Schedule of Post-Hearing Changes to the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies

537

Consultation: Schedule of Post-Hearing Changes to the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies

Proposed Submission Document 2010-2030 (March 2014) incorporating the Schedule of Focused Changes (September 2014)

Representation Form

Consultation – 1 July to 5pm 12th August 2016

Representations can be submitted by email to: [email protected] by post to:

Cornwall Council – Local Plans Team Carrick House St Clement Street Truro TR1 1EB

We are consulting only on the proposed changes arising from the recent hearings of the Examination. The schedule also includes changes proposed prior to the Examination.

The changes we are consulting on are highlighted in a schedule as either double strikethrough or bold, double underlined.

We are not consulting on the complete Cornwall Local Plan – Strategic Policies, this was done earlier in March 2014, September 2014 and changes, as part of the Examination in January 2016.

All representations should be submitted using this form. Please be as succinct as possible and use a separate box under ‘Question 4’ for each change on which you are commenting.

537 This form has two parts. Part A asks for your contact details and Part B asks questions for you to consider and gives you the opportunity to make comments.

Part A: Your personal details

You must complete Part A for your representations to be accepted. The Council can not accept anonymous representations.

Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, requires all representations received to be submitted to the Secretary of State. By completing this form and submitting it to the Council you are giving your consent to the processing of personal data by Cornwall Council and that any information received by the Council, including personal data, may be put into the public domain, including on the Council’s website.

1. Personal details.

Name Roger Kayes Organisation X Address line 1 XXXXXXXXX Address line 2 XXXXXX XXXX Address line 3 Address line 4 XXXXXXXXXXX Postcode XXX XXX Telephone number XXXXXXXXXX Email address XXXXXXXXXXXX Preferred contact method email

2. Agent details (if applicable).

Name Organisation Address line 1 Address line 2 Address line 3 Address line 4 Postcode Telephone number Email address Preferred contact method Email  Post 

537 Q1 Do you wish to be notified of future stages in the Local Plan including examination and adoption?

Yes X No  Part B: Your Representations

Representations should only relate to the Post Hearing Schedule of Changes to the Local Plan (bold figures shown in the second column from the left in the schedule) and clearly state the respective reference number.

Soundness Paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework sets out the consideration in relation to a plan being considered ‘sound’:  Positively prepared  Justified  Effective  Consistent with national policy

Legal compliance For a Local Plan to be considered legally compliant, the following needs to be determined:  Whether the Local Plan is detailed in the current Local Development Scheme and that the key stages have been followed,  That community involvement has been carried out in accordance with the current Statement of Community Involvement  Whether the Local Plan makes satisfactory regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy  That the Local Plan complies with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended)  That the Local Plan complies with the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012  That a Sustainability Appraisal report is published to accompany the Local Plan and is adequate  That the Habitats Regulations Assessment is carried out in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (The Habitats Regulations) 2010  That the Local Plan has regard to national planning policy  That Section 110 of the Localism Act 2011 (Duty to Co-operate) has been complied with.

Q2 A local planning authority should submit a plan for examination which it considers to be ‘sound’. Do you consider the Post Hearing Schedule of Changes to the Local Plan has met these tests?

Yes  No X

Please specify the reasons below

537

I do not consider that the plan satisfies the requirement for soundness, on the grounds that it fails with regards to the criteria of being justified and effective, as outlined below.

Q3 Do you consider that the Post Hearing Schedule of Changes to the Local Plan meets the legal and procedural requirements?

Yes  No  I don’t know

Please specify the reasons below

Q4 Please provide any comments on the Post Hearing Changes to the Local Plan – Strategic Policies

Please use a separate box for each change and state which number on the schedule your comment refers to. Any additional comments will need to adhere to the same format as set out below.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 7b, Policy 2a Strategic Policies In the first bullet point, numbered 1, the introduction of the word ‘minimum’ raises considerable concerns. There are several dimensions to this concern.

1 The LP is to some extent a document for public information and guidance. Given the standard, ‘lay’ use of ‘minimum’, its introduction would carry stronger connotations than those which I presume lie behind its introduction in this context. The term is likely to cause unnecessary confusion and concern about the role of this figure in the LP, given that many members of public don't understand this context.

2 It must be correct that in the context of Local Plans, the word ‘target’ is more accurate than ‘minimum’. A significant role of the Local Plan is to co- ordinate the provision of housing over the plan period with that of employment, as well as with other infrastructure such as hospitals and roads. It would therefore be nonsensical if the Local Plan resulted in the provision of, say, 55,000 or 60,000 extra houses over the plan period. Further, the thrust of debates within Cornwall Council’s meetings (taking the word ‘Council’ here to be the body of councillors) on the housing figures in the LP has been to consider the figures as a target to be aimed for, not a minimum to be achieved over the period. If the outcome that is to be aimed for during the implementation of the LP were to be an unspecified figure that might well be substantially higher than the figures presented in the 2016 Hearings, for example, this would call into question the entire value of the local plan

537 preparation process.

3 Perhaps the primary goal of introducing ‘minimum’ is to prevent the 52,500 figure from being employed as a cap or ceiling on housing allocation in the later period of the plan, as suggested by comments in the agenda for the Hearing on the 20th of May 2016. It is not clear that this concern is warranted. The Local Plan will need to be revised in the mid-1920s (as argued further below) – and therefore this figure will never function as a ceiling, given that the plan will be revised before that number of allocations for the entire plan period has been reached.

One of the reasons that the LP will need to be revised during the mid-1920s is as follows. The Housing Trajectory Table prepared by Cornwall Council mixes together the notion of permissions and completions (N.SC.1- LP Schedule of Changes May 2016 (3) (4), p.57). The 52,500 housing figure refers to completions, yet the Trajectory Table focusses substantially on permissions (8 rows of data after the first two that deal with completions). This is hardly surprising given the Council’s specific role in housing provision. Now... the Trajectory Table indicates that from the year 2020/21, the ‘Remaining requirement’ (for additional planning permissions during the plan period in addition to ‘Windfalls on small sites <10’) is for the allocation of 930 dwellings per year for 10 successive years until the end of the plan period. Evidently these 9,300 dwellings would need be completed within the plan period in order to fulfil the total provision of 52,500. There are two points arising. Firstly it is very unlikely that large sites forming part of this 9300 and allocated within the last few years of the period would indeed be completed within the plan period. Secondly there seems to be no provision within the plan for the granting of planning permissions for dwellings that would sustain completions in the first few years immediately following the end of the plan period. For these reasons it is evident that it will be crucial for Cornwall Council to be well advanced in its revision of its Local Plan by around 2025. This adds weight to the argument there is little to be gained by adopting the word ‘minimum ‘in relation to the 52,500 figure for housing allocation

Suggested solution Replace the words ‘A minimum’ with ‘The provision’ and add a qualification in the accompanying text to the effect that the housing provision figures is not to be seen as a ceiling or a cap on housing provision during the latter part of the plan period. (This change would also serve to bring the structure of this point in line with other points in Policy 2a.)

