St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan
Consultation Statement 2017 – 2030
Produced by the St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan Strategic Group
October 2020
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 1 Contents
Title Page
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…. 3
Aims of the Consultation ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
Background information to the Consultation on the
Neighbourhood Plan...... 6
Initial meetings ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
Publicising the intention to develop a Neighbourhood Plan………………………………………... 6
Neighbourhood Plan Strategic Group …………………………………………………………………………… 6
Community consultation initial drop-in sessions ………………………………………………………….. 7
Main issues and concerns raised during the initial consultation ………………………………..…. 11
Residents’ and Business Questionnaires and results ……………………………………………………. 11
Further public engagement events ………………………………………………………………………………. 11
Strategic Environment Assessment Screening opinion ………………………………………………… 11
Pre-submission consultation (Regulation 14) Community engagement ……………………… 11
Main issues and concerns raised during the consultation …………………………………………. 11
Pre-submission consultation - Community Engagement ……………………………………………. 11
Pre-submission consultation – local businesses and landowners and other interested parties…………………………………………………………………………………………. 11
Pre-submission consultation (Regulation 14) statutory engagement ……………………….... 11
Final draft Neighbourhood Plan …………………………………………………………………………………… 11
Appendices
Appendix 1 - Pre-submission Consultation – Summary of Statutory Consultee comments plus responses……………………………………………………………………………………………… 12 Appendix 2 - Pre-submission Consultation – Summary of comments from parishioners, businesses, local landowners and other interested parties plus responses……………….. 15 Appendix 3 - Pre-Submission Consultation – Individual comments received plus responses in full…………………………………………………………………………………………………..………. 22
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 2 Introduction
The Consultation Statement has been prepared to fulfil the legal obligations of the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations 2012 under Section 5(2). A Consultation Statement:
(a) Contains details of the persons and bodies who were consulted about the proposed neighbourhood plan; (b) Explains how they were consulted; (c) Summarises the main issues and concerns raised by the persons consulted; and (d) Describes how these issues and concerns have been considered and, where relevant, addressed in the proposed neighbourhood plan.
This Consultation Statement summarises all the statutory and non-statutory consultation that has been undertaken with the community and other relevant statutory bodies and stakeholders in developing the St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan. It describes how concerns have been addressed and what changes have been made to the final Plan as a result of the pre-submission consultation.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 3 Aims of the Consultation
At the beginning of the Neighbourhood Plan process, we stated that our objectives were as follows:
1 Housing Objectives 1. To support sustainable development of a scale and nature appropriate to the character and heritage of the Parish 2. To support the housing needs of permanent residents in the Parish.
2 Design Objective To promote bespoke, site-specific, high quality, creative designs which reflect the architectural diversity of St Austell Bay Parish.
3 Natural Environment and Landscape Character Objective 1. To conserve and enhance St Austell Bay Parish's unique natural beauty and landscape character, protecting its coastline, habitats, woodlands, open spaces and rights of way from inappropriate development. 2. To support and encourage new environmental growth where appropriate by the creation of space and conditions for more abundant, productive and healthier habitats, species and natural systems. 4 Local Green Spaces and Green Buffers Objectives 1. To ensure that the existing local green spaces in the Parish, much valued by residents, are protected from inappropriate development and maintained for their current or a related community use 2. To ensure the green buffers continue to protect the World Heritage Site and Conservation Area of Charlestown within its current setting without encroachment by development while also benefitting biodiversity.
5 Historic Environment Objective To ensure that all members of the community are able to be involved in safeguarding and enhancing the special character and local distinctiveness of the Parish’s historic environment and heritage for the benefit of present and future generations.
6 Renewables and Climate Change Objectives 1. To promote appropriate renewable and low carbon energy production, to increase energy efficiency and to minimise resource consumption through a range of technologies which are sensitive to the landscape character of St Austell Bay Parish 2. To act responsibly and proactively to the challenges posed by climate change, including minimising flood risk and reducing problems arising from coastal erosion.
7 Business and Employment Objectives 1. To ensure that commercial premises are retained and new businesses encouraged in order to protect, maintain and create employment 2. To support economic growth and employment whilst safeguarding the unique historical character and natural rural environment of the Parish 3. To encourage sustainable tourism and agriculture.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 4
8 Transport and Traffic Objectives 1. To ensure that the parking facilities in Charlestown available to residents, businesses and visitors are not reduced by any new developments 2. To minimise traffic density and pollution in Charlestown by supporting appropriate new parking facilities outside the village centre providing they comply with all policies in the Plan.
9 Community Facilities Objective To support existing and encourage new and diverse community facilities accessible to residents and visitors of all ages and abilities.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 5 Background Information to the Consultation on the Neighbourhood Plan
The Parish Council had, since its inception in 2009, undertaken two Parish Plans. Each of these was preceded by a series of consultation sessions and a questionnaire posted to all households with a freepost envelope for return. The percentage return was 26% for the 2010-2013 plan and 34% for the 2014-2018 plan. These results are very high for this type of questionnaire, denoting a good level of community involvement and engagement from the Parish. The Parish Planning process (Plans in the Evidence Base) gave us a clear idea of the priorities and concerns of residents.
Initial meetings
Parish councillors had attended some workshops and information sessions on the Neighbourhood Plan process, and then in the summer of 2017 organised an information session with the Mayor of a local council which was well underway with the process. After this, councillors were unanimous in their wish to develop a Neighbourhood Plan for St Austell Bay.
The matter was discussed with residents during parish council meetings and questions and comments were taken. At the meeting held on 23 October 2017, after hearing support from residents attending, and input from Helen Nicholson of Cornwall Council, St Austell Bay Parish Council resolved to develop a Neighbourhood Plan. Its designation was confirmed by Cornwall Council on 24 October 2017. It is the qualifying body responsible for the plan.
Publicising the intention to develop a Neighbourhood Plan
Publicity went out using local newspapers and radio; posters were displayed on the parish’s 7 noticeboards covering all three wards in the parish; leaflets were sent to all households informing them of the intention to develop a Neighbourhood Plan, and asking those interested in being involved to make contact. A website was set up to inform residents of progress: www.staustellbayndp.org.uk
Strategic Group (SG)
The NP Strategic Group was officially set up on 30 November 2017. It consisted of a mix of councillors and residents. Sarah Furley, from the Cornwall Council Neighbourhood Planning Team, attended the first meeting to offer advice and answer questions. Changes in membership have occurred throughout the process, but in accordance with the Terms of Reference shown in the Evidence Base.
Neighbourhood Plan Strategic Group Members
Neighbourhood Plan Strategic Group Members Responsibility CLLR SUE LEACH Acting Chairperson – Duporth Ward Councillor Nov 17 to present CLLR TRUDY REYNOLDS Finance – Trenarren and Porthpean Ward Councillor Nov 17 to present CLLR SUE OSBRINK Secretary – Charlestown Ward Councillor Nov 17 - present
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 6 DR STEVE LOWDEN Porthpean and Trenarren Ward May 18 to present MR STEVE MORRIS Duporth Ward July 18 to present MR CHRIS WRIGHT Duporth Ward May 18 to present MR KEN JONES Charlestown Ward September 18 to present MR GARETH BRAY Charlestown Ward June 18 to present PAST MEMBERS: Cllr David Nicklin Charlestown Ward Nov 17 to Jan 18 Cllr Tamsin Low Charlestown Ward Nov 17 to Jan 18 Richard Hallows Charlestown Ward Nov 17 to April 18 Mike Barlow Charlestown Ward Nov 17 to April 18 Peter Tombs Charlestown Ward Jan 18 to April 18 Cllr Haydn Webb Duporth Ward Nov 17 to March 18 Cllr Malcolm Neill Duporth Ward Nov 17 to July 18 Cllr Linda Lang Nov 17 to October 18
Themed Working Groups
Working Group Members Themed Working Group
Sue Leach, Trudy Reynolds, Sue Osbrink and Editing Group Chris Wright Sue Leach, Trudy Reynolds and Sue Osbrink Management Group Steve Lowden, Trudy Reynolds and Sue Leach Residents’ Questionnaire Group plus critical friends Gareth Bray, Chris Wright plus critical friends Business Questionnaire Group Malcolm Neill, Liz Neill, Trudy Reynolds Historic Environment Group
An additional group of 25 volunteers put their names forward to help with tasks such as consultations, photography, delivering leaflets, advertising etc.
Community consultation – initial drop-in sessions
A series of consultation events was arranged for February and March 2018 to explain further the Neighbourhood Plan process and to ask residents and businesses about what they liked and disliked about the parish, any current concerns which they had, and areas they would like to see the initiative addressing. A full programme of publicity about these sessions included leaflets delivered to every household and business, a poster campaign in local shops and on parish noticeboards, plus publicity through residents’ associations, the NP and Parish Council websites, and local media. Surveys were also carried out with the two local schools (Charlestown Primary and Penrice Academy) and consultation occurred with the local day nursery, Naturally Learning. The results of all these can be found in the Evidence Base on the NP website.
Following the initial drop-in sessions, which were well attended, commonly arising issues were identified from feedback left on post-its, flip charts and comments sheets.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 7 Main Issues and Concerns raised during the initial consultation • Housing It was clear that most parishioners who responded felt that there had been enough new housing in the parish over the last few years, especially with the two large scale developments in Charlestown and Duporth. Residents favoured small developments for local people on infill and brownfield sites. • The impact of second homes on the community There was a strong feeling that there were enough holiday lets and second homes in the parish. Concerns were expressed about the effect of these on the all-year round economy and the viability of local facilities and services, as well as on the community spirit in the parish. • Heritage protection Regarded as very important, although there was also a recognition that Charlestown Harbour needed to generate an income to survive. • Environmental protection and the importance of the rural landscape Seen as a very high priority. Concern expressed about being subsumed into St Austell. Most attendees said they wished to preserve the separate settlements and also wished to safeguard the rural and coastal landscape. • Renewable energy Recognised as an emerging and important issue. • Traffic and road infrastructure A major concern throughout the parish, with most areas having some issues about capacity of infrastructure and availability of parking for residents. • Facilities and leisure Concerns were expressed about the capacity of schools, GP surgeries, dentists and other facilities in the vicinity of the parish to cope with the rising population, as well as the lack of a local shop. Suggestions were made for improving leisure facilities within the parish. • Business and employment Maintaining a vibrant local economy without negative impact on the World Heritage Site or local residents.
The Residents’ and Business Questionnaire Working Groups used these to formulate the areas we wished to include in the parish questionnaires. Matters which fell outside the remit of a Neighbourhood Plan were placed in a Community Actions appendix.
The working groups then developed the questionnaires, which were sent out by post to all households and businesses with reply-paid envelopes for ease of response. The return rate was 46% for the Residents’ Questionnaire and 59% for the Business Questionnaire. Responses were instrumental in finalising the Vision and Objectives and in formulating Policies.
1. Residents’ and Business Questionnaires and results • Residents’ consultation period: June – August 2018 • Business consultation period: February – March 2019 • Late returns were accepted.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 8
The questionnaires, summary of responses and individual comments are all detailed in the Evidence Base which may be viewed at www.staustellbayndp.org.uk
2. Further Public Engagement Events
At the request of the Strategic Group, St Austell Bay Parish Council approved the following consultations. 1) Housing Needs Survey. This was carried out in March and April 2019 and ran for a period of six weeks. Cornwall Council conducted the survey, using an established system. All parishioners were sent information about the survey and invited to participate online or by returning a paper copy. A question about principal residences was also included. The survey and final report are available in the Evidence Base.
2) Local Landscape Character Assessment (LLCA). This was carried out by a landscape architect from Cornwall Council, who conducted the site visits to all areas of the parish in spring 2019. The parish held its Landscape Value Assessment, (LVA) which feeds into the LLCA, in May and June 2019. The community were invited to attend a series of consultation events during May and June 2019, in locations across the parish (see Appendix 3 of the LLCA – Community Landscape Value and Consultation – available on the NP website). Invitations were by leaflets delivered to every household and posters in local businesses, as well as via the wards’ information channels. This consultation gave parishioners the opportunity to review the Landscape Character Assessment work carried out by Kathryn Statham (CMLI, Landscape Architect, Cornwall Council) and also to say what they valued about their local landscape. The Strategic Group displayed all the Local Landscape Character Assessment work carried out to date, showing maps, photographs and printed descriptions of the five Landscape Types so local people could then add their local knowledge to the assessment. This was a very useful exercise as many people took time to read and comment on the Landscape Type descriptions. The draft was also emailed to residents who requested it. Details of the various options for people to respond during the consultation are given in Chapter 6 of the LLCA, which is available on the NP website. The Evidence Base contains the LVA responses, including all comments made during the sessions as well as the maps people used to illustrate their points with coloured stickers.
3) Traffic Survey. The Highways department of Cornwall Council undertook this on behalf of the Parish Council in June and August/September 2019. The aim was to identify traffic flow, direction and origin/destination. The results are available in the Evidence Base.
Progress on the Plan has been reported in a monthly report back to councillors and the public at the Parish Council meetings; regular updates have been posted on the Parish Council noticeboards and NP website, and sent out via the local wards’ information channels, which include emails and newsletters. There have also been notices in the press and publicity on local radio stations.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 9 Strategic Environmental Assessment Screening opinion
The St Austell Bay Parish NP Steering Group requested that Cornwall Council screen the Neighbourhood Plan for Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitat Regulations Assessment on 10 February 2020.
Natural England, the Environment Agency and Historic England were consulted as part of the screening process. The screening opinion concluded that an SEA and HRA is not required for the Neighbourhood Plan (decision letter 12 March 2020.) All documents relating to the SEA and HRA screening are available in the Evidence Base which is available on www.staustellbayndp.org.uk.
Pre-submission consultation (Regulation 14)
The Strategic Group had planned a 6-week period of drop-in consultation events during May and June 2020. However, the onset of the coronavirus pandemic clearly rendered these impossible, so the SG reverted to its back-up plan, prepared in March 2020, and cleared by the Cornwall Council Neighbourhood Planning Team on 17 March 2020 as meeting the Consultation Statement legal requirements on inclusivity.
The Pre-Submission consultation on the draft plan proposal was therefore held between 29 June and 9 August 2020. Hard copies of the Neighbourhood Plan were sent by post to every household and business within the parish ahead of the six-week consultation period. There was also an accompanying letter stating the reasons for the new consultation method as well as explaining how to make comments on the Plan, either online or by using the reply-paid envelope enclosed with the hard copy of the Plan. The Plan was also available on the NP website for those who preferred to view it online rather than in a hard copy. Details of the NP website and the Evidence Base were given in the accompanying letter.
Statutory consultees received an email informing them of the Regulation 14 consultation period with a link to the Plan, or a hard copy if only a postal address was available.
All the documents from the Plan and the Evidence Base were available to download from the Neighbourhood Plan website during the consultation period. Arrangements were also put in place for those who were partially sighted, couldn’t access the Evidence Base online, or who just wished to ask a question by phone rather than to make a comment.
A few individuals and businesses requested a meeting to discuss concerns and comments. These were arranged to conform with the government’s Covid-19 guidelines which were operating at the time of the various meetings. Therefore some were virtual, some were in person but socially distanced outside the parish hall, and some were in person socially distanced inside the parish hall, which had by then been assessed as a Covid-secure workplace. Other questions were answered by phone or email.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 10 Main issues and concerns raised during the consultation.
Pre -submission consultation (Regulation 14) Statutory Consultee Engagement We received 9 formal consultee responses which are summarised and set out in Appendix 1.
Pre-submission consultation – Community Engagement results We received 28 comments from parishioners. The majority of parishioners were very pleased with the pre-submission document and congratulated the Strategic Group and Parish Council. There were no main concerns. Many comments focused on matters outside the remit of the NP. These issues have been added to the Community Actions appendix where appropriate. A summary of comments and responses is shown in Appendix 2. Full comments and responses (redacted) have been set out in Appendix 3.
Pre-submission consultation – local businesses and landowners, and other interested parties We consulted all local landowners and businesses, and received 5 responses. This included one from Emery Planning, based in Cheshire, whom we hadn’t consulted. A summary of comments and responses is shown in Appendix 2. Their full comments and responses are also included in Appendix 3.
Final draft Neighbourhood Plan
The St Austell Bay NP Strategic Group has amended the draft St Austell Bay Parish Neighbourhood Plan from comments received during the Pre-Submission Consultation from statutory organisations, businesses and members of the community.
The St Austell Bay Parish Council approved the draft St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan Submission Version proposal at their Extraordinary Meeting on 29 October 2020.
Further information and appendices
• A copy of the terms of reference for the Strategic Group – please see Evidence Base (www.staustellbayndp.org.uk) • A copy of questionnaires sent out during the consultation process – please see Evidence Base • A copy of posters, news articles, adverts, letters or leaflets distributed during the consultation process – please see Evidence Base • Photos of consultation events – available in Photos and on www.staustellbayndp.org.uk • Community Engagement Strategy – please see Section 2 of the Plan, the Evidence Base and this Consultation Statement • List of statutory organisations consulted – see Appendix 1 • A summary of the consultation responses – see Appendix 2 • List of all Community Engagement comments received in full (redacted) and full responses sent – see Appendix 3 • Copies of Strategic Group agendas and minutes are available on the NP website: www.staustellbayndp.org.uk • Copies of Parish Council meeting minutes where Neighbourhood Plan decisions have been made – see Evidence Base
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 11
Appendix 1
Pre-submission consultation (Regulation 14) Summary of Formal Consultee Responses
The table sets out the statutory organisations that were consulted during the Pre-Submission consultation stage of the Neighbourhood Plan process.
