a result of the amendments set out above, the updated strategy maps are set out in Appendix 8.

5.7 Finally, to clarify the position with regard to transport strategy projects, the Council proposes the inclusion of a Minor Modification to the Allocations DPD (para 3.65), with the modification underlined and in bold:

Appendix 1: Summary of transportation information within the Sustainability Appraisal

Site Impact of Proposal Score Mitigation & how its been taken into consideration

Trannack It is acknowledged that realistically development increases use of - Future transport arrangements and accessibility issues need to PZ-H4 motor vehicles. be considered as part of any policy development. Sustainable linkages through the site to existing and planned facilities will be The site is not conveniently located for a number of facilities in required. A safe crossing point of the A30 would enable comparison to other areas due to the barrier of the A30 and does pedestrian access. not offer a location which could optimise use of more sustainable modes of transport including walking and cycling. However part of Paragraph e) states “Vehicular access to the site should be via the site is within walking distance of the facilities of Heamoor which the A30, with only pedestrian connections on to Polmennor does not require people to cross the A30- Road.”

The development of the area is not of a scale to provide linkages Paragraph f) states “It is expected that appropriate east-west where public transport services could be encouraged to operate. – pedestrian links are created through the site, connecting to the existing public right of way on the western boundary of the site; the development should upgrade this existing right of way, to create a good quality pedestrian link through to Treneere Lane. Furthermore, pedestrian crossing point(s) should be delivered on the A30, as well as other design / landscape measures to promote traffic calming; in doing so ensuring an appropriate capacity for the road is maintained “ Polmennor Rd It is acknowledged that realistically development increases use of +/- Future transport arrangements and accessibility issues need to PZ-H5 motor vehicles. be considered as part of any policy development. Sustainable linkages through the site to existing and planned facilities will be The site is conveniently located for a number of facilities in required. comparison to other areas and offers a location which could optimise use of more sustainable modes of transport including Paragraph d) states “It is expected that the main vehicular link walking and cycling.+ should be from the south-west of the site, off of Polmennor Road; the access should discourage traffic from going further east along The development of the area is not of a scale to provide linkages Polmennor Road. The layout should also provide frontage, where where public transport services could be encouraged to operate.- possible, on to this road..”

Development of the site could cause a small increase in local traffic movements through existing residential areas and Heamoor village centre but is unlikely to cause safety and capacity issues. Josephs Lane It is acknowledged that realistically development increases use of +/- Future transport arrangements and accessibility issues need to PZ-H6 motor vehicles. be considered as part of any policy development. Sustainable linkages through the site to existing and planned facilities will be The site is conveniently located for a number of facilities in required. comparison to other areas and offers a location which could optimise use of more sustainable modes of transport including The Penzance Transport Strategy shown in the DPD sets out walking and cycling.+ improvements to pedestrian and cycle links

The development of the area is not of a scale to provide linkages where public transport services could be encouraged to operate.-

Development of the site could cause a small increase in local traffic movements through existing residential areas and Heamoor village centre, but is unlikely to cause safety and capacity issues. Poltair It is acknowledged that realistically development increases use of - Future transport arrangements and accessibility issues need to PZ-H7 motor vehicles. be considered as part of any policy development. Sustainable linkages through the site to existing and planned facilities will be The site is conveniently located for a number of facilities in required. comparison to other areas and offers a location which could optimise use of more sustainable modes of transport including Paragraph d) of states “Vehicular access should be provided walking and cycling.+ from the south-west of the site, on to Boscathnoe Lane”

The development of the area is not of a scale to provide linkages where public transport services could be encouraged to operate.-

Development of the site could cause a small increase in local traffic movements through existing residential areas and Heamoor village centre, but it is unlikely to cause safety and capacity issues.-

Heamoor – PZ- It is acknowledged that realistically development increases use of + Future transport arrangements and accessibility issues need to H8 motor vehicles. be considered as part of any policy development. Sustainable linkages through the site to existing and planned facilities will be The entire site is conveniently located adjacent to existing urban required. area and its facilities such as primary and secondary schools and Penwith FE college and, in comparison to other site options, offers a location which could optimise use of more sustainable modes of Paragraph b) states “The primary vehicular accesses should be transport thereby minimising any increase in greenhouse gas via Roscadghill Road (ref 4 on the plan above). Opportunities to emissions - there is a relatively level walking route to the town create a bus route through the site should also be considered, centre and it is near existing bus routes.+ accessed on to Boscathnoe Lane using a bus gate.“

The development of the area is of a scale to provide linkages where Paragraph c) states “The development should seek to provide a public transport services could be encouraged to operate. The site pedestrian link to Heamoor School and Mounts Bay Academy; might offer an opportunity to provide a new bus route through the whilst consideration should be given to providing the primary site+ vehicular access for the schools from the site, which will alleviate traffic congestion within the existing community”

Appendix 2: Penzance Transportation Strategy Project Costs & Timescales

Project Name Background Information Timescale Cost Required to enable delivery of Cornwall Council Project Name, Estimated allocation(s), or Town DPD Reference with Estimated Total set out in submitted document Project Description Project general growth of Transportation Strategy Tables Project Cost (Doc library ref CC.S3.1) Completion town, or wider aspirations Upgrade to juction to enable growth (part of a package Required for general Penzance Branwell (Tesco's) Roundabout Branwell junction 01-Mar-23 £ 5,060,000 of junction upgrades along the A30) Local Plan growth Upgrade to Newtown junction to enable growth (part of a Required for general Penzance Newtown Roundabout Newtown junction 01-Mar-23 £ 1,870,000 package of junction upgrades along the A30) Local Plan growth Upgrade to Eastern Green junction to enable growth Required for general Penzance Eastern Green Priority Junction Eastern Green junction 01-Mar-23 £ 1,920,000 (part of a package of junction upgrades along the A30) Local Plan growth Upgrade to Chy an Mor junction to enable growth (part Required for general Penzance Chy-an-Mor Roundabout Chy an Mor junction 01-Mar-23 £ 2,270,000 of a package of junction upgrades along the A30) Local Plan growth Required for general Penzance Treriefe Cross Treriefe Cross Treriefe Cross 01-Mar-25 £ 1,970,000 Local Plan growth Penzance Jelbert Way - Trannack site access 01-Jun-21 £ 400,000 Trannack Joseph's Lane speed restriction and To support wider Penzance - Joseph's Lane speed restriction and traffic calming TBC £ 150,000 traffic calming objectives of town To support wider Penzance Improved signage for the A30 - Improved signage for the A30 TBC £ 200,000 objectives of town Newlyn Bridge improvements & traffic To support wider Penzance - Newlyn Bridge improvements & traffic management TBC £ 140,000 management objectives of town One Public Transport System for Part of One Public Transport System (see named Required for general Penzance Bus improvements - £ - Cornwall project below for details) Local Plan growth One Public Transport System for Part of One Public Transport System (see named Required for general Penzance Rail Station/Bus Interchange Hub - £ - Cornwall project below for details) Local Plan growth Walking & Cycling: Town wide Required for general Penzance Town wide ped cycle network Town wide ped cycle network 01-Mar-28 £ 2,060,000 network Local Plan growth Walking & Cycling: A30 A30 calming improvements to support Penzance improvements to ensure greater A30 calming improvements to support Trannack site 01-Jun-21 £ 1,450,000 Trannack Trannack site permeability in PZ-H4) Mounts Bay Cycle Route from To support wider Penzance Bay to Bay Bay to Bay cycleway scheme 01-Jun-23 £ 14,130,000 Marazion to Newlyn objectives of town

Countywide Projects that will support delivery of sustainable transport aspirations within the DPD towns

