St Austell & Parishes

Housing Evidence Report

May 2017

Contents

Introduction 1 Section 1: St Austell’s Urban Capacity Assessment 1 Summary – Potential Urban Capacity of St Austell 9 Section 2 - Urban extension assessment 11 Local Member Steering Group 13 Methodology 14 Step 1 - Mapping Review 14 Step 2 – Cell Identification 14 Step 3 – Environmental Constraints 17 Step 4 - Accessibility 19 Step 5 – Initial Review and Discount of Cells 20 Step 6 Landscape Character Assessments 21 Step 7 Urban Design Analysis 22 Step 8 Heat Mapping Assessment 24 Step 9 Qualitative Review and Discount Inappropriate Sites 25 Merging assessment 31 Conclusion and Recommendations – Urban Extension Options 37 Step 10 Stakeholder Discussions 39 Step 11 Informal Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Review 39 Step 12: Framework Plan Options & Core Strategy Consultation 44 Conclusion: Recommended Site 54 Section 3: St Austell’s Housing Summary 56

Introduction Cornwall’s Local Plan: Strategic Policies Development Plan Document (LP:SP) sets out a housing growth requirement of a minimum of 2,900 houses to be delivered at St Austell through the Local Plan period, 2010-2030.

In support of this, the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (Site Allocations DPD) (and associated St Austell Town Framework Plan (TFP), allocates sites to accommodate this strategic growth.

This housing evidence report documents how the housing growth requirement for St Austell is planned to be accommodated:

 Section 1 of this report sets out an assessment of the level of housing which is forecast to be accommodated within the existing urban area, including a consideration of future site allocations within this. By establishing this existing urban capacity, it is then possible to calculate how many houses need to be planned to be accommodated outside of the existing urban area (i.e. on greenfield sites);

 Section 2 of this report, supported by a number of more detailed appendices, considers the site allocations outside of the existing urban area. It sets out the assessment followed in order to determine which urban extension site(s) is/are the most appropriate to accommodate future growth. The sites allocations identified in Sections 1 and 2 of this report are those included and consulted on within the Site Allocations DPD; and,

 Section 3 concludes this report and presents the housing trajectory for St Austell, which (incorporating the results of the two assessments above) sets out how the target of 2,900 dwellings is planned to be delivered.

Section 1: St Austell’s Urban Capacity Assessment This chapter sets out an assessment of the urban capacity in St Austell. In planning for the future development of the town it is firstly important to consider what growth can be accommodated within the existing urban area (i.e. on brownfield sites).

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

a) The number of completed dwellings (1st April 2010 – 31st March 2016); b) The number of committed dwellings, i.e. both under construction and permitted by existing planning permissions (full and outline) but not yet started (1st April 2016) - on sites under 10 dwellings;

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

Dwelling Completions and Commitments (a) (b) and (c).

Regular annual monitoring of housing completions and permissions is carried out by Cornwall Council and is regularly reported in the Cornwall Monitoring Report (available at www.cornwall.gov.uk). Data relating to completions through the plan period, to date (1st April 2010 – 31st March 2016) and as at 1st April 2016, is presented within Table 1. It sets out that 2710 dwellings were built and committed at St Austell as of 1st April 2016.

Table 1: Dwelling Completions and Commitments in St Austell Urban Area (2010-2016) No of St Austell Urban Area Dwellings

(a) Dwellings Built (1st April 2010 - 31st March 2016) 1069

(b) Net Extant planning permissions - Under 10 (1st April 2016) 165

(d) Significant Planning Permissions granted since April 2016 / awaiting s106 373

Total Built and Permitted 2710

d) Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Sites

The SHLAA data provides a theoretical assumption of the development capacity on sites in and around St Austell. Due to the nature, purpose and process of the SHLAA there are a number of sites identified (i.e. those outside of the urban area, on greenfield land) that are not considered suitable to contribute to the urban capacity figure. Greenfield sites are considered under the Urban Extension 2

Assessment (Section 2 of this report). In addition to the greenfield SHLAA sites, some urban SHLAA sites are also discounted due to other reasons which suggest that they may be inappropriate to come forward for housing development. The SHLAA sites and a consideration of whether they can be assumed to contribute to the urban capacity of St Austell are presented within Table 2, and they are illustrated in Figure 1. Table 2 sets out that, for plan making purposes, SHLAA sites are unlikely to contribute significant further dwellings in St Austell. A large number of urban sites within the town have been developed in recent years and this has contributed to the above assumption of limited future supply.

Table 2: The assumed contribution of the St Austell SHLAA sites to the towns urban capacity Gross Potential Site Address Area dwelling Reason Ref (Ha) No.

Land at - S729 53.5 Site is considered as part of the Urban Extension Assessment (see Section 5) Treverbyn Road

Land at West - Site is in the adjacent CNA and include the eco-community site proposals which S1262 320 Carclaze & Baal have their own target within the Local Plan

38/25/ Land at - Site in adjacent CNA and considered as part of the Urban Extension Assessment 6.5 05 Scredda (see Section 5)

39/25/ Land north of - Site in adjacent CNA & Site is considered as part of the Urban Extension 3.9 01 NEDR Assessment (see Section 5)

Land to the - Site in adjacent CNA, within a proposed green buffer area, considered outside of U0024 north of 1.4 the plan making process Carclaze Road

41/23/ - Trenowah Farm 16 Site is considered as part of the Urban Extension Assessment (see Section 5) 01

Land adjacent Approx. 30 Site is a disused sports pitch which may have a Sport England objection to U0021 to A391/Former 1.1 development. This issue aside it should be considered within the SHLAA Tennis Courts

Land adjacent Approx. 30 Small area of scrub area with no access without adjacent site (U0021). If it came U0020 1.2 to A391 forward with the adjacent should it should be considered within the SHLAA

40/22/ Land off - 1.5 Existing employment units 03 Bucklers Lane

Land at - S454 8.4 Site has permission for residential & included in urban capacity Holmbush

Par Moor (small - Site in adjacent CNA, too peripheral from the St Austell urban area to contribute to S097 1.1 site) the town target

- Site is within adjacent CNA – part of the eco-community proposals which have S1263 Par Docks 39 their own target

Land at - S723d 1.5 Site is a small wooded area inappropriate for development Charlestown

Land at - S723e 1 Site is a recreation ground Charlestown

Land at - S723b Charlestown 14.9 Site is considered as part of the Urban Extension Assessment (see Section 5) Road

Land at - Site is considered as part of the Urban Extension Assessment (see Section 5) (also S723a 4.8 Porthpean Road school sports field)

39/21/ Morven Trading - 0.3 Existing employment estate 05 Estate

38/19/ - Sawles Valley 31.5 Site is considered as part of the Urban Extension Assessment (see Section 5) 01

Sawles Valley, - 38/20/ South of 6.4 Site is considered as part of the Urban Extension Assessment (see Section 5) 03 Southbourne Rd

Land east - S232a Pentewan Rd, 23.5 Site is considered as part of the Urban Extension Assessment (see Section 5) Tregorrick