Statutory Organisation Comment Received Action Taken Cornwall Council Neighbourhood Planning Team No feedback at this stage as good None required communication had been maintained throughout the process up to Regulation 14 Natural England No specific comments. General guidelines on Noted things to consider when preparing a NP were attached. Environment Agency No response None required Historic England Congratulations to those involved and support Noted for the Plan with especial regard to the policy provisions in 8.5 which value the locally distinctive historic environment. Network Rail Explanation of function and financing of Network Noted Rail and statement that the main line runs north of the plan area. No specific comments but a request to be kept informed of future planning policy documents. Highways Agency No response None required Marine Management Organisation Supplied an explanation of the remit of the Noted MMO and reminder that various licences are required for works within the Marine area. Three (Mobile) No response None required O2 and Vodafone (Mobile) No response None required
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 12 EE Mobile No response None required OFCOM Acknowledged receipt of document with a Noted standard email. No further comments received. Royal Cornwall Hospital Trust No response None required Homes England No response None required Kernow Clinical Commissioning Group No response None required Healthwatch Cornwall No response None required National Grid Confirmation that there are no records of Noted electricity and gas transmission assets within the NP area, and a reminder to consult National Grid on any NP documents or site-specific proposals. Western Power Distribution No response None required EDF Energy No response None required Wales and West Utilities No response None required Cornwall Archaeological Unit Explanation of revision of CCAMP and timescale, Thanks, and inform of modifications being made and need to ensure it cross-referenced with the in line with suggestions. emerging NP and LLCA. Support overall with a few minor modifications to wording suggested. South West Water No response None required St Austell Town Council No response None required Carlyon Bay Parish Council Support for the Plan particularly with reference Noted to green buffers, LGS and the cemetery, supporting the Shoreline Management Plan and renewable energy/mobile phone provision. These issues also featured in Carlyon’s own residents’ consultation. Pentewan Valley Parish Council No response None required Regulator of Social Housing No response None required Cornwall Voluntary Sector Forum No response None required Cornwall Rural Community Charity No response None required Inclusion Cornwall No response None required St Austell Bay Chamber of Commerce Offer to publicise on social media Offer accepted
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 13 Mid Cornwall Hub No response None required Forestry Commission No response None required Cornwall AONB Unit No response None required Tamar Valley AONB No response None required National Trust, SW Region No response None required Duchy of Cornwall – Land Steward Western No response District Duchy of Cornwall – Deputy Estate Surveyor No response None required Cornwall Wildlife Trust No response None required National Farmers Union South West No response None required Cornwall Maritime Strategy Group No response None required Devon & Cornwall Housing Association No response None required
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 14
Appendix 2
Pre-Submission Consultation – Summary of Individual Community Responses Received
The table below summarises the individual comments received from members of the community during the Pre-Submission consultation and the action taken.
Neighbourhood Plan Policy Comment Received Action Taken
General Comments received giving support for 5 x Comments received Replied to all with individual thanks and noted. the Plan and thanks for the hard work No further action required Comments received regarding matters outside 3 x Comments received Noted with thanks and added to Community the remit of the Plan Actions
Parishioner/Interested Person Summary of Comment(s) Received Reply Given
Parishioner Comments and concerns regarding Coastal We have noted many of your supportive Erosion, Transport and Traffic, Principle comments. Where the points you raise lie Residence Housing Policy, Signage, Sustainable outside of the remit of the Plan (Transport and Drainage, Natural Environment, The Cask Bank. Traffic points especially), they are already noted in the Community Actions appendix which will be “In summary I would like to note that it is a really for the Parish Council (PC) to address over the well considered Plan ….. The inclusion of maps coming months. and beautiful photos give context and show appreciation for the beauty and history of the With regard to other matters you raise - the PC is area. It is evident that a great deal of research, currently working with Cornwall Council to re- consideration and work has gone into this and I route the two sections of coastal footpath, but commend the Parish Council for their hard the timescale is uncertain. The PC is pursuing the work.” listing of the Cask Banks, which is also outside the remit of the Plan. Protection of a section of
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 15 the ore floor in the old coalyard was stipulated in planning permission already granted by Cornwall Council.
Parishioner Suggestion we extend the LGS shown on Map 6h Thank you for your consideration of the Plan and to include the buffer zone already agreed subsequent request for an amendment. Your between the residents’ association and the request has been considered by the Strategic developers. “This would add the small area Group and I am pleased to report that the buffer shaded on the attached map.” zone will be modified accordingly. Parishioner Support for the Plan. Suggestion that waterwheel Many thanks for your suggestion which has now be added to Heritage Assets. been considered and actioned by the Strategic Group. The waterwheel has been added to the list of Locally Important Heritage Assets. Parishioner Questions and comments on two aspects in the Following your conversation with Sue your Plan which the parishioner had misunderstood. suggestions and concerns were discussed at a He thought the arrows on the diagram were the Strategic Group meeting. As Sue explained to you wrong way around and misunderstood the how the arrows work, and the fact that no development boundaries. further concerns had been expressed about them, it was decided not to make any changes. Thank you for your interest in the Plan.
Parishioner Praise for the plan, one typo pointed out and Thanks to parishioner and errors corrected. another error in the tree photo caption Parishioner Concern that Green Buffer boundaries not being Following your email exchanges with Sue (Leach) clear on Maps 7 and 7a and not being the same expressing concern about the green buffer as the one on the Cornwall Site Allocations DPD boundaries not being clear on Maps 7 and 7a and or his Deeds. not being the same as the one of the Cornwall Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD).
This matter was discussed by the Strategic Group and various Cornwall Council departments were also consulted. The DPD Department explained
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 16 that they deliberately did not draw the boundary as a hard line because the purpose of it is to preserve openness and character rather than to allocate a site.
An improved and enlarged map will be included in the final version of the Plan.
Many thanks for your interest in and consideration of the Plan.
Parishioner Congratulations and support for the Plan. Policy NE2 amended. Response to parishioner as Request for more protection in the Plan to cover follows: the area of mature woodland between Duporth Many thanks for your appreciation and and Porthpean Beach Road as an environmental comments which have been considered by the and ecological asset. Question about whose Strategic Group. responsibility it currently is. The area of woodland you highlight is one which is currently owned by Linden Homes, but managed by the Community Interest Company (CIC) which runs the An Arvor/Two Coves estate. Ownership will eventually be transferred to the CIC when the last property is built. The CIC has a firm commitment to preserving and managing the areas of woodland for which it is responsible. The CIC, together with the Parish Council, previously tried to get this area protected by a TPO but were unsuccessful. However, it is included on Map 5 on page 35 of the Plan, and is thus protected under Policy NE2: Trees and Woodland. We are strengthening the wording of this policy as a result of your comment.
Parishioner Letter of support for the Plan and appreciation of Letter written thanking him for praise and
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 17 the hard work involved. Grammatical point suggestions. Grammatical error noted and pointed out, suggestions for a different tree changed. Tree picture remains. CfDS site did not picture and the inclusion of Commission for Dark contain any specific information we thought Skies (CfDS) in the Relevant Supplementary would be helpful. Documents section of Design Policy. Parishioner Praise for the Plan – “a very professional piece of Responded with thanks. Cask Banks entry in App work”. Grammatical error and typo mentioned. 2 amended and added to P57 (Historic Suggestions for improvements on Cask Banks and Environment Policy). Other amendments also other parts of HE section and appendices. adopted. Parishioner Support for the Plan and congratulations to the Replied with thanks. Explained that as quite a team. Query whether the Green Buffers (GB) large section of the area already identified as a extensions would be allowed as they are outside GB is outside the Conservation Area it should not the Conservation Area. be a barrier to the acceptance of the proposed additions. Parishioner Suggestion for a ‘build-out’ on Church Road to Thanked and explained that the issues are control speeding as on street parking is not outside the remit of the Plan but the Parish effective there. Council will be considering parking issues across the whole parish. Included in Community Actions. Parishioner Support for the Plan but questions raised on D3 Thanked and emailed to say that wording of D3 (5) and HE2 (adducing the Vision Statement and (5) and HE2 to be strengthened; a Heritage policy justification on D1). Statement is not required at this stage and litter picking will be on Community Actions. Parishioner Congratulations to the team and support for the Thanked (by letter) and explained that Policies 7 Plan. Suggestion that on D2 there should be a and 21 of CLP already cover the concerns he has time limit on properties being re-developed. mentioned but we are strengthening our Plan by the inclusion of a paragraph in the Design Policy Justification which refers to them specifically. Parishioner Comments on lots of specific policies, several Thanked and responded fully to each comment. outside remit of Plan. The following issues explained: planning, rounding off, second home enforcement, signage, local green spaces, the Regatta Field, Clay Dry development, Suggestion for benches
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 18 added to Community Actions. Parishioner Congratulations to the team and endorsement Most points outside the remit of the NP and for the Plan. Specific questions raised about added to Community Actions appendix where Housing and comments on other policies. applicable. Comments on each Policy where planning is concerned answered in full, eg Principal Residence. Parishioner Request for 2 fields below the Regatta Field to be No action taken as LGS criteria not met. Replied designated as Local Green Spaces. to parishioner with full explanation. Parishioner Request for all open green spaces to be audited Explained the different ways the SG has looked to protect the open green spaces; also the difference between Local Green Space designation (which requires an audit) and other types of green space Parishioner Concerns about lack of Blue Badge parking places Letter explaining fully all of his concerns. Items in Charlestown which should be incorporated in on Community Actions appendix where not future developments. Request for residents’ or already there. permit parking on Charlestown Road and Duporth Road. Suggestion that Plan provides no provision for disabled people and minority groups. Parishioner Support for the Plan and appreciation of the Policy NE2 amended. Response to parishioner as work involved. Concerns about wooded area follows: between Ridgewood Close and Porthpean Beach Many thanks for your appreciation and Road and what protection is accorded to it. comments which have been considered by the Strategic Group. The area of woodland you highlight is one which is currently owned by Linden Homes, but managed by the Community Interest Company (CIC) which runs the An Arvor/Two Coves estate. Ownership will eventually be transferred to the CIC when the last property is built. The CIC has a firm commitment to preserving and managing the areas of woodland for which it is responsible.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 19 The CIC, together with the Parish Council, previously tried to get this area protected by a TPO but were unsuccessful. However, it is included on Map 5 on page 35 of the Plan, and is thus protected under Policy NE2: Trees and Woodland. We are strengthening the wording of this policy as a result of your comment.
Parishioner Very supportive of the Plan and thanks to all Thanked in writing and responded in full to all involved. Comments on a number of policies queries and suggestions. Minor errors corrected. including support for LGS at Porthpean Golf Club Some changes made to LGS audit and CF. and Penrice Playing Fields. Some minor errors pointed out. Parishioner Various points, especially about coastal issues Most points outside the remit of the Plan and PC. and activities in the bay as well as mining He was referred to various other agencies to heritage. which he can voice concerns. Amendments made to Locally Important Heritage Assets, NE Section and an appendix of acronyms and definitions added. Emery Planning Objection to Policy H1: Development Boundaries Written a full reply explaining how due process was followed throughout and why it was not necessary to amend Policy H1. Charlestown History Group 9 Topics raised with relation to Charlestown. Full written reply. The CHG is keen to work with Virtually outside the remit of the Plan. the PC in future and so their points have been added to the Community Actions appendix for future progression through the PC. NB As of August 2020 this group has been disbanded and its future remains uncertain, although the founding member wishes it to continue in some way. Atalaya Trust Request for additional information to be Full response given. Amended wording in LGS included regarding the Battery and associated and appendices. GB map improved. land and historical artefacts (pages 509 and 81).
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 20 Request for amended wording on pages 32-33 and 44. Concerns re Green Buffer map and its correlation with the one on the Cornwall Council site. Porthpean Golf Club Objection to Policy LGS1c: Local Green Space, Full reply with compromise explained – we have Porthpean Golf Club – proposed alternative revised the designation area – removing A. the policy and designation area. Map provided. area of agricultural grazing land, B. the golf ancillary buildings, gardens and building curtilage and C. the clubhouse with extended area. A, B and C shown on the map they provided. Policy Justification wording to be amended to show that we are allowing room for the development of the golf club. Parishioner Questions about several policies. Explanations and answers to questions provided. Some changes made to the wording in the Historic Environment section. Parishioner Complimentary about the Plan. However, Responded by email explaining that the Principal concerned that second home-owners who do not Residence Policy only applies to new builds and let out their properties are being unfairly cannot be imposed retrospectively on existing targeted and viewed the same as holiday lets, properties. Further explained that the starting which run as a business. He outlined the reasons point for the Plan had to be the concerns and for his views. wishes of the majority of parishioners.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 21 Appendix 3 Individual Comments received plus responses in full.
Contents:
Statutory Consultees…………………………………………Page 22
Parishioners, businesses, local landowners and other interested parties plus responses…………………………………………………...... Page 39
STATUTORY CONSULTEES
NATURAL ENGLAND
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 22 HISTORIC ENGLAND
From: "Stuart, David"
FAO Sue Osbrink
Dear Ms Osbrink
Thank you for your Regulation 14 consultation on the Pre-Submission version of the St Austell Bay Parish Neighbourhood Plan.
It is always pleasing to note when communities making such Plans value their locally distinctive historic environment and seek to protect and enhance it through the promotion of relevant policies. We therefore applaud your community on the policy provisions included in section 8.5 on the Historic Environment.
We have no other comments we would wish to offer apart from congratulating your community on its progress to date, and wishing it well in the making of its Plan.
Kind regards
David Stuart
David Stuart | Historic Places Adviser South West
Direct Line: 0117 975 0680 | Mobile: 0797 924 0316
Historic England | 29 Queen Square | Bristol | BS1 4ND https://historicengland /southwest
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 23 NETWORK RAIL
From: "Lewis Grace"
OFFICIAL
Dear Sir/Madam,
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan Pre-Submission Consultation Thank you for consulting Network Rail regarding St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Development Plan. This email forms the basis of our response.
Network Rail is a statutory undertaker responsible for maintaining and operating the country’s railway infrastructure and associated estate. Network Rail owns, operates, maintains and develops the main rail network. This includes the railway tracks, stations, signalling systems, bridges, tunnels, level crossings and viaducts. The preparation of development plan policy is important in relation to the protection and enhancement of Network Rail’s infrastructure.
As Network Rail is a publicly funded organisation with a regulated remit it would not be reasonable to require Network Rail to fund rail improvements necessitated by commercial development. It is therefore appropriate to require developer contributions to fund such improvements.
The main line including St Austell Station runs north of the plan area.
We would appreciate the Council’s providing Network Rail with an opportunity to comment on any future planning policy documents. We look forward to continuing to work with you to maintain consistency between local and rail network planning strategy.
We trust these comments will be considered in your preparation of the forthcoming Plan documents.
Kind Regards,
Grace Lewis
Town Planning Technician
Network Rail Property (Wales and Western)
Temple Point | Redcliffe Way | Bristol | BS1 6NL
07732644491
******************************************************************************************************************* ********************************************* The content of this email (and any attachment) is confidential. It may also be legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 24 This email should not be used by anyone who is not an original intended recipient, nor may it be copied or disclosed to anyone who is not an original intended recipient. If you have received this email by mistake please notify us by emailing the sender, and then delete the email and any copies from your system. Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of Network Rail. Network Rail Infrastructure Limited registered in England and Wales No. 2904587, registered office Network Rail, 2nd Floor, One Eversholt Street, London, NW1 2DN ******************************************************************************************************************* *********************************************
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 25 MARINE MARITIME ORGANISATION
From: "SM-MMO-SH - MFA Marine Consents (MMO)"
Marine Licensing, Wildlife Licences and other permissions
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please be aware that any works within the Marine area require a licence from the Marine Management Organisation. It is down to the applicant themselves to take the necessary steps to ascertain whether their works will fall below the Mean High Water Springs mark.
Response to your consultation
The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is a non-departmental public body responsible for the management of England’s marine area on behalf of the UK government. The MMO’s delivery functions are; marine planning, marine licensing, wildlife licensing and enforcement, marine protected area management, marine emergencies, fisheries management and issuing European grants.
Marine Licensing
Works activities taking place below the mean high water mark may require a marine licence in accordance with the Marine and Coastal Access Act (MCAA) 2009.
Such activities include the construction, alteration or improvement of any works, dredging, or a deposit or removal of a substance or object below the mean high water springs mark or in any tidal river to the extent of the tidal influence.
Applicants should be directed to the MMO’s online portal to register for an application for marine licence https://www /guidance/make-a-marine-licence-application
You can also apply to the MMO for consent under the Electricity Act 1989 (as amended) for offshore generating stations between 1 and 100 megawatts in English waters.
The MMO is also the authority responsible for processing and determining Harbour Orders in England, together with granting consent under various local Acts and orders regarding harbours.
A wildlife licence is also required for activities that that would affect a UK or European protected marine species.
The MMO is a signatory to the coastal concordat and operates in accordance with its principles. Should the activities subject to planning permission meet the above criteria then the applicant should be directed to the follow pages: check if you need a marine licence and asked to quote the following information on any resultant marine licence application:
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 26 • local planning authority name, • planning officer name and contact details, • planning application reference.
Following submission of a marine licence application a case team will be in touch with the relevant planning officer to discuss next steps.
Environmental Impact Assessment
With respect to projects that require a marine licence the EIA Directive (codified in Directive 2011/92/EU) is transposed into UK law by the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 (the MWR), as amended. Before a marine licence can be granted for projects that require EIA, MMO must ensure that applications for a marine licence are compliant with the MWR.
In cases where a project requires both a marine licence and terrestrial planning permission, both the MWR and The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations http://www.legislation /uksi/2017/571/contents/made may be applicable.
If this consultation request relates to a project capable of falling within either set of EIA regulations, then it is advised that the applicant submit a request directly to the MMO to ensure any requirements under the MWR are considered adequately at the following link https://www /guidance/make-a-marine-licence-application
Marine Planning
Under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 ch.4, 58, public authorities must make decisions in accordance with marine policy documents and if it takes a decision that is against these policies it must state its reasons. MMO as such are responsible for implementing the relevant Marine Plans for their area, through existing regulatory and decision-making processes.
Marine plans will inform and guide decision makers on development in marine and coastal areas. Proposals should conform with all relevant policies, taking account of economic, environmental and social considerations.
At its landward extent, a marine plan will apply up to the mean high water springs mark, which includes the tidal extent of any rivers. As marine plan boundaries extend up to the level of the mean high water spring tides mark, there will be an overlap with terrestrial plans which generally extend to the mean low water springs mark.
The East Inshore and Offshore marine plans were adopted on the 2nd April 2014. The South Inshore and Offshore marine plans were adopted on the 17th July 2018. Both plans are a statutory consideration for public authorities with decision making functions. The East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans cover the coast and seas from Flamborough Head to Felixstowe; the South Inshore and South Offshore Marine Plans cover the coast and seas from Folkestone to the River Dart in Devon.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 27 From 14 January 2020 the draft North East, draft North West, draft South East, and draft South West Marine Plans are now a material for consideration for public authorities with decision making functions. This is the final stage of statutory public consultation before the marine plans are submitted.
A map showing how England's waters have been split into 6 marine plan areas is available on our website. For further information on how to apply the marine plans please visit our Explore Marine Plans service.
Planning documents for areas with a coastal influence may wish to make reference to the MMO’s licensing requirements and any relevant marine plans to ensure that necessary regulations are adhered to. All public authorities taking authorisation or enforcement decisions that affect or might affect the UK marine area must do so in accordance with the Marine and Coastal Access Act and the UK Marine Policy Statement unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise. Local authorities may also wish to refer to our online guidance and the Planning Advisory Service soundness self- assessment checklist. If you wish to contact your local marine planning officer you can find their details on our gov.uk page.