Project Name Background Information Timescale Cost Cornwall Council Project Name, Town DPD Reference with Project Estimated Total set out in submitted document Project Description Transportation Strategy Tables Completion Project Cost (Doc library ref CC.S3.1) Retro-fit emission control devices for Retro-fit of older diesel buses to particulate emissions Cornwall 01-Apr-22 £ 500,000 buses for school routes and less economic public routes Installation of gas & electric charging infrastructure for ultra-low emission bus fuelling (proposed super-depot Gas/ EV refuelling & ultra-low emission location either Tolvaddon (CPR A30) & Kennards House Cornwall 01-Apr-19 £ 18,000,000 buses (Launceston environs). Charging at both Truro P&R sites. Purchase of 40 ultra low emission buses for showcase routes Installation of ultra low emission vehicle refuelling hubs at strategic locations for ultra-rapid/ rapid/ fast Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle refuelling/ Cornwall recharging of EVs + potentially H2 (proposed locations 01-Apr-22 £ 6,000,000 charging hubs Chiverton / Carland Cross (Truro environs) and Kennards House (Launceston environs) Installation of gas & electric charging infrastructure for ultra-low emission bus fuelling (proposed super depot Gas/ EV refuelling & ultra-low emission location either Tolvaddon EZ site (CPR), and/ or Bodmin Cornwall 01-Apr-19 £ 23,000,000 infrastructure environs, and/ or Kennards House (Launceston environs). Charging at both Truro P&R sites. Purchase of 40 ultra low emission buses for showcase routes

Penzance, St Ives,, Hayle, One Public Transport System Camborne, for Cornwall Redruth, Deliver improvements to infrastructure, vehicles, Falmouth, services, ticketing, information and branding to key One Public Transport System for Penryn, Truro, corridors 31-Mar-19 £ 10,775,000 Cornwall (Growth Deal 1 (GD1)) Padstow, Wadebridge, (Project Fully Funded) Bodmin, Liskeard, Saltash

One Public Transport System for Development & delivery of a new integrated public Cornwall 30-Apr-19 £ 6,100,000 Cornwall (Network & Timetable) transport network for Cornwall Development & delivery of contactless ticketing, to One Public Transport System for include capped fares (account based ticketing), Cornwall 30-Apr-19 £ 3,500,000 Cornwall (Ticketing & Journey Planner) integrated journey planning app and mobile ticket sales platform One Public Transport System for Delivery of improved standards of vehicles, Cornwall 30-Apr-19 £ 27,500,000 Cornwall (Standards) infrastructure and technology (physical and digital) Development and delivery of a single brand for public One Public Transport System for transport in Cornwall, marketing & promotion. Execution Cornwall Cornwall (Branding, Marketing & 30-Apr-19 £ 2,700,000 of market research and Market Testing Panels to inform Customer Focus) the delivery of all workstreams

Appendix 3:

Penzance Junction Modelling Report

Technical Note 10

CORNWALL COUNCIL CORNWALL TOWNS MODELS

PENZANCE TOWN MODEL

TECHNICAL NOTE 09 – ISSUE 7

PROJECT: 285300FN-HLV

JUNCTION CAPACITY ASSESSMENTS

Overview

The capacity and delay maps presented in the Transport Modelling Report highlight the areas of the network where capacity issues are predicted to occur in 2030. This note provides further assessment of these capacity issues, in terms of more detailed junction capacity analysis using industry standard modelling tools (ARCADY for roundabouts and LinSig for traffic signals).

The results of the more detailed assessments may show different performance at the junction than predicted by the SATURN model; it should be noted that the SATURN model is intended to be strategic in nature and is not designed to assess individual junctions in detail – it is therefore considered that more emphasis should be placed on the outputs of the detailed junction assessments. It should also be noted that the results reported in this section are not directly comparable with the capacity maps in the Transport Modelling Report, which use results taken directly from the SATURN model as an initial level assessment.

The assessments in the Transport Modelling Report concluded that capacity issues are predicted to occur at the following junctions in 2030, with the preferred development allocations and implementation of the package of sustainable measures:

A30 Branwell Roundabout; A30 / Jelbert Way (Chy-An-Mor) Roundabout (on the Trunk Road network); A30 / A394 Newtown Roundabout (on the Trunk Road network); A30 / B3309 priority junction at Crowlas (on the Trunk Road network); B3311 / Eastern Green priority junction; A30 / Madron Road (Heamoor) Roundabout.

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence -44-

Penzance Town Model

Technical Note 09

A30 Branwell Roundabout

Table 1.1 shows the performance of the existing junction layout in the Base Year and 2030 Do Something scenarios, in both the AM and PM peaks.

AM PM Delay Delay Queue Queue Junction Approach V / C (sec / V / C (sec / (veh) (veh) veh) veh) Base Year Branwell Lane 0.40 8 1 0.47 9.6 0.9 A30 Branwell A30 East 0.41 4 1 0.51 4.8 1.1 Roundabout B3311 0.89 26 7 0.99 72.6 20.1 A30 West 0.64 9 2 0.74 13.2 2.8 2030 with Sustainable Measures Branwell Lane 0.32 9 0 0.22 8.4 0.3 A30 Branwell A30 East 0.66 7 2 0.71 7.8 2.4 Roundabout B3311 1.04 120 34 1.35 566 165 A30 West 1.09 160 52 1.06 144 48 Table 1.1 – A30 Branwell Roundabout Junction Performance

The results show that the existing junction layout is predicted to operate at capacity in the Base Year PM peak and above capacity in both peak periods in 2030, with the sustainable transport measures implemented. A capacity improvement at the junction is therefore recommended.

A30 / Jelbert Way (Chy-An-Mor) Roundabout

Table 1.2 shows the performance of the existing junction layout in the Base Year and 2030 Do Something scenarios, in both the AM and PM peaks.

AM PM Delay Delay Queue Queue Junction Approach V / C (sec / V / C (sec / (veh) (veh) veh) veh) Base Year A30 North 0.65 5 2 0.57 4 1 A30 Chy-An-Mor Morrisons 0.62 17 2 0.80 29 4 Roundabout A30 South 0.60 4 1 0.69 6 2 Jelbert Way 0.24 5 0 0.33 6 0 2030 with Sustainable Measures A30 North 0.75 8.4 3 0.83 11.4 5 A30 Chy-An-Mor Morrisons 1.51 853.8 149 1.11 218.4 33 Roundabout A30 South 0.73 6.0 3 0.88 13.8 7 Jelbert Way 0.57 9.6 1 0.43 8.4 1 Table 1.2 – A30 / Jelbert Way (Chy-An-Mor) Roundabout Junction Performance

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence - 45 - Penzance Town Model

Technical Note 09

The junction capacity assessments show that the roundabout is expected to operate within capacity in the Base Year and over capacity in 2030 in both peak periods. In particular, the approach from Morrisons is predicted to operate significantly above capacity in both peak periods, with long delays experienced. It is therefore recommended that a capacity improvement be considered at this junction.

A30 / A394 Newtown Roundabout

Table 1.3 shows the performance of the existing junction layout in the Base Year and 2030 Do Something scenarios, in both the AM and PM peaks.

AM PM Delay Delay Queue Queue Junction Approach V / C (sec / V / C (sec / (veh) (veh) veh) veh) Base Year A30 North 0.63 6.0 2 0.62 7.2 2 A30 / A394 A394 0.64 9.0 2 0.49 6.0 1 Newtown Newtown Lane 0.34 18.6 1 0.27 11.4 0 Roundabout Long Rock Rd 0.41 17.4 1 0.75 37.8 3 A30 West 0.49 3.6 1 0.75 7.8 3 2030 with Sustainable Measures A30 North 0.79 10.8 4 0.86 18.0 6

A30 / A394 A394 0.65 10.8 2 0.60 10.2 1 Newtown Newtown Lane 0.53 37.2 1 0.69 45.0 2 Roundabout Long Rock Rd 0.44 19.8 1 1.17 295.2 20 A30 West 0.61 4.8 2 0.82 10.2 4 Table 1.3 – A30 / A394 Newtown Roundabout Junction Performance

The junction capacity assessment of the A30 / A394 Newtown Roundabout shows that the junction is predicted to operate within capacity in the Base Year. For the 2030 AM peak, the worse performing arm is at 79%. However, the junction operates above capacity in the 2030 PM peak period, with significant queuing and delays in the Long Rock Road approach; the two A30 approach are also approaching capacity. Given that the junction is part of the strategic road network, it is recommended that a capacity improvement be considered at this junction.