Land west - S233 Pentewan Rd, 5.1 Site is considered as part of the Urban Extension Assessment (see Section 5) Tregorrick

Land at - S039 Southside of 0.4 Site is considered as part of the Urban Extension Assessment (see Section 5) Trevanion Rd

S308 Trewhiddle 20.7 - Site has outline permission for residential and retail use

Coyte Farm, - S291 17.7 Site is considered as part of the Urban Extension Assessment (see Section 5) Truro Rd

Land adjoining - S099 0.7 Site is considered as part of the Urban Extension Assessment (see Section 5) St Mewan Lane

Land at - Lanarth, S633 0.7 Site is considered as part of the Urban Extension Assessment (see Section 5) Cooperage Road

Land at - S366 Cooperage 1.1 Site is considered as part of the Urban Extension Assessment (see Section 5) Lane

35/22/ - Gover Road 0.6 Narrow strip of land inappropriate for development 02

Land north east - S632 of the A3058 3.7 Site is considered as part of the Urban Extension Assessment (see Section 5) Westbridge Rd

(d) Potential houses from SHLAA 60 sites (approx.):

Figure 1: Map of St Austell SHLAA sites, Existing Planning Permissions (for over 10 dwellings)

e) Other sites

A review of other potential land within the existing urban area has also been carried out. An outline permission was granted in 2015 for a large part of the Trewhiddle urban extension; providing 460 dwellings and was awaiting S106 after April 2016; it is therefore included in the existing permission figures. An appeal was also granted in 2015 for 190 dwellings at a site in the Holmbush area which was previously a Town Framework urban extension consultation option, but is now included in the permission figures. A Cornwall Council owned site (adjacent to SHLAA sites U0020 and U0021 above) was identified in the 2014 St Austell Town Framework consultation document at Trenowah Road and together with the above SHLAA sites consulted on for around 70 dwellings. It is considered that this CC site could come forward with the two SHLAA sites (U0020 and U0021) as one larger area within the plan period for around 70 dwellings and it has therefore been included within the urban capacity figures. f) Urban Site Allocations for Housing

No urban sites allocations for St Austell were identified. g) Windfall Allowance for St Austell

When estimating future housing delivery, a ‘windfall allowance’ is considered – this is an assumption regarding the number of other unplanned permissions that will granted through the plan period. The windfall allowance is based on an analysis of past trends in terms of the actual housing delivery in the 10 years between 2004 and 2014 on sites of less than 10 dwellings. For St Austell the windfall allowance through to 2030 is estimated at 171 dwellings. A more detailed explanation of the windfall allowance is contained within the Strategic Housing land Availability Assessment (available at www.cornwall.gov.uk).

Summary – Potential Urban Capacity of St Austell The Urban Capacity Assessment demonstrates that there is the potential to accommodate approximately 2951 dwellings within the urban area of St Austell. Table 3 sets out these findings, whilst Figure 1 illustrates sites where existing permissions apply for the development of 10 and above dwellings along with SHLAA sites.

It should be noted that a discount rate has been applied to sites (with a capacity under 10 dwellings) which have planning permission; and, any significant permission’s since April 2016. Discount rates are used across Cornwall’s towns and have been arrived at by looking back at historical trends for each category to gauge average non delivery, which has then been projected forward.

There is a potential urban capacity of 2951 dwellings in St Austell between 2010 and 2030.

Section 2 of this report sets out the process that was undertaken in identifying options around the town and the subsequent prioritisation of a preferred site / urban extension, with any resulting Site Allocation(s) then being progressed through the Site Allocations DPD (as illustrated in Figure 16).

Table 3: St Austell Urban Capacity Gross Discount Net Total Rate Total a) Net Completions (From Apr-10 to Apr-16) 1069 1069 b) Net Extant planning permissions - Under 10 185 10% 165 c) Net Extant planning permissions - 10 or more 1103 1103 d)Large sites with planning permission (10+ 373 373 units) which was subject to S106 after April 2016 e) Urban SHLAA Sites (those potentially suitable) 70 30% 49

f) Other sites 21 21 g) Site Allocations (Urban Sites) - - - h) Windfall allowance for final 10 years of plan 171 - 171 period (Excluding windfall in gardens)

Estimated Urban Capacity 2951

Section 2 - Urban extension assessment As part of the work carried out in developing Cornwall’s LP:SP and the supporting Site Allocations DPD (and associated TFP’s), an assessment of and consultation on potential urban extension site options, to the main towns across Cornwall, has been undertaken.

The urban extension assessment followed a thirteen step assessment process, which was adopted across all the main towns. This thirteen step methodology was followed to ensure consistency in approach to urban extension assessments across the majority of Cornwall’s main towns. Figure 2 illustrates the process undertaken.

Steps 1-5 identified land that is either potentially appropriate for further detailed assessment, or land which should be discounted at an early stage for reasons based on significant environmental and or accessibility grounds. Steps 6 to 9 involved a landscape character assessment; an urban design assessment and an assessment of the potential for decentralised renewable or low carbon energy to supply any potential development. Inappropriate cells were discounted at step 9 following a review.

All remaining land was assessed at steps 10-12, as public consultation options for urban extension locations. These options were informally discussed with key stakeholders, including the Environment Agency, Highways Agency, Natural England, on the suitability of land. This stage included an informal Sustainability Appraisal of all options. Following this the options were consulted on through the Core Strategy and Framework Plan consultation, as options for future growth.

The assessments that are set out were discussed throughout the process at workshop sessions with both officer and a local member steering group, to provide local input, context and endorsement.

The following flow chart illustrates the twelve step process undertaken to assess the suitability of land for urban extensions in order to accommodate growth as part of the Town framework process.

Figure 1: Urban Sites Assessment – Thirteen Step Process.

Step 1 Mapping review

Step 2 Identify site areas (Cells)

Step 3 Step 4 Desk based Environmental Accessibility Mapping Assessment

Step 5 Review and discount cells

Step 7 Step 6 Step 8 Urban design Landscape Heat mapping analysis assessments exercise

Step 9 Qualitative review and discount inappropriate sites

Step 10 Stakeholder discussions EA/NE/HA etc.

Step 11 Informal SA review

Step 12 Submit sites in Core Strategy Consultation

Step 13 Finalising Strategic Sites (Site Prioritisation)

Local Member Steering Group The assessments that are set out in these twelve steps have been discussed throughout the process at officer workshop sessions and with a Local Member Steering Group for St Austell’s Town Framework process.

The Steering Group comprises local Cornwall Council Members and representatives of the Town Council and neighbouring Parish Councils, and have met regularly since 2014. The Steering Group has been working towards agreeing a draft Framework Plan for consultation and providing local input, context and endorsement.

Methodology

Step 1 - Mapping Review This involved a desk based assessment to help understand the structure of St Austell and how the town currently functions, including what services and facilities are available for the communities within the town. The results of this exercise, including Figure 2, the Structures and Neighbourhoods Map, help to inform and guide the subsequent assessments throughout the process, but primarily the initial desk based urban extension assessments at Steps 2, 3, 4 and 5.