Minerals and waste plans and local aggregate assessments
If you are consulting on a mineral/waste plan or local aggregate assessment, the MMO recommend reference to marine aggregates is included and reference to be made to the documents below;
• The Marine Policy Statement (MPS), section 3.5 which highlights the importance of marine aggregates and its supply to England’s (and the UK) construction industry. • The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which sets out policies for national (England) construction minerals supply. • The Managed Aggregate Supply System (MASS) which includes specific references to the role of marine aggregates in the wider portfolio of supply. • The National and regional guidelines for aggregates provision in England 2005-2020 predict likely aggregate demand over this period including marine supply.
The NPPF informed MASS guidance requires local mineral planning authorities to prepare Local Aggregate Assessments, these assessments have to consider the opportunities and constraints of all mineral supplies into their planning regions – including marine. This means that even land-locked counties, may have to consider the role that marine sourced supplies (delivered by rail or river) play – particularly where land based resources are becoming increasingly constrained.
If you require further guidance on the Marine Licencing process, please follow the link https://www /topic/planning-development/marine-licences
Regards
Andy
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 28
Andy Davis| Administration Officer Business Support Team | Her Majesty’s Government – Marine Management Organisation Tel: +44 02080265093
Andrew.Davis marinemanagement | Lancaster House, Hampshire Court, Newcastle Business Park, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 7YH Website | Twitter | Facebook | Linkedin | Blog |Instagram | Flickr | YouTube | Google+ | Pinterest
During the current health emergency, the Marine Management Organisation is continuing to provide vital services and support to our customers and stakeholders. We are in the main working remotely, in line with the latest advice from Government, and continue to be contactable by email, phone and on-line. Please keep in touch with us and let us know how we can help you https://www /mmo
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 29 OFCOM
From: "Spectrum Licensing"
Case Reference: 00937536
Dear Customer,
We have received your request and a member of the Licensing team will be processing your enquiry in due course. Your Case Reference number is provided above and we would ask you to ensure this is quoted on all future communications.
Update March 2020 – possible delays due to COVID-19
Please be advised delays may be experienced if you have submitted a Licence application or payment to the Spectrum Licensing Team through the post. This is due to our Licensing team now working remotely to help reduce the impact of the COVID-19 virus.
We are of course still working hard to maintain our standard service levels for all applications and enquiries submitted via email to Spectrum.Licensing ofcom . In addition, if you are an Amateur, Ships or Business Radio Light Licence customer you can still apply directly online using our Online Community Portal.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 30
During these unprecedented times we recommend licence payments are made promptly via our Online Payment Portal or by sending a Bank Transfer (BACs payment) to the details provided on your invoice. We would request that you refrain from sending your payment via cheque during this time to help us avoid unnecessary licence revocations.
In addition, and to avoid delays we also recommend you update you contact preferences to email, rather than post. You can do this by contacting the Spectrum Licensing team via the above email address or online if you are a registered customer.
We would like to thank you for your cooperation and patience in advance.
Office Opening Hours Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm excluding bank holidays.
Contact Us Online (Ships & Amateur Licences & Business Radio Light Licences) For online applications, contact changes, to pay for a Licence or to view existing licences please visit https://www.ofcom /manage-your- licence/radiocommunication-licences/business-radio/amend/online- licensing-services and follow the instructions provided.
Call Us To speak to an advisor please call 0300 123 1000 or 020 7981 3131
Many thanks
Ofcom Licensing Team
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 31 NATIONAL GRID
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 32
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 33
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 34 CORNWALL ARCHEOLOGICAL UNIT
From: "Graeme Kirkham"
Dear Ms Osbrink,
Sue Leach sent a link to the NP consultation to me and to my colleague Cathy Parkes at Cornwall Archaeological Unit asking for responses to the new draft of the NP.
I was commissioned by Cornwall Archaeological Unit (CAU) to produce an update and revision to the Charlestown Conservation Area Assessment and Management Plan (CAAMP), as requested by St Austell Bay PC. The text and photographs for the CAAMP were completed earlier this year but submission of the draft to the PC was delayed by the lockdown. I understand from Cathy Parkes that she is planning to produce the maps and carry out the necessary formatting to the document in the near future so that the draft can be submitted to St Austell Bay PC.
In carrying out the revision to the CAAMP I was asked to make sure that the new version cross-referenced with the NP and the Local Landscape Character Assessment carried out for the NP, and I have looked at the consultation draft in that light. It looks very good overall and the only points I would make in respect of the heritage and historic environment elements of the document are as follows:
Pages 52 and 55 - the reference to a 'planned' settlement is a little misleading in that it suggests something like an industrial model village, with a final plan which was envisioned from the start. There is in fact little evidence of an early master plan at Charlestown, other than the construction of basic components such as the harbour itself and the infrastructure of ponds, leats and sluices, the main access road, the hotel, initial lime kiln(s) and battery. Beyond these, development appears to have been fairly unplanned, and the present degree of unity of architectural forms seems only to have developed from about the 1820s. I'm sure that's much more detail than you need but rather than 'planned settlement' I suggest a phrase like 'entrepreneur-built settlement'.
Pages 12 and 57 - I suggest add the date (1998) to the references to the Charlestown historical and archaeological assessment.
Page 65 - the reference to the CAAMP document will need to be updated to the new version.
Page 81 - St Paul's church Sunday school, noted as one of the locally designated heritage assets, was in fact purpose-built as a Sunday School and opened early in 1881, and not converted from a reading room built in 1869. (This is an error in the 1994 Larn and Larn book on Charlestown, referring to a different building; the completed construction of the Sunday School in Church Road and the opening ceremony were reported in the Western Morning News on 1 January 1881 (p3) and more fully in the Cornishman on 6 January 1881 (p6) and Royal Cornwall Gazette on 14 January 1881 (p7).) Apologies for pedantry but as this building is listed specifically in the NP as a heritage asset it seems worthwhile to have the historical details correct.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 35 I hope that is helpful. Do, please, get in touch if there are any queries.
Best wishes,
Graeme Kirkham
RESPONSE
From: "s.osbrink "
Subject: St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan
Dear Mr Kirkham
Your comments have now been considered by the Strategic Group. Many thanks for your consideration of the Plan. Modifications are in the process of being made in line with your suggestions.
Kind regards
Sue Osbrink Secretary - Strategic Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 36 CARLYON BAY PARISH COUNCIL
From: "Julie Larter"
Dear Sue and Sue
I am not sure who is collating responses, but here is the response from Carlyon Parish Council:
There is much for Carlyon Parish Council to support in this document.
Building on and consolidating the Green Buffers introduced by Cornwall Council through consultation in 2019 on the boundaries of our two parishes; and extending them across other parts of the St Austell Bay Parish is to be welcomed as preserving areas from development and developing wildlife corridors which may compliment those of Carlyon Parish.
Preserving green spaces like the cemetery containing the Commonwealth Graves Commission site helps to retain sites of historical importance and the potential to ensure people can give their respects in an appropriate setting.
By trying to limit development to that which compliments the Shoreline Management Plan and views from the coast path, it is saying that vistas are important to both residents and visitors and the preservation of them is valued by the community. This also came out in Carlyon’s own consultation with its residents.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan also explains the importance of encouraging renewable energy development and identifies that the parish council will support any development that saw mobile phone reception capabilities improve in the parish.
Kind regards.
Mrs Julie Larter FSLCC Clerk Carlyon Parish Council 01872 501101
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 37 ST AUSTELL BAY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
From: "Tristan Netherton"
Hi Susan,
Thank you for the information would you like me to promote this via the membership and on Social Media for you?
Regards
Tristan -----Original Message----- From: secretary staustellchamber
Susan Leach
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 38 COMMENTS FROM PARISHIONERS, BUSINESSES AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES PLUS RESPONSES
PARISHONER 1
COMMENT
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 39 RESPONSE
4TH September 2020
Mr B Marshall
67 Charlestown Road
Charlestown
ST AUSTELL
PL25 3NL
Dear Ben
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
Thank you for your comments on the Neighbourhood Plan which have been considered by the Strategic Group.
Existing car parking provision, including that for disabled spaces, is outside the remit of the Neighbourhood Plan. Parking within new developments though will have to conform to the latest planning regulations on access and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
There are disabled parking spaces in the main car park in Charlestown, and obviously holders of disabled badges are permitted to park on double yellow lines for up to three hours.
Car parking as a whole, across the parish, is on the Community Actions appendix – all of the items on this appendix will be considered by the Parish Council over the coming months.
The Community Actions appendix will be at the back of the Plan and will tackle matters outside of planning.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 40 Regarding your last comment, Community Facilities Policy 2 (Page 77) does indeed make provision for disabled people, within the remit of the Neighbourhood Plan. However it is not clear what provisions and improvements you would wish to see for other minority groups.
Kind regards
Yours sincerely
Cllr Sue Osbrink
Secretary
Strategic Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 41 PARISHONER 2
COMMENTS
From: Stephen Lay
Dear Councillor
I have now gone through the NP and would like to make some comments, some of which fall within the remit of the plan, and others I would like to voice to the Parish Council.
• In future could you include a list of acronyms! I found myself repeatedly looking back to identify them. • Aquatic activities. o I have noticed a significant increase in aquatic activities: powered (speed boats; surf skis and powered surfboards) and non-powered (swimming, free-swimming, paddle boards and kayaks). I am particularly concerned by the anti-social behaviour of powered craft off Duporth Beach. I have witnessed many examples of irresponsible use close to the shore including a near miss feet from the shore (subsequently the Fowey lifeboat attended). o Similarly, I have seen these craft travelling at speed close inshore off the AONB. o I would like to suggest enforced speed limit zones. • South West Coast Path. o Yes, the SWCP is vulnerable to localised cliff falls. My concerns are: ▪ The delays in establishing revised routes around affected areas. ▪ The revised routes will not reflect the amenity value of the original route. By this I mean low cost lengthy alternative routes will be used. An example of this is the current closure of the path between Coastguard Cottages and the Battery: this 100m closure necessitates a 2.8km diversion, it would be dreadful if this becomes the accepted SWCP route. o Historical artifacts. There are at least two iron kissing gates on the SWCP within the parish. The one on the Duporth side the Battery has been partially dismantled and discarded alongside. It would be great if this could be restored. • Coastal erosion. o Mention is made on p33 that cliff recession needs to be monitored so that private owners can be made more aware. I don’t understand the importance of this. o P66 mentions that global warming is responsible for our coastal erosion. This is not evidence based. The difference in the character between the Cornish north coast and south coast is a function of changing interglacial sea levels and the rising / falling of the crustal land mass. It has been happening for millennia and there is no evidence to show an acceleration. • Off shore exploitation. P66, mention is made of wind farms in St Austell Bay. o There is recent talk of, and consultation for, marine mining of tin deposited in paleochannels off shore. This would likely be devastating for the marine environment. • Mining Heritage. o Much is said about the preservation of our mining heritage which has shaped where we live. The built environment is obvious but my concern is for that which is not obvious; not appreciated and could be easily lost to development and infrastructure improvements. Mine waste dumps and burrows could be categorised as waste ground and can easily be thought of as dispensable, however they often supporting specialised ecosystems. But without these there would not have been the industry and raison d’être for the Charlestown we know today. They should be preserved.
And finally, my thanks to all of the Parish Council for all you do to make where we live a wonderful place.
Stephen Lay
15 Duporth Bay
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 42 St Austell
Cornwall PL26 6AF
England
01726 70055; 07768 403088
RESPONSE
Dear Stephen
Many thanks for your detailed response to the draft Neighbourhood Plan (NP), which has now been fully considered by the Strategic Group. As you are aware, many of the matters you raise fall outside the remit of the Neighbourhood Plan. Having checked with our clerk and Chairman, we are now informed that most of them also lie outside the control of the Parish Council (PC). Having contacted our Neighbourhood Plan adviser as well, we are able to offer you some suggestions of appropriate people or bodies to contact where this applies.
The Strategic Group's responses to your specific bullet points are as follows:
We will be adding an appendix with a list of acronyms and definitions - thank you for the suggestion.
Aquatic activities - while as local residents we share your concerns, this is a matter for the Harbourmaster for Charlestown and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) who control what happens offshore. For your information concerns have been raised at two different local Parish Council meetings and the Ward County Councillor, Tom French, is passing on concerns to Cornwall Council (who are responsible for public beaches such as Porthpean Beach) and the local MP Steve Double. You could write to them additionally in support of a change in legislation, either nationally or at county level.
South West Coast Path (SWCP) - this is outside the remit of the Plan. The PC is working hard with the Countryside Officer to fix it, but the timescale is outside their control. It all depends on negotiations between the landowners and Cornwall Council. We are aware as a PC that they are trying to conclude negotiations as soon as possible. You could also write to https://www.southwestcoastpath .
Regarding the kissing gates, they have been added to the Locally Important Heritage Assets appendix of the Plan. The one by the Battery was marked for restoration by the Countryside Officer but as it is currently blocked off it probably will not be a priority.
Coastal erosion - again, outside the remit of the Plan and the Parish Council. Our adviser suggests you contact dave.watkins cornwall .
Off shore exploitation - outside the remit of the Plan and PC. Again, we suggest you contact the MMO with your concerns. We have heard nothing about offshore tin mining in recent years. We believe we have enough caveats built in on Page 67 to protect the environment.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 43 Mining heritage - our adviser suggests you contact World Heritage Site (WHS) because the designation specifically protects all the features that make up the outstanding universal value of the site. This will include spoil and rubble. New biodiversity gain regulations mean loss of biodiversity is also covered.
We hope this clarifies.
Kind regards
Cllr Sue Osbrink
Secretary – Strategic Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 44
PARISHIONER 3
COMMENTS
From: "Rvenn"
Comment from Roger & Esther Venn, West Wind, Porthpean Beach Road
Firstly we should like to express our very real appreciation and thanks to the team, who have worked hard to produce this draft document. We think it important that we recognise what is being done on our behalf, and that you have the backing of the residents in putting this document in place. The only extra comment would be concerning the Local Green Spaces/Buffers and concerns the valuable stretch of beautiful mature woods that run next to the new Duporth development down to Duporth Beach. It seems to have some mention in Sections 3 and 4, and we are not fully sure of woodland's present legal status (responsibility of the Management Company?). We would be keen to do all that is possible to give as much long-term protection and support to this woodland, as an environmental, ecological and ecological asset; more than just TPOs. Doubtless you have already looked at this, but should there be something stronger in the Plan? Thank you again, Roger and Esther Venn
Sent from my iPad
RESPONSE
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan
From: s.osbrink
Sent: Mon, 24 Aug, 2020 at 15:12
To: rvenn waitrose
Dear Mr and Mrs Venn
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 45 Many thanks for your appreciation and comments which have been considered by the Strategic Group.
The area of woodland you highlight is one which is currently owned by Linden Homes, but managed by the Community Interest Company (CIC) which runs the An Arvor/Two Coves estate. Ownership will eventually be transferred to the CIC when the last property is built. The CIC has a firm commitment to preserving and managing the areas of woodland for which it is responsible. The CIC, together with the Parish Council, previously tried to get this area protected by a TPO but were unsuccessful. However, it is included on Map 5 on page 35 of the Plan, and is thus protected under Policy NE2: Trees and Woodland. We are strengthening the wording of this policy as a result of your comment.
Kind regards
Cllr Sue Osbrink
Secretary - SG Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 46
PARISHIONER 4
COMMENTS
Neighbourhood Development plan - comment
From: Paula Robinson
Sent: Wed, 29 Jul, 2020 at 16:50
To: s.osbrink
Hello
Well done to all for such a comprehensive NDP.
I have a comment relating to the waterwheel :
Heritage Assets - locally important Heritage Assets - page 61 Appendix 2 -Locally important heritage assets -page 80
Is it appropriate to add the waterwheel from the former foundry in to the appendix 2 under Charlestown ?
If so the locally important heritage assets would have to increase to 23 - page 61
The Charlestown Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan March 2013 page 62 has a photo and states:
'The Waterwheel from the former foundry which remains insitu and has been incorporated into the new development’
I’d like an email response in due course please.
Thank you
Paula Robinson 6 Foundry Drive Charlestown PL25 3BS
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 47 RESPONSE
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan
From: s.osbrink
Sent: Sun, 23 Aug, 2020 at 11:32
To: Paula Robinson
Dear Paula
Many thanks for your suggestion which has now been considered and actioned by the Strategic Group. The waterwheel has been added to the list of Locally Important Heritage Assets.
Kind regards
Sue Osbrink Secretary Strategic Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 48
PARISHIONER 5
COMMENTS
St.Austell bay parish - Neighbourhood Plan
From: Mark Richards
Sent: Thu, 6 Aug, 2020 at 17:42
To: s.osbrink
Comments on the neighbourhood plan by Mark and Linda Richards. PL25 3NL
Hi Sue.
Many thanks for the opportunity to read the pre-submission version of the Neighbourhood plan 2019-2030. Overall it is a well researched and comprehensive piece of work that reflects well on the time and effort put in by the Parish Council members and the other contributors..
Please refer to our comments emailed on March 31st 2020 copied below:
At this stage our main concern is ensuring that all the much valued open and green spaces in Charlestown are properly identified and included. It is essential that a comprehensive and robust methodology is used to identify all such sites which is not the case with the minimal audit as it stands. A thorough process is needed which should utilise and cross reference the existing and historical documents (such as the conservation plan and the village design statement) supplemented by planning decisions and appeals which have also reinforced the importance of such areas for protection within the village.
Specifically:
Section 3 (sustainability check) does not include green spaces and buffers.
Section 5 The last two paragraphs: "much has been changed and a great deal has been lost", ...... Unesco - Outstanding universal value
Section 7 "to ensure that existing local green spaces.....are protected from development", "to ensure that the green buffers continue to protect.....etc..
Page 43 map 6a. The green spaces south of the Regatta field and the former orchard on the other side of the lane are not highlighted at all. This despite previous successful efforts, supported by the Parish Council to prevent development on these sites AND specific reference in the Charlestown Conservation plan.
There is also no mention of the field to the south of the Penrice Longstone, again subject to successful efforts by the village and again supported by the Parish council to prevent development.
We reiterate that much valued (and fought over) green spaces are not adequately identified in this plan. There has never been a time when green spaces are more valuable and more under
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 49 threat than currently.
In recent times we have lost the coalyard and the clay dry to development. It is inevitable that the sale of Polmear Farm will result in pressure to build within its environs, the pressure to infill is constant and unremitting.