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence - 46 - Penzance Town Model

Technical Note 09

A30 / B3309 Priority Junction at Crowlas

The SATURN modelling work suggest that capacity issues will occur at the A30 / B3309 priority junction in Crowlas, located to the north of the A30 / A394 Newton Roundabout. Further inspection of the model shows that the capacity issues are predicted on the B3309 and Rospeath Lane side road approaches. Analysis of the model shows that low traffic flows volumes on Rospeath Lane in the Base Year SATURN model; however, some 260-280 trips are predicted in the 2030 forecast models. This change of side road traffic demand, compounded with the increase on the A30 mainline traffic, results in the priority junction operating above capacity. The volume of traffic using the A30 makes turning out of these side roads difficult.

It is possible to explain the change in traffic demand on the side road (Rospeath Lane). The fact that Crowlas junction is situated on the very edge of the SATURN model means that general growth in Cornwall beyond the A30 to the north-east is assigned to the side roads in the vicinity; whereas the strategic road network has its dedicated traffic zone directly connected to the A30. In practice, as there is no large scale development identified in this area, the growth on Rospeath Lane at Crowlas represented in the model may not fully be realised.

Notwithstanding the above, a summary of the level of performance (volume over capacity) and delay for each arm reported from the SATURN models is shown in Table 1.4.

AM PM Delay Delay Queue Queue Junction Approach V / C (sec / V / C (sec / (veh) (veh) veh) veh) Base Year A30 North 0.49 0 0 0.41 0 0 A30 / B3309 Rospeath Lane 0.00 57 0 0.28 62 0 Crowlas Junction A30 South 0.48 0 0 0.55 0 0 B3309 West 0.37 51 0 0.59 93 1 2030 with Sustainable Measures A30 North 0.57 0 0 0.56 0 0 A30 / B3309 Rospeath Lane 1.12 179 8 1.12 182 9 Crowlas Junction A30 South 0.63 0 0 0.73 0 0 B3309 West 1.01 215 3 1.34 530 5 Table 1.4 – A30 / B3309 Crowlas Junction Performance (SATURN Output)

The results from SATURN show that Crowlas junction is operating within capacity in the Base Year. However, delays would be experienced on the two side roads at the junction in 2030, as a result of the volume of traffic on the A30 making turning out difficult. Significant delays are predicted in some cases; however, the volume of traffic affected is small, with queues below 10 vehicles in all cases. In addition, an improvement scheme would be likely to involve delaying the strategic traffic on the A30; given that traffic flows on the A30 arms are approaching the capacity of the A30 link, delays to this traffic would be likely to cause significant congestion at peak times.

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence - 47 - Penzance Town Model

Technical Note 09

The results also show that junction performance has not deteriorated significantly from the base year conditions; this is due to the traffic flows not being predicted to increase significantly along the A30 corridor. In part, this is due to the sustainable measures provided through West Cornwall Transport Interchange and the improved rail services.

As a result of these reasons, it is not considered that a capacity improvement scheme at the junction is required, and that the sustainable transport schemes aiming at managing demand on this section of the A30 should be prioritised.

B3311 / Eastern Green Priority Junction

Table 1.5 shows the performance of the existing junction layout in the Base Year and 2030 Do Something scenarios, in both the AM and PM peaks.

AM PM Delay Delay Queue Queue Junction Approach V / C (sec / V / C (sec / (veh) (veh) veh) veh) Base Year Eastern Green - - - - - West B3311 Eastern 0.52 13.8 1 0.16 9.6 0 Green junction B3311 Eastern Green 0.23 9.6 0 0.20 10.8 0 East 2030 with Sustainable Measures Eastern Green ------West B3311 Eastern 1.13 191.4 7 0.59 85.8 1 Green junction B3311 Eastern Green 0.29 11.4 0 0.31 13.8 0 East Table 1.5 – B3311 / Eastern Green Priority Junction Performance

The junction capacity assessments show that the junction currently operates within capacity, but is predicted to operate above capacity in the 2030 AM peak period, with significant queues and delays experienced in the B3311 approach to the junction. This is due to traffic from development using this route to access Penzance. The junction performance is better in the PM peak period, although delays of over a minute are still experienced on the B3311 approach. It is therefore recommended that a capacity improvement be considered at this junction.

A30 Heamoor Roundabout

Table 1.6 shows the performance of the existing junction layout in the Base Year and 2030 Do Something scenarios, in both the AM and PM peaks.

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence - 48 - Penzance Town Model

Technical Note 09

AM PM Delay Delay Queue Queue Junction Approach V / C (sec / V / C (sec / (veh) (veh) veh) veh) Base Year A30 North 0.45 0 0 0.46 0 0 Nancealverne 0.06 0 0 0.39 0 0 A30 Heamoor A30 South 0.38 0 0 0.32 0 0 Roundabout Roscadghill 0.12 0 0 0.10 0 0 Road Madron Road 0.50 0 0 0.25 0 0 2030 with Sustainable Measures A30 North 0.57 0 0 0.54 0 0 Nancealverne 0.13 0 0 0.49 0 0 A30 Heamoor A30 South 0.78 1 0 0.40 0 0 Roundabout Roscadghill 0.57 0 0 0.14 0 0 Road Madron Road 0.57 0 0 0.29 0 0 Table 1.6 – A30 Heamoor Roundabout Junction Performance

The capacity assessment of the A30 Heamoor Roundabout shows that the junction is operating within capacity in both Base Year and 2030. Therefore, no improvement works would be necessary.

Summary

The analysis of the junction capacity assessments has concluded that capacity improvements should be considered at the following junctions:

A30 Branwell Roundabout; A30 / Jelbert Way (Chy-An-Mor) Roundabout (on the Trunk Road network); A30 / A394 Newtown Roundabout (on the Trunk Road network); B3311 / Eastern Green priority junction.

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence - 49 - Penzance Town Model

Technical Note 09

IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES

A30 Branwell Roundabout

The junction assessments detailed in Section 1 demonstrate that congestion would be experienced at the A30 Branwell Roundabout in 2030. Due to this, an improvement scheme has been identified that would aim to provide additional capacity; this scheme is included in Appendix A (as CC Drawing No. C04611/HDG/P/010). This scheme was developed as part of the LTP2 programme, but is no longer included within the LTP3 improvement programme. The capacity assessment of this scheme is detailed in the following sections.

Table 2.1 shows the performance of the improved scheme in the 2030 Do Something scenario, in both the AM and PM peaks.

AM PM Delay Delay Queue Queue Junction Approach V / C (sec / V / C (sec / (veh) (veh) veh) veh) 2030 with Sustainable Measures Branwell Lane 0.44 13.1 1 0.41 16.5 1 A30 Branwell A30 East 0.64 19.0 8 0.88 36.9 11 Roundabout B3311 0.87 43.0 9 0.88 38.5 11 A30 West 0.89 26.2 14 0.90 23.9 17 Table 2.1 – A30 Branwell Roundabout Junction Performance

The results show that the improvement scheme at the A30 Branwell Roundabout will allow the junction to operate within the capacity in both peak periods in 2030, with the sustainable transport measures implemented. The junction is predicted to approach capacity on some arms in both peak periods, but significant congestion is not experienced, with V/Cs at 90% or below on all arms.