This mapping exercise sought to identify the main movement corridors: A, B and local distributor roads and key services such as schools, health facilities, community buildings, and formal and informal open spaces - as well as identifying the neighbourhood centres.

This work also helps to identify Green Infrastructure (GI) information such as public open space, and existing green corridors and networks (e.g. waterways, cycle routes and footpaths) and water elements (e.g. lakes, significant pond systems, wetlands etc) which will inform Step 7 in particular.

Step 2 – Cell Identification This exercise reviewed all of the land surrounding the town to identify appropriate and workable study areas (referred to as ‘cells’) for further assessment. In determining the extent of the individual cells, consideration was given to features that would potentially create barriers between cells, such as significant transport corridors and landform features, for instance topography and watercourses. Once these features had been identified, it provided definition to the boundaries for the cells surrounding the town. The landscape cells identified for St Austell are illustrated below in Figure 3. It should be noted that these cell boundaries are amended and refined as the assessment and consultation progresses.

Figure 2: St Austell Neighbourhoods Map

Figure 3: St Austell Original Cell Boundaries

Step 3 – Environmental Constraints An assessment was carried out to record any environmental features within each of the cells. The intention was to identify land where significant environmental features (predominantly national designations e.g. SSSI; flood zone 3b; ancient woodland etc) would make future development highly unlikely due to the value of these assets.

The step also identified areas where potential growth would not be constrained by significant environmental features. Each cell was analysed using the assessment criteria and a ‘traffic light system’, which are detailed at Appendix A. The environmental map for St Austell is presented at Figure 4.

Figure 4: The Environmental Constraint Map for St Austell

Step 4 - Accessibility A desk-based accessibility assessment was undertaken at the same time as Step 3. This assessed each cell for access to local facilities e.g. schools, health facilities, town centres etc. Accessibility was assessed for both pedestrians (Step 4a) and vehicles (Step 4b). Distances of 400m, 800m and 1200m representing 5, 10 and 15 minute walks respectively were used in the assessment (based on national planning and urban design good practice guidance). Each cell was assessed using a traffic light rating system, the maps used are attached at Appendix B. Potential shortfalls in the availability of local services and facilities were also highlighted.

For vehicular accessibility (Step 4b), the assessment looked at whether the existing highway infrastructure had potential to provide existing or new vehicular access points / routes to the cells.

Two key issues were considered:

 Whether there was vehicular access to serve the cell; and

 Whether there was possible vehicular connection from the cell to the nearest Town or Neighbourhood Centre.

Figure 5: Overview Map of the Accessibility Assessment Results

The results of this assessment were considered along with Step 4a, to determine an overall accessibility rating for each cell. The results of the Accessibility Assessment are shown in Figure 5.

Step 5 – Initial Review and Discount of Cells Step 5 was a key stage to identify and discount those cells inappropriate for development on the grounds of environmental value and/or accessibility.

Whereas this step resulted in the discounting some cells for many other Town Framework Plans under consideration there was not a sufficiently clear body of evidence to discount many St Austell cells at this stage. St Austell is the largest town in Cornwall, and as a result many of the residential areas of the town are large enough to support and sustain neighbourhood scale centres and services, resulting in relatively good accessibility levels around the town. The lack of discounting at step 5 also reflects that the St Austell cells are relatively large at this early stage, and whilst there were some cells with notable environmental constraints within the cell boundary, there could still be a remaining portion of the cell that could support a significant amount of housing.

Only cell 20 was discounted from further assessment at this stage. This was in part due to poor accessibility, but also because there is an existing planning consent in place for this cell.

The results of Step 5 can be seen in Figure 6.

This paper goes on to look at all the remaining original cells around the town in greater depth before discounting a large number of these from the final recommendation of potential sites.

Figure 6: Discounted and Remaining Cells Following Step 5

Step 6 Landscape Character Assessments Landscape character assessments were undertaken by a Landscape Architect from the Council’s Environment Service. The methodology recorded important landscape features in each cell and assessed the landscape according to its character and sensitivity to change. Each cell was then rated using a traffic light system indicating its overall landscape quality.

Each cell was assessed by a detailed site visit and by incorporating the environmental information recorded at Step 3. The landscape assessment sets out information in the form of individual cell maps and sheets recording the field notes. The landscape assessment maps and tables are attached in Appendix C. The headline results of the Landscape Assessment are presented in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Overview Map of the Landscape Assessment Results

As Figure 6 illustrates there are few areas that were assessed as having either an intermediate or low landscape value (similar to many of Cornwall’s main towns). Cells were subdivided where there was a distinct change of character within a cell.

Landscape is an important consideration in assessing the suitability of an area for development, however it is one consideration along side other important factors such as accessibility, sustainability and how well the area is able to integrate with the existing urban form. Therefore cells are not discounted at this stage but the information is used to inform Step 9 of the assessment where sites are discounted considering all information gathered throughout the assessment. 21

Step 7 Urban Design Analysis The purpose of this important step was to analyse the cells with the aim of further clarifying how well they would integrate and function with the town and its communities; would they be sustainable locations to accommodate future growth. Equally, it was used to demonstrate which cells would not function as well and to clarify the reasons why. The methodology used can be viewed in Appendix D.

Figure 8: Overview Map of the Urban Design Results

The assessment involved a sketch exercise for each cell to identify existing or potential connections and routes in to the existing built area of the town. A table was used to record the results for each cell by assessing it against a set of criteria. The results of the Urban Design Assessment on the original cells are presented in Figure 8. The full results and tables can be viewed in Appendix D.

Each cell was assessed using the standard methodology used for all Town Framework Plans in Cornwall. In some instances parts of adjoining cells are merged where they represented a more viable development site or if it meant avoiding landscape designations or avoiding environmental constraints. While these opportunities were explored around St Austell, no merged cells presented themselves as having greater development potential than the cells already identified.

The assessment provides a final comment noting the conclusions from the exercise and indicating the suitability of the cell or merged cells as either:

 a potential expansion area of an existing neighbourhood;

 an opportunity to create of a new neighbourhood through an urban extension; or,

 the constraints found showed that neither of the above could be achieved sustainably.

Similar to step 6 the intention was not to discount cells at this stage and information is used at Step 9 ‘Qualitative review and discount sites’ to inform decisions, alongside the landscape character assessment.

The best scoring cells in urban design terms were cells 5, 9, 26 and 28.

With the exception of cell 5, these were of a scale that could potentially offer the opportunity of developing a new neighbourhood centre, with existing links to a number of key services and facilities.

Cells 3 and 6 scored particularly poorly in the urban design assessment. In addition most of the cells to the east and south of the town also performed poorly on account of distance from the town centre, despite having some connectivity to employment and neighbourhood centres. As well as being considered too remote, numerous cells scored poorly due to physical constraints such as topography, landscape and the historic environment. The topographical features of St Austell, which occupies a position within a ‘bowl’ makes it difficult to find an edge of town location that isn’t particularly visible or prominent from multiple viewpoints in and around the town.