We urge the council to comprehensively identify and catalogue the remaining green and open spaces in a robust and methodical way. As your own report states on page 12, "much has been lost". It is imperative that no more is lost on our watch through inadequate attention to detail.
Regards
RESPONSE
From: "s.osbrink "
Dear Mark and Linda
Thank you for your supportive comments on the plan and the work which has gone into it. Your comments have been considered by the Strategic Group (SG). We note your comments on green spaces - however, you slightly misunderstand some aspects of the terminology and options open to us. As you know, we were unable to comment on your email of 31st March because the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) was not out for public comment at that time.
During the process of drafting the Plan, the SG has indeed looked very carefully at all the green spaces throughout the whole parish and considered each one individually. It was a clear priority for parishioners, as expressed in the initial questionnaire responses, to protect as many of these as possible, and to this end we have looked at how best to protect each one. Below are some of the ways in which we have done so:
Some green areas are already protected under the AONB and TPOs as set out in the Natural Environment and Landscape Character section. Policies in this section also set out ways in which we will protect some other green areas eg areas of woodland without TPOs are protected by policy NE2. We are strengthening this policy in response to a comment received from another parishioner to ensure existing trees and woodland are retained.
Some green areas are already in a Green Buffer (GB) zone as laid out in the Cornwall Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) (passed November 2019). Others have been added to it under Policy GB 1.
Others have been protected by ensuring they are outside a development boundary. (See Housing section.)
A further number have been deemed to meet the criteria for Local Green Space. Not every green/open space does. It is only for those designated LGS that we were recommended to carry out an audit, which is why it is headed Local Green Space Audit.
I can assure you our process has been extremely rigorous, and has been given great attention to detail. Not only has it referred to the Charlestown Character Appraisal and Management Plan
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 50 (CCAMP) and the Village Design statement - we have also utilised many other relevant reports and investigations eg Local Landscape Character Assessment, latest WHS advice, DPD team advice, Duporth Visual Impact Assessment, tithe maps etc.
In all of this we have been guided by our very knowledgeable and experienced Neighbourhood Plan advisers. Three of them have looked at the proposed LGS designations to ensure they meet the criteria - one of which is that there has to be public access for at least some members of the community, or at least a sightline into/across the space so that there is a public benefit in terms of tranquillity, views, ability to observe wildlife etc.
The two fields you mention do not have any public access nor sightline into them. The Head of the NDP team commented as follows:
“LGS designation is a very high level designation and the tests for it are therefore correspondingly high. It should be used only for those areas that meet the NPPF tests and have intrinsic value that cannot be replicated elsewhere. It’s not to be used as a general protection against development.”
As you will have seen, the fields in question are outside the development boundary and will therefore not be supported for development once the NP comes into force.
With reference to your other comments:
The sustainabilty check criteria are not set by us but by the government as part of the NP process.
The field south of the Longstone is included in the addition to the GB.
The Clay Dry and Coalyard sites were brownfield and therefore it was virtually impossible to prevent re-development of them.
In short - we believe we have done our utmost to ensure each and every green space in the parish has the best level of protection available to us under the Neighbourhood Plan process.
We hope this clarifies.
Kind regards
Sue
Cllr Sue Osbrink
Secretary – Strategic Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 51
PARISHIONER 6
COMMENTS
From: T Butler
Dear Sue Apologies for my late response to the above but it was a very comprehensive document. I would like to congratulate you and your team for putting this together for the future benefit of the residents of the parish. My only area of concern is that the wooded area to the rear of Ridgewood Close from the junction of Duporth Road with Porthpean Road to the rear of the properties on Porthpean Beach Road is not included either as a buffer zone or a green space. I note that the area has many TPO,s but attempts have been made in the past to develop the woodlands which support deer, bats, owls, woodpeckers to name but a few. I am sure that developers will not be happy until Cornwall is fully developed and thank goodness you have put this document together for the good of the Parish. Many thanks Terry Butler 3 Ridgewood Close Porthpean PL26 6AT
RESPONSE
St Austell Bay Parish Neighbourhood Plan
From: s.osbrink
Sent: Fri, 4 Sep, 2020 at 14:31
To: terry.butler environment-agency
Dear Mr Butler
Many thanks for your appreciation and comments which have been considered by the Strategic Group.
The area of woodland you highlight is one which is currently owned by Linden Homes, but managed by the Community Interest Company (CIC) which runs the An Arvor/Two Coves estate. Ownership will eventually be transferred to the CIC when the last property is built. The CIC has a firm commitment to preserving and managing the areas of
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 52 woodland for which it is responsible. It also strives to support and encourage wildlife.
Most of the area is protected by a blanket Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The CIC, together with the Parish Council, previously tried to get the small area which is outside this protection area covered by a TPO but were unsuccessful. However, it is included on Map 5 on Page 35 of the Plan, and is thus protected under Policy NE2: Trees and Woodland. We are strengthening the wording of this policy as a result of your comment.
Kind regards
Cllr Sue Osbrink Secretary - Strategic Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 53
PARISHIONER 7
COMMENTS
From: "Chrissie Boehm"
Dear Sue,
Sorry this is so last minute, but such a lot to for me to try and take in.
As I live in Charlestown, this is where my comments will lie as I know very little about the other wards.
1. Housing (H)
There should be no more housing in Charlestown, though I understand the Clay Dry is now going to be developed.
I think this could have been strongly opposed and don’t understand why the Parish council doesn’t oppose more planning.
I suspect some of these will be second homes and doubt they are for local people.
With this; the Coal Yard and the Chapel - this has added a massive amount of traffic to Charlestown Road which it could really do without.
I don’t understand the thinking here at all.
As a lay person I don’t understand what ‘rounding off’ means.
I hope the development at the top of Brick Hill/Duporth road is now at an end.
(Apart from building a new school? Pub? Cafe? thanks Wainhomes - that would solve a few problems.)
2. (H2)
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 54 Not sure how houses not being second homes can be enforced.
Surely a national policy needed tax-wise - which won’t happen at a national level as so many politicians have - at least - two homes.
Let’s not forget locals who live here own some of the holiday lets.
3. (H3)
Agree, I think - but details too confusing for my non-political brain.
Good design, please and gardens and trees.
2 Design (D)
'World Heritage Site’ often seems forgotten.
Too many gift shops, pubs and restaurants.
Design Policy 3 (D3)
We need several Resident’s parking bays that are free, or inexpensive. Can include buying voucher’s for relatives visits.
If there are ever any - enforcement needed.
Congestion on roads will definitely get worse very soon - see comments on housing above.
Design Policy 4 (D4)
Agree.
Please let’s have less signs before introducing any new.
(Apart from the recent Covid signs which are obviously necessary.)
Could adopt a policy of any new sign erected there must be one removed.
Also apply to businesses.
Natural Environment Policy 2 (NE2) Trees and Woodlands
Private individuals and developments - that have very recently removed trees in Charlestown - should have enforcement for new planting that is strictly adhered to.
This is very worrying if ever the ponds are re-opened - see below *
There appears to be a ‘Let’s Over-tidy Charlestown’ instead of
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 55 letting things be natural and wild where possible.
Natural Environment Policy 3 (NE3) Coastline
Agree.
Natural Environment Policy 4 (NE4)
* Agree - this is so important.
Landscape Policy 1 (L1 and L2) Respecting Landscape Character
Pg 40 - 2nd paragraph
This already is nonsensical because of Clay Dry development.
Local Green Spaces - Policy 1 (LGS1)
Campdown Cemetery has been my haven throughout lockdown and I still go now Charlestown is full of tourists and second home owners.
Local Green Spaces - Policy 1(a) (LGS1a)
The Regatta field is horrible and could be put to better community use rather than a few playthings rarely used.
Too much signage.
Would be nice to upgrade to a park with a track around the edge and some shrubs.
Please see attached small park that was near me in London - was transformed when paths were introduced - was great for dog walking and runners and had much more use.
Could be designed in a way that still allows space for the regatta to be held.
Why no dogs?
I see more human rubbish everywhere now lockdown is over than I do dog mess.
Local Green Spaces - Policy 1(e) (LGS1e)
Hope we keep this.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 56 Could add a bench or two?
Green Buffers - pg 52
“Nowhere else in Cornwall is it possible to step so immediately into the ambience of an early 19th century working port….etc”
Now has the ambience of eating and drinking place with maybe a touch of history. would be nice if the ‘working port’ could be made true again with more boats - not necessarily more tall ships - or play yachts.
Fishing boats? Boat trips? Boats to hire? On a small scale, of course.
Green Buffers Policy 1 (GB1)
It would be lovely to have a community orchard/garden/allotments in Charlestown.
Maybe on the land opposite Charlie’s (and my house) before someone builds houses on it?
Really need to keep the woodland area from Duporth to Charlestown. (Duporth Road)
Pg 57 and Historic Environment Policy 2 (HE2) is quite a worry - especially paragraph 4 on page 57.
Charlestown has already been greatly harmed.
As I previously mentioned, there are too many licensed premises and we are already a theme park.
Can we not get rid of the Poldark gin tentt?! Very insensitive.
As are Mr Mundings begging chests. Embarrassing. Unless we dress up someone with one leg as a pirate with a begging bowl and parrot - I suspect someone came up with that already but the chests are thought to be more subtle….
Historic Environment Policy 5 (HE5) Signage
I had never seen anywhere with so much signage until I came here.
And it gets worse.
(I’m ignoring covid signage here which is absolutely necessary - the majority follow the arrows....)
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 57
6 Renewable Energy and Climate Change RE
I think we need more wind turbines. Some offshore?
Agree with energy from St Austell Bay but doubt this will ever happen.
Solar fields well hidden?
Solar panels - where unobtrusive.
* Surely we need to do something now re: climate change?
I think everyone who can should apply for government’s grants in September.
Renewable Energy and Climate Change Policy 3 (RE3)
Agree with most - but recycling bins introduced in a lot of towns are the ugliest things ever produced where they sit in front gardens.
Renewable Energy and Climate Change Policy 4 (RE4)
Agree.
Did anyone see the beaver project (in Cornwall) on Springwatch?
Fascinating - beavers used to protect a village in danger of flooding.
Business and Employment Policy 1 (BE1) Development of Employment Land
Agree - especially tech companies or any larger business.
Less car showrooms etc which are a complete eyesore on Cornwall’s main roads.
Why can’t they be surrounded by trees?!
Business and Employment Policy 3 (BE3) Development of Employment Land
Agree.
Business and Employment Policy 5 (BE5) Mobile Phone Reception
Get a landline!
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 58 No more masts - funny how no one is against phone masts but they are against solar panels etc….
Pg 74 - ideas welcome other than tourism.
8 Transport and Traffic (T)
Residents parking needed. (!!!)
Businesses to provide parking where they can. (Longstore.)
Less businesses - i.e. pubs/restaurants would mean less traffic parking problems - just a thought….
20 mph permanently on Charlestown Road would be great.
Sadly the boy racers will carry on boy racing...
* I would like to suggest that Cornwall Council get their grass trimmers to leave areas where it would benefit wildlife - it was great during lockdown to see so many birds and insects.
Especially place like Campdown Cemetery which was beautiful.
Funny to see them concentrating on strimming lovely grass areas when the streets are now quite littered….littler picking would be more beneficial.
The wild flowers on the A391 are stunning.
That’s me!
Best wishes,
Chrissie Boehm
81 Charlestown Road, Charlestown, PL25 3NL, UK
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 59 RESPONSE (sent as an email)
Dear Chrissie
Many thanks for your consideration of the Neighbourhood Plan. All of your suggestions and queries have now been considered by the Strategic Group. Where we are able to supply information/answers you will see the subject of your query/comment followed by our response in blue. Please note that there are several points which are outside the remit of the Neighbourhood Plan and indeed the Parish Council. We have been unable to comment in these instances.
Concern re no more housing in Charlestown and the Clay Dry permission:
The Neighbourhood Plan (NP) can only deal with new applications, not retrospective ones.
Clay Dry/ Parish Council (PC):
The PC is only asked for its opinion – it often opposes applications but is overruled by the Planning Officer of Cornwall Council (CC) who has the final say. Once the NP is approved the PO will have to take it into serious consideration when making decisions as it will have legal force. So it will strengthen the hand of the PC and residents.
Rounding off:
Rounding off provides a symmetry or completion to a settlement or development boundary. It is not intended to facilitate continued incremental growth (definition from CC’s Chief Planning Officer’s note).
Second homes enforcement:
This can only be enforced on new properties, not existing ones, and is done at a local level as several other Cornish Councils have done. Page 23 of the Plan explains how this happens.
Design Policy 3 - Residents’ parking bays:
This has been added to the Community Actions appendix of the Plan and the PC has agreed to consider parking across the whole Parish in the next few months.
Design Policy 4 – Signs:
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 60 This Policy only applies to new signs which need planning permission. Temporary signage does not so it is outside the remit of the Plan. Temporary signage is also in the Community Actions appendix.
Landscape Policy 1 – Clay Dry development:
This development was given the go-ahead because it is on brownfield land. Permission pre-dates the Plan. It is outside the Green Buffer Zone established last November by the Cornwall Site Allocations DPD and supported by our Plan. It is also within our Development Boundary (See H1) so as a brownfield site would have been available for development.
Local Green Spaces – Policy 1(a):
A joint working party has been established between the Regatta Committee and Parish Council to oversee the community use of the field.
Local Green Spaces – Policy 1(e): Bench(es)
Outside the remit of the Plan but will be added to the Community Actions appendix
Working Port:
The harbour is under private ownership and make their own business decisions which the Plan cannot influence.
Policy 6 - Renewable Energy and Climate Change:
There was no support for wind turbines or solar fields from the Residents’ Questionnaire.
Grass trimming:
Cornwall Council has cut back on verge trimming to promote wildlife corridors and is currently seeking views from residents on this subject.
Kind regards
Cllr Sue Osbrink
Secretary – Strategic Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 61 PARISHIONER 8
COMMENTS
Comments on the st Austell bay parish neighbourhood plan
From: Felicity Owen
Sent: Sun, 9 Aug, 2020 at 13:14
To: s.osbrink , ndp
Dear Ms Osbrink Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the plan. It is excellent and most of my comments are to endorse what is written. My postcode is PL253NQ 1 Housing (H) Charlestown has reached saturation point for housing and it is in danger of losing its unique charm. Housing policy 2 Agree with this policy whole heartedly. Can this policy be extended to include all housing? With so many second homes and properties used as holiday rentals the village is losing its feeling as a place of community. This might also help to push house prices down so they are more affordable for local people. Housing policy 3 We do need affordable housing but why are developers allowed to renege on numbers of affordable houses in any given development? They should be held to the numbers given and not allowed to lower numbers. Design policy 1 I am surprised the ever increasing number of restaurants around the inner harbour meet this policy. Charlestown needs a shop to buy groceries and papers not more restaurants. Design policy 3 There needs to be residents parking slots, that are Free or not expensive to residents, as in the holiday season people, particularly those that live in the Charlestown rd can’t park. Design policy 4 I really welcome the covid19 signage and the arrows on the pavement. Well done. It is a huge shame that not everyone adheres to the signage. Natural environment policy 1 With the ever increasing numbers of tourists in Charlestown there are a lot of cigarette butts that find their way into the sea. Can we use the same signage as places like Looe that have little fish painted by the drains to raise awareness that butts cause damage to sea life? Can more be done to ensure SW water take their environmental responsibilities seriously? There is far too much Raw sewage Making its way into the sea than is good for the planet. Natural environment policy 2 Where developers remove trees please can they be required to plant two native trees to replace each one removed. Natural environment policy 3 I know this is not in the parish councils gift but it would be lovely for residents with dogs if we could access the beach in the evenings
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 62 from April to October as many other places allow. Local green spaces policy 1 Yes please to keeping all our green spaces. It would be lovely if we could have some allotments in Charlestown for residents- it would be a focal point and enhance a sense of community that has been diminishing. Local green spaces policy 1(e) The playing field is a great resource but the grass is often very long and would benefit from being cut more often. Green buffers policy 1 Entirely agree and super to see in the plan Historic environment policy 2 The Charlestown harbour area is becoming cheapened and it is sad to see it not being cared for other than as a tourist destination. RE1 Welcome the recognition of the importance of solar energy and other renewable technologies RE3 It would be good to see some charging points for electric vehicles RE4 As stated before we have too many instances of raw sewage discharge and this in the main is to do with a lack of maintenance of the sewage system. BE1 Welcome the ideas here to create local jobs for local people T1 Absolutely support this. Traffic and parking is a real issue in Charlestown Better public transport would ease the need for everyone to have a car though. T3 We should move to a 20mph speed limit throughout Charlestown There are a few cars that use Charlestown rd as a speed track and this needs addressing. I also raised this issue some years ago with the parish council who referred me to the local councillor about the difficultly of coming out of entrances into the Charlestown rd. I have not heard back and no action has been taken. When coming out of galleon court it is impossible to see if traffic is coming down Charlestown road from st Austell if cars are parked to the end of the yellow lines. The yellow lines need extending here by one or two car lengths as needs to be done also at many exit points along Charlestown road. CF1 As previously stated we badly need a shop selling basic groceries and papers in the village. CF2 We need no more restaurants in Charlestown Thank you for the chance to comment on this excellent plan Kind regards Felicity
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 63 RESPONSE (sent as an email)
Dear Felicity
Many thanks for your consideration of the Neighbourhood Plan. All of your suggestions and queries have now been considered by the Strategic Group. Where we are able to supply information/answers you will see the Policy heading of your query/comment followed by our response in blue. Please note that there are several points which are outside the remit of the Neighbourhood Plan and indeed the Parish Council. We have been unable to comment in these instances.
Housing Policy 2: Principal Residence:
Unfortunately the policy can only apply to new developments, not any existing properties. This is because the Neighbourhood Plan can only influence new planning applications and has no jurisdiction over existing properties, whether residential or business.
Housing Policy 3: Affordable Homes for Local People
I think this question is one for Cornwall Council and or the Government. It is not something the Parish Council (PC) can challenge unless it affects our parish. Where numbers of affordable homes have changed in developments in the parish it has been because of local circumstances and we have been given monies in lieu, which were used for community facilities.
Design Policy 1: Charlestown Heritage Preservation
As above, the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) can't affect existing buildings. All permanent buildings within Charlestown Harbour have been subjected to WHS and Conservation Officer comment before being approved. Temporary structures, even within a WHS, do not need planning permission. Policies D1 and HE2 are both trying to ensure that new developments are determined according to the existing WHS and Conservation Area guidance and design statements and are "appropriate to its setting".
Design Policy 3: Transport, Security, Environment, Flooding
Existing parking problems are outside the remit of the NP but are included in the Community Actions appendix as things the Parish Council will investigate. Parking across the parish will be looked at within the next few months.