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence - 50 - Penzance Town Model

Technical Note 09

A30 / Jelbert Way (Chy-An-Mor) Roundabout

The junction assessments detailed in Section 1 demonstrate that congestion would be experienced at the A30 Chy-An-Mor Roundabout in 2030. Due to this, an improvement scheme has been identified that would aim to provide additional capacity; this scheme is included in Appendix A (as Figure 1). The capacity assessment of this scheme is detailed in the following sections.

Table 2.2 shows the performance of the improved scheme in the 2030 Do Something scenario, in both the AM and PM peaks.

AM PM Delay Delay Queue Queue Junction Approach V / C (sec / V / C (sec / (veh) (veh) veh) veh) 2030 with Sustainable Measures and Improvement Scheme A30 North 0.75 8.4 3 0.83 11.4 5 A30 Chy-An-Mor Morrisons 0.00 0.0 0 0.29 11.4 0 Roundabout A30 South 0.60 3.6 2 0.72 4.8 3 Jelbert Way 0.57 9.6 1 0.43 8.4 1 Table 2.2 – A30 Chy-An-Mor Roundabout – Improved Junction Performance

The results show that the improved scheme would operate within capacity in both peak periods in 2030.

A30 / A394 Newtown Roundabout

The junction assessments detailed in Section 1 demonstrate that congestion would be experienced at the A30 / A394 Newtown Roundabout in 2030. Due to this, an improvement scheme has been identified that would aim to provide additional capacity; this scheme is included in Appendix A (as Figure 2). The capacity assessment of this scheme is detailed in the following sections.

Table 2.3 shows the performance of the improved scheme in the 2030 Do Something scenario, in both the AM and PM peaks.

AM PM Delay Delay Queue Queue Junction Approach V / C (sec / V / C (sec / (veh) (veh) veh) veh) 2030 with Sustainable Measures and Improvement Scheme A30 North 0.68 6 2 0.74 8 3

A30 / A394 A394 0.65 11 2 0.60 10 1 Newtown Newtown Lane 0.53 37 1 0.69 45 2 Roundabout Long Rock Rd 0.23 8 0 0.48 15 1 A30 West 0.61 5 2 0.83 11 5 Table 2.3 – A30 / A394 Newtown Roundabout – Improved Junction Performance

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence - 51 - Penzance Town Model

Technical Note 09

The results show that the improved scheme would operate within capacity in both peak periods in 2030.

1.1.1 An improvement scheme has been identified at the A30 / A394 Newtown Roundabout as part of the recent Highways Agency Pinchpoint funding programme. This improvement (included in Appendix B) consists of minor widening of the A30 southbound approach, and is due to be constructed by 2015.

B3311 / Eastern Green Junction

The junction assessments detailed in Section 1 demonstrated that congestion would be experienced at the B3311 / Eastern Green junction in 2030. Due to this, an improvement scheme has been identified that would aim to provide additional capacity; this scheme is included in Appendix A (as Figure 3). The capacity assessment of this scheme is detailed in the following sections.

Table 2.4 shows the performance of the improved scheme in the 2030 Do Something scenario, in both the AM and PM peaks.

AM PM Delay Delay Queue Queue Junction Approach V / C (sec / V / C (sec / (veh) (veh) veh) veh) 2030 with Sustainable Measures and Improvement Scheme Eastern Green 0.85 23.3 15 0.89 25.2 22 West B3311 Eastern 0.63 48.1 3 0.33 47.8 1 Green junction B3311 Eastern Green 0.81 15.0 13 0.60 10.2 7 East Table 2.4 – B3311 / Eastern Green Junction – Improved Junction Performance

The results show that the improved scheme would operate within capacity in both peak periods in 2030, and provide improved performance over the existing junction layout.

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence - 52 - Penzance Town Model

Technical Note 09

Summary of Improvements

1.1.2 A summary of the proposed improvements at each of the above junctions is provided below.

A30 Branwell Roundabout

1.1.3 The proposed A30 Branwell Roundabout signalisation scheme improves the approaches of A30 East and B3311, as well as widening the circulatory carriageway. The existing segregated left turn facility between A30 East and B3311 is removed; instead, all four arms of the roundabout will be signal controlled. It is anticipated this will be full time signal control.

A30 / Jelbert Way (Chy-an-Mor) Roundabout

1.1.4 The proposed scheme consists of a segregated left turn facility between the Morrisons Arm and A30 West. As a result, the exit on A30 West is realigned. The A30 West approach to the roundabout is also widened as well as renewing road markings and traffic signs.

A30 / A394 Newtown Roundabout

1.1.5 The proposed scheme widens the A30 North approach and repositions the roundabout. All arms are realigned as well as the circulatory carriageway. Road markings and traffic signs are renewed.

B3311 / Eastern Green Junction

1.1.6 The existing priority T-junction is replaced with a signalised junction. The B3311 side road is widened to accommodate the additional future traffic demand. It is anticipated this will be full time signal control.

Risks

Specific risks for the locations where improvements have been outlined are:

A30 Branwell Roundabout; o Requires land, but this is assumed to be within the highways boundary. A30 / Jelbert Way (Chy-An-Mor) Roundabout (on the Trunk Road network); o Requires land, but this is assumed to be within the highways boundary. A30 / A394 Newtown Roundabout (on the Trunk Road network); o Requires land, but this is assumed to be within the highways boundary. B3311 / Eastern Green priority junction; o Requires land, but this is assumed to be within the highways boundary.

It is assumed that detailed designs and cost estimates for these schemes would be produced prior to construction, and that any scheme would be taken through the safety audit process.

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence - 53 - Penzance Town Model

Technical Note 09

Appendix A – Proposed Junction Improvement Schemes

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence Penzance Town Model

Technical Note 09

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence Penzance Town Model

Technical Note 09

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence Penzance Town Model

Technical Note 09

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence Penzance Town Model

Technical Note 09

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence Penzance Town Model

Technical Note 09

Appendix B – A30 / A394 Newtown Roundabout Pinchpoint Scheme

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence Penzance Town Model

Technical Note 09

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence

Appendix 4 – Jennings St Heritage Impact Assessment The assessment for Jennings St represents an addendum to the existing Heritage Impact Assessment work, set out in the SADPD evidence base (D3 / D3.18)

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence

Heritage Officer Comments Planning & Heritage Appraisal Site ref Historic CC Heritage assessment Initial Recommendations Further Site Outcome of DPD Allocation Environment Assets Impact & suggested Assessment further & Policy and their Appraisal mitigation required? assessment mitigation importance measures if required / conclusion PZ-H14 Designated assets Issues are: 1. Assessments to Site is part - Proposals must  Penzance 1. Range of assessments be done or, if derelict back- consider the Conservation Area and investigation will existing, made land with some wider historic  Setting of listed be high (intervention in available as soon existing buildings and the buildings, CA and an historic townscape as feasible in employment wider urban historic of this scale order to identify uses and is an landscape, and streetscapes. The unprecedented in potential important must respond to Market Jew Street recent years in exclusion areas, regeneration the existing frontage will be Cornwall); show- inform precise opportunity for heritage particularly stopping archaeological layouts, densities, the town which assessment sensitive. remains are not design solutions could benefit appraisals and Non designated predicted, but there etc.: from management assets may be areas within  Desk Based improvement. plans for the Assessment/walk- There are area  Historic the site that prove over survey/ existing Settlement: The sensitive to geophysical conservation Include the whole of site is development, and risks survey management following within within the need to be minimised. plans and an the allocation identified medieval Enhancement; the  archaeological urban survey policy text: extent of Penzance sensitivities of the site, trial trenching report which and CA; very high and the inevitable etc. where apply to this The site is in the archaeological (harmful) impact upon appropriate site – due this Penzance potential (although HE assets mean  Historic Building context further Conservation critical site finds development should go assessments/reco site assessment Area and within not predicted). beyond preservation rding not required at the setting of  Standing fabric: and seek to enhance this stage; Grade II listed although much of the CA. Associated  Conservation however any buildings which the site is cleared costs are therefore Area Impact proposals will should be there are various likely to be high; Assessment