Step 8 Heat Mapping Assessment In some of Cornwall’s towns an assessment of renewable or low carbon energy opportunities for each of the cells was undertaken. Specifically this involved a brief assessment of the potential for each cell to link into or support a possible decentralised energy or district heating network. This step was not undertaken for St Austell at this stage as experience from assessments in other towns demonstrated that delivery of decentralised heat networks is extremely complex and challenging. Furthermore the assessment has no bearing on whether cells are discounted or taken forward as potential urban extension opportunities.

Step 9 Qualitative Review and Discount Inappropriate Sites Step 9 was a key point reviewing all the steps to date and undertaking an evidence based and qualitative review. The following is a commentary explaining the assumptions and decisions taken during this step towards identifying the final Framework Plan consultation options.

This step involved a meeting with all parties involved in the urban extension assessments from landscape, urban design and spatial planning to discuss, explore and agree on the cells that should remain as potential options and those that should be discounted, prior to consultation with wider stakeholders at Step 10. There was also the option of merging parts of cells that could combine to create more suitable development options, although these opportunities were limited due to physical barriers and topographical constraints.

As both the landscape and urban design assessments produced a scoring framework, the steering group agreed that any cell scoring below average (orange or red) in both assessments should be discounted as a first step. Whilst the two assessments produced a score, one of them needed to be inverted before any conclusions could be reached, as a higher score in landscape terms was given to a cell with a high landscape value, indicating it would suffer a greater impact if developed. A higher score in the urban design assessment was given to cells that were considered most sustainable and therefore better locations for development. The colours were comparable though, with red in both assessments indicating a cell that was less suitable for development.

This led to the following cells being discounted in the first round:

Cell 6 (6a red/red, 6b red/orange):

Isolated and remote – doesn’t relate to any existing neighbourhoods

High landscape value

Steep in some sections with challenging access and separated by physical barriers

Steering group (SG) agreed cell should be discounted

Cell 7 (orange/red):

Highly prominent and visible from multiple points in and around the town

High landscape value

Poor links to the town despite close proximity due to physical barriers

SG agreed cell should be discounted

Cell 10 (orange/orange):

Very distant from town centre

Suffers from severance caused by A391

Some landscape sensitivity

Not big enough to support new neighbourhood on its own, and not well placed to merge with other cells

SG agreed cell should be discounted

Cell 12 (orange/orange):

Same issues as with cell 10

SG agreed cell should be discounted

Cell 15 (orange/orange):

Same issues as with cells 10 & 12, with the additional constraints of previous mine workings throughout the cell

SG agreed cell should be discounted

Cell 18 (orange/red):

Impacted by significant flood zone

Notable existing development and mature woodland cover

SG agreed cell should be discounted

Cell 23 (orange/red):

Highly sensitive landscape and location

Risk of coalescence and loss of settlement identity

Distant from town centre

SG agreed cell should be discounted

Cell 24 (orange/red):

High landscape value and sensitive location

Remote from town centre and rural character

Majority of cell used for leisure activity

SG agreed cell should be discounted

Cell 25 (orange/red):

Detached from existing neighbourhoods, particularly if cell 26 remains undeveloped

High landscape value

Adjacent to AONB and ancient woodland

SG agreed cell should be discounted

Of the remaining cells, the steering group then assessed the cells that scored below average (orange or red) in one assessment, and average (yellow) in the other assessment, on the assumption that without an above average score on urban design grounds the cell was unlikely to be indentified as being suitable for development.

The cells reviewed in the second round and subsequent conclusions were:

Cell 1 (yellow/red):

Parts of the cell scored well however impact on Trewoon’s identity & topography facing away from the town towards countryside were negative considerations

Definite area to be discounted in 1c due to physical constraint

SG agreed that the cell should be reassessed as divided in the Landscape assessment.

Cell 2 (yellow/orange):

Some links with Trewoon, but scale of cell is too large in relation to the village, also distant from St Austell

Flood zone through the middle of the cell

High landscape value

SG agreed cell should be discounted

Cell 3 (red/yellow):

Cell is not adjacent to any neighbourhoods, is distant from St Austell, and does not relate well to any settlement

Some flood zone in centre of the cell

Recent addition of solar farm covers large area

SG agreed cell should be discounted

Cell 4 (yellow/red):

Isolated location with limited relationship with any existing neighbourhoods and presence of physical barriers

No merging options

Visually prominent with distant views

UD score skewed slightly by size of cell and ability to accommodate large volumes of housing

High landscape value

SG agreed cell should be discounted

Cell 8 (8a yellow/orange, 8b yellow/orange):

Linear cell extends away from the town reducing in connectivity northwards

Very steep topography in south of cell, faces open countryside and does not relate to the town

UD score skewed by large size of cell

Electricity sub-station in north/centre of cell

No merging options due to topography and other physical constraints

SG agreed cell should be discounted

Cell 11 (yellow/red):

Highly sensitive landscape and visual situation

Site severance due to A391 corridor

UD score reflects large site size capable of accommodating a large number of houses, however physical separation from St Austell

SG agreed cell should be discounted

Cell 13 (yellow/orange):

Existing leisure uses that need to be retained

Challenging topography

Too small to be allocated for development

SG agreed cell should be discounted

Cell 14 (14a yellow/orange, 14b yellow/red, 14c yellow/yellow):

Valuable landscape through the centre of cell

Leaves limited land availability

Challenging topography

SG agreed cell should be discounted

Cell 17 (yellow/red):

High landscape value

Well connected to both employment and neighbourhood centres

Possibility of linking with adjoining neighbourhood

Steering Group agreed to review this cell against others that are taken forward for consideration

Cell 19 (orange/yellow):

Isolated location that doesn’t relate to St Austell & separated by distance

Flood constraints throughout the cell

Very limited land availability

SG agreed cell should be discounted

Cell 21 (yellow/red):

High landscape value

Impact of development would lead to coalescence & harm identity of Charlestown and Carlyon Bay

Distant from St Austell town centre

SG agreed cell should be discounted

Cell 22 (yellow/red):

Sensitive location and high landscape value

Possible risk of coalescence & impact on Charlestown and World Heritage Site if whole cell developed

Numerous physical constraints within the cell

UD score skewed by size of entire cell and ability to deliver significant housing numbers

SG agreed cell should be discounted

Cell 27 (yellow/red):

High landscape value that helps define the settlement boundary

Difficult to relate to surrounding neighbourhoods due to physical barrier of the A391 corridor

Scale of cell unlikely to include enough developer contribution to improve links with town centre

SG agreed cell should be discounted

Cells 1 and 17 remained from this review for further consideration at this point.

Merging assessment As a final review step before confirming the formal discounting of these cells, each was reviewed for their capacity to be merged with other cells, either in part or wholly, to assess whether they could form a more suitable location for development.

In some other owns in Cornwall this process has resulted in identifying alternative shaped cells for assessment, but in the case of St Austell no viable merged cells were identified.