Design Policy 4: Signage
Thanks - but a PC matter - not NP related as it did not need planning permission.
Natural Environment Policy 1: Net Gain and Biodiversity
Again, this is not something that would need planning permission so is outside the remit of the NP. We can consider adding it to the Community Actions appendix.
Raw sewage is outside the remit of the PC. South West Water has sorted the issues in the parish and we have no jurisdiction outside of that.
Natural Environment Policy 2: Trees and Woodland
Current policy allows for flexibility depending on the site and the scale of the removal.
Natural Environment Policy 3: Coastline
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 64 Beaches which are privately owned are outside the remit of the NP and the PC, so this isn't something we can consider.
Local Green Spaces Policy 1: Designations
Allotments were considered after one of the earlier Parish Plans, but no suitable site was found. We remain open to the idea.
Local Green Spaces Policy 1(e): Church Road Playing Field
A matter outside the NP remit. Currently the contract to cut the field is with Cornwall Council on a contract between them and the owner of the field, so not within our control.
Renewable Energy and Climate Change Policy 3: Energy Efficiency and Reduction
Charging Points for electric vehicles is included in RE3 Point 7 for new builds and in Community Actions for current properties.
Traffic and Transport Policy 3:
A speed limit his has been raised but it is not easy or straightforward because of the signage required and WHS requirements on this. It is also outside the remit of the NP so a PC matter as are your other points on this policy.
Community Facilities Policy 1:
The NP will support a suitable application if it requires any kind of planning permission.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 65 PARISHIONER 9
COMMENTS
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 66 RESPONSE
31st August 2020
Mr George Taylor
The Old Chapel
Trenarren
ST AUSTELL
PL26 6BH
Dear Mr Taylor
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan
Thank you for your kind comments and suggestions for the Plan which have been considered by the Strategic Group.
With regard to your suggestion that Design Policy 2 (5) should include a time limit, Policies 7 and 21 of the Cornwall Local Plan already cover your concerns. However we are strengthening our Plan by the inclusion of a paragraph in the Design Policy Justification which will refer to them specifically.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Sue Osbrink
Secretary – Strategic Group
St Austell Bay Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 67 PARISHIONER 10
COMMENTS
From: "Greg Slater"
Dear Cllr. Osbrink
I am writing to confirm my overwhelming support for the St. Austell Bay Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan. This is a hugely comprehensive and authoritative piece of work and I am hugely grateful to all involved in its drafting. The sooner it is adopted the better; particularly to assist in preserving the heritage and character of HIgher Porthpean, where we live, in the face of continuing activity that could undermine this (as evidenced by the recent planning appeals referred to within the document - pleasingly strong in supporting the ambitions of the NDP in this regard).
I have some comments for consideration but my pervading aim is that the plan in its present form be put to referendum at the earliest opportunity. I would therefore not wish for any of these comments to affect the timetable, were it to be considered necessary to reset the clock in order to add anything in relation to these (in which circumstance I would prefer they were held over for possible consideration in any future review of the Made NDP). The page numbers reference the hard copy version of the plan and not the one on the internet that seems to be numbered differently (presumably due to page size). p.20 - I am fully supportive of the proposed settlement boundary for Higher Porthpean, which relates to the historic pattern of development that is one property deep from the road leading into the village and through to the historic 'town place'. It would be good if, once made, a more detailed map could be made available to enable clarity to be secured on the exact extent of this boundary (not possible to zoom in sufficiently for this at present). p.30 - I fully support the Parish Council's work with the AONB Partnership to extend the AONB to include HIgher Porthpean (all being well encompassing the golf course as a vital green buffer). p.31 - I am surprised there are no TPO's in Higher Porthpean and wonder whether the tree officer has undertaken a survey? p.35 - I am presuming that the triangle of trees and woodland marked on the map just below the words 'Lower Porthpean' (not detailed enough to zoom in) is the orchard located behind The Old Farmhouse (area appears shaded on the Council's base interactive map). Extracts of the 1842 tithe map (shared recently with those copied this email in relation to the project to secure the reinstatement of historic stiles in Higher Porthpean) show that the village had a heritage of small holdings rented from the
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 68 Penrice estate to tenant farmers and that numbers of these had orchards (one such that has subsequently become the garden of this house). I believe there are now only two such orchards remaining in the village (the other forms part of the garden of Smugglers) and I think it is hugely important to protect this remnant of the historic pattern of development of this stunning rural hamlet. p.36 - Policy NE3, item 3 - I think it would be good if this policy were clear that 'public views' relates not just to views to the coast but also from the sea. I think this would be particularly important in the case of Higher Porthpean should this become part of the AONB. p.46 - I am hugely supportive of the golf club land being designated a Local Green Space. It is vital that this land remain open space. The club is formed within the fields that once framed the entrance to and surrounded the historic hamlet of Higher Porthpean (see the 1842 Tithe map). As evidenced by the Environment Service's recent involvement in securing the reinstatement of two historic stiles on one of the holloways that led to such fields from the 'Town Place' at the heart of the hamlet (with an important cluster of listed buildings) Higher Porthpean is a remarkably complete example of a particular historic pattern of rural development. Any development outside the settlement boundary (single dwelling deep along the village road before it steeply turns down Beach Road at the Church) would represent a significant threat to the hamlet being subject to further incremental development pressures that would fundamentally jeopardise this character and setting. The contention that Higher Porthpean is a hamlet set within open countryside was clearly established by the Appeal Inspectors in the cases referred to within the evidence base. I therefore wonder whether this helps to make the case for additional protection to be secured by also designating this land a green buffer, as per the perimeter of Charlestown (beyond the 'informal green separation' point currently being made)? Picture 11 on p.45 is particularly relevant as it shows the gold course visually extending to the open countryside of the AONB. p.47 - Possible missing word 'set out with picnic benches'. p.49 - As a Trustee of Cornwall Education Learning Trust I also fully support the designation of the Penrice School fields as a local green space and their additional importance, as part of the green buffer to Charlestown, is also recognised. I believe the lease may have expired (land may be owned or optioned by Wain Homes?) and the intentions of the housing developer to contemplate further development in the area might be signalled by the manner in which the roundabout to the new estate (that was, in my opinion, in a suitable, sustainable location) happens to align with a field gate to the adjoining fields (covered by the green buffer). Further housing development to the East of the existing development needs to be resisted by every possible means (and also further West in the Tregorrick direction for that matter - outside the plan area). p.61 & Appendix 2 - Having recently explored the history of Higher Porthpean's development and secured the reinstatement of the two stile features pictured on the Parish Council news pages I'm delighted to see the 'Town Place' being locally listed (along with the School House) and references to the protection of medieval field systems, the pattern of tracks and lanes plus granite stiles, steps, gate posts and boundary markers. As covered above, Higher Porthpean is an important location where all of this may be clearly seen and further to the AONB ambitions I do wonder whether the hamlet and its setting might one day also be considered as a Conservation Area for this whole historic system? Looking even further back, the
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 69 heritage of the ancient ridgway that apparently ran (and still runs) from St. Blazey to Pentewan, together with the associated iron age settlement of Castle Gotha, feels to be extremely important too. I note that should you wish to use them I would be happy for my photos of the restored stiles (used on the PC website) to be used in the final draft of the NDP should you wish to use them. p.68 - Policy RE3 item 4 - the acronym should just read BRE. BREEAM is a different environmental quality standard (to the Home Quality Mark) for commercial buildings - you may be wanting to include this too? For BREEAM 'very good' has been contemplated as a standard for refurbishing existing buildings and at least Excellent for new build. Additional factors BREEAM may not cover include contemplating encouraging more use of local resources and resourcing to help reduce embodied carbon. The planning team should be aware of two authoritative guides published recently by LETI that might also be referred to. p.77 - The defibrillator is in Higher Porthpean.
I note that there does not appear to be any policy in relation to beaches.
Many thanks again to everyone in this great piece of work.
Best wishes
Greg
______
Greg Slater
The laurels, Higher Porthpean
T. 07837 482 076
E. gslater001
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 70 RESPONSE (sent as an email)
Page 20: Settlement Boundary:
Map issues will be addressed in the final version. When this version was printed the Cornwall Council’s mapping department was not able to operate because of Covid 19. We decided to go with what we had rather than delay.
Page 30: Extension of AONB
This is outside the remit of the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) but something the Parish Council (PC) is working on. It is in the Community Actions appendix to the Plan.
Page 31: TPOs in Higher Porthpean
There has been no survey to date.
Page 35: Orchard behind the Old Farmhouse
Thank you for the tithe maps sent to Steve. If we decide to use any we will seek permission. It would be helpful to know if any of the apple varieties in the orchards are particularly rare?
Page 36 Policy NE3, Item 3
With reference to your suggestion that ‘public views’ relates to views also from the sea, we will add this in and reference the LLCA.
Page 46 LGS – Porthpean Golf Club
With your permission we will use this comment (anonymised) as part of our LGS audit. Our NP adviser has suggested we keep the green buffer option as a back-up in case the examiner decides the golf club land is too extensive to qualify as an LGS. We were advised not to include too many green buffers as examiners can see it as an attempt to prevent any development at all.
Page 47 Missing Word
Corrected – thank you.
Page 49 LGS – Penrice School Playing Fields
Again, with your permission we would like to use the first part of this comment (anonymised) as evidence in our LGS audit.
Page 61 and Appendix 2 Suggestion for Higher Porthpean as a Conservation Area
An interesting idea but outside the scope of the NP. We can add it to Community Actions in case the Parish Council wishes to pursue it at a later date. Thank you for the offer of photos of the restored stiles. Until the final version is edited we won’t know how many pages we will have for photos.
Page 68 Policy RE3 Item 4
We will include both acronyms. We will check whether the LETI Guides are relevant to our area.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 71 Page 77 Community Facilities
We will change the defibrillator location to Higher Porthpean.
Beaches
Again we checked this with our adviser who says that most NPs do not includes beaches because most of the area is outside planning jurisdiction so there is unlikely to be a planning application there. One which did was queried at examination. Your clarification via Steve mentions cafes toilets etc. As you will know two of the parish beaches are in private ownership. Any developments on Charlestown beach should be covered by WHS regulations etc. Duporth beach is unsuitable for any such developments because of access and we can’t see the owners allowing any suggestion of this. Porthpean is obviously a council run beach and any change to existing facilities would be covered by policies currently in the Plan. Community Facilities Policy 1 will cover toilets and cafes.
Kind regards
Cllr Sue Osbrink
Secretary – Strategic Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 72 PARISHIONER 11
COMMENTS
Comment. Ref Section 4. Local Green Spaces & Green Buffer. Policy 1 (LGSI). Page 41
The comment is made that an omission to include the area and fields below the Regatta field and either side of the track ( old orchard) as a Local Green space is evident.
It is noted that the above area falls outside of the development boundaries – maps 2 and 2A and that it is stated that Development outside of the boundaries will not normally be permitted unless it is to meet evidenced local affordable housing need. The fields and area are also within the conservation area.
The Charlestown conservation area character appraisal and management plan recognises that this area is an important green area.
The local landscape character assessment notes that overall “ to retain the discrete nature and identity of the village, preserving the undeveloped fields to the east and west” when considering the setting of the village.
In the past this area has been subject to planning applications (refused) and appeals ( dismissed), basically the Inspector noting that development benefits do not outweigh the harm to the heritage assets and the landscape character of the area. The parish council at the time also objected to the proposed developments.
Hence , the above evidence clearly demonstrates that the area and fields, below the Regatta field and either side of the track falls within the Local Green Spaces Policy no1 designation and that the plan needs to be amended.
We are aware that other residents have also expressed their concern. At the Consultation sessions – the map was annotated with green “dots” by some residents in this area..
Please acknowledge. Thank you.
RESPONSE (sent as an email)
Dear Peter and Nicky
Thank you for your comments on the Neighbourhood Plan.
The Strategic Group has looked at every green space within the parish and how best to protect it in line with the options available to us. This is in accordance with the views expressed by parishioners in responses to the original questionnaire. Some are already protected by AONB or TPO status (see Natural Environment and Landscape Character section). Policies in this area also set out ways in which we will protect other green areas, for example areas of woodland without TPOs are protected by policy NE2. We are strengthening this policy in response to a comment from another parishioner to ensure existing trees and woodland are retained. Others are in the existing Green Buffer zone (Cornwall Site Allocations DPD adopted Nov 2019). Others we have added to a proposed extension of that zone (policy GB1).
Others have been protected by ensuring they are outside a development boundary (see Housing section.)
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 73
In deciding the best method we have been guided by our very knowledgeable and experienced Neighbourhood Plan advisers. Three of them have looked at the proposed LGS designations to ensure they meet the criteria - one of which is that there has to be public access for at least some members of the community, or at the very least a sightline into/across the space so that there is a public benefit in terms of tranquillity, views, ability to observe wildlife etc.
The two fields you mention do not have any public access nor sightline into them. The Head of the NDP team commented as follows:
“LGS designation is a very high level designation and the tests for it are therefore correspondingly high. It should be used only for those areas that meet the NPPF tests and have intrinsic value that cannot be replicated elsewhere. It’s not to be used as a general protection against development.”
As you know, the fields in question are outside the development boundary and will therefore not be supported for development once the NP comes into force.
With reference to your other comments:
The fields referenced in the Local Landscape Character Assessment (LLCA) are those to the east and west of Charlestown, not in the centre.
We have received very detailed feedback from those responsible for the Charlestown Character Appraisal and Management Plan (CCAMP) together with some suggestions for amendments. These did not include anything to do with these fields nor indeed any LGS designations.
In short, we believe we have done our utmost to ensure each and every green space in the parish has the best level of protection available to us under the Neighbourhood Plan process.
Hopefully this clarifies.
Kind regards
Sue
Cllr Sue Osbrink Secretary – Strategic Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 74 PARISHIONER 12
COMMENTS
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 75 RESPONSE
28th August 2020
Mr A Wood
67 Bay View Road
Duporth
ST AUSTELL
PL26 6BN
Dear Mr Wood
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
Thank you for your letter dated 6th August 2020. Your comments were recently considered by the Strategic Group. Your kind comments were much appreciated.
With regard to your concerns I would like to advise that the grammatical point on Page 26 is noted and will be amended accordingly. The tree caption on Page 34 has already been amended as it is an Oak tree and not a Sycamore. It was agreed to keep the same picture. The Commission for Dark Skies has been added as recommended.
Kind regards
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 76 Yours sincerely
Cllr Sue Osbrink
Secretary
Strategic Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 77 PARISHIONER 13
COMMENTS
From: pattismith48 Date: 9 August 2020 at 09:07:53 BST To: s.osbrink Subject: Neighbourhood Plan
Dear Sue, Just squeaking in with my comments on the plan. I would like to thank you all for pulling together such a comprehensive and considered plan and I hope going forward this document will be referred to in decision making of all kinds. My main concerns are as follows 2 Design Page 28 first box point 5. ‘Wherever possible’ I am wary of these terms being used as an escape clause by developers to not bother incorporating higher cost Environmentally friendly infrastructure so I think in all cases you should remove the get out terminology to just say ‘incorporating design features‘ ...... This should apply across the whole plan. P 15. The Vision. I presume all the plan hinges on this statement and it clearly states ‘valuing our heritage’ Design p27 Policy Justification. ‘Most residents believe it is important to preserve .....World Heritage site status et al 5 Historic Environment P63 first box A Heritage Impact Assessment for temporary structures ...... I bring the above to your attention with regard to the current activities taking place on the harbour. It is in my view a complete breach of the values of a World Heritage site. The temporary shacks, tents and accompanying chairs, tables and litter are more reminiscent of Blackpool sea front. The late night noise and accompanying litter are ruining the place as it has become the drinking capital of the area. All of this flies in the face of the comments throughout your plan regarding how internationally important the harbour is. In my view if this carries on we will lose the World Heritage site status. Who is responsible for the impact assessment for temporary structures on the harbour? Has one been done? I might add that my Charlestown Chums litter picking group has been suspended as the team feels that we cannot make any impression on the tide of litter swamping the place and nobody else seems to care. This is a sad state of affairs indeed.
I look forward to receiving your comments or discussing with you.
Yours sincerely,
Pat Smith 11 Charlestown Rd PL25 3 NJ 07971298913
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 78 RESPONSE
St Austell Bay Parish Council - Neighbourhood Plan
From: s.osbrink
Sent: Mon, 31 Aug, 2020 at 10:58
To: pattismith48
Dear Pat
Many thanks for your kind comments. Your suggestions and concerns have been considered by the Strategic Group. The result is that the wording of Historical Environment Policy 2 will be strengthened; Design Policy 3 (Point 5) will also be re- worded to be more specific. A Heritage Impact Statement is not currently required and will not be until such time as the Plan is adopted. Finally, litter picking is outside the remit of the Plan but is included in the Community Actions appendix - all items in this appendix will be considered by the Parish Council over the coming months.
Thanks again for your consideration of the Plan.
Kind regards Sue
Cllr Sue Osbrink Secretary - Strategic Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 79
PARISHIONER 14
COMMENTS
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
From: michael.gould315 btinternet
Sent: Sun, 19 Jul, 2020 at 10:26
To: s.osbrink
Cc: susanjleach btinternet local plan.jpg (1.1 MB)
55, Duporth Bay St. Austell Cornwall PL 26 6AE Dear Sue Osbrink, NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
Local Green Spaces Policy 1 (h)LG 1 h Page 51 of the Plan MAP 6 h
Please give consideration to extending the above to include the "Buffer Zone" recently planted by the developer of the Over 55 site - Acornblue (see attachment). This area was planted to provide a separation between the original Duporth Estate and the Over 55 Development and adjoins the original area shown on Map 6 h. Yours faithfully
Mike Gould
RESPONSE
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan
From: s.osbrink
Sent: Mon, 24 Aug, 2020 at 15:39
To: michael.gould315 btinternet
Dear Mr Gould
Thank you for your consideration of the Plan and subsequent request for an amendment. Your request has been considered by the Strategic Group and I am pleased to report that the buffer zone will be modified accordingly.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 80 Kind regards
Cllr Sue Osbrink Secretary - SG Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 81 PARISHIONER 15
COMMENTS
From: "Nigel Chatterjee"
Dear Sue,
Hope you are well.
We just wanted to send you a quick note to congratulate you for producing such a marvellous document - the Neighbourhood Plan, which we received a little while ago.
I’ve just got a quick question - more of an observation rather than anything else concerning the Green Buffers identified on pages 53 and 54, maps 7 and 7a. Do you think that these green buffers will get approved, as some of the areas are outside of the Conservation Area. I really hope that you can get this document adopted, as those Green Buffers may well serve to maintain the area’s present character.
You and your team must have worked incredibly hard to finally get the document in its present form. Please would you pass on our kind regards to everyone concerned.
Hope you and Bill have been keeping well. We have been keeping a low profile and have only been venturing out for exercise and walking Jasmine. We’ve been going out only for grocery shopping once a week and to get groceries for friends.
It’s nice to see that Charlestown is slowly getting back to life. It’s been a long few months.
Kind regards, Nigel and Frances
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 82
RESPONSE
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan
From: s.osbrink
Sent: Fri, 28 Aug, 2020 at 14:10
To: Nigel Chatterjee
Dear Nigel and Frances
I am aware that Sue has already written to you thanking you for your kind comments and explaining about the Green Buffer proposed extensions. However I thought I would let you know that the Strategic Group has discussed this issue and also very much appreciate your comments in support of the Plan.
Kind regards Sue
Cllr Sue Osbrink Secretary - Strategic Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 83 PARISHIONER 16
COMMENTS
From: annburnett4 Sent: Tuesday, 7 July, 2020 10:51 To: "s.leach "
Hello there,
Many thanks for sending this email, and also for the hard copy of the NP which I have read. I would like to make the following observations from the Plan.
Firstly I would like to praise the amount of work gone into producing this local plan. I think it accurately reflects the consultation and considerations of local residents.
Section 7 – Objectives pg 16 6 Renewables & Climate Change Objectives I notice in this objective that one of the challenges is to reduce problems arising from coastal erosion and I hope that the coastal paths in both directions can be funded to be saved for the future. It is sad that once more the coast path towards Duporth is currently closed and the coast path on the far side of the harbour also falling into the sea.
Section 7 – Objectives pg 16 8 Transport & traffic objectives It is important to find and support appropriate new parking facilities outside the village centre and I would like to see this addressed in the summer months. I always think it would be worth Penrice school using their car park to raise funds for the school but also to provide parking spaces for the village.
Housing policy H2 pg 18 I’m very pleased to see in the Housing Policy the principal residence clause that new open market housing will only be supported where there is a restriction to ensure its occupancy as a principal residence.
Design Policy 4 (D4) is excellent. Pg 28 Also Pg 64 Historic environment policy 5 (HE5) signage I think it is really important to limit the amount of signage around the village and ensure it is in keeping with the heritage area.
Good to note that future development takes into account sustainable drainage (SUDS) Pg 28
Natural Environment Policy 4. (NE4) Pg 36 I hope the leat system will be able to be maintained and repaired to maintain its historic structure and use. I am pleased to see this has been addressed in the Plan.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 84 I would like to see more consideration and enforcement of the dark sky through the Lighting Impact Assessment. The Foundry Park development did not seem to adhere to this and residents on this estate have complained about too much lighting here many times. I hope this can be enforced in future. Pg 38
I hope that Charlestown can maintain its heritage - as per the quote from the case law of Forger, Field & Banwell - pg 57. This also applies to the Historic Environment Policy 2 (HE2) Charlestown Harbour Area Pg 63
6 Renewable Energy & Climate Change pg 66-69 It would be good to see solar panels, including solar roof tiles for buildings, both existing and future builds within the village to capture renewable energy.
Within 8 Transport & Traffic pg 77 I note a lot has been said about the amount of through traffic on the main roads in the village but nothing has been mentioned of further traffic calming coming down Charlestown Road. Whilst I note that when you undertook your traffic survey the majority of vehicles were within the speed limit, this does not seem to be residents’ experiences of a regular basis. This particularly applies to Charlestown Road. The speed of cars driving down Charlestown Road is a major issue when pulling out from Foundry Drive and Church Road. No mention has been made of further double yellow lines to increase visibility for cars pulling out of side roads along Charlestown Road. Unfortunately I feel this is an accident waiting to happen, and I feel it would be good to address this in the plan.
Appendix 2 pg 80 3 The Cask Bank I hope that the Parish Council will be successful in listing the Cask Bank. I have heard rumours that this would make a good car parking space for local businesses. I would not like to see this heritage asset removed and the listing would protect this. 6 Ore Floors I hope the ore floor in the coal yard is able to be protected despite the area being developed for housing.
In summary I would like to note that it is a really well considered plan for the three Parishes. The inclusion of maps and beautiful photos give context and show appreciation for the beauty and history of the area. It is evident that a great deal of research, consideration and work has gone into this and I commend the Parish Council for their hard work.
I hope this feedback is useful. Ann
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 85 RESPONSE
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan
From: s.osbrink
Sent: Mon, 24 Aug, 2020 at 15:57
To: annburnett4
Dear Ann
Thanks for your very thoughtful and thorough response to the Neighbourhood Plan all of which have been considered by the Strategic Group.
We have noted many of your supportive comments. Where the points you raise lie outside of the remit of the Plan (Transport and Traffic points especially), they are already noted in the Community Actions appendix which will be for the Parish Council (PC) to address over the coming months.
With regard to other matters you raise - the PC is currently working with Cornwall Council to re-route the two sections of coastal footpath, but the timescale is uncertain. The PC is pursuing the listing of the Cask Banks, which is also outside the remit of the Plan. Protection of a section of the ore floor in the old coalyard was stipulated in planning permission already granted by Cornwall Council.
Kind regards Sue
Cllr Sue Osbrink Secretary - Strategic Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 86 PARISHIONER 17
COMMENT
On 15 Sep 2020, at 20:18, Paul Kirk
Re: Parish Plan
Hi Bill. Sorry to be so late in responding but we have not been able to come down to Moonglow for about 7 months and have only just seen the plan.
We think the plan is excellent in it's overview and detail and presented very well.
We do have some concern with the issue of second home owners. We think there is a tendency to lump all such into one group. There are of course several substrates to this generalised group. We belong to the one which is second home owners who use the homes as only for themselves and their families usage. We do not let the place out and therefore get no business rate relief.
I would like to make the following points
1.We purchased Moonglow from a Cornish family who had been trying to sell for over a year.
2 We pay full council tax and, lockdowns excepted, come down one week every month and sometimes more in summer and our family use the house for school holidays sometimes. Hence we occupy it about 30/35% of the time.
3.We use the services for which we pay full tax therefore about a third of the time.
4. When we come we use local shops, restaurants, theatre,golf clubs etc bringing income to local businesses .
5. We employ local labour for gardening, indoor cleaning, window cleaning, decorating, building etc etc. Thus bringing further income to the area.
The policy of restrictions on new builds has not yet been proven to achieve the professed ambitions and I would say 'be careful what you wish for'.
Hope these comments are helpful. We really enjoy our place in Duporth and feel part of the community when we are here.
We love Cornwall, it's culture and people and we would hate to feel unwelcome.
Best Regards,
Paul and Joyce Kirk
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 87 RESPONSE
From: "s.osbrink "
Dear Mr and Mrs Kirk
Many thanks for your kind and positive comments about the Plan. Your views regarding the principal residence policy have been considered by the Strategic Group. We understand the points you make and of course also understand that there are differences between second home owners who visit regularly and do not let out their properties, second home owners who visit less frequently and do let out their properties, and properties bought to run as holiday lets as a business. The last two still make contributions to the local economy, but often this is seasonal, and the policy justification for HE2 sets out evidence for the points about erosion of services and a reduced sense of community. It also gives the figures for the ward of Duporth as a whole, which are higher than for Duporth Bay.
As we are sure you appreciate, the Neighbourhood Plan needs to reflect the views of the majority of residents. As far back as 2009, when we sought opinions from parishioners ahead of the first Parish Plan, the overwhelming wish of residents was to restrict the number of letting properties as the feeling was that the Parish was at saturation point. This feeling has not altered and the decision to include a principal residence clause was supported not only in responses to the Residents' Questionnaire but also in the answers to the specific question in the Housing Needs Survey.
Do bear in mind that this Policy only applies to new builds. It cannot be imposed retrospectively on existing properties, so would not have prevented you from purchasing Moonglow.
Principal residence clauses have been successfully tested in legal cases and have been found to be valid. It is, we feel, still too early to judge whether or not they are having the desired effect, which may vary with each Neighbourhood Plan. In the case of our Parish, we are just trying to do what we can to ensure that any future new properties do not add to the percentage of properties which are not occupied full time but instead are used as permanent homes.
With regard to your comment about not wishing to feel unwelcome, we would hope that second home owners who integrate well into the community and respect the feelings of permanent residents are never made to feel that. However, that is outside the scope of the Neighbourhood Plan - and as we stated earlier, our starting point for the plan had to be the concerns and wishes of the majority of parishioners.
Thanks again for your interest and comments,
Kind regards,
Cllr Sue Osbrink Secretary – Strategic Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 88 PARISHIONER 18
COMMENT
Dear All, I thought you ought to know how impressed I am with the Plan document which I received last week.It is wide ranging yet concise and very well set out and presented,altogether a very professional piece of work,so well done and congratulations to you,and to all involved in the SG.
Minor points for you to consider: p28. Signage policy 4 though should be through p57. second para-after tunnel to the harbour,I think we should add/include the cask banks. p80. Cask Banks(plural) and following the help and advice from Andy Trudgian and the CHG,I think a small redrafting of this section would help,including the deletion of pilchards from the second line,and an update of the 2020 listing request with the assistance of CHG. p79. Fingers crossed we may be able to include the Cask Banks in this section? Better weather tomorrow and Thursday! Kind regards, Malcolm.
RESPONSE
From: "s.osbrink "
Dear Malcolm
Thank you for your email of 30th June and your very kind comments and suggestions which have been considered by the Strategic Group. The typo on Page 28 has been amended. I believe that you have had conversations with Trudy regarding the Cask Banks which have now been amended in Appendix 2 and added to page 57.
Thanks again and kind regards
Sue
Cllr Sue Osbrink Secretary - Strategic Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 89 PARISHIONER 19
COMMENT (verbal) and RESPONSE
Dear
Following your conversation with Sue your suggestions and concerns were discussed at a Strategic Group meeting. As Sue explained to you how the arrows work, and the fact that no further concerns had been expressed about them, it was decided not to make any changes.
Thank you for your interest in the Plan.
Kind regards
Sue Osbrink Secretary - SG Group
FURTHER COMMENT FROM PARISHIONER 19 From: "Haydn Webb"
Hi Sue, Thank you for your summary. It is not really how I think about my comments although I let it pass because it was explained that this diagram was from CCC and therefore could not really be changed. It was with this which I agreed. As an algorithm or flow diagram it is of poor quality no matter which way round it is. For example it suggests that there are six unlabelled or unexplained Policies or six groups of Policies. Some of these influenced three or three groups of unspecified Objectives. Some of the original Policies were irrelevant as they do not lead (point) to any Objectives. Somehow these Objectives, which are usually defined as specific tasks to do or actions to take after a purpose or vision has been defined. However these Objectives on the diagram end up as a The Vision for St Austell Bay Parish.
It is the wrong way round. Visions lead to actions in individuals or societies. The sad thing really is that there are no indications of local people’s knowledge, skills, needs or hopes for their community having been taken into account. Yet this was the original intention of a long term community plan. It is this exclusion of the contribution from the Parishioner’s knowledge or wishes that is the saddest thing because I know that the Council representing them really DID do this. Kind regards Haydn Webb
RESPONSE
From: "s.osbrink "
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 90 Subject: RE: The Parishioners were consulted too.
Dear
I'm afraid you still misunderstand the purpose of this figure. As the wording underneath the diagram explains, this diagram explains the relationship between the policies, objectives and vision only. It is not intended to be a complete flow chart showing the whole of the NP process. We do accept that it is hard to read on the A5 copy, but the description is also repeated on page 4 in the table of contents and explained in the sentence preceding Figure 1.
The consultation process, commencing with input from parishioners, is outlined in Section 2: Background - Preparing for the Plan. Specific ways in which policies have grown from the input of parishioners is thoroughly referenced in each of the policy sections and the evidence attached in the evidence base.
I hope this clarifies.
Kind regards Sue
Cllr Sue Osbrink Secretary - Strategic Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 91
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 92 PARISIONER 20
COMMENT - VERBAL
Richard Martyn 64 Duporth Bay 12/7 He thinks it's a 'very impressive booklet - spot on'. He pointed out a typo in Duporth at the top of page 33. Also the tree in picture 7 is an oak not a sycamore!
RESPONSE
Dear Mr Martyn
Many thanks for your interest in the Plan. Your comments have been noted - the error at the top of page 33 has been corrected and the caption for the tree picture has been amended to an oak tree.
Kind regards
Cllr Sue Osbrink Secretary - SG Group St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 93 PARISIONER 21
SUMMARISED COMMENT
From: "s.leach "
Finally, after several emails with Patrick Wharton of Polmear Farm, his comment boils down to the GB boundaries not being clear on maps 7 and 7a and not being the same as the one on the Site Allocations DPD.
These are the only ones I've had apart from the written ones. Sue
RESPONSE
Dear Patrick
Following your email exchanges with Sue (Leach) expressing concern about the green buffer boundaries not being clear on Maps 7 and 7a and not being the same as the one of the Cornwall Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD).
This matter was discussed by the Strategic Group and various Cornwall Council departments were also consulted. The DPD Department explained that they deliberately did not draw the boundary as a hard line because the purpose of it is to preserve openness and character rather than to allocate a site.
An improved and enlarged map will be included in the final version of the Plan.
Many thanks for your interest in and consideration of the Plan.
Kind regards Sue
Cllr Sue Osbrink Secretary - Strategic Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 94 PARISHIONER 22
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
First email exchange
Hi Sue, I know I’ve missed the official feedback timescales for this but I’m obviously currently reading through a lot at the moment and thought I’d mention a couple of things. Firstly, when the next or final version is produced will it contain a section or an Appendix where all the Policies only are listed and quoted? I’m sure you’ve already thought of this but it would be beneficial and user-friendly to have one list to which anyone can refer quickly. Secondly, a very minor point. I’m reading the A5 version posted out and the index seems to have gone wrong after page 52, it’s only by one page but it’s a bit annoying! I’m only currently on page 35, can I mention anything else if I see it/ think of it? Thanks,
Hi
Yes of course you can. The version which is finally submitted to Cornwall Council has to be signed off by the pc but it will be very helpful to have your comments ahead of that meeting.
We are aware of the error in the contents page and will correct that in the new version.
We will certainly consider your idea about a policies only appendix.
Many thanks,
Sue
Second email exchange
Hi Sue,
I'm still reading through this!
A quick question regarding Green Spaces on p41 and the map on p42.
Why are the woods in Duporth, between Woodland View and Porthpean Beach Road, to the side of Ridgeway Close,that lead down to the beach (part of Rashleigh's original gardens and woods) not included as 'Green Spaces'? It seems odd especially as you've stipulated the "Wooded area at base of over 55's village, Duporth" which is very small in comparison (detailed on p51).
Subject: RE: SAB Parish Neighbourhood Plan
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 95 Hi
The large wooded area you highlight is currently owned by Linden Homes but managed by the CIC, and ownership will revert to the CIC when the last property is built. As I'm sure you know the CIC has a firm commitment to preserving and managing the areas of woodland for which it is responsible. Most of it has a blanket TPO and the whole area is included under Map 5 on pg 35 of the plan and is thus protected under NE2: Trees and Woodland. We are strengthening the wording of this policy as a result of two comments made under the consultation process. Crucially, it is outside the development boundary. We considered this area to have adequate protections on it.
The small area at the base of the over-55s village is owned by Acorn Blue and its position at the base of the current development makes it highly vulnerable to a future planning application, especially as the trees have no TPOs. The area is to be slightly extended to include the 'buffer zone' agreed between Acorn Blue and the residents of Duporth Bay. Although we have excluded it from the development boundary, Map 2a shows clearly that it is surrounded by housing and hence vulnerable to a challenge. Its wildlife as set out in the designation means it meets the criteria for LGS and the CIC directors have supported this.
Hope this clarifies,
Sue
Third email (response in separate email)
Hi Sue,
Thanks for the explanation, yes that clarifies it.
I've now finished the Plan and have a couple more comments and questions please - then I'm done!!
Page 57 - You quote a case law "Forger Field & Banwell", was this relating to Charlestown? I think it should be stated if it was, and especially if it wasn't, it sounds like it was otherwise. Even so some explanation I think would be beneficial to the reading of the paragraph. The authors obviously know what this case law relates to, but the reader doesn't.
Page 62 - The 2 recent planning rejections quoted here don't mean anything without knowing a little about what they were. Again the reader won't have any idea. A brief explanation is required otherwise the point you're trying to make here isn't really being made.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 96 Page 63 - This is just a comment and question for my benefit really. In Policy HE2, you mention "A Heritage Statement ...will be required for any temporary structure..." etc. Ideally this obviously needs to be obtained BEFORE any structures are erected, no matter how temporary. We know from such structures that have gone up in and around the harbour for example, that this is not the case. Surely there should be some sort of penalty when this is ignored? Do the PC and/or the WHS have one? If so, what are they? Are there any 'real' penalties if there is any damage or destruction to any part of the WHS?
Page 64, Policy HE5 - Signage. The last paragraph states that "The intention is to ensure that signs do not detract from the historic environment ...". But can anything be actually done to prevent or stop them?
Page 73, Policy BE5 - mobile phone masts. Do masts need planning permission? If not, is this aspect relevant to the Plan?
Page 80, Appendix 2. - 1. Ponds. The last sentence "There is no public access today". That's not how I understand it from locals, many use it regularly! I'm assuming they shouldn't use it, but they do. So do you need to rephrase that sentence somehow?
2. The Ropewalk - again the same last sentence, but I thought the Nursery next door use it for woodland rambles/education?? Also, I think it would benefit the paragraph to explain where it is in the village.
3. Cask Bank - is there an update to the Listing request that could be quoted here?
4. The Clay Dry Linhay - again is there an update to the "area which should be retained within any future development"? Do we know from the Plans what is happening there and should that paragraph be updated if we do?
8. Weighbridges - where are these two? I know but I think this paragraph would benefit from explaining where the two are in relation to the harbour.
14. The Gun Battery - I understand this is actually owned by The Atalaya Family Trust, shouldn't that be mentioned here?
That's it you'll be pleased to know! Sorry it was late.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 97 St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan
Strategic Group Responses
Page 57 - You quote a case law "Forger Field & Banwell", was this relating to Charlestown? I think it should be stated if it was, and especially if it wasn't, it sounds like it was otherwise. Even so some explanation I think would be beneficial to the reading of the paragraph. The authors obviously know what this case law relates to, but the reader doesn't.