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence

structures, some 2. Penzance Conservation including be required to conserved in a certainly C19 or Area: whole site assessment of undertake manner earlier, much included; sloping impact on historic heritage appropriate to thought to be C20 ground, increases street and plot assessments their but of unknown potential to impact patterns; impact and be heritage significance. date. upon setting of listed on the outcomes led in the Existing studies buildings, CA and of historic grant- design process. Particular regard  Historic towns of historic streetscapes aid schemes There will be must be given Cornwall 1980 and historic harbour. (THI). some impact on to the wider 3. Findings of earlier the character of views of the  Cau 2000 report on  Assessment of studies in adjoining the harbour and the Laundry site impact on setting, sites will apply to whole Conservation impact of ECO2341 context and inter- of this site: Area but this development on  CSUS 2003 relationship of HE  Along the roadsides will be managed Market Jews  (Churchill site) assets/historic (Jennings Street through policy. Street, which report Wharf Road townscapes 2008 ER807 /Newtown Lane/Market are important to  CA Appraisal 2010 Jew Street) high  Assessment of Therefore the significance  THI Final Report potential for surviving impact on wider conclusion, to the 2010 below ground evidence landscape setting erring on the conservation of possibly medieval, of Mounts Bay side of caution, areas special certainly pre-19th is less than architectural 2. Development to century, domestic and substantial and historic be informed by industrial sites. harm, however interest. The existing urban  The central area may it should be design, layout assessments have been less noted that a and quantum of /conservation intensely developed, just as likely development area assessments but will still have high outcome is a should be and management (higher) potential to positive impact informed by an plans, and the contain important on the character appropriate overriding evidence of mediaeval of the CA. assessment of statutory duties or later tenement the historic to consider boundaries, gardens, assets’ preservation or industrial pits and character and enhancement to uses, tunnels etc. left significance. The

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence

undisturbed in the character. scheme should yards or under the 3. Design quality will respond foundations of the C19 be of paramount positively to developments. consideration. these points 4. Standing fabric: some 4. Mitigation to utilising the known standing historic include existing fabric (e.g. east side of appropriate evidence base Jennings Street) and all design that should standing structures responding to inform the (including what historic context; design, which appears to be later Historic Building includes the (mid c20) structures) recording; Penzance require assessment; archaeological Conservation their significance is assessments/Wat Area Appraisal; currently unknown and ching Cornwall & Isles requires detailed briefs/targeted of Scilly Urban assessment and excavation etc. Survey; and the recording to determine as appropriate Penzance THI if any should be Final Report. retained within the development.

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence

Appendix 5 – Jennings St Habitat Regulations Assessment

1. Introduction

This report sets out the HRA Screening / Appropriate Assessment and conclusions for the Jennings Street site in Penzance (PZ-H14), which is being proposed as a modification in relation to an interim note from the Inspectors conducting the Examination in Public for the Cornwall Site Allocations DPD (CSADPD). The report has been prepared in (informal) consultation with Natural England.

This report and following tables is an addendum to the Habitats Regulations Screening Report for the CSADPD Feb 2017 within the submitted evidence base, (ref: D2); which it should be read alongside and as an addendum to, including its appendices and mapping.

2. HRA Screening

Table 3.6.6 Site Allocation Allocation Site Name, Number and Size Description (ha)

PZ-H14 Jennings Street, PZ-H14 approx. 80 dwellings A residential development that will deliver (0.56 ha) approximately 80 dwellings within the town centre on a brownfield regeneration site

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence

Table 4.1.1 Relevant European Sites

Site Name, Qualifying Feature / Interest Feature Site Vulnerabilities / Key Issues and Threats to Integrity Designation, Size and Code Habitat Species

Conservation Objectives Marazion Marsh N/a Over-winter: Bittern Succession: scrub invasion / succession is a key threat. SPA, UK9020289 (Botaurus stellaris) Maintenance of appropriate water levels (according to the requirements of the 54.58 ha 2% of the GB plant and bird species present) is a key issue. population Eutrophication through diffuse pollution, probably from agricultural sources is a CO (iv) described in On-passage: Aquatic key threat. Water quality is a key issue. 10 footnote . Warbler Recreational disturbance in the form of kite surfing is considered to be a pressure (Acrocephalus at the site (during the winter period October-March). paludicola) 9% of the GB population

Table 5.2f.1 Screening for Potential Impacts and Likely Significant Effects (LSE) – Refer to Table 6.1.1 for Resultant Policy Considerations

PENZANCE Location in Possible Impacts and Likely Significant Effects Arising from Site Allocation, without mitigation relation to Nature Site Allocation Habitat Loss/ Noise and Air Quality Recreational Disturbance 2000 Site(s) in Water Quality / Visual Degradation/ Vibration (Emissions – (for housing development) ZoI Flow Disturbance Fragmentation Disturbance Deposition /Dust) PZ-H14 PZ-H14 is 3000m No direct habitat Noise, Water Quality, Visual Disturbance Lower Bostraze and Jennings Street distant from loss will occur. The Site Allocation is 3000 m distant from Marazion Marsh SPA and 8500 m distant Leswidden SAC and from Lower Bostraze and Leswidden SAC and approx. 11600 m from Lands End Housing site Marazion Marsh No loss of Tregonning Hill SAC and are SPA SAC. At this distance, with intervening roads and built industrial land present, it is not identified as being which is a supporting habitat considered unlikely that there will be significant effects to interest features as a result brownfield Refer to ZoI Map or fragmentation vulnerable to recreational of construction or operation-related visual, noise and vibration disturbance. It is also impacts. regeneration will occur considered unlikely that there would be any air or water quality or flow impacts opportunity during construction or operation due to the absence of any direct hydrological The interest features of adjacent to the connection (significant barriers are present). Marazion Marsh SPA are Town Centre. vulnerable to disturbance

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence

Air Quality predominately during the Analysis carried out to inform the Local Plan concluded that whilst the A30 and A394 winter (over wintering are likely to experience an increase in traffic flows as a result of the in-combination bittern) but also late development being brought forward, the resultant increase in the critical load would summer/early autumn (on- be 1.3%. This would occur < 7 m of the roadside beyond which, the deposition rate passage aquatic warbler). would fall to > 1%. Although the SPA designation occurs in close proximity (<7m) to However, visitor surveys the A394 where the road crosses the Red River, the roadside vegetation in this area undertaken to inform the comprises woodland and scrub and does not form part of the habitat complex used Local Plan have not by the interest features of the SPA. It can therefore be concluded that there will be identified an in-combination no LSE as a result of in-combination air quality impacts during operation. recreational impact. It is considered likely that an increase in visitors associated with the allocations within proximity to the SPA could be accommodated within the existing management structures. This is in accordance with the analysis carried out to inform the Cornwall local Plan HRA.

Table 6.1.1Policy Considerations No specific policy requirements proposed for PZ-H14 in line with the existing HRA (ref.D2) in Section 6.2 and Table 6.1. Policy Considerations

3. Conclusions The HRA of Jennings Street in Penzance (PZ-H14) has assessed the potential for Likely Significant Effects on European sites. Where appropriate, the findings have included consideration of the potential for in-combination effects from other plans and projects and have proposed avoidance and mitigation measures to address identified effects. Project-level HRA will be undertaken on individual projects where appropriate.

As concluded in the above Tables it is considered that Likely Significant Effects can be screened out and there will be no LSE arising from the development of the site. Section 6 including paragraphs 6.1.1 to 6.2.2 within the Habitats Regulations Screening Report for the Cornwall Site Allocations DPD Feb 2017, within the submitted evidence base (document ref:D2) all apply and should be referred to.