This is in part due to the challenging topography in many areas on the edge of town – the existing urban area generally occupies all of the more favourable land for development, sitting as it does in the often referenced ‘bowl’. There is little merit in merging cells with neighbouring cells that are limited by similar physical constraints.

The physical character of the ‘bowl’ is what prevented cells 1 – 3 from being merged to make a more viable development site. As each cell became further from the town boundary, with cell 3 being furthest to the west, the relationship to the town became increasingly distant. The combined character of these cells would be more in keeping with the open countryside than the urban fabric of St Austell, and would also dominate the nearby village of Trewoon. As such there was no merit in merging these cells to form a larger cell for further assessment.

Cell 4 is remote from other cells in terms of physical constraints, and was already considered too big to relate to the nearest settlement of Trewoon. The cell boundary to the east is formed by a steep valley and this prevented any merging with cell 6 to the east.

Cell 6 is physically constrained in parts, both topographically and by the main rail line. It is also visually sensitive in parts, as is cell 7 to the east. Merging all or part of cells 6 and 7 would not overcome the physical constraints of both cells, nor make them less visually prominent, and as such no case could be made for merging these cells.

Cell 8 is already a very large cell, although the amount of developable land is limited by notable topographical constraints to the south of the cell. The 31

north of the cell is less well connected to the town centre, and falls on the wrong side of the ridge line formed by the western edge of cell 9 to create any visual or physical links with the town. It is physically constrained to the north, and as such doesn’t offer a viable extension to the eco-communities site of West Carclaze, and nor can it be considered viable to merge with cell 9, which has much better links to the town.

The location of the town centre in the west of the town made it difficult to identify any sites of significant scale to the far east of the town as they all scored poorly in terms of accessibility to the town centre. If any development was going to occur in the east of the town it would most likely be only of a scale that could support existing neighbourhood centres as in-fill development, and as such there would be no merit in merging cells simply to increase the size and scale.

St Austell also has 2 very distinct settlement boundaries; on the eastern edge created by the A391, and to the south created by the A390. Local opinion and that of the steering group is that they didn’t want to see any large-scale expansion in either location; for fear that it would create a blueprint for further development in the future. To the east that meant that cells 10, 11, 12 and 15 were deemed inappropriate (amongst other factors) as they were on the east of the A391 which is a physical barrier hindering integration. To the south of the town, the impact of development on cells 26 and 27 was considered to be too severe, and as such there was no mandate to merge cells in either location.

Differences in topography and physical constraints also prevent the merging of cell 10 with the eco-community site at Baal.

Similarly, cells 18 and 19 shared environmental constraints in terms of flood zone, and with the little developable land being disjointed there was no opportunity for merging to create a more viable site for development.

Cells 21 – 25 inclusive all shared concerns over landscape sensitivity and represented a risk of coalescence between the settlements of Charlestown, Duporth and St Austell, and as such there was no opportunity to merge cells that would overcome these concerns.

This resulted in the following remaining cell conclusions:

Cell 1

Clearly identified area of high landscape value at cell 1c. The removal of this area limits the amount of developable space.

Further assessment needed to be done on the subdivisions 1a and 1b, along with a combined assessment of cells 1a/1b. In particular, the relationship 32

between the cells in question and St Austell and Trewoon, and the potential impact of coalescence, needed to be tested.

After looking at the potential impact of development in cells 1a and 1b it was felt that neither cell would offer sufficient benefits that could justify development. Cell 1b did not relate well enough to St Austell to merit identifying it as an expansion option, with little opportunity to create links into the existing neighbourhoods, and a visual impact that would be felt on the open countryside to the west of the town. The impact on development on the grade 2* listed St Mewan church would be very difficult to mitigate.

Cell 1a is located closer to Trewoon, and whilst it could be argued that it related to Trewoon better than cell 1b related to St Austell, the scale and location of the cell would not represent the most sustainable or appropriate extension to the village, and would impact on local character and identity.

The combination of cells 1a and 1b would represent a more viable cell in terms of housing quantity, but would not make a positive contribution to either settlement, not least because it is located over a natural ridge line outside the ‘bowl’ topographical feature that currently marks the extent of the town of St Austell. Any development would appear to spill over into an area that relates more to the open countryside and a smaller settlement rather than relating to the town.

Before making the decision to discount this cell the prospect of merging it with the eastern part of cell 2 was examined, and whilst it would represent a big enough cell to support its own facilities, increasing the size of the cell would not provide a positive response to the issues already raised. For these reasons the decision was made to discount this cell with SG agreement.

Cell 5

Cell 5 occupies a site in between the settlements of St Austell and Trewoon, and is the last remaining green buffer between the settlements on the north of the A3058. Much of the area faces north away from the town and therefore does not relate well to the existing settlement. There is a small area of land which is flatter, before the gradient slopes steeply to the north into the Gover Valley. However, the impact of coalescence and potential loss of separation between the built form of St Austell and Trewoon would have a negative impact on settlement identity.

The original shape and size of the cell had been amended, due to the physical constraints of mine workings and woodland to the west of the cell, and the

topographical challenges to the north. The loss of identify and impact on the character of Trewoon was felt to be an important factor however along with the consideration that there were other cell area opportunities around St Austell that would have less impact on the identify of adjacent smaller settlements. For these reasons the cell was discounted.

SG agreed cell should be discounted

Cell 9

This is a large cell and it was proposed to assess it as three distinct parts. Cell 9a is the southern end of the wider cell, and is closest to the existing town centre, although access would need to be improved from this part of the cell to maximise the close proximity to services and amenities. This part of the cell does have options to create access to existing neighbourhoods and employment sites via existing and potential new links onto Tregonnisey Rd. Management of surface water run-off in this area, linked to historical instances of flooding, would need to be incorporated as part of any development proposal.

Cell 9b is a ribbon of land that adjoins the Carclaze residential area of St Austell, to the settlement of Scredda in the north. Although this cell is not as closely located to the existing town centre it may represent an opportunity to create new links to existing settlements and employment centres. This part of the cell is more visually prominent than cell 9a, and this landscape sensitivity may require some mitigation in terms of masterplanning any site layout.

Cell 9c is the highest part of the cell, although due to the topographical nature of the cell it is not necessarily the most visually prominent. This part of the cell is the least well connected to the town, both physically and visually. Although Mount Stamper road does offer a direct route into the town centre it may not accommodate the amount of traffic generated by a large development without improvements.

Due to the Local Plan housing requirement for St Austell to the year 2030 it was not felt necessary or appropriate to identify a large area that accommodate up to 1000 dwellings as an urban extension. For this reason it was concluded that only cell 9a provided a logical area to be taken forward for further consideration due to its location in closer proximity to the existing built form and existing services and facilities within the town. Approximate capacity for cell is 9a was assessed as around 300 dwellings.