Q5 If your representation is seeking a change; do you wish to participate at the examination in public if there are further hearings? Please select one option, if you do not select a preference we will assume you do not wish to attend.

No I do not wish to participate at the examination in public

537 Yes I wish to participate at the Yes examination in public If you select No, your written comments will still be considered by the independent Planning Inspector. Please note the Inspector will determine the most appropriate procedure to adopt to hear those who have indicated that they wish to participate at the oral part of the examination. There is no right to be heard at a hearing session and it is the Inspector who decides who should be heard.

Signature Roger J Kayes Date August 12th 2016

If you require any assistance in completing this form or require any further explanation as to what is required please contact a member of the local planning team using the email address below or telephoning 01872 224283.

Data Protection

In complying with the Data Protection Act 1998 Cornwall Council confirms that it will process personal data gathered from this form only for the purposes relating to the consultation.

Personal information will be added to the Council’s Local Plan consultation database and will be used to keep you informed of progress with the Local Plan and in order to consult with you further at each stage of the process to enable you to make future comments.

Personal information will also be shared with the Government appointed planning inspector (from the Planning Inspectorate), who may wish to contact you to discuss your comments and concerns, prior to formal examination of the Local Plan and supporting documents.

Submitting your comments

We must receive all responses by 5pm on Friday 12th August 2016. Comments received after this time will not be recorded and will not be considered by the Council. We have set this deadline to ensure that all who wish to take part in this consultation have the same timescale within which to respond.

Consultation: Schedule of Post-Hearing Changes to the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies

Proposed Submission Document 2010-2030 (March 2014) incorporating the Schedule of Focused Changes (September 2014)

Representation Form

Consultation – 1 July to 5pm 12th August 2016

Representations can be submitted by email to: [email protected] by post to:

Cornwall Council – Local Plans Team Carrick House St Clement Street Truro TR1 1EB

We are consulting only on the proposed changes arising from the recent hearings of the Examination. The schedule also includes changes proposed prior to the Examination.

The changes we are consulting on are highlighted in a schedule as either double strikethrough or bold, double underlined.

We are not consulting on the complete Cornwall Local Plan – Strategic Policies, this was done earlier in March 2014, September 2014 and changes, as part of the Examination in January 2016.

All representations should be submitted using this form. Please be as succinct as possible and use a separate box under ‘Question 4’ for each change on which you are commenting.

This form has two parts. Part A asks for your contact details and Part B asks questions for you to consider and gives you the opportunity to make comments.

Part A: Your personal details

You must complete Part A for your representations to be accepted. The Council can not accept anonymous representations.

1. Personal details.

Name Prepared on behalf of Taylor Wimpey c/o Origin3

Organisation Address line 1 Address line 2 Address line 3 Address line 4 Postcode Telephone number Email address Preferred contact method

2. Agent details (if applicable).

Name Colin Danks Organisation Origin3 Address line 1 Tyndall House, 17 Whiteladies Road Address line 2 Clifton Address line 3 Bristol Address line 4 Postcode BS8 1PB Telephone number Email address .uk Preferred contact method Email x Post 

Q1 Do you wish to be notified of future stages in the Local Plan including examination and adoption?

Yes x No  Part B: Your Representations

Q2 A local planning authority should submit a plan for examination which it considers to be ‘sound’. Do you consider the Post Hearing Schedule of Changes to the Local Plan has met these tests?

Yes  No x

Please specify the reasons below

The comments set out below have been prepared by Origin3 in response to the Post-

Hearing Changes on behalf of Taylor Wimpey in regard to their land interests within a number of different Community Network Areas (CNAs) throughout Cornwall.

Whilst many of the minor wording changes are welcomed and have improved the Plan since the previous iteration, given the lack of site allocations we still have fundamental concerns as to the ability of this Plan to deliver the housing requirements it has identified for Cornwall.

We consider that the amended Plan still relies far too heavily on the ability of Neighbourhood Plans to do the job that a Local Plan or Site Allocations DPD would normally do in terms of providing a robust evidence base to allocate land.

It is acknowledged that many parishes in Cornwall are in the process of preparing Neighbourhood Plans - 90 areas out of a total of 213 parishes with 3 Plans having been adopted already. However it is questioned to what extent those Plans already in progress or adopted will be in line with the latest iteration of this Plan and how many will be allocating specific housing and employment sites. For example of the 3 adopted Plans (Roseland, Quiethiock, St Eval) none of them allocate specific sites. Truro and Kenwyn Neighbourhood Plan which is close to adoption also does not allocate housing sites. Furthermore given that the CNA boundaries will be different to the Parish/Neighbourhood Plan areas it is not clear in practice how the Council will determine what proportion of the CNA requirement should go in to which of the Neighbourhood Plan areas. In reality some form of duty to cooperate between Neighbourhood Planning areas would be required to ensure the whole CNA requirement is covered and this seems an unrealistic coordination task.

In the short term a large number of areas will not be covered by either a Neighbourhood Plan or an allocations DPD and therefore the Town Councils will be relied upon to quickly prepare a number of site allocations DPDs. In reality this is likely to result in a significant time lag between this Plan being adopted and sufficient sites being allocated within the individual CNAs to deliver the Plan’s minimum requirements. It also remains unclear what happens to the Neighbourhood Plans that have already been adopted but that are now inconsistent with this Plan. What mechanism will be used to ensure that the Neighbourhood Plans are updated to reflect the new Plan and that they include specific site allocations which they are not statutorily required to do.

This process is likely to take a number of years during which time there will be a period of uncertainty for developers, investors and the community and a risk of unwanted speculative development in the absence of any allocations.

In this regard the Plan is still considered not to have been positively prepared or as effective as it could have been and therefore in our view it remains unsound in terms of the NPPF.

Q3 Do you consider that the Post Hearing Schedule of Changes to the Local Plan meets the legal and procedural requirements?

Yes  No 

Please specify the reasons below

Q4 Please provide any comments on the Post Hearing Changes to the Local Plan – Strategic Policies

Please use a separate box for each change and state which number on the schedule your comment refers to. Any additional comments will need to adhere to the same format as set out below.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 2 Strategic Policies

In the second to last paragraph the sentence should be worded “should be located at the larger towns with the most appropriate infrastructure”. This terminology should be consistently used throughout the Plan.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 3 Strategic Policies

To bring the Plan in to line with the wording used within the NPPF (paragraph 118), it would be better if the following sentence read as follows:

“All types of development should aim to protect and enhance the environmental quality and assets of Cornwall ,..”

It will not always be possible for all new developments to ‘enhance’ environmental quality and there is no national policy requirement that all developments must do so.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 5 Strategic Policies

The first part of the sentence should refer to “minimum requirements” rather than “targets” as has been amended elsewhere within the Plan. This should be consistently referred to throughout because the use of the word ‘target’ implies an upper limit

whereas the Plan should be providing a minimum requirement of housing delivery.

Whilst we welcome clarity over the fact that the allocations DPDs and Neighbourhood Plans will be responsible for allocating sites; the wording needs further amendment to address the scenario (such as at Truro Kenwyn and other adopted Plans) whereby a Neighbourhood Plan has already been adopted but is now inconsistent with the Plan and has not allocated any sites. It is not clear whether in this scenario an allocations DPD will need to be prepared in addition to the recently adopted Neighbourhood Plan or whether the latter needs to be reviewed and updated. If it is the latter, it is not clear what mechanism can be employed to ensure this happens. Will the allocations DPDs cover the same areas as the Neighbourhood Plans or will these be prepared for the whole of the CNAs?

By way of example in the case of Truro and Threemilestone CNA, the Truro and Kenwyn Neighbourhood Plan has recently been examined (January 2016) and is in the process of being adopted. Although this Plan is likely to be considered current in the planning terms it is already inconsistent with the Cornwall Plan. For example the Neighbourhood Plan states 3000 as the housing target rather than the 3900 for the Truro CNA within the current version of the Plan.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 7 Strategic Policies

We welcome the change to state a “minimum of”. This should be consistently referred to throughout the Plan.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 8 Strategic Policies

We support the amendment to “at, or well related to”. However this change should be made consistently throughout the Plan.

We welcome the review mechanism now included for the delivery of the eco- communities. The amended wording however to this Policy implies that there is a power available to local authorities to ensure that Neighbourhood Plans are prepared in a timely fashion and furthermore to ensure they include site allocations. Neighbourhood Plans are prepared by the parishes/community rather than by the Council and there is no statutory requirement that they include site allocations. As noted above many neighbourhood areas may not have the resources to prepare a plan or to prepare the level of evidence that is required to support an allocation. It is considered that the allocations DPDs should not be referred to as being interchangeable with Neighbourhood Plans because of the differences in the way in which they are prepared and the extent of the area they are likely to cover.

In reality it is assumed the allocations plans will need to sit above the patchwork of Neighbourhood Plans to ensure that overall across the CNAs, sufficient land has been allocated to deliver the requirements of the Plan over the plan period.

The reference to “if proposals have failed to progress sufficiently towards delivery within 2 years of adoption…” is considered to be rather vague and ambiguous. It is not clear what “progress sufficiently” means in this context because there are no allocations for individual areas or a trajectory that has been tested through this Plan process that can be monitored for individual CNAs. Therefore against what measure will an area be deemed to have not sufficiently progressed? This part of the policy is not considered to be effective.

At point 3, reference is made to “small scale rounding off”. However the term ‘small’ is undefined so it is not clear what this means. Using the words “appropriate scale” may be preferable because what is considered to be ‘small’ will vary between contexts and is open to subjective interpretation.

We recommend that Point 4 is amended to say “the development of previously developed land within or well related to adjoining settlements”.

It is not considered to be justified that the Plan states here the specific locations that will not require future allocations and which ones are likely to. The ability of the CNAs to deliver their requirements has not yet been fully tested through a Plan process so it is inappropriate for the Plan to direct allocations without the evidence to underpin them. We object to the fact that certain locations have now been deleted from this list of areas requiring future allocations as these decisions should be made at the site allocations stage under proper assessment. The Plan should not be seeking to pre-empt this process.

The amended wording states “and therefore whether further allocations are required”. The use of the word ‘further’ should be deleted here because no sites have yet been allocated.

The additional text starting “The Local Plan housing apportionment….” is in appropriate. The text implies that there is certainty that all those sites that already have planning permission will be implemented within the Plan period but without any delivery evidence to support that this is the case. It also makes assumptions about the amount of windfall development that is likely to come forward. However given the lack of site allocations or testing of the deliverability of individual sites the assumptions about residual levels of growth have not yet been properly assessed through this Plan process.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 10 Strategic Policies

The following sentence should be amended as follows: “These gaps can provide the

setting for the settlement”. The word ‘often’ should be removed as it is not backed up that this is the case.

The following sentence should be amended to reflect the fact that the importance of gaps should be considered as part of the wider context of the planning balance “Proposals should consider the significance or importance that larger gaps can make to a settlement as part of the planning balance.”

The following sentence should also be amended to remove the word ‘often’ which is not backed up therefore the sentence would read: “Large gaps can exist between the urban edge of a settlement and other isolated dwellings beyond the edge of the settlement.”

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 10a Strategic Policies

The definition of rounding off that has been added is unclear. In particular it is unclear how the following sentence would be interpreted in practice:

“land that is substantially enclosed…and where its edge is clearly defined by a physical feature that also acts as a barrier to further growth”.

This sentence is very much open to subjective interpretation as to what is considered to be substantially enclosed (enclosed by what? ) and is not considered an effective definition for rounding-off.

As noted above, for consistency it is recommended that the second paragraph should be amended as follows, “In principle the use of previously developed land within or well related to the settlement will be permitted….”

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 11 Strategic Policies

As noted above, the reliance on Neighbourhood Plans for allocating sites is likely to lead to a significant time delay between the Plan being adopted and sites being allocated and safeguarded. The wording here indicates that the Council will not commence preparation of allocations plans until 2 years at the earliest following the adoption of the Plan. The allocations plans are likely to take at least a couple of years to prepare therefore there could be a minimum of 4-5 years before allocations are likely to be made.

The term ‘targets’ in this paragraph should now be amended to say “minimum requirements” to be consistent with the rest of the Plan.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 12 Strategic Policies

The use of the housing trajectory here to imply a five year supply of housing is considered unjustified because the extent to which the supply is deliverable has not yet been assessed through this Plan process. If the trajectory is to be included, as a minimum it should be clearly indicated as being ‘illustrative only’ subject to further testing through the allocations Plans.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 14 Strategic Policies

At point 2, the housing figure for the eco-communities needs to be updated (change 1500 to 1200) to match the amended apportionment.

To provide clarity and certainty it is recommended that the following sentence should be amended to say: “The final scale and capacity of these proposals will be confirmed through the Site Allocations Plan”.

As above the next paragraph should say: “The Proposals will be led by a masterplan and design code….”

The third bullet point at point 4 should be amended to say: “within or well related to” to be consistent with the rest of the Plan.

As noted at change 10 above, the consideration of the importance of large gaps should be considered in the context of the wider planning balance rather than in isolation. There may be certain circumstances whereby the overall public benefit of a development justifies the reduction in the importance of the large gap.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 15 Strategic Policies

The updated figures within Table 1 are welcomed however it is considered that the way the table is presented gives the impression that there is a residual figure still to be allocated for. However the ability of the sites with planning permission (but not yet started) to deliver all of their dwellings within the Plan period has not been tested. Similarly the ability to deliver the windfall numbers is also untested.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 20

Strategic Policies

It is recommended that to provide greater certainty the word ‘should’ be amended to ‘can or will’. This point goes to the heart of the matter that although this Plan might be able to advise on what the Neighbourhood Plans should do it has no way of ensuring that it happens.

In reality it seems unrealistic to expect Neighbourhood Plans to undertake the assessment work to underpin the employment land reviews as described in the fourth paragraph. Many Neighbourhood Plan areas will not have the resources to undertake this type of work and will therefore not be able to robustly allocate and safeguard employment sites.

The last paragraph is not considered to be effective wording because “the loss of economic performance of the site or location” is undefined. In reality it would be difficult to demonstrate and agree the evidence to be prepared to support this. This statement could be interpreted in a number of different ways, for example it could relate to employment numbers, floorspace, rents achieved, land value turnover of the business etc.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 21 Strategic Policies

The wording of Point 4 of Policy 5 should be amended to say “Site Allocations Development Plan Documents and Neighbourhood Plans will identify new land, and safeguarded existing land where appropriate, necessary for the delivery of the economic strategies for Cornwall.” Not all existing employment sites will need to be safeguarded therefore it would be misleading to imply through Policy 5 that they all should be.

As noted above, we welcome the guidance included in the amended policy wording as to how Neighbourhood Plans should allocate sites based on evidence. However it is not clear what the mechanism is for Town Councils to ensure that these Plans are prepared or as in the case of Truro, to be reviewed where they recently been adopted but are inconsistent with the Plan. It seems unlikely that local communities will be motivated to revisit their Neighbourhood Plans to include new site allocations and increase their housing apportionments in line with the Local Plan if they cannot be required to do so.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 22 Strategic Policies

The definition of open countryside here is considered to be unclear and ambiguous. It is not clear what is meant by the term “physical boundaries of existing settlements”. For example does this refer to hedgerows, fields, walls or buildings? This definition could be open to significant interpretation.

The following sentence should be amended to say: “It clarifies that the majority of development will be provided at settlements with a range of facilities” to be consistent with the rest of the Plan in this regard.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 24 Strategic Policies

It is not clear how the following - “in accordance with value zone that best reflects the sales values likely to be achieved by the development” – would actually work in practice.

How would the estimated sales values be calculated in practice and by whom? In the case of Outline developments, where the end house builder and housing product may not yet be known, this will be particularly difficult to interpret. This is not considered to be effective guidance in practice.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 23a Strategic Policies

It is not clear whether the following sentence applies to all sites with starter homes including larger sites, a rephrasing here would be beneficial to provide greater clarity: “Starter homes exception schemes will not be subject to Community Infrastructure Levy payments or be required to provide affordable housing.”

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 22a Strategic Policies

It is considered the following sentence is ambiguous and unclear as to what is being required here: “Consideration should always be given to retaining or incorporating traditionally built and structurally sound dwellings in to replacement dwellings”.

It is not clear that this requirement is justified. Is this saying that all new proposals will need to submit evidence that they have considered traditional buildings? This seems to be more appropriate for inclusion with a design guidance SPD than the Local Plan.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 25C Strategic Policies

For clarity, it is recommended that the section starting with “Subject to considerations in policy 11…” should be either rephrased or put in to bullet points to make it clear whether the provision of starter homes forms part of the 70% rented and 30%

intermediate or whether starter homes are required in addition. If the latter this would be more than 100%.

It is recommended that the sentence starting “The provision of an element of starter homes as defined…” is rephrased and needs a few more words adding to it to make it clear what the requirement is here.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 30 Strategic Policies

Policy 13 states that “Development must ensure Cornwall’s enduring distinctiveness and maintain and enhance its distinctive natural and historic character.”

It is not considered to be justified in terms of NPPF section 12 for all developments to be required to enhance the natural historic character. The following wording would be more effective and justified: “Development should aim to ensure Cornwall’s enduring distinctiveness and maintain and wherever possible seek to enhance its distinctive natural historic character.”

It is unclear here what is meant by ‘fundamental design principles’ which could be open to interpretation.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 31 Strategic Policies

The following sentence is ambiguous and we suggest it would benefit from rephrasing into plain English: “Open space should be designed as part of the wider network of multi-functional environmental assets (green infrastructure) as addressed in Policy 25.” Clearly environmental assets go beyond just green infrastructure.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 33a Strategic Policies

Rather than encouraging the reuse of brownfield sites the tone of the additional wording added reads more as a deterrent and suggests caution. The factors mentioned as particular considerations - “the suitability of the site in terms of accessibility and location” are standard considerations for any planning proposal covered by other policies in the Plan and do not need to be specifically reiterated here.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 34 Strategic Policies

Point C under Policy 22 is unclear in its intention: “where appropriate taking into account the character of the surrounding area and access to services and facilities to ensure…”

It is not clear whether ‘access to services and facilities’ in this context is relating to the existing situation or to the situation after the scheme has been built. Many developments contribute towards improving access to services and facilities in places where there is currently a deficit. It is considered that the following wording or similar would be more effective - “where appropriate taking into account the character of the surrounding area and the sustainability potential of the location”.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 38 and 44 Strategic Policies

The following sentence should be amended as follows: “Residential development, student and tourist accommodation within these zones of influence will be required to provide for appropriate management, mitigation and monitoring on site, and / or financial contributions towards off site mitigation and management where necessary….”

Clearly not all developments will be required to provide mitigation and this should be made clear in the wording.

The section starting “Mitigation measures will include…” is unclear. The two bullet points read as if they are an exhaustive list of the options for mitigation measures. It would seem preferable to say “Mitigation measures can include…” thus leaving the list open for other types.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 41 Strategic Policies

It is considered that the guidance for “International Sites” (under the heading “International, National and Local Designated Sites”) has misinterpreted the intention of the presumption of sustainable development within the NPPF (p4).

The Plan states the following: “The highest level of protection will be given to European designated sites. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply to development affective these sites.”

However footnote 9 of the NPPF makes it clear that the presumption is only not to be applied to developments within designated sites, rather than developments affecting designated sites. This is an important distinction because otherwise the implication is that all developments that fall, for example, within the impact risk zone of a SSSI should not have the presumption in favour of sustainable development applied to them. Clearly this was never meant to be the intention of the NPPF footnote 9. It is suggested the last

part of this paragraph is removed.

Under the heading “Development and Mitigation”, the first sentence should be amended to say “Development should aim to prevent and avoid any adverse impacts on biodiversity and geodiversity” to bring it in line with the wording used within the NPPF (paragraph 118). Clearly in reality it is not realistic to ensure that all developments avoid any adverse impacts on biodiversity.

The wording of the next sentence “Where significant adverse impacts would result the development should be located on an alternative site” is also not considered to be based on national guidance. The wording within the NPPF on this matter is more nuanced (paragraph 118) as follows: “If significant harm, resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be should be refused;”

The wording in the Plan therefore does not accurate reflect the intention of the NPPF in this regard given that the Plan refers to ‘significant adverse impacts’ whereas the NPPF refers to ‘significant harm’.

In reality large developments on allocated sites may identify some adverse environmental impacts through the EIA process. However unless these would lead to significantly harm the first step would firstly be to consider whether the impacts can be mitigated. In many cases an alternative location simply would not be a realistic option because the land may already be owned or optioned by the applicant etc. As currently drafted the wording could be open to significant interpretation.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 48 Strategic Policies

In relation to development within the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site (WHS), the following sentence should be amended as follows: “If the impact is neutral, either on the significance or setting, then opportunities to enhance or better reveal their significance should be taken where it is appropriate and possible to do so.”

Clearly it will not always be possible to enhance the significance of heritage assets and there is no national requirement (NPPF section 12) for all developments to do so

No I do not wish to participate at the examination in public Yes I wish to participate at the x examination in public If you select No, your written comments will still be considered by the independent Planning Inspector. Please note the Inspector will determine the most appropriate procedure to adopt to hear those who have indicated that they wish to participate at the oral part of the examination. There is no right to be heard at a hearing session and it is the Inspector who decides who should be heard.

Signature

Date 12/08/16

Data Protection

In complying with the Data Protection Act 1998 Cornwall Council confirms that it will process personal data gathered from this form only for the purposes relating to the consultation.

Submitting your comments

Hayhurst Neil

From: Neal Jillings Sent: 03 August 2016 16:09 To: EP&E Local Plan Subject: Post hearing changes consultation on behalf of Cavanna Homes Attachments: Cornwall LP Proposed Submission consultation response_St Agnes.pdf

557

Dear Sir/Madam

Post Hearing Change ref. 7 - We support the deletion of the text ‘in a proportional manner’, but do not consider that the change goes far enough. To retain inclusion of this text clearly negates the need for any kind of rational spatial strategy. Decisions should be made on distribution of growth related to function and role of places rather than a simple mathematical calculation involving divided the housing requirement by the proportion of population in any given settlement. We do not consider however that the change goes far enough in respect of what we have previously termed ‘secondary service centres’. We submitted the attached representation (please see sections 3 (particularly para. 3.5) and 4) setting out the inconsistency within the plan in not planning adequately for these secondary service centres. In this instance, the town of St Agnes, with a good level of services and good public transport links was highlighted as attracting no specific status above much smaller settlements, where other settlements with a similar role and function to St Agnes are afforded such a status. Our concern remains. We struggle to see the logic of specifically planning for the growth of Camelford, for instance, by virtue of a defined Community Network Area that includes it as a main town, but not specifically planning for St Agnes where it too has its own CNA (jointly with Perranporth in this instance). We consider that St Agnes should be defined with a specific level of growth within Policy 2A, just as Torpoint, for example, has been identified within the Cornwall Gateway CNA.

Post Hearing Change ref. 7b – we support reference to the housing requirement being set as a minimum. As per the text above, we consider that an consequence of our objection to proposed change ref. 7 not going far enough to be that St Agnes should be referenced within Policy 2A with a level of growth that reflects its relative level of importance within the CNA.

Post hearing change ref. 8 – we support reference to to possible requirement to allocate or permit development of further sites above the residual housing number to ensure delivery of the target in the plan period or support the provision of a continuous 5yr HLS.

Post Hearing Change 11 – We support the additional text requiring Neighbourhood Plans to positively plan for housing. We consider that providing a better steer at a strategic level provides a much better framework for Neighbourhood Plans to work within. We are very concerned that, without an adequate strategic housing framework, Neighbourhood Plans will concern themselves with limiting opportunities for meeting growth requirements rather than making the difficult decisions required. We support, in principle, the concept of neighbourhood plans, but leaving this level of development plan document to adequately plan for needs is, in our opinion, storing up significant problems for later. It is convenient to allow this to occur both for politicians and local planning authorities, but the long term consequences of this will, we fear, not help in providing the housing that the country needs.

Regards

Neal

Representation made in respect of Cornwall Local Plan: Strategic Policies- Proposed Submission document 2010- 2030

Made on behalf of Cavanna Homes April 2014

1. Introduction

1.1. Cavanna Homes has an interest in land at Penwinnick Road, St Agnes, as shown on the appended plan. . This brief representation focuses on the following issues within the document.

1.1.1. The overall housing number and its relationship with the NPPF requirement to meet the full objectively assessed need for market and affordable housing in the housing market area; 1.1.2. The means by which growth is met outside the defined Main Towns; 1.1.3. The section of the Plan relating to the St Agnes and Perranporth Community Network Area and the evidence underpinning it.

1.2. Before proceeding, it is worth congratulating the local planning authority on an extremely competent job in pulling together the Local Plan over a huge area that formally encompassed six district councils and one county council. The evidence base is extensive and transparent and the series of briefing notes accompanying this iteration of policy are well put together and informative.

2. The overall housing requirement

2.1. The artificially suppressed housing requirement of 42,250 as set out in the last iteration of the Local Plan was unsustainable and would have resulted in the Plan being found unsound. Having said this, we maintain a concern that the 47,500 requirement over the plan period does not match the aspiration of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to boost significantly the supply of housing. This policy guidance is very clear and carries with it a clear inference that housing delivery has historically failed to meet the housing needs of the nation. The consequent conclusion is that something significant should be undertaken to boost housing supply to address this identified problem. We remain concerned that the housing requirement figure is a constrained figure that is not sufficiently ambitious and will not

meet the full objectively assessed need for market and affordable housing as required by the NPPF. The maintenance of trend based delivery levels is a continuation of a policy framework that fails to meet the housing needs of the plan area.

2.2. Inherent in the Local Plan is a long term vision for economic growth. As acknowledged in the series of briefing notes, a constrained housing requirement does not correspond with a policy of economic growth. This is after a period, since 2008, of a severe economic recession where demand for housing was constrained by a number of factors, not least the unavailability of mortgage finance. It stands to reason that what is required within the plan period is something different from what has gone before; this is a clear inference from the NPPF. Once the suppressed demand for housing increases, the provision of a supply that is based on a policy of constraint can only result in further house price inflation.

2.3. Housing Evidence Briefing Note 4 (BN41) acknowledges NPPG guidance (ID 2a-015-20140306) by stating that “it is likely that household formation rates may have been suppressed in the last ten to fifteen years by an under supply of housing and worsening affordability”. Furthermore, BN4 states that “housing projections do not reflect unmet housing need and it is down to local planning authorities to take a view of the extent to which local household formation rates may have been suppressed”. It is our view that the demographic projection does not reflect the pent up demand for housing resulting from the recession, due to lack of finance for example. Furthermore we consider that this demand will emerge within the plan period, but will be met with a policy framework that does not cater for it. This pent up demand includes, as acknowledged by BN4, young adults living at home with parents for longer or in shared accommodation for longer, people setting up home and/or having families later and delaying moving to a larger house when they have children. Assuming the economy

1 From here on in we use the LPA abbreviation of BN1, BN2 to refer to the various briefing notes sitting behind the Local Plan

recovers sufficiently, these people will be the ones who didn’t inform the trend that in turn informed the projection, will be faced with a strategic housing requirement, based on the projection, that doesn’t cater for them.

2.4. BN4 states that “the last full set of household projections are the 2008 based national household projection, and they indicate that Cornwall is likely to contain 295,000 households by 2030 if trends continue as they have – an additional 58,000 households”. This figure is based on the 2008 based projections which are more robust than the 2011 interim projections, which have been extrapolated out from ten years to twenty. The local planning authority is focussing on the 47,500 requirement and seeks ‘corroboration’ for this level of growth by reference to what has been the level of household growth in the period 1961 – 2011 and multiplying the annual growth by twenty to cover the plan period. We consider this no more than an interesting aside that provides little in the way of corroboration for the constrained strategic housing requirement.

2.5. Housing Evidence Briefing Note 2 (BN2) notes that the 2013 Strategic Housing Market Needs Assessment “suggests that there will be a requirement for between 47,300 and 71,980 households over the next twenty years to meet the demands generated by new household formation and the labour force demands of a growing local economy”. The proposed strategic housing requirement of 47,500 for the plan period up to 2030 as at the extreme of the lower end of this spectrum of need. It is obviously acknowledged that the suite of briefing notes addresses this issue and others comprehensively to arrive at the housing requirement, but it is indicative of our primary concern relating to the constrained nature of the requirement.

2.6. The local planning authority’s evidence (BN2) acknowledges that the 47,500 requirement is ‘mainly based’ on the SHMNA demographic projection of 47,300. It then goes on to highlight that “the SHMNA report was clear that the demographic scenario outputs should be considered to represent a minimum for

understanding the housing pressures likely to result from the growth in households, considering the latest demographic evidence at the time of the research. The report also concluded that it is considered sensible to view the higher employment projections as an important benchmark for understanding the potential future growth of Cornwall recognising this will be driven by a continuing in-migration of people from outside of the study area looking to take up new employment opportunities”.

2.7. We highlight the NPPF requirement to meet the full (our emphasis) objectively defined need for both market and affordable housing. BN2 refers to an annual need of 2,240 affordable properties over the next five years to meet newly arising need as well as addressing the existing backlog. We consider that the constrained overall housing requirement means that the affordable housing need is even less likely to be met; in this respect the Local Plan aims to undershoot the target of meeting the objectively assessed need for affordable housing from the outset. This is clearly set out in figure 9.6 of the main SHMNA report which sets out that the demographic projections favoured by the local planning authority will require an overall provision of 55.6% of the dwellings being affordable to meet the affordable housing need. An employment led scenario requirement (71,980 dwellings within the plan period), on the other hand, would need 36.5% of these dwellings to be affordable to fully meet the objectively assessed need for affordable housing.

2.8. BN12 states within the overview section that, despite a range of housing targets from 47,300 to 95,000, it is only worth considering a target within a range of 47,300 and 50,000. We do not agree; the NPPF requires that the full objectively assessed need is met and constraining the strategic housing target to a level that the local planning authority thinks it can safely deliver acts against this policy imperative. The housing target should be need led and not constraints led. BN12 notes that the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment identified capacity for over

100,000 dwellings “so any of the housing targets proposed can easily be accommodated”. It also notes that the last six recession years (2007-2013) have resulted in an annual rate of almost 2,500 dwellings per annum. This, BN12 concludes “would suggest that it should be possible to deliver between 46,000 and 50,000 dwellings”. We consider that this logic is flawed in that it misses out that it is possible to deliver at least 2,500 dwellings in the worst recession in living memory. With the clear NPPF clearly pointing towards boosting significantly the supply of housing one must ask why the Local Plan is basing its strategic housing requirement on a lazy assertion that it should be able to deliver a bit under what has been delivered in the period 2007 to 2013. This is a clear abrogation of the local planning authority’s duty to fully meet housing needs. The evidence base seems to base the limitation on the housing target by relating it to deliverability, but it is difficult to follow the logic that seeks to limit development to that based on trends from a recession.

2.9. BN12 makes a sweeping statement that “above all the Local plan must be deliverable which suggests at this point in time that the maximum number of new dwellings Cornwall should plan for based on past delivery trends is 50,000”. The clear question begging in this instance, is why set the limitation based on trends relating to past delivery? We do not understand why this should be the case when the NPPF is clear on meeting needs as being the priority.

2.10. In conclusion on this matter, we consider that the Local Plan and it accompanying evidence base seeks to justify a housing target that the local planning authority thinks it can meet, rather than basing the target within a framework of boosting significantly the supply of housing and fully meeting the objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing. In doing so, the constrained housing target acts directly against two parallel Local Plan aims of economic growth in the plan area and delivery of affordable housing.

3. Growth outside Main Towns

3.1. Policy 3 relates to the role and function of places and sets out the main towns where the bulk of growth is to be accommodated within the plan period. The Local Plan deals with growth by having a sub layer of policy in the form of chapters relating to ‘Community Network Areas’, most of these being associated with a named Main Town. As a general principle, we concur that this is the most appropriate strategy to follow.

3.2. There are a number of settlements that are not identified as a Main Town where some growth is specified. Notably Torpoint within the Cornwall Gateway CNA, Callington in the Caradon CNA, Padstow in the Wadebridge and Padstow CNA, Camelford in the Camelford CNA, St Blazey/Fowey/Lostwithiel in the St Austell CNA. St Agnes and Perranporth are not identified as a Main Town but, unlike the named settlements above, are not specified a level of growth to meet the objectively assessed need, despite being the focus for growth within the Community Network Area.

3.3. It appears clear to us that, what is emerging is a hierarchy of settlements where the Main Towns sit at the top with an understandable focus for growth, but are supplemented by a level of ‘Secondary Service Centres’, which are the settlements named above and also St Agnes and Perranporth. There is however no consistency on how the Local Plan deals with the level of growth required at this level of settlement. Torpoint, for instance, is specified a target of 350 dwellings over the plan period and Policy 3 stating that growth in such settlements will be dealt with by Neighbourhood Planning, exceptions sites and infill. This is understandable, but the starting point must be meeting the objectively defined need first and foremost. The neighbourhood planning process is given a framework to work within therefore in this instance. The same may be said of the other settlements highlighted above. The one exception to this rule appears to be with St Agnes and Perranporth Community Network Area where settlement specific growth targets are not defined for either settlement. As a consequence, we consider that there is a danger

that growth will not be accommodated in the most sustainable way within the Community Network Area.

3.4. We consider that the Local Plan should be consistent in identifying a level of secondary service centres including the above named settlement where a specified level of growth should occur. It is self-evident that the most sustainable distribution of growth will be to the Main Towns and these secondary service centres. At present, in the instance of St Agnes and Perranporth Community Network Area, St Agnes is given no special status in focussing growth, other than brief supporting text reference. We consider that this is inadequate and that there should be a specific number as there is for other settlement not identified as Main Towns. In the instance of St Agnes, we consider that growth within the plan period should be in the region of 300 dwellings.

3.5. In conclusion on this issue, the c4g/Roger Tym/Rural Innovation report dated December 2009 states that “both Perranporth and St Agnes…also have relatively strong local service roles and are important locations for local employment – both boosted by their tourism roles. Nearby villages and hamlets ‘share’ their services”. Furthermore, it states that “for greater localisation and sustainability the future clearly lies in strengthening the two centres”. We concur and consider that the best way in which this can be achieved is specifying a level of housing growth for both of these centres within the Community Network Area. In our view, we consider that the secondary layer of settlements should also meet growth through the site allocations process rather than Neighbourhood Planning process. Neighbourhood plans may well meet the housing needs, but it should not be left to this process, which may or may not occur. If a parish or town council decides not to pursue the neighbourhood planning process, the strategic objectively assessed need will not be met by the Local Plan as it is currently framed; this is unacceptable and should be addressed in the adopted plan.

4. St Agnes & Perranporth Community Network Area

4.1. Flowing from the above, we consider that Policy PP7 should be amended as suggested. We do not consider that the policy aspirations, supported by text referring to a focus on St Agnes and Perranporth, to achieve growth will be met by the current vagueness of the policy specific to St Agnes. It will not be possible, for example, to expect affordable led schemes, to fully meet the overall housing needs. The Local Plan should provide more direction in this regard, as set out above.

5. Conclusions

5.1. In summary, this representation concludes the following; 5.1.1. That the housing requirement of 47,500 is too low being based on trend based projections that reflect the recession. 5.1.2. That the housing requirement, in being too low, will hinder delivery of aspirations for delivery of affordable housing and economic growth. 5.1.3. That the Local Plan does not accord with the policy aspiration to boost significantly the supply of housing, being preoccupied with setting a target that it thinks can be met rather than seeking to fully meet the objectively assessed need for market and affordable housing. 5.1.4. As a consequence, under the tests of soundness in paragraph 182 of the NPPF, we consider that there is a danger that the Local Plan could be found unsound by not being positively prepared, justified and consistent with national policy. 5.1.5. That a lower tier of secondary service centres should be defined within Policy 3, to include St Agnes, where a proportional specified level of growth should occur. 5.1.6. That the specified level of growth for St Agnes should be in the region of 300 dwellings during the plan period and that this should be expressed in Policy PP7. 5.1.7. That Policy PP7 should require the above level of growth and that this growth should be met through the site allocations process.

5.2. We request a place at the table to debate these points more fully during the eventual examination.

Consultation: Schedule of Post-Hearing Changes to the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies

Proposed Submission Document 2010-2030 (March 2014) incorporating the Schedule of Focused Changes (September 2014)

Representation Form

Consultation – 1 July to 5pm 12th August 2016

Representations can be submitted by email to: [email protected] by post to:

Cornwall Council – Local Plans Team Carrick House St Clement Street Truro TR1 1EB

We are consulting only on the proposed changes arising from the recent hearings of the Examination. The schedule also includes changes proposed prior to the Examination.

The changes we are consulting on are highlighted in a schedule as either double strikethrough or bold, double underlined.

We are not consulting on the complete Cornwall Local Plan – Strategic Policies, this was done earlier in March 2014, September 2014 and changes, as part of the Examination in January 2016.

All representations should be submitted using this form. Please be as succinct as possible and use a separate box under ‘Question 4’ for each change on which you are commenting.

This form has two parts. Part A asks for your contact details and Part B asks questions for you to consider and gives you the opportunity to make comments.

Part A: Your personal details

You must complete Part A for your representations to be accepted. The Council can not accept anonymous representations.

1. Personal details.

Name Ellandi LLP & White River Developments Ltd Organisation C/O Agent Address line 1 Address line 2 Address line 3 Address line 4 Postcode Telephone number Email address Preferred contact method

2. Agent details (if applicable).

Name Matthew Williams Organisation Savills Address line 1 Innovation Court Address line 2 121 Edmund Street Address line 3 Birmingham Address line 4 Postcode B3 2HJ Telephone number Email address com Preferred contact method Email

Q1 Do you wish to be notified of future stages in the Local Plan including examination and adoption?

Yes √ No ¨

Part B: Your Representations

Soundness Paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework sets out the consideration in relation to a plan being considered ‘sound’: • Positively prepared • Justified • Effective • Consistent with national policy

Legal compliance For a Local Plan to be considered legally compliant, the following needs to be determined: • Whether the Local Plan is detailed in the current Local Development Scheme and that the key stages have been followed, • That community involvement has been carried out in accordance with the current Statement of Community Involvement • Whether the Local Plan makes satisfactory regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy • That the Local Plan complies with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) • That the Local Plan complies with the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 • That a Sustainability Appraisal report is published to accompany the Local Plan and is adequate • That the Habitats Regulations Assessment is carried out in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (The Habitats Regulations) 2010 • That the Local Plan has regard to national planning policy • That Section 110 of the Localism Act 2011 (Duty to Co-operate) has been complied with.

Q2 A local planning authority should submit a plan for examination which it considers to be ‘sound’. Do you consider the Post Hearing Schedule of Changes to the Local Plan has met these tests?

Yes ¨ No √

Please specify the reasons below

Please see response to post hearing change 18 below

Q3 Do you consider that the Post Hearing Schedule of Changes to the Local Plan meets the legal and procedural requirements?

Yes √ No ¨

Please specify the reasons below

Q4 Please provide any comments on the Post Hearing Changes to the Local Plan – Strategic Policies

Please use a separate box for each change and state which number on the schedule your comment refers to. Any additional comments will need to adhere to the same format as set out below.

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 18 Strategic Policies The proposed amendments to Policy 4 are welcomed and for the most part supported. However, we object to the reference on page 42 at criteria iv) which states:

“Where applicable, the length of vacancy of the premises and evidence of marketing for the current permitted use.”

We object to this proposed modification as it imposes an onerous requirement for Applicants to demonstrate that the unit is a long term vacancy and that reasonable attempts have been made to sell or let the premises for A1 use. However, the policy provides no guidance leaving the requirements for a marketing process entirely uncertain.

The wording of this section of the Policy is counterproductive, conflicts with national guidance (please see references below) and is not supported by the available evidence. The new wording should be deleted or else it could serve to undermine the strategic objective of regenerating allocated centres.

Whilst the principle of seeking to protect against a substantial loss of A1 retail floorspace within the Primary Retail Frontage (PRF) is understood, this late modification is poorly defined and could be applied in far too restrictive a manor and, as stated above, ignores national guidance on the need to adopt a flexible approach to the future role of town centres. It also ignores the commercial needs of a centre such as St Austell to respond to shifting occupier demands and to perform its role as a vital community resource. Accordingly, town centre policy must allow complementary town centre uses to be secured quickly and in response to occupier led opportunities, where this does not undermine the overall predominance of A1 retail. Restrictions which substantially delay beneficial occupation will undermine the vitality and viability of town centres.

The approach to town centre development is set out by the National Planning Policy Framework at Paragraph 23 where it is stated that Local Planning Authorities should promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer and which reflect the individuality of town centres. The NPPF defines suitable ‘main town centre uses’ as retail, leisure, entertainment facilities, which includes restaurants and bars, and offices. This recognises that retail forms only one part of the experience for visitors to a town centre; it is equally about gaining access to people driven services, eating out, meeting with friends and having an opportunity to socialise. Accordingly, it can be recognised within the Plan that customers expect more from their shopping experiences and there is pressure on shopping centre owners, managers and tenants to respond to this.

The NPPF also attaches significant weight to supporting economic growth through the planning system, noting that investment should not be overburdened by the combined requirements of planning policy expectations and that centres should be resilient to anticipated future economic changes. The need for resilience is also reflected through a series of amendments to the General Permitted Development Order (GDPO) which were enacted in April 2015. Subject to certain criteria being met the following changes are now permitted:

• a change from retail (Class A1) to financial services (Class A2); • a change from retail/financial services (Class A1/A2) to food and drink (Class A3); • a change from retail/financial services (Class A1/A2), betting offices, pay day loan shops and casinos to assembly and leisure uses (Class D2); • extension of the temporary permitted development rights introduced in May 2013 for extensions to shops, offices, industrial and warehouse buildings to support business expansion and the economy so they apply permanently; • the erection of click and collect facilities within the curtilage of an existing retail shop; and • modifications to the size of an existing retail shop loading bay.

Much of the recent emphasis on the need for flexibility within our town centres is underpinned by independent reviews of the UK’s high streets conducted by Mary Portas in December 2011, the Grimsey Review in September 2013, “Beyond Retail” in November 2013 and British High Street: from Crisis to Recovery? March 2015. Each of these reports reflect the changing nature of town centres and the requirement for them to change and adapt to fulfill a function at the heart of a community.

In light of the above it is concluded that the additional wording at part 3 Criteria iv) of Policy 4 is unsound because it is not Positively Prepared, Effective or Justified. It is counterproductive and will likely undermine the Plan’s overarching objective to help town and local centres to diversify and thrive. To do this they need to be able to respond rapidly.

The solution is to delete criteria iv).

The existing requirement for Applicants to demonstrate that proposals would not undermine the vitality and viability of centres (all other criteria excluding iv)) provides sufficient protection against the over-provision of non-retail uses in the PRF whilst simultaneously allowing proposals for non-retail development to come forward without being over-burdened by onerous policy requirements (which could leave certain units vacant for extended periods of time where marketing is required for undefined periods is required – during which time occupier led opportunities will likely

5 have found alternative premises, potentially in out of centre locations).

Document Post Hearing Schedule Change Number Cornwall Local Plan – 59 Strategic Policies

Maintaining or increasing A1 retail units as a proportion of all retail units within the Primary Shopping Area is not the best indicator of whether the vitality and viability of retail town centres is being enhanced.

Health checks for town centres on an annual basis would provide a much clearer way of assessing town centre vitality and viability. The plan should refer to the following in the Planning Practice Guidance for the range of indicators to be assessed annually for the key centres within the retail hierarchy. This would also allow any impacts of new development, in or out of town – to be effectively tracked.

Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 2b-005-20140306

Which indicators should be used to determine the health of town centres? The following indicators, and their changes over time, are relevant in assessing the health of town centres:

- diversity of uses - proportion of vacant street level property - commercial yields on non-domestic property - customers’ views and behaviour - retailer representation and intentions to change representation - commercial rents - pedestrian flows - accessibility - perception of safety and occurrence of crime - state of town centre environmental quality Revision date: 06 03 2014

No I do not wish to participate at the examination in public Yes I wish to participate at the √ examination in public If you select No, your written comments will still be considered by the independent Planning Inspector. Please note the Inspector will determine the most appropriate procedure to adopt to hear those who have indicated that they wish to participate at the oral part of the examination. There is no right to be heard at a hearing session and it is the Inspector who decides who should be heard.

Signature

Date 12/08/2016

Data Protection

In complying with the Data Protection Act 1998 Cornwall Council confirms that it will process personal data gathered from this form only for the purposes relating to the consultation.

Submitting your comments

Consultation: Schedule of Post-Hearing Changes to the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies

Proposed Submission Document 2010-2030 (March 2014) incorporating the Schedule of Focused Changes (September 2014)

Representation Form

Consultation – 1 July to 5pm 12th August 2016

Representations can be submitted by email to: [email protected] by post to:

Cornwall Council – Local Plans Team Carrick House St Clement Street Truro TR1 1EB

We are consulting only on the proposed changes arising from the recent hearings of the Examination. The schedule also includes changes proposed prior to the Examination.

The changes we are consulting on are highlighted in a schedule as either double strikethrough or bold, double underlined.

We are not consulting on the complete Cornwall Local Plan – Strategic Policies, this was done earlier in March 2014, September 2014 and changes, as part of the Examination in January 2016.

All representations should be submitted using this form. Please be as succinct as possible and use a separate box under ‘Question 4’ for each change on which you are commenting.

This form has two parts. Part A asks for your contact details and Part B asks questions for you to consider and gives you the opportunity to make comments.

Part A: Your personal details

You must complete Part A for your representations to be accepted. The Council can not accept anonymous representations.

1. Personal details.

Name Prepared on behalf of Tregothnan Estate c/o Origin3 Organisation Address line 1 Address line 2 Address line 3 Address line 4 Postcode Telephone number Email address Preferred contact method

2. Agent details (if applicable).

Q1 Do you wish to be notified of future stages in the Local Plan including examination and adoption?

Yes x

No  Part B: Your Representations

Q2 A local planning authority should submit a plan for examination which it considers to be ‘sound’. Do you consider the Post Hearing Schedule of Changes to the Local Plan has met these tests?

Yes  No x

Please specify the reasons below

On behalf of our client, the Tregothnan Estate, Origin3 welcome a number of the amendments that have been made to the Plan through the Post-Hearing Changes. The Tregothnan Estate, is a major landowner within and surrounding Roche, a

settlement which lies immediately to the south of the A30 corridor and north of St Austell.

It is acknowledged that many parishes in Cornwall are in the process of preparing Neighbourhood Plans - 90 areas out of a total of 213 parishes with 3 Plans having been adopted already. However it is questioned to what extent those Plans already in progress or adopted will be in line with the latest iteration of this Plan and how many will be allocating specific housing and employment sites. For example of the 3 adopted Plans (Roseland, Quiethiock, St Eval) none of them allocate specific sites. Truro and Kenwyn which is close to adoption also does not allocate housing sites. Furthermore given that the CNA boundaries will be different to the Parish/Neighbourhood Plan areas it is not clear in practice how the Council will determine what proportion of the CNA requirement should go in to which of the Neighbourhood Plan areas. In reality some form of duty to cooperate between Neighbourhood Planning areas would be required to ensure the whole CNA requirement is covered and this seems an unrealistic coordination task.

In the short term a large number of areas will not be covered by either a Neighbourhood Plan or an Allocations DPD. The Town Councils will need to be relied upon to quickly prepare a number of site allocations DPDs. In reality this is likely to result in a significant time lag between this Plan being adopted and sufficient sites being allocated within the individual CNAs to deliver the Plan’s minimum requirements. It remains unclear what happens to the Neighbourhood Plans that have already been adopted but are now inconsistent with this Plan. What mechanism will be used to ensure that the Neighbourhood Plans are updated to reflect the new Plan and that they include specific site allocations which they are not statutorily required to do.