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence

Penzance Zone of Influence (ZoI) Map:

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence

Appendix 6 – Jennings St Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

SFRA2: Jennings Street, Penzance (PZ-M1)

Flood Zone 2 Not within site Flood Zone 3a Not within site Flood Zone 3b Not within site Critical Drainage Areas Whole site falls within the Penzance Critical Drainage Area Shoreline Management Final flood outline @2055 does not fall within Plan designation the site. Projected coastline erosion @ 2055 (with prevention) does not to affect the site. Projected coastline erosion @ 2055 (without prevention) does not affect the site.

Flood Map for Surface The site is entirely within a Critical Drainage Water Area.

Hydrology assessment of The site is within Flood Zone 1 and is a critical site’s surface water drainage area. The site is not within any issues defined catchment as it naturally drains to the coast with no significant watercourses.

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence

Key requirements for satisfying the Sequential Test and Exception Test Sequential Test: Built development will be able to be located wholly within flood zone 1.

Policy recommendations Surface water drainage will need to be designed in accordance with the SUDS principles and standards set out in the Drainage Guidance for Cornwall to ensure surface water run-off from development is managed appropriately, so that flood risk is not increased.

Consideration of alternative sites Not required as site is entirely Flood Zone 1.

Sequential Test passed? N/A

Exception Test required No

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence

Appendix 7 – Jennings St Sustainability Appraisal

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence

LDF SA Objectives Score Impacts of proposal Proposed mitigation measures and How the considerations have been considerations taken into consideration by Policy Planners 1. Climatic Factors + The site is located within the existing built New development should seek to maximise use of sustainable modes No action necessary up area of Penzance and its wide range of of transport and reduce reliance on private vehicles for short trips. 1. To reduce our contribution to climate change facilities. It is adjacent to the town centre through a reduction in greenhouse gas of Penzance and in proximity to other Where possible linkages for walking and cycling between the new emissions. facilities including the bus and railway development and facilities outside of the site area should be 2. To increase resilience to climate change, and station. In comparison to other site options encouraged. reduce vulnerability. it offers a location which could encourage the use of more sustainable modes of a) Does it limit greenhouse gas emissions? transport thereby it would minimise any b) Does it secure the highest viable resource and increase in greenhouse gas emissions.+ energy efficiency? c) Does it encourage the use of renewable The site is a previously developed urban energy technologies? area and consists of relatively flat land with d) Does it minimise vulnerability and encourage a slight south easterly aspect, before the resilience to the effects of climate change? land drops away sharply to the east at the edge of the site. This would largely allow development to be orientated to maximise solar gain and would enable the use of renewable technologies.+ 2. Waste +/- Site location unlikely to have any positive New development will seek to reduce waste by increasing recycling, No action necessary or negative impact on the overall amount of the provision of sufficient storage and collection areas for recycling, 1. To minimise the generation of waste and waste produced, collected and or land composting and waste and addressing waste as a resource and encourage greater re-use and recycling of filled.+/- looking to disposal as the last option. materials in accordance with the waste hierarchy. Higher level policy provisions seek to meet this objective through a) Will it reduce the amount of waste produced, Local Plan policies 12 and 13 (Design and Development standards), collected, and or land filled? and which seek to secure high quality safe, sustainable and inclusive b) Will it increase levels of composting or design and development standards. These policies require anaerobic digestion? development to demonstrate the application of the guidance set out within the Council’s Design Guide Supplementary Planning c) Has space for storage of recycled materials document. been planned for? d) Will it reduce the waste management The Design Guide includes guidance and standards relating to waste industry’s contribution to climate change? efficiency. 3. Minerals and Geodiversity ++ The whole site is outside any mineral None required No action necessary safeguarding area. ++ 1. To minimise the consumption of mineral resources and ensure the sustainable The site is not in close proximity to a management of these resources County Geology (RIGS) site, however there 2. To conserve, enhance and restore the is a RIGS site (North East Mounts Bay) to condition of geodiversity in the county. the east (at closest 250m) + a) Will it minimise the consumption of primary mineral resources and encourage re-use of secondary resources? b) Will it ensure development does not irreversibly sterilise important mineral resources? c) Will it prevent harm to and, where appropriate, enhance geological conservation interests in the county? d) Will mineral working impact on designated land? 4. Soil + The whole site is classified as urban Land None required No action necessary so if developed would not lead to any loss 1. To minimise the use of undeveloped land and of agricultural land.+ protect and enhance soil quality. 2. To encourage and safeguard local food * Source Agricultural Land Classification production. field survey pre and pre 88 (there is no post 88 assessment for this area) a) Will it protect, enhance and improve soil quality in Cornwall? b) Will it avoid development that leads to the

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence

LDF SA Objectives Score Impacts of proposal Proposed mitigation measures and How the considerations have been considerations taken into consideration by Policy Planners loss of productive soil? 5. Air + Any development will have an impact on air The extent of air pollution resulting from the proposal could be No action necessary pollution the extent to which can be minimised through careful design and construction and 1. To reduce air pollution and ensure air quality minimised through careful design and enhancements to sustainable transport networks. continues to improve. construction. a) Will it reduce pollution including greenhouse Higher level policy provisions seek to meet this objective through gas emissions? The site does not fall within an Air Quality Local Plan policies 12 and 13 (Design and Development standards), Management Area.+ and which seek to secure high quality safe, sustainable and inclusive b) Will it maintain or improve air quality in design and development standards. These policies require Cornwall? development to demonstrate the application of the guidance set out within the Council’s Design Guide Supplementary Planning document. 6. Water +/- All development will increase the overall Development will have potential negative impacts on water-related No action necessary demand for water. issues, however appropriate implementation of SUDS can mitigate 1. To reduce and manage the risk of flooding and these issues. reduce vulnerability to flooding, sea level rise Flood risk assessment demonstrates the and coastal erosion. proposed use is compatible with the flood The SFRA made the following recommendations : 2. To maintain and enhance water quality and zone status of the entire site. ++ “Surface water drainage will need to be designed in accordance with reduce consumption and increase efficiency of the SUDS principles and standards set out in the Drainage Guidance water use? The site is entirely covered by a Critical for Cornwall to ensure surface water run-off from development is Drainage Area.-- managed appropriately, so that flood risk is not increased.” a) Does the proposal reduce, or avoid increasing the risk of flooding overall? Higher level policy provisions seek to meet this objective, for b) Does the proposal reduce the overall demand instance LP:SP Policy 26. (Flood Risk Management and Coastal for water? Change) c) Will the proposal provide for greater integrated water catchment management and Provision of SUDS and other Green Infrastructure requirements are strengthen links between habitats to increase the specified within the Green Infrastructure Section of the DPD. likelihood of adaptation to climate change? d) Will the proposal increase the risk of water pollution events? 7. Biodiversity + The area does not fall within a Special Area Provision and enhancement of wildlife habitats and corridors and Paragraph c) states “An off-site contribution should of Conservation, Site of Special Scientific other Green Infrastructure requirements are specified within the be provided for the delivery of new/upgraded open 1. To conserve, enhance and restore the Interest, or other designated site of Green Infrastructure Strategy section of the DPD. The site can spaces. The sum sought will be equivalent to condition and extent of biodiversity in the county international, national or regional provide contributions to this wider strategy 69.4sqm of public open space per dwelling, in line and allow its adaptation to climate change. significance. + with the Penzance & Newlyn Green Infrastructure a) Does the proposal protect, enhance or restore No specific policy requirements proposed for PZ-H14 in line with the Strategy.” biodiversity interest of BAP habitats, Cornwall The site does not fall within or is adjacent existing HRA (ref.D2) in Section 6.2 and Table 6.1. Policy wildlife sites, SSSI’s, and internationally, to a Cornwall Wildlife Site.+ Considerations nationally and regionally designated areas? The site is not in proximity of a BAP habitat b) Does the proposal allow adaptation to climate + change through the connection of habitats (wildlife corridors)? c) Does it protect not only designated areas but also of wildlife interest everywhere? d) Will it encourage the provision of new or improved wildlife habitats? 8. Landscape + The site is not within a designated AONB or Mitigation will be required if the site option is developed and this will Paragraph e) states “Planning permission for the AGLV. + be looked at in more detail at a later stage, through the development of only part of the site will not be 1. To protect and enhance the quality of the masterplanning process, to minimise any potential harm to the granted, unless it is in accordance with a natural, historic and cultural landscape and This urban previously developed site was seascape masterplan / concept plan for the entire site” seascape. not covered by a landscape assessment. a) Will it sustain and enhance and/or restore the Higher level policy provisions seek to meet this objective, for distinctive qualities and features of the natural, The site can be seen from offshore and the instance LP:SP Policy 23. No further specific wording is required. historic and cultural landscape and seascape harbour piers so there will be an impact on character? the seascape, however any development will be seen in the context of existing large b) Will it conserve and enhance the natural scale recent building development and beauty of the Cornwall AONB and the Tamar (depending on form, scale and design) is Valley AONB, and increase understanding and not likely to be visually prominent. + enjoyment of the special qualities of the AONBs? c) Will it protect, enhance and promote