No - Northamptonshire. It's stated in the supplementary documentation but unfortunately the document is not in the Evidence Base (which it should be!) We'll sort this out and clarify on Page 57.
Page 62 - The 2 recent planning rejections quoted here don't mean anything without knowing a little about what they were. Again the reader won't have any idea. A brief explanation is required otherwise the point you're trying to make here isn't really being made.
Again, the quotes are there and the documents referenced in the supplementary documents list. These two definitely are in the Evidence Base! In order to make it readable and not too confusing we have been advised to include key references with further detail in the Evidence Base. However, we will adapt the wording on Page 62 to address your comment.
Page 63 - This is just a comment and question for my benefit really. In Policy HE2, you mention "A Heritage Statement ...will be required for any temporary structure..." etc. Ideally this obviously needs to be obtained BEFORE any structures are erected, no matter how temporary. We know from such structures that have gone up in and around the harbour for example, that this is not the case. Surely there should be some sort of penalty when this is ignored? Do the PC and/or the WHS have one? If so, what are they? Are there any 'real' penalties if there is any damage or destruction to any part of the WHS?
A Heritage Statement and/or Heritage Impact Assessment is not currently required for any temporary building or structure in the WHS. If the plan is adopted, they will be. So everything that is happened to date is perfectly lawful even if we do not agree with it. Hence the need to include this Policy and get the plan through as soon as possible. For your information we had other tougher measures in the original draft but planning law did not support them so we had to remove them. The only penalties for anything are through Enforcement. There is a massive backlog in cases and a lot of the time Planning Officers prefer to try to negotiate with landowners as it can be quicker than an enforcement case and cost less public money.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 98 Page 64, Policy HE5 - Signage. The last paragraph states that "The intention is to ensure that signs do not detract from the historic environment ...". But can anything be actually done to prevent or stop them?
As above - but permanent signage in WHS does need planning permission and we can therefore try to exert some influence. This has been done in certain instances recently.
Page 73, Policy BE5 - mobile phone masts. Do masts need planning permission? If not, is this aspect relevant to the Plan?
Yes they still do in many circumstances, such as AONB/WHS etc. The change in legislation in July especially applies to 'not-spots' and our parish is not one of them. We probably do not need to modify the wording here but if we do Cornwall Council or the Examiner will ask us to do so.
Page 80, Appendix 2. - 1. Ponds. The last sentence "There is no public access today". That's not how I understand it from locals, many use it regularly! I'm assuming they shouldn't use it, but they do. So do you need to rephrase that sentence somehow?
No – it is private land so anyone using it is doing so illegally, and the plan needs to reflect that.
2. The Ropewalk - again the same last sentence, but I thought the Nursery next door use it for woodland rambles/education?? Also, I think it would benefit the paragraph to explain where it is in the village.
Again, it is privately owned and the Forest School uses it on a lease with access restricted to staff and children. When we did a council visit we had to be accompanied. Definitely no public access. There is more detail about it on Page 50 of the plan. The map shows the location.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 99 PARISHIONER 23
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 100 RESPONSE
From: "s.osbrink "
Dear Mr Ridgewell-Howard Thank you for your written comments about the Plan and for providing your email address. Your comments and concerns have been considered by the Strategic Group. The points that you raise are outside the remit of the Neighbourhood Plan which can only deal with issues requiring new planning applications. However, the Parish Council will be considering parking issues across the whole parish in the next few months. Kind regards Cllr Sue Osbrink Secretary - Strategic Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 101 ATALAYA TRUST
COMMENTS
From: Peter Browning, Trustee for the Atalaya Trust 10.07.20 To: Cllr. Ms. Sue Osbrink c.c.: Cllr.W. Leach Cllr. S. Leach Ms. Julie Larter Cllr. T. French Mr. James Clapp Ms. Ali Browning
Dear Councillor Osbrink, 10.07.20
Neighbourhood Plan Consultation
Firstly, many thanks to you and your colleagues for what I know will have been a great deal of hard work in production of the Neighbourhood Plan. May I please submit the following comments/information which I trust will be of assistance in finalising this Plan. These are our submissions to St.Austell Bay PC in response to the SABPC Consultation regarding its June 2020 Neighbourhood Plan by the Trustees of 74 acres of Polmear Farm. The red- font wording below is our suggestion for insertion into the existing wording :
Pages 32 – 33 Coastal Environment
Recent cracks in the westward coastal path from Charlestown to Duporth have closed the path until at least November 2020 and a section about 50 metres further up this path is highly vulnerable, as with the path eastward from Charlestown to Carlyon Bay.
Page 44 – Campdowns Cemetery
The wording of the final sentence here ‘…A field leading down the hill towards the sea gives space for continued use…’ might suggest a future expansion beyond the cemetery boundary, but such expansion is extremely unlikely.
Pages 52 – 53 Green Buffers
We fully appreciate that ‘green buffers’ were not a part of the SABPC’s work, but the Trustees of the 74 acres of Polmear Farm were never consulted by Cornwall Council during its buffering process. There is an error in the mapping (per Map 7) wherein the southernmost field adjacent to the Battery is substantially excluded. The buffer-boundary should follow the existing line of the coastal path around the outside of the Battery wall. The actual route of the path can be seen by enlarging the Council’s aerial map of the Battery site : We confirm that we have written to the Chief Mapping Officer at Cornwall Council seeking correction of this error.
Page 59 – Heritage Assets – Scheduled Monuments
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 102 Historic England are the Curators of Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings, and detailed reference to the Historic England website https://historicengland /listing/the- list/list-entry/1289512 will demonstrate that The Crinnis Cliff Gun Battery (a.k.a. the Charlestown Battery) is worthy of inclusion on this page. Th map on this site also confirms the correct edge of the ‘green buffer’ zone and the footpath line. The List Entry Number is 1289512, Heritage Category ‘Listed’, Grade II. The wall to landward side of gun battery, 1793 for Charles Rashleigh, with later alterations is listed at Grade II for the following principal reasons:
Architectural interest: for its construction in local granite, with an ornamental parapet designed to be a feature in the landscape as seen from the Rashleigh estate at Duporth. Historic interest: for the connection to Charles Rashleigh and the development of Charlestown from 1792; * as a representation of defence against the threat of attack from the sea at the time of the Napoleonic Wars.
Page 81 - Appendix 2 Locally Important Heritage Assets
Item 14 The Gun Battery – could usefully cross-reference to the Listing detail proposed above.
Also, as an adjunct to the Battery listing, the FORMER GUN SHED AND ATTACHED LIME KILNS, which was used to retain guns, small arms and equipment for use at the Battery, is also listed at https://historicengland /listing/the-list/list- entry/1212577 Excerpt : The Gun Shed. c1804-5, built to house 18-pounder guns from the cliff battery. Coursed stone rubble with brick right gable-end; gabled slate roof. Rectangular plan with ground-floor store for guns and first-floor carpenters' shop. 2 storeys; 4-window range. 3/2 pane sashes of 1991 with brick jambs to first floor; semi-circular-arched opening to left, timber lintel over opening with brick jambs to right; 4 buttresses. Left gable end has steps to loft door and timber lintels over flanking 3/3-pane sashes. Interior: heavy beams; cobbled floor; king-post roof. right angles to rear left, built of squared granite blocks with chamfered coping to retaining walls, and keyed brick arches to kilns, that left adjoining sawpit. The kilns are of an unusually grand scale and flank a rare example of a gun shed of the Napoleonic era.
Will you very kindly please update us in respect of actions taken in respect of our comments ? If we can be of further assistance, please let us know. Meanwhile, we hope that you will find this information helpful, with our thanks for the opportunity of this consultation.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Browning,
Trustee, the Atalaya Trust
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 103 RESPONSE (sent as an email)
Dear Mr Browning Thank you very much for your response to the Neighbourhood Plan and for recognising the hard work that has gone into its production.
Our reply to your specific comments on behalf of the Atalaya Trust is as follows:
Pages 32-33 Coastal Environment We are making some modifications to the wording here, with the aim of being less specific so it will not date too rapidly. The final version of the Plan will not go to referendum for some months yet.
Page 44 Campdowns Cemetery The revised wording will make it clear that the field in question is already used as a cemetery and is not one currently being farmed.
Pages 52-54 Green Buffers We have looked very carefully at the A1 map of the existing green buffer zone as set out in the Cornwall Site Allocations DPD, and we are satisfied that it does extend right to the Battery. It overlaps the existing line of the coastal footpath. If you had any reply to your query from the Chief Mapping Officer it would be extremely helpful if you would share it with us. We intend to get our map altered so it matches the Cornwall Council one. (You may recall I explained when we met that the pandemic prevented us from getting map changes made before the pre-submission consultation version was sent out - but we did not wish to delay the process till May 2021 so went with the maps we had.)
Page 59 Heritage Assets - Scheduled Monuments and Page 81 Appendix 2 Locally Important Heritage Assets We have contacted WHS and other agencies and established that the Battery and all the land inside is included in the current listing 1289512. However, it has not been listed as a Scheduled Monument. The Cornwall Council and Historic England report Cornish Ports and Harbours Assessment: Charlestown Final report 12/02/2016 suggests it could be further protected by this designation, but it has not been done, and to do so is outside the remit of the Neighbourhood Plan. If you wish this to be pursued, please contact Historic England for further advice.
We are updating the information on the Battery to reflect the fact that it is not just the wall which is listed. It will be removed from Appendix 2 Heritage Assets and the entry in Appendix 1 Listed Buildings will be re-worded to The Gun Battery, (Crinnis Cliff), Charlestown.
Unfortunately the constraints of space in the Plan document, and further consideration of the purpose of the Plan, mean we cannot include all detail available on each of the items in the appendices. However, we will add the list entry numbers for all listed buildings and a line which says that further information on each can be obtained from the Historic England website, a link to which will also be given. A fuller explanation is given for each of the assets in Appendix 2 as they are not assigned numbers and are not on the Historic England website.
We do hope these answers resolve your queries. Kind regards Cllr Sue Osbrink Secretary – Strategic Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 104 EMERY PLANNING
COMMENTS (received attached to an email)
Emery Planning 2-4 South Park Court, Hobson Street Macclesfield, SK11 8BS Tel: 01625 433 881 www.emeryplanning
Representations to St Austell Bay Parish Neighbourhood Plan Pre-Submission Consultation - June 2020 for Ref : 6412 : St Austell Bay NP : Date : August 2020 Author : Stephen Harris
This report has been prepared for the client by Emery Planning with all reasonable skill, care and diligence. No part of this document may be reproduced without the prior written approval of Emery Planning. Emery Planning Partnership Limited trading as Emery Planning.
Contents: 1. Introduction 1
2. Policy Context 1
3. Objection to Policy H1: Development Boundaries 2
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan Pre Submission Draft August 2020
1 1. Introduction 1.1 Emery Planning is submitting these representations to the St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan (hereafter referred to as the ‘STBNP’). 1.2 It is clear that the Neighbourhood Plan Team has made significant strides in its production of the Neighbourhood Plan. However, we consider that a number of changes are needed to ensure that the plan meets the basic conditions.
2. Policy Context 2.1 The basic conditions are set out in paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as applied to neighbourhood plans by Section 38A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The basic conditions are: a. having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State it is appropriate to make the order (or neighbourhood plan). b. having special regard to the desirability of preserving any listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses, it is appropriate to make the order. This applies only to Orders. c. having special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of any conservation area, it is appropriate to make the order. This applies only to Orders. d. the making of the order (or neighbourhood plan) contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. e. the making of the order (or neighbourhood plan) is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area of the authority (or any part of that area). f. the making of the order (or neighbourhood plan) does not breach, and is otherwise compatible with, EU obligations. g. prescribed conditions are met in relation to the Order (or plan) and prescribed matters have been complied with in connection with the proposal for the order (or neighbourhood plan). 2.2 We refer to these where relevant. St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan Pre Submission Draft August 2020 2 2.3 Neighbourhood Plans must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the wider local area, which in this instance are set out within the Cornwall Local Plan (CLP) which was adopted in November 2016 and the Site Allocations DPD (SADPD) adopted in November 2019.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 105 3. Objection to Policy H1: Development Boundaries
3.1 The first part of Policy H1 states: “Within the Development Boundaries the Parish will support small scale, high quality new housing where it is evident that such building(s) could be deemed by reference to the CLP planning guidelines as infill, rounding off or on previously developed land but still preserve and enhance the identity of the Parish”. 3.2 We object on the basis that the proposed policy is not in conformity with the CLP and SADPD. This is because Policy H1 specifically refers to rounding off within the context of development boundaries. Two points arise. 3.3 The first is that there are no development boundaries in the CLP or the SADPD. Whilst a neighbourhood plan can define development boundaries, this must be evidenced and assessed as to which sites should be included or indeed excluded. There is no evidence base or methodology for assessing the definition of the development boundary. For example the built development along Mill Lane should be included. Therefore boundaries should include areas of land which are physically related to the settlement and have planning permission for residential, employment or community buildings, and have been subsequently built out or are under construction. This is clearly not the case using Mill Lane as an example which should be included. 3.4 The second is that there would be a conflict with part 3 of Policy 3 of the Local Plan and Policy 1: Windfall Development of the SADPD. 3.5 Part 3 of Policy 3 states: “3. Other than at the main towns identified in this Policy, housing and employment growth will be delivered for the remainder of the Community Network Area housing requirement through: • identification of sites where required through Neighbourhood Plans; • rounding off of settlements and development of previously developed land within or immediately adjoining that settlement of a scale appropriate to its size and role [our emphasis]; St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan Pre Submission Draft August 2020 3 • infill schemes that fill a small gap in an otherwise continuous built frontage and do not physically extend the settlement into the open countryside. Proposals should consider the significance or importance that large gaps can make to the setting of settlements and ensure that this would not be diminished; • rural exception sites under Policy 9.” (our emphasis) 3.6 Paragraph 1.68 refers to “smaller villages and hamlets”. It provides a definition of “Rounding Off” which states: “This applies to development on land that is substantially enclosed but outside of the urban form of a settlement and where its edge is clearly defined by a physical feature that also acts as a barrier to further growth ( such as a road). It should not visually extend building into the open countryside.”(our emphasis) 3.7 Policy 1 of the SADPD states: “Housing growth will be delivered for the settlements named in the Site Allocations DPD through the policies in this plan and through: 1. Existing sites with planning permission that can help contribute in a timely manner to the housing supply; 2. Infill development that does not physically extend into the open countryside or diminish a large gap that is important to the setting of the settlement; 3. Small scale rounding off that is appropriate to the size and role of the settlement and does not physically extend development into the open countryside; 4. The development of previously developed land within or adjoining the named settlements.” (our emphasis) 3.8 The Chief Planning Officer’s Advice Note provides further advice which does not form part of the development plan. It states: “Rounding off After considering the policy stipulation about scale, a key consideration is rounding off. Rounding off provides a symmetry or completion to a settlement boundary, it is not intended to facilitate continued incremental growth. When making a judgement on rounding off, the decision maker needs to review the settlement and the surrounding area by visiting the site as well as reviewing maps and photographs to understand where the physical and logical boundaries of the existing settlement are. Rounding off development should not visually extend development into the open
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 106 countryside and should be St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan Pre Submission Draft August 2020 4 predominantly enclosed by edging features. The boundaries of some settlements can be irregular and edges can include lower density development, large gardens that are important to the character and setting of the settlement and previously developed land. A judgement will be required on a case by case basis whether a site has the appearance of being within the physical boundaries of that settlement. The presence of definite boundaries, landscape features, the history and nature of the land, whether it is despoiled, degraded, derelict or contaminated, existing development and topography will be important considerations in this respect. Proposals must be adjacent to existing development and be contained within long standing and enclosing boundary features, for example, a road, Cornish hedge or stream. Suitable sites are likely to be surrounded on at least two sides by existing built development. Development resulting in the creation of a further site for rounding off is unlikely to be rounding off in itself. (our emphasis) In contrast, Policy 9 (Rural exceptions sites) is not restricted to this enclosed site characteristics.” (our emphasis) 3.9 The importance of infill and rounding off is set out by the Inspectors into the SADPD. They state: “Should the Plan make express provision for windfall housing development? 51. We note above in relation to the Purpose of the Plan and Scope of the Examination that some reliance is placed upon windfall development to meet the housing targets for each town and CNA of the Plan. It is necessary to the effectiveness of the Plan to set down criteria for the approval of windfall development from acceptable sources. This is achieved by MM3 which inserts into Chapter 1, Introduction, a new Policy 1 for Windfall Development from existing permitted sites as well as by infill, rounding off settlements and redevelopment of previously developed land. That modification is thus consistent with and has no effect on the support of Policies 3 and 9 of the adopted LPSP respectively for infill and rounding off to settlements and rural exception sites. 3.10 Development proposals which are rounding off, by the definition in the development plan are adjacent to the existing developed area, and in the case of the SABNP, the development boundary. Policy H1 should therefore be amended to read (the bold and underlined text are additions with the strikethrough text removed): “Within the Development Boundaries the Parish will support small scale, high quality new housing where it is evident that such building(s) could be deemed by reference to the CLP planning guidelines as infill. Outside the Development Boundaries rounding off or on previously developed land will be accepted which is well related to and fit into the physical form of the landscape and be appropriate in scale, character and appearance where they but still preserve and enhance the identity of the Parish”. St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan Pre Submission Draft August 2020 5 3.11 As required by Basic Condition (e), Policy H1 would then be in general conformity with the development plan and with the approach for windfall development that the Inspectors for the SADPD found that plan sound and then adopted. 3.12 In addition, if Policy H1 of the SABNP is to set development boundaries they need to be established by a methodology that has been consulted upon and an assessment in accordance with that methodology. That has not been undertaken to date. 3.13 This concludes our representation and we would be grateful to be informed of progress.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 107 RESPONSE (sent as an email)
Dear Mr Harris
Thank you for your email of 8 August 2020 regarding the draft St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan.
We have taken advice from Cornwall Council’s Neighbourhood Planning Team throughout this process. The local planning authority and the Examiner will in due course examine the Neighbourhood Plan against the Basic Conditions.
We note your objection to Policy H1: Development Boundaries.
We accept that the methodology used for deciding on and determining the extent of the Development Boundaries was not included in the Evidence Base. This has now been included. Our starting point was the overwhelming response from the community consultations which included not only the responses to the Residents’ Questionnaire but also to the drop-in sessions held both prior to the Questionnaire and when publicising the Local Landscape Character Assessment. It was clearly evident that the community was opposed to developments which would extend the built-up area of existing settlements and was highly supportive of protecting green spaces within the Parish.