Cell 14

Part of this cell represents an in-fill option similar to that being developed elsewhere between Treverbyn Rd and the A391, just south of Scredda. Whilst cell 13 has clearly defined leisure uses, this small part of cell 14 does not represent the same loss of amenity as the fields in question are currently used for agriculture. Some concerns may be raised over the use of land perceived as providing a green buffer between the town and the A391, but landscaping and topography could ensure that the development is adequately protected from the road. The steering group expressed a willingness to consult further on this area. Cell 14 could deliver between 40 and 55 dwellings. However since this assessment was undertaken a planning application was submitted and approved on this area meaning that it was no longer appropriate or necessary to consult further on this cell area within the Framework Plan process.

Cell 16

As with part of cell 14, there is a ‘finger’ of developable land in the northern section of cell 16. It represents one of the few previously developed options assessed, and as such there is minimal impact from a landscape point of view. Access to the Holmbush neighbourhood centre should avoid the A390, and in doing so could create better links with local services that can be accessed by foot or bicycle. Cell 16 could deliver between 60 and 90 dwellings.

Cell 17

Cell 17 scored highly in the landscape assessment, indicating that if a proposal should come forward that it would need to respond to the site and landscape in a sensitive and appropriate manner, keeping impact to a minimum.

To be balanced alongside the landscape assessment the cell also scored relatively well from an urban design point of view, in that it is well connected to the neighbourhood centre at Holmbush, and with good connections to existing employment sites at Holmbush, Par Moor Road and the new Carclaze business park. It also has the opportunity to create new links with the existing neighbourhood to the west and make a positive contribution to the urban environment in this location.

Any proposal would need to manage the increased traffic flow onto the A390 very carefully to show how the impact will be most effectively managed.

On balance the steering group felt that public opinion with regard to this site should be explored. The area could deliver between 150 and 200 dwellings.

Cell 26b

The majority of cell 26 is considered too sensitive in landscape terms to be suitable for development, both in terms of the landscape character and the role that this area plays in defining the southern edge of St Austell.

In assessing the landscape character of cell 26 however, it was felt that the area to the east of the cell, immediately adjacent to the existing superstore off the A390 and small residential area along Porthpean Rd, was a different proposition from the rest of the cell, given the topography and higher levels of ambient noise and the encroachment of existing development.

For that reason the steering group felt that this sub-division of cell 26, known as 26a, could form a viable consultation option, provided that a sufficient buffer was retained in the south of cell 26a in order to avoid coalescence with Duporth.

Cell 26b could deliver between 145 and 190 dwellings. However since this assessment was undertaken a planning application was submitted and approved on the north area of this cell meaning that it was no longer appropriate or necessary to consult further on this cell area within the Framework Plan process. The area at the south of the cell was not considered appropriate due to the need to retain separation between St Austell and Duporth.

Cell 28a

Was the biggest cell to be assessed as an urban extension option, and the size of the cell was the first thing that needed to be addressed. The original cell included a large area that fell outside the topographical bowl that included the existing town centre, and it was felt that the area outside the bowl over a natural ridge line related more to the surrounding countryside than to the town of St Austell. To that end, in order to adequately assess the viability of this location the cell was divided for further assessment, into distinct character areas; 28a, 28b, 28c and 28d.

As with cell 17, cell 28a was identified as having a high landscape value, but also scored well on account of it’s proximity to services and amenities. In fact cell 28a was the closest to the existing town centre, and the cell that benefitted from having the best existing connection to the town centre, despite the high volume of traffic that flows in an east-west direction along the A390. If additional access for walking and cycling could be created between cell 28a and the existing town centre it would enhance the accessibility of the town centre and reduce the need to use motorised transport for this short journey.

Cell 28a is the sub-division that relates best to the town centre, as it occupies the southern part of the town centre bowl, and can be clearly seen 36

from the town centre. This close proximity of cell 28a to the town centre led to it being given a high landscape assessment score; because it was overlooked by a potentially high number of people. However, this is also the reason why it is well suited to development, as it offers one of the best opportunities to integrate new development with the existing urban fabric of the town.

Cells 28b and 28c are not visible from the town centre, and are of a lower grade agricultural value, and as such they do not score as well in landscape terms. Neither do they relate well to the town, physically or visually. 28c in particular is over a ridge line and faces open countryside – development in this area would spill into an area relating to open countryside rather than relating to the built form of the town. As such these areas are not being proposed as appropriate locations for extending the town.

Cell 28d is constrained by flood plain in many places, and such does not offer a viable development option. The northern part of cell 28d could be incorporated into a development site with cell 28a in order to improve access into the site, but this could be amended once cell 28a has been approved as an appropriate option for urban extension.

Cell 28a may also be suitable for employment and commercial uses. The cell could deliver between 460 and 620 dwellings, although this will be reduced if delivered as part of a mixed-use scheme.

Conclusion and Recommendations – Urban Extension Options The urban expansion assessment therefore identified four cell areas to be consulted on in the St Austell Framework Options Document as endorsed by the Local Member Steering Group. These were: cell 16, cell 17, cell 9a, and cell 28a, and they are shown below on the Options map in Figure 10:

Figure 10: The Map Resulting from Step 9 – The Agreed Consultation Growth Options

Step 10 Stakeholder Discussions Discussions with key statutory stakeholders in order to discuss the options identified through Step 9 (Figure 11). The key statutory stakeholders consulted at this stage included: the Environment Agency, the Highways Agency, Natural England, Cornwall Councils Strategic Transport Officers and Cornwall Councils Heritage and Archaeological Officers.

Figure 10 was presented with the reasoning behind each of the cells, highlighting remaining issues and questions that each of these posed. One of the key reasons for this was to provide the opportunity for stakeholders to highlight any issues that had not been identified already. Issues could mean that either a cell was not a realistic option or could highlight further strengths and/or weaknesses of a particular location. No issues were identified at this stage that meant that the remaining site options should not be consulted on further through the Framework Plan.

Step 11 Informal Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Review A Sustainability Appraisal (SA) screening exercise was undertaken to determine which cells would require a more detailed assessment. A screening exercise focussed on removing the cells that had already been identified as having some form of constraint in order to focus on the cells that were most likely to come forward as consultation options. The screening exercise can be found below in Table A. Following the screening of the 28 cells under consideration, 12 went forward to be subject to a more detailed sustainability appraisal.

An SA assesses the environmental, social and economic impacts of proposed plans and policies and is required by legislation. It provides a quality check and aims to ensure that the options within the Town Framework are moving towards achieving sustainable development.

The methodology and full results of this process comprise a separate document, and can be found in Appendix E.

Tables A and 1 presents the scoping exercise and the summary SA results of the consultation cell options (along with a small number of others that did not drop out of the screening process).

It should be noted that the Sustainability Appraisal is not used as the main decision making tool within the broader urban extension assessment, rather it is used to identify where sustainability issues exist and in order to inform potential areas/issues for mitigation as the Framework Plan moves forward to a final draft Plan.