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence

LDF SA Objectives Score Impacts of proposal Proposed mitigation measures and How the considerations have been considerations taken into consideration by Policy Planners opportunities for green infrastructure within and between urban settlements. d) Will it maintain and enhance a high quality living environment? e) Will it encourage the location and design of development to respect and improve landscape character and the landscape setting of settlements? 9. Maritime +/- The site is in proximity to the coast. (at Higher level policy provision seeks to meet this objective, for No action necessary closest 83m) at its lowest 10m above MHW instance LP:SP Policy 26 (Flood Risk Management and Coastal 1. To encourage clean, healthy, productive and +/- Change) diverse waters; To protect coastal areas and ensure sustainable maritime environments. No further wording is required. a) Will the proposal protect, enhance or restore maritime heritage, habitat and biodiversity, both designated and undesignated? b) Will the proposal incorporate adaptation to climate change and its likely effects on the sea, coast and estuaries? c) Will the proposal operate within the carrying capacity of the receiving environment, without adverse effect on its sustainability? d) Will the proposal operate within safe biological, chemical and physical limits? 10. Historic Environment - All development is likely to have some The HIA assessment of H14 recommended the following mitigation Paragraph d) states “The site is in the Penzance effect on the historic environment. measures : Conservation Area and within the setting of Grade 1. To protect and enhance the quality and local II listed buildings which should be conserved in a distinctiveness of the historic environment. Outcome of Historic 5. Assessments to be done or, if existing, made available as soon manner appropriate to their significance. Particular as feasible in order to identify potential exclusion areas, inform a) Does the proposal reinforce the distinctive Environment Assessment regard must be given to the wider views of the precise layouts, densities, design solutions etc.: character of Cornwall? implies less than substantial harbour and the impact of development on Market harm and the potential for Jews Street, which are important to the b) Does the proposal have an  Desk Based Assessment/walk-over survey/ geophysical survey mitigation.- significance to the conservation areas special acceptable/unacceptable level of impact on the architectural and historic interest. The design, historic environment?  archaeological trial trenching etc. where appropriate The site contains no features recorded on layout and quantum of development should be c) Does the proposal preserve and enhance the the Cornwall Sites and Monuments  Historic Building assessments/recording informed by an appropriate assessment of the cultural and social significance of the historic Register. historic assets’ character and significance. The asset?  Conservation Area Impact Assessment including assessment of scheme should respond positively to these points d) Will it result in development which is The site is entirely within Penzance impact on historic street and plot patterns; impact on the utilising the existing evidence base that should sympathetic towards the need to promote the Conservation Area and in proximity to outcomes of historic grant-aid schemes (THI). inform the design, which includes the Penzance Cornwall's unique heritage value, historic Listed Buildings, although none are Conservation Area Appraisal; Cornwall & Isles of environment and culture? adjacent to the site  Assessment of impact on setting, context and inter-relationship Scilly Urban Survey; and the Penzance THI Final of HE assets/historic townscapes e) Have flood mitigation measures been designed Report.” The site is classed as Urban Land. to be compatible with the immediate historic  Assessment of impact on wider landscape setting of Mounts Bay environment? 6. Development to be informed by existing urban assessments f) Has a balance been struck between the level of /conservation area assessments and management plans, and risk (e.g. in adaptation to climate change or the overriding statutory duties to consider preservation or flood risk) and the aspiration to preserve the enhancement to character. distinctive qualities of the historic environment? 7. Design quality will be of paramount consideration.

Mitigation to include appropriate design responding to historic context; Historic Building recording; archaeological assessments/Watching briefs/targeted excavation etc. as appropriate

Higher level policy provisions seek to meet this objective, for instance LP:SP Policy 24. (Historic Environment) this sets out that proposals should be informed by proportionate assessments and evaluations. 11. Design + The site has a generally south easterly Higher level policy provisions seek to meet this objective through Paragraph e) states “Planning permission for the gradient, however, topography is unlikely Local Plan policies 12 and 13 (Design and Development standards), development of only part of the site will not be 1. To promote and achieve high quality design in

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence

LDF SA Objectives Score Impacts of proposal Proposed mitigation measures and How the considerations have been considerations taken into consideration by Policy Planners development, sustainable land use and to impede the sustainable design of and which seek to secure high quality safe, sustainable and inclusive granted, unless it is in accordance with a sustainable built development. development in this area.+ design and development standards. These policies require masterplan / concept plan for the entire site” a) Will it encourage developers to build to higher development to demonstrate the application of the guidance set out environmental standards? within the Council’s Design Guide Supplementary Planning document. b) Will it help to promote local distinctiveness? c) Does the proposal meet targets for renewable The Design Guide includes guidance and standards relating to, energy capture and sustainable construction amongst others, energy and waste efficiency, crime and disorder, using BREEAM or Code for Sustainable Homes? design, social inclusion, drainage and health and wellbeing. d) Will it promote high quality, sustainable and sympathetic design that takes account of sustainable construction and transport modes, and green infrastructure? 12. Social Inclusion + The site is wholly within the town centre At the scheme design stage, efforts should be made to incorporate Paragraph e) states “Planning permission for the and within reasonable proximity to schools elements that will reduce poverty and social exclusion. Access to development of only part of the site will not be 1. To reduce poverty and social exclusion and and health facilities.+ services and facilities need to be considered, which can be reviewed granted, unless it is in accordance with a provide opportunities for all to participate fully in through the subsequent masterplanning process masterplan / concept plan for the entire site” society. a) Will it improve access to and provision of services, health and community facilities (including community youth facilities) especially in rural areas and for the socially excluded? b) Will it reduce poverty, deprivation, discrimination, social exclusion and inequalities? 13. Crime & Anti Social ? At this stage, it is difficult to establish what At the scheme design stage, crime and safety issues need to be Paragraph e) states “Planning permission for the impacts development in this area will have considered e.g. overlooking of public spaces and well lit footpaths in development of only part of the site will not be Behaviour on crime and antisocial behaviour. order to design out crime, which can be reviewed through the granted, unless it is in accordance with a 1. To reduce crime, anti-social behaviour and subsequent masterplanning process masterplan / concept plan for the entire site” fear of crime. Higher level policy provisions seek to meet this objective through a) Will it reduce crime and anti-social activity, Local Plan policies 12 and 13 (Design and Development standards), and in turn, provide safer communities in and which seek to secure high quality safe, sustainable and inclusive Cornwall (particularly in the most deprived design and development standards. These policies require neighbourhoods and identified hot spots) development to demonstrate the application of the guidance set out b) Will it help reduce the fear of crime? within the Council’s Design Guide Supplementary Planning document.