Policy H1 relates to Development Boundaries only and ensures conformity with the Cornwall Local Plan in that within these boundaries Development Boundaries sites which would fulfil the requirements of “rounding off, infill, or previously developed land” will be supported. As there are very few brownfield sites within the Development Boundaries the housing will, by necessity, be small scale, but should be of a high quality. The added requirement of compatibility with the historic characteristics of areas of the Parish, some of which are within a World Heritage Site or Conservation Area, and sensitivity to the scenic landscape, reinforces the aspirations of the community.
You have commented on the exclusion of Mill Lane, Charlestown from within the Development Boundary. We have followed the guidance produced by Cornwall Council throughout this process and we critically examined the boundaries around all built-up areas of the Parish. In general we have followed the edge of settlement boundaries determined by the Local Landscape Character Assessment (Published version dated January 2020) to determine many of the Development Boundaries. Mill Lane is not included within the Settlement Edge Assessment for Charlestown. In our further assessment it is a low density area of a few houses, clearly separated from the main village by areas of woodland to the east and by green fields to the south and to the west. I am sure that you are aware that these green fields are even more relevant as they have been designated as Green Buffers in the recent Cornwall Council Site Allocations DPD.
We feel we have followed due process throughout and do not consider it necessary to amend Policy H1.
Kind regards
Cllr Sue Osbrink
Secretary – Strategic Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 108 CHARLESTOWN HISTORICAL GROUP
COMMENT
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 109
RESPONSE
From: "s.osbrink "
Dear Andy
Thank you for your response to the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) made on behalf of the Charlestown History Group (CHG), which has now been fully considered by our Strategic Group.
As you already know from our previous conversations and a meeting, many of the points you raise are outside the remit of the Neighbourhood Plan. Where possible we will add these to our Community Actions appendix as shown below.
At the time of this response, it seems that the future of the CHG is uncertain. We would ask that you keep us fully updated on this matter in order that we can decide what we need to recommend to the Parish Council under Community Actions. This is a very high priority matter as we will also have to inform Cornwall Council and the independent Examiner on the status of the group when the plan is submitted in a few weeks' time.
Kind regards
Cllr Sue Osbrink
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 110 Secretary – Strategic Group
• Policies HE1 and HE3 have been strengthened to reflect Points 1 (bullet 2) and 3 (bullet 3); • South Polmear Mine remains: added to Locally Important Heritage assets (Appendix 2); • Flagstaff, China Clay Chutes: added to Listed Buildings (Appendix 1); • We have received confirmation that the whole of the Battery is listed. • Added to Community Actions (only if the future of the group is confirmed): • “To work with the Charlestown History Group to consider matters raised under Points 2, 3 (bullet 3), 4, 5 (only as regards the area within our parish), 6, 7, 8 (only with regard to land not under private ownership) and 9.”; • Point 1 (bullet 1): outside the remit of the NP and Parish Council
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 111 PORTHPEAN GOLF CLUB
COMMENTS
ST AUSTELL BAY PARISH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: 2019-2030 Pre-Submission Consultation Version. Representation and objection to the Local Green Space designation, and proposal from the Owners of Porthpean Golf Club. 5th August 2020
Page 1 of 6
5th August 2020 LOCAL GREEN SPACES POLICY 1 (LGS1): DESIGNATIONS The open spaces shown in Map 6 and itemised in Policies 1(a) to 1(h) are designated as Local Green Spaces in accordance with paragraph 99 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Development proposals will only be supported where they do not diminish the open, green character of these areas and only if they are proposed solely to improve the community use of the space, such as community orchards, community gardens, allotments and play areas. SECTION 1 PORTHPEAN GOLF COURSE OBJECTIONS IN SUMMARY 17.5 ha of Porthpean Golf course is designated as Local Green Space, LGS1c Policy , area 8 as shown on Map 6 and 6c in the Draft Neighbourhood Plan June 2020. We have strong objections to this designation and, following our letter of 14th Nov 2019 and our representation to Councillors Osbrink, Leach and Reynolds via the Zoom meeting 27th July 2020, our reasons are summarised below. A. The proposed scale of the designation and the development restrictions in the LGS Policy 1 create a threat to our business’s ability to remain commercially viable into the future and, as a secondary outcome, this a threat to the ongoing positive land management of the area.
B. The scale of the designation and the way in which it benefits the community is significantly different to the other LGS designations and the LGS policy is not appropriate.
C. The justifications for the designation are already strongly protected by existing and proposed policies within National, County and Local Plans, that ensure that any developments are strongly scrutinised and assessed as to their suitability, and therefore the additional protections created by the LGS policy are not required.
Objections in detail A. Threat to the business commercial viability
Porthpean Golf Club is a family owned and run business. The family has owned and manged the land for over 50 years, as a farm and subsequently a farm and golf course and currently employs 10 people. The management and maintenance of the land exists only because it is a viable business, there is no subsidy or charity to provide backup or support to the business. Any business needs the conditions to invest, expand and adapt for commercial reasons as supported in wider planning policies to support business including :-
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 112 ST AUSTELL BAY PARISH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: 2019-2030 Pre-Submission Consultation Version. Representation and objection to the Local Green Space designation, and proposal from the Owners of Porthpean Golf Club. 5th August 2020 Page 2 of 6 extracts - National planning policy Framework. 2019 6. Building a strong, competitive economy 80. Planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. Supporting a prosperous rural economy 83. Planning policies and decisions should enable: a) the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings; b) the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses; c) sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside Cornwall Local Plan Policy 5 Business and Tourism 2.1 In order to make the economy competitive it is important to remove unnecessary barriers. The Plan seeks to provide a positive policy framework, which supports jobs, business and investment with a focus on sustaining a range of local businesses. It sets a framework to encourage both large and small scale opportunities throughout Cornwall in appropriate locations. Decisions will support and protect the sustainability and expansion of existing businesses and the growth of new sectors to strengthen the economy particularly where this provides full time jobs and, wherever possible, leads to a rise in the average wage in Cornwall. A. Threat to the business commercial viability continued :- The Golf industry in the UK is unfortunately in a steady decline, (more than a 20% reduction is widely recorded over the past 10 years alone) and the demographic of the players is significantly increasing in age. The consequence of this is that players are becoming increasing price sensitive, and looking for increased services. Porthpean Golf Club has already sort to diversify its business by successfully offering increased catering and events services. However, the Club also has experience that membership declines during economic decline and the very recent COVID 19 emergency (that will certainly cause a very significant recession and has already severely restricted the commercial options), will require the business, more than ever, to explore ways to invest, expand and adapt in order to commercially survive this recession. So in particular the 2nd part of the Policy statement ‘ and only if they are proposed solely to improve the community use of the space, such as community orchards, community gardens, allotments and play areas.’ creates a situation where our business has no commercial scope to invest, expand and adapt /diversify to inevitable economic changes. Without this ability the business will go into decline and inevitably lead to the failure of the business. This will jeopardises local jobs and the on-going positive land management both in the short and long term. Objection - The LGS policy works against other policies that aim to support businesses to invest, expand and adapt.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 113
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 114 ST AUSTELL BAY PARISH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: 2019-2030 Pre-Submission Consultation Version. Representation and objection to the Local Green Space designation, and proposal from the Owners of Porthpean Golf Club. 5th August 2020 Page 4 of 6 The landscape character and visual enjoyment of this private area of land by the local community is taken from existing public areas such as the pavements, footpaths and also private houses and gardens and not from the physical use of the land. The community doesn’t actually physically use the Golf Course very much, evidenced by the low number of local residents who are members. Everyone must pay to use the private course and the number of members from the Parish has averaged 13 /14 over the last 10 years, from a total membership that averages 300. Rights of Way :- • • There is only 1 short section of ‘open’ footpath that actually crosses the course, approx. 130m length, at hole 10. • • The bridleway between Porthpean Beach Road and Higher Porthpean is hedged and self- contained and does not cross the land of the golf course. • • The footpath from Higher Porthpean Village to (Porthpean) Road that runs to the south of the course is again hedged and self-contained and does not cross the course. It is predominantly used as a route from the Outdoor Education Centre to Porthpean Village. • • The golf course or club has not specifically been identified by anyone in the community questionnaire, other than 1 general comment about recreation in the general area.
Objection - Area 8 is a very much larger area than any of the other areas of Local Green Space proposed (these range from 0.18ha to 5ha) and the way in which the golf course benefits the local community is not through the direct use of this land. This makes the designation significantly different to the other green spaces proposed and not within the ‘spirit’ of the LGS observed in other neighbourhood plans. • B. Existing Plan protections that relate to the policy justifications for the specific Local Green Space Area 8.
It is recognised that the land identified has a significant visual impact on the general character of the area, provides wildlife habitat and in part acts as an informal green separation between Higher and Lower Porthpean. However these justifications identified for the LGS designation already have protection elsewhere within The Plan, including :- • • The area identified is outside of the supported Development Boundaries of the Neighbourhood Plan. • • Section 3 ( of the Neighbourhood Plan) ‘Natural Environment and Landscape Character’, has specific references to protecting the visual character and biodiversity including the Landscape Policy 1 (Respecting Landscape Character) and Policy 2 (Retaining a Sense of Place). • • The Local Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Value Assessment • • The Parish Council is working with the staff unit of the Cornwall AONB Partnership to protect the AONB and to extend this area to include Higher Porthpean.
Objection - Other Plan Policies already serve to protect the green character and wildlife habitat of the area and additional protection is not required.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 115 ST AUSTELL BAY PARISH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN: 2019-2030 Pre-Submission Consultation Version. Representation and objection to the Local Green Space designation, and proposal from the Owners of Porthpean Golf Club. 5th August 2020 Page 5 of 6 SECTION 2 – PROPOSED NEW POLICY AND DESIGNATION AREA Notwithstanding our objections to the designation of 17.5ha of Porthpean Golf Course as Local Green Space as listed in Section 1 and our previous letter of the 3rd November 2019, we acknowledge that the area has significance to the local community in the following ways. • • The visual ‘green’ separation between the developments of Higher Porthpean and Porthpean Beach Road, Lower Porthpean. • • The coastal landscape character of this area is specifically enjoyed from the bridleway, footpath and pavement and consists of open areas of mixed grassland, hedgerows, shrubs, groups of trees, individual trees and the subsequent wildlife habitat this provides.
We feel that the new proposal below acknowledges the main concern by the local community and the LLCA that the settlements within the Parish could ‘merge’ over time and the area between Higher Porthpean and Porthpean Beach Road is of particular concern, and it also incorporates the area that gives rise to localised views appreciated by users of the bridleway, the footpath across the 10th hole and from Porthpean Beach Road. Therefore, we would be able to support the following approach of a new specific Policy, suggested to be within the Natural Environment and Landscape Character Section of the Plan, for a targeted but still significantly large area of approximately 8.5 ha rather than the current 17.5ha remaining as a LGS designation. Suggested new policy wording Landscape Policy L3 informal green separation DESIGNATION The specific area shown in Map LP3 . Development proposals will only be supported where they retain the informal green separation between Higher and Lower Porthpean, do not diminish the general open landscape character of the area, and enhance wildlife habitat opportunities. Policy justification is - ‘Holes 10 -15 of this golf course lie within the Parish of St Austell Bay and act as an informal green separation between the two settlements of Higher Porthpean and Lower Porthpean. Residents, walkers and horse-riders all appreciate spectacular localised views from the footpath and bridleway in this area and benefit from the mixed land management and subsequent wildlife habitat created. Refer to map LP3 below
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 116
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 117 RESPONSE
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
05.10.20
Dear
Re: St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan
Thank you for your email of 5 August 2020 regarding the draft St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan (NP).
We have taken advice from Cornwall Council’s Neighbourhood Planning Team throughout the process of preparing the Plan.
We note your objection to Policy LGS1c: Local Green Space Porthpean Golf Club and your proposed alternative policy and designation area.
Our starting point in creating this policy, and all the policies in the plan, was the overwhelming response from the community consultations which included not only the responses to the Residents’ Questionnaire but also to the drop-in sessions held both prior to the Questionnaire and when publicising the Local Landscape Character Assessment, which forms a significant part of the Evidence Base for the Plan. It was clearly evident that the community was highly supportive of protecting green spaces within the Parish, (96% in favour) and 93.75% also wished to preserve the green boundaries between the three wards of the Parish and between the Parish and neighbouring town and parishes.
The Strategic Group carefully examined the most effective ways of protecting each green space. Some were part of the AONB. Others were designated as Green Buffers in the Cornwall Site Allocations DPD (passed November 2019). Some extensions to this were added under Policy GB1. Some areas of woodland had Tree Preservation Order (TPO) status. Those without were protected in
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 118 our Plan under Policy NE2. Those which met the criteria were designated as Local Green Spaces. This is a high-level designation which requires us to demonstrate that the areas are of importance to the community for different reasons, such as beauty, historic significance, recreational value, tranquillity, and/or richness of its wildlife. The area of Porthpean Golf Club which lies within our Parish met many of these criteria as explained below:
Beauty
Many comments in the consultations related to the beauty of the area, specifically, but not exclusively, views across the golf course to and from the sea, which are regarded as outstanding. These can also be seen from the bridle path which runs across the course, as shown in Picture 11 in the Plan. As it is on a ridgeline, the LLCA would mitigate against any development as it would be a ‘prominent element on the skyline’.
Historic significance
We are aware that the club is formed within the fields that once framed the entrance to and surrounded the historic hamlet of Higher Porthpean, as evidenced by the 1842 Tithe Map.
As evidenced by the Environment Service's recent involvement in securing the reinstatement of two historic stiles on one of the holloways that led to such fields from the 'Town Place' at the heart of the hamlet (with an important cluster of listed buildings) Higher Porthpean is a remarkably complete example of a particular historic pattern of rural development. Any development outside the settlement boundary (single dwelling deep along the village road before it steeply turns down Beach Road at the Church) would represent a significant threat to the hamlet being subject to further incremental development pressures that would fundamentally jeopardise this character and setting. The contention that Higher Porthpean is a hamlet set within open countryside was clearly established by the Appeal Inspectors in the cases referred to within the Evidence Base. Picture 11 on p.45 is particularly relevant as it shows the golf course visually extending to the open countryside of the AONB.
Recreational value
Obviously there is recreational use as a golf course. The number of members who live within the Parish is irrelevant as the Plan also caters for the needs and views of those who have an interest in the Parish – as members of the club will have. Additionally, members of the local community appreciate the opportunity to walk, cycle or ride horses along the bridleway, and to use the public footpaths which lead across the golf club land.
Tranquillity/richness of wildlife
Respondents to the LLCA consultation in May and June 2019 spoke of the variety of wildlife they were able to witness while using the footpaths and bridleway, and also talked about the other ways in which the area is important to them. These comments are detailed in the Evidence Base.
In addition, the LGS designation protects the informal green separation between Lower and Higher Porthpean, deemed as an important factor in the LLCA as well as in consultation responses.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 119 We have considered very carefully your objections and alternative proposal.
With regard to your first objection summarised as A below, we would make the following comments.
A. The proposed scale of the designation and the development restrictions in the LGS Policy 1 create a threat to our business’s ability to remain commercially viable into the future and, as a secondary outcome, this a threat to the ongoing positive land management of the area.
You are not specific in either the summary or the detailed objection about the ways in which you envisage investing, expanding and adapting the business in future. We are assuming, in the absence of other information from you, that further expansion would be to the golf club and possibly related facilities for the benefit of members and visitors, or to the farm. We have given this serious consideration in deciding our response.
We must also disagree with your comment about the current situation in the golf industry in the UK. While your point about the drop-off in popularity was certainly evidenced prior to the pandemic, since the easing of lockdown restrictions most golf clubs have seen a sharp rise in membership and/or casual bookings. St Austell Golf Club, as a near neighbour, has reported a great increase in membership, and also green fees are significantly up since the start of May. Most clubhouses have now re-opened and although big functions are clearly still not an option, there is some room for small scale events.
Farms are clearly even more important with Brexit approaching, an uncertain trade deal with Europe, and a proven demand post-pandemic for more local produce, so there is potential room for expansion of this element of your business.
With regard to your summary of objection B, summarised below, our response is as follows:
B. The scale of the designation and the way in which it benefits the community is significantly different to the other LGS designations and the LGS policy is not appropriate.
There is nothing in the LGS designation criteria to say that the landscape character and visual enjoyment of this area by the community has to be ‘from the physical use of the land’.
Additionally, members who are not parishioners still count as having an interest in the Parish and therefore in its facilities.
There is no legislation to say what constitutes an ‘extensive tract of land’ where LGS designation is concerned.
We have received many positive comments in the LLCA consultation about the right of way across the golf course and the wildlife, views, beauty and tranquillity it affords. During this pre-submission consultation, apart from your objection we have only received positive comments about the designation of part of the golf course as a LGS.
Summary of objection C:
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 120
C. The justifications for the designation are already strongly protected by existing and proposed policies within National, County and Local Plans, that ensure that any developments are strongly scrutinised and assessed as to their suitability, and therefore the additional protections created by the LGS policy are not required.
We note your comments about the other protections afforded to the area in question. The final bullet is something which is an aspiration and not yet finalised so can be discounted. Policy LGS 1 picks up on points made in the LLCA and LVA, (third bullet) which are there to inform and support policy, but do not of themselves form policy.
Bullet points 1 and 2 are quite correct, but our advisers have informed us that there is sometimes merit in having an extra layer of protection on an area which is especially significant. We have done the same for LGS 1a.
Your proposed alternative policy and designation area.
We welcome your support for the rationale behind the designation. While we cannot agree with your proposal in its entirety, we are intending to make the following adaptations as a compromise, to show we understand your concerns and are aiming to give something to you as a local business while still prioritising the wishes of our parishioners, which must remain at the heart of the Neighbourhood Plan.
Designation Area
We are revising this as the accompanying map shows. This removes
1) the area of agricultural grazing land shown on the map on page 3 of your submission of 5/8/20
2) the golf ancillary buildings, gardens and building curtilage also shown on the map
3) the clubhouse shown on your map with an extended area also excluded.
We feel this allows room for the expansion of the golf club and associated facilities for the benefit of the members and visitors as previously outlined. It also reduces the size of the area (though as stated above, there is no legal definition of ‘extensive tract of land’.
We will amend the wording of the Policy Justification to show that we are allowing room for the development of the golf club.
Alternative policy
Although we are unable to accept your suggestion we are altering the wording of our LGS Policy 1 to reflect some of your concerns. It will now read:
LOCAL GREEN SPACES POLICY 1 (LGS1): DESIGNATIONS
The open spaces shown in Large Map 2 and itemised in Policies 1(a) to 1(h) are designated as Local Green Spaces in accordance with paragraph 99 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 121 Development proposals