Table A: SA Screening results of the Original Cells

Initial SA screening criteria – Town Frameworks, St Austell Initial Cells

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Was the site discounted at the desk study stage of the urban extension N P P N P N N N N N N N N N assessment i.e. step 3 due to being in a nationally important designation such as SSSI, floodplain 3b, ancient woodland etc

Is the site within or a large part covered by a designated area of formal N N N N N N N N N N N N N N open space

Is the site constrained by physical features identified in steps 6 N N N Y N Y Y Y N N N N N N (landscape assessment) and 7 (urban design assessment) of the urban extension study e.g. topography, steep valley, watercourse, other physical barrier making it impractical to develop

Is the site isolated from the urban area by a physical barrier(s) or lack P Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N of access routes which would inhibit integration and movement as identified and clearly documented through the step 7 urban design assessment

 x x x  x x x  x x x  

If ‘Yes/Y’ to any of the 4 screening criteria then the site/cell is excluded from consideration as justified by the urban extension assessment and is not considered further by the SA process

If ‘No/N’ to all 4 screening criteria then the site/cell should be considered by the SA process.

Note: P = part of the cell was discounted or covered

= reasonable option for consideration x = discounted site area

Initial SA screening criteria – Town Frameworks, St Austell Initial Cells

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Was the site discounted at the desk study stage of the urban extension N P N P P N N N N N P P P P assessment i.e. step 3 due to being in a nationally important designation such as SSSI, floodplain 3b, ancient woodland etc

Is the site within or a large part covered by a designated area of formal N N N N N N N N N N N N N N open space

Is the site constrained by physical features identified in steps 6 Y N N Y Y Y P P Y N N P P N (landscape assessment) and 7 (urban design assessment) of the urban extension study e.g. topography, steep valley, watercourse, other physical barrier making it impractical to develop

Is the site isolated from the urban area by a physical barrier(s) or lack Y N N P P N N N Y Y Y N N N of access routes which would inhibit integration and movement as identified and clearly documented through the step 7 urban design assessment

x   x x x   x x x   

If ‘Yes/Y’ to any of the 4 screening criteria then the site/cell is excluded from consideration as justified by the urban extension assessment and 41

is not considered further by the SA process

If ‘No/N’ to all 4 screening criteria then the site/cell should be considered by the SA process.

Note: P = part of the cell was discounted or covered

= reasonable option for consideration x = discounted site area

Table 1: SA Summary Results of the Remaining Cells after Screening

Step 12: Framework Plan Options & Core Strategy Consultation Step 12 represented a key point in the process, where the options were agreed by Officers and the St Austell Local Member Steering Group. The options identified through the urban extension assessment, as shown in Fig’s 8 & 9, were included in the St Austell Options Framework Plan with public consultation commencing January 2012.

Figure 11 shows the site options (along with urban sites) that were included in the 2012 options consultation:

Figure 11: The Agreed Sites for Inclusion in the Framework Plan Options Consultation

St Austell Framework Plan Options Consultation Feedback, February – March 2012 There were mixed responses to the 2012 options consultation. There was support for development to the south west of the town in the Trewhiddle area along with more mixed views on the other directions of growth options to the town.

Step 13: Finalising Strategic Sites 2015/17 (Site Comparison & Amendments) This step further reviewed the work carried out up to this stage in order to determine which site(s) would be included within Cornwall’s Site Allocations DPD, with regards to housing/mixed use sites. In determining these sites, the following considerations were taken into account:

a) the requirements set out by Cornwall’s LP:SP; b) the forecast urban capacity of St Austell for the plan period (as set out in Section 1 of this report); c) a site review; d) a review of the SA for the individual sites; and, e) a Site Prioritisation Assessment – considering the results of the SA for each site, together with a comparison on sites with regards to how each performs in relation to availability, viability and benefit to a wider town strategy.

The result of this step is a final recommendation of sites for inclusion within Cornwall’s Site Allocations DPD.

Step 13a and b: (a) Requirements of Cornwall’s LP:SP and (b) the Urban Capacity of St Austell.

Cornwall’s LP:SP sets out that St Austell should plan to accommodate 2,900 dwellings up to 2030. Taking into account housing completions to date; current permissions; and, estimated urban capacity (as set out within Section 1 of this report) there is potential to accommodate 2,951 dwellings within the plan period.

Step 13c: Site Review

Due to the time taken for the LP:SP to advance through to adoption, and in order to incorporate further information that become available since Step 12 was carried out, site areas were reviewed as part of this ongoing step. At the end of Step 12, four option sites to deliver housing (SAUE1, SAUE2, SAUE3 and SAUE4) were included (see Figure 14).

SAUE1 obtained outline planning permission in 2015 (subject to S106) on a large part leaving two adjacent parcels that would also be required to ensure that the wider urban extension site area is delivered as a comprehensive

scheme with appropriate access and infrastructure. For site prioritisation the wider Trewhiddle urban extension site area was included and considered.

SAUE4 was granted permission at appeal in 2015 and will therefore contribute to the St Austell housing trajectory and is not assessed any further within the prioritisation process.

Step 13d: Sustainability Appraisal (SA)

A review of the SA for the remaining option sites of Trewhiddle, Northern expansion and Trenowah Road was carried out. (This Site Prioritisation Stage SA is presented in Appendix F).

Step 13e: Site Prioritisation Assessment

This step involved an assessment of how the three remaining sites (Trewhiddle; the Northern expansion, and Trenowah Road) performed against the SA criteria, at Step 13d, and also an assessment of how these perform in relation to availability, viability and benefit to the wider town strategy.

The SA is a useful means to assist this step as, by its nature, it is assessing how sustainable the site options are and in doing so it picks up on all aspects of work carried out within this process. The full SA for this step can be found in Appendix F whilst, for the purposes of this assessment, the summary scores are used (see Table 8).

The purpose of this step was to compare these sites in order to determine how development of these should be prioritised to feature in the Site Allocations DPD. This prioritisation step was necessary, as the allocation of all sites would have resulted in land being allocated for far in excess of the requirement sought.

Table 8 presents the Prioritisation Assessment. Within the Prioritisation Assessment, the summary scores are indicated using a traffic light system as set out below.

Traffic Light Scoring in the Prioritisation Assessment.

For the SA criteria:

-- Likely to significantly undermines the SA Objective

- Likely to undermine the SA Objective

--/+ More likely than not to undermine the SA Objective

+/- Likely to neither undermine or contribute to meeting the SA Objective

++/- More likely than not to contribute towards meeting the SA Objective

+ Likely to contribute towards meeting the SA Objective

++ Likely to significantly contribute towards meeting the SA Objective

? Impacts unknown

0 Objective/criteria not relevant

For other Red - Yellow -/+ Green + criteria:

Land Ownership Majority of land All landowners All land owners & Developer owners indicating interested with interested with Interest land is available, developer developers but with no interest or actively pursuing developer interest activity on part a scheme on of the area at whole area e.g. present PPA, application etc

Site Viability Viability unlikely Viability Viability likely Assessment unknown

Benefit to wider Development of Development of Development of town strategy site unlikely to site unlikely to site likely to positively either positively positively contribute to the or negatively contribute to the wider town impact the wider town strategy wider town strategy strategy

Table 9 sets out the order that the sites have been prioritised in the assessment. It sets out that the wider Trewhiddle urban extension should be allocated within the Site Allocations DPD. The majority of the Trewhiddle site has planning permission – therefore two smaller parcels are proposed as allocations (STA-M1 Pentewan and STA-M2 Edgcumbe) to ensure the wider urban extension area is delivered as a comprehensive development.

No amendments were necessary to the allocations for St Austell following the Preferred Options consultation in October 2016.

Table 8: Site Prioritisation Assessment ST AUSTELL

TREWHIDDLE NORTHERN/MOUNT TRENOWAH ROAD STAMPER ROAD

Overall Comment The area relates well to the The area is close to an existing A relatively small area (as a town centre area and is neighbourhood area with a potential allocation) contained contained within the landscape school, college, library, town by the A391 and existing ‘bowl’ of St Austell. It would centre and rail station in development. There is some provide scope for employment relatively close proximity, existing development on part and residential and also a key however there are issues including a previously used element of a link road around the constrained nature sports pitch, which would providing access from Truro of routes to the town centre and require replacement or Road through the Trewhiddle existing congestion which are a improvement before any site on to Pentewan Road, and consideration. There has been a redevelopment was is therefore a key area in high level of public opposition to acceptable. Any proposal may delivering the wider urban previous proposals on this site, need to mitigate apparent extension. Flood zone 3b is a which have cited incidents of water runoff issues to the consideration adjoining water run-off from fields into sports facility to the south. Pentewan Road. existing development sited below in heavy rain, including onto road and surface drains. Access and movement would require a new access created as links at the south of the site are constrained for vehicle movements.

1. Climate + + +

2. Waste +/- +/- +/-

3. Minerals and ++/- + --/+ Geodiversity 4. Soil - - -

5. Air - - -

6. Water + +/- +/-

7. Biodiversity + + +/-

8. Landscape --/+ + +

9. Maritime o o o

10.Historic --/+ - ++/- Environment 11.Design + + +

12.Social Inclusion + +/- +/-

13.Crime & ? ? ? Antisocial Behaviour 14.Housing + + +

15.Health, Sport + + + and Recreation 16.Economic + Development, + + Regeneration and Tourism 17.Education and ++/- + ++/- Skills 18.Transport and + +/- +/- Accessibility 19.Energy + ++ ++

Land Ownership & Current developer interest on There is ongoing developer Landowners are interested Developer Interest whole area. interest however two previous although there is no known applications and an appeal have developer interest at present been refused; there is a local action group and a high level of public opposition

Site Viability Assessment

Benefit to Wider The area is in close proximity The area is in relatively close The area is relatively small (as Town Strategy to the Town centre and is proximity to a number of a potential allocation) and it is contained within the landscape facilities including a school, unclear what level of ‘bowl’ of St Austell lending college, library and the town community facilities it would itself as a natural expansion centre; a high level of local enable. The area is already area. The area would also opposition would pose difficulty developed in part, containing a enable an expansion for for public acceptance of any previously used sports pitch Pondhu Primary school which proposal. and existing greenhouses. It is may be required in the adjacent to the cricket ground, medium term for the town. The and is contained by the A391. area also has potential to The site could also provide for enable a mix of commercial employment use. uses in a location where some already exist. It would provide a link road assisting to mitigate issues at Edgcumbe Triangle and Pentewan Rd double mini roundabout.

Table 9: St Austell Site Prioritisation Sheet – Allocations

DPD Site Allocations – St Site Reason / Justification Austell Preferred Site Preferred Site for St Austell Trewhiddle/ SAUE1 Would provide a mixed use residential and employment Allocation extension to the town, contained with the natural landscape ‘bowl’ of the town. Would provide a link road from the A390 to Pentewan Road, improving existing junctions and enabling an improved Edgcumbe Triangle scheme; and would also enable space for Pondhu school expansion. In order to maximise the benefit to the wider town strategy, two parcels (at Pentewan Road and Edgcumbe) still require allocating, as they were originally identified as part of the wider urban extension, only part of which has permission.

Unallocated Sites Site Reason / Justification

Site Trenowah Rd Smaller site some distance to the town centre. Disused sports pitch is a consideration. Potentially more suited to being considered on its own merits than as an allocation, and in this way should be included within the urban capacity assumptions for the town e.g. SHLAA process Site Northern/Mount Located in close proximity to existing services and facilities, Stamper Rd option although there are constrained access routes to the town centre at the south for vehicles. Potentially less infrastructure benefits (than SAUE1), and incidence of flooding from run-off which has contributed to a history of local public opposition. Not supported by the Town Council. For the above reasons it is not preferred to meet the current Local Plan target for the town in comparison to other urban extension options.

Conclusion: Recommended Site The conclusion of this housing assessment is that Trewhiddle to the south west of the town should be included within the Site Allocations DPD as one larger strategic housing allocation for St Austell. Figure 12 below highlights the urban extension area. A large part already has outline permission; two other parcels as part the wider urban extension are shown in the Allocations Document as STA-M1 Pentewan Rd and STA- M2 Edgcumbe. The wider site has potential to accommodate in the region of 550 to 600 dwellings as part of a mixed use development. Section 3 of this report includes the site in the wider housing summary trajectory for the town.

Figure 12: St Austell Allocations Map

Section 3: St Austell’s Housing Summary Sections 1 and 2 of this report have documented the assessments with regard to the forecast Urban Capacity of St Austell and Urban Extensions to the town.

The conclusions of both of these assessments have resulted in a housing summary trajectory for St Austell (see Table 10) which shows how the housing target of 2,900 dwellings for the town, between 2010 and 2030, will be accommodated. The housing trajectory sets out:

 the number of dwellings already constructed (1st April 2010 – 31st March 2016);  the number of committed dwellings (1st April 2016);  the potential capacity of sites within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA);  an estimated windfall allowance, for the last 10 years of the plan period;  the potential capacity of the urban extension to the south west of the town.

Discount rates are applied to sites (with a capacity under 10 dwellings) with permission and any significant permission’s since April 2016, and an assumption around a windfall allowance in the last 10 years of the plan has also been incorporated (as explained within Section 1 of this report).

Table 10: St Austell’s Housing Summary Trajectory Gross Total Discount Net Rate Total

A Local Plan Target 2,600 - 2,900

B Net Completions (From Apr-10 to Apr-16) - - 1069

C Net Extant pps - Under 10 182 10% 165

D Net Extant pps - 10 or more 1103 1103

E Significant Planning Permissions granted 373 - 373 since April 2015/ awaiting s106

F Total of Completions and Permissions (b + c + d + e) 2710

G NET REQUIREMENT (a - f) 190

H Windfall allowance for final 10 years of plan 171 - 171 period (Excl. windfall in gardens)

I C.L.I sites (no pp) 0 - 0

J Total of undeveloped SHLAA sites 91 30% 70

K NET REQUIREMENT (a - (f+h+i+j)) -51

L Dwellings required from allocated sites -

M Allocations

Pentewan (STA-M1) 100

Edgcumbe (STA-M2) 25

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

Cornwall Council County Hall Treyew Road Truro TR1 3AY

Telephone: 0300 1234 100

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