The Design Guide includes guidance and standards relating to crime and disorder, design and social inclusion. 14. Housing + The site slopes to the east and south east, None required Paragraph a) states “A residential development to however there are no topographical deliver approximately 80 dwellings. In addition, the 1. To meet the needs of the local community as constraints in this area that would affect ground floor use of any property fronting on to a whole in terms of general market, affordable, the opportunity of developing an optimum Market Jew Street must be retained / reprovided adaptable and decent housing. quantity and mix of development including for commercial purposes (A1-5, B1, C1, D1-2); a) Will it provide an appropriate mix of housing affordable housing.+ with the preference for a retail use. Commercial to ensure delivery of long-term regeneration uses within the remainder of the site will be schemes for the county? The site is of an appropriate size to provide acceptable, if they are compatible with adjacent a mix of housing type and tenure of a scale, residential uses” b) Will it reduce the number of people homeless height and massing that would be in or in temporary accommodation? keeping with the surrounding area. + Paragraph b) states “At least 25% of the dwellings c) Will it contribute towards the provision of should be provided as ‘accessible homes’, in line affordable, social and key worker housing? with Policy 13 of the Local Plan Strategic Policies d) Will it reduce the number of unfit homes, and document” those falling below the decent homes standards? e) Will it deliver adaptable housing to meet the lifelong needs of the population? f) Will it provide a well integrated mix of decent homes of different types and tenures to support a range of household sizes, ages and incomes? g) Will it provide energy efficient development which reduces the annual cost of heating/lighting

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence

LDF SA Objectives Score Impacts of proposal Proposed mitigation measures and How the considerations have been considerations taken into consideration by Policy Planners and helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions? h) Will it make the best use of land? 15. Health, Sport and Recreation + Assumption – the criteria “e) will it lead to At the design stage, developers should be encouraged to incorporate Paragraph c) of states “An off-site contribution unacceptable noise levels?” has been new and improve existing pedestrian and cycle links for future should be provided for the delivery of 1. To improve health through the promotion of considered as the noise that would be residents. new/upgraded open spaces. The sum sought will healthier lifestyles and improving access to open generated by the development – and be equivalent to 69.4sqm of public open space per space and health, recreation and sports facilities. therefore not scored as not relevant to Give the below average quantity of open space in Penzance and dwelling, in line with the Penzance & Newlyn Green a) Will it improve health and well-being and housing proposals. Newlyn, provision for this through off site contributions should be Infrastructure Strategy.” reduce inequalities in health? provided in any scheme. While the site is not adjacent to the open b) Will it improve access to health services? countryside and the public footpath c) Will it improve access to the countryside, network, it is in close proximity to the SW coast, recreation and open spaces? coast path and Cornish Way cycle path d) Will it increase participation and engagement enabling access to the beaches - which in physical activity and sport? could encourage access for recreation.+ e) Will it lead to unacceptable noise levels? The site is in reasonable proximity to existing school sports facilities and playing pitches. It is also in close proximity to sporting facilities such as canoe/ sailing and pilot gig clubs +

The site is in close proximity to existing health facilities.+

The site does not incorporate any existing sports facilities so will not have an adverse impact. +

16. Economic Development, + The site is in proximity (800m) to existing No specific measures required to address this objective. The site is Paragraph a) states “A residential development to employment areas (town centre and allocated for housing development. deliver approximately 80 dwellings. In addition, the Regeneration and Tourism harbour).+ ground floor use of any property fronting on to 1. To support a balanced and low carbon Market Jew Street must be retained / reprovided economy that meets the needs of the area and The site has good links to the for commercial purposes (A1-5, B1, C1, D1-2); promotes a diverse range of quality employment strategic transport network, with the preference for a retail use. Commercial opportunities. and is in proximity to the main line railway uses within the remainder of the site will be station and bus station in comparison to acceptable, if they are compatible with adjacent a) Will it promote a diverse range of employment other sites around the urban area. + residential uses” opportunities? b) Will it provide affordable, small scale, Development of this urban area on the managed workspace to support local need? fringe of the main shopping street could c) Will it support the development of access to sustain new commercial uses providing ICT facilities including Broadband, particularly in employment opportunities.+ rural areas? Development of this site could have some d) Will it raise the quality of employment and positive effect on tourism by the reduce seasonality? redevelopment of an area of backland adjoining the town centre and harbour , however effects area uncertain at this stage.+/- 17. Education & Skills +/- The site is within close proximity of a Improved cycling, pedestrian and bus routes and services could No action necessary Primary School and a secondary school.++ facilitate access and sustainable travel to schools. 1. To maximise accessibility for all to the necessary education, skills and knowledge to The site is not of a size and convenient play a full role in society. location that could offer an opportunity to a) Will it help improve the qualifications and improve the towns training and/or skills of young people? educational facilities.- b) Will it improve facilities and opportunities for lifelong learning (particularly for those with greatest need)? c) Will it help increase the County's skilled and professional workforce? d) Will it support a viable future for rural

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence

LDF SA Objectives Score Impacts of proposal Proposed mitigation measures and How the considerations have been considerations taken into consideration by Policy Planners communities? e) Will it encourage a greater diversity of choice in skills training as part of regeneration efforts? f) Will it increase accessibility to training facilities? 18. Transport and Accessibility ++ It is acknowledged that realistically Future transport arrangements and accessibility issues need to be Paragraph e) states “Planning permission for the development increases use of motor considered as part of any policy development. Sustainable linkages development of only part of the site will not be 1. To improve access to key services and vehicles. through the site to existing and planned facilities will be required. granted, unless it is in accordance with a facilities by reducing the need to travel and by This can be considered through the subsequent masterplanning masterplan / concept plan for the entire site” providing safe sustainable travel choices. The entire site is very conveniently located process 2. To reduce traffic congestion and minimise within the existing urban area and its wide transport related greenhouse gas emissions. range of facilities and, in comparison to other site options, offers a location which a) Will it promote sustainable forms of transport could optimise use of more sustainable (public transport including bus and rail, cycle and modes of transport thereby minimising any pedestrian routes) and ensure the necessary increase in greenhouse gas emissions – the associated infrastructure is made available? site is adjacent to the main shopping street b) Will it reduce traffic congestion by promoting and it is near existing bus stops and routes alternative modes of transport? as well as near the bus and rail stations.++ c) Will it reduce the need to travel by seeking to balance homes, jobs, services and facilities? d) Will it lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions? e) Will it improve service provision or provide a service or facility which is accessible to all, including those with disabilities and those in the more rural areas? f) Will it transfer freight from road to rail and/or sea? 19. Energy +/- The site was not covered by a Heat Higher level policy provisions seek to meet this objective through No action necessary Mapping Analysis however the site is Local Plan policies 12 and 13 (Design and Development standards), 1. To encourage the use of renewable energy, adjacent to the town centre and there is and which seek to secure high quality safe, sustainable and inclusive increase energy efficiency and security and little potential for a District Heating design and development standards. These policies require reduce fuel poverty. Scheme.- development to demonstrate the application of the guidance set out a) Will it promote energy conservation and within the Council’s Design Guide Supplementary Planning efficiency? Much of the site consists of relatively flat document. land with a slight south easterly aspect. b) Will it promote and support the use of This would largely allow development to be The Design Guide includes guidance and standards relating to renewable and low carbon energy technologies? orientated to maximise solar gain and energy efficiency. c) Will it help reduce fuel poverty? would enable the use of renewable d) Will it encourage local energy production? technologies.+

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence

Appendix 8: Revised Penzance Strategy Maps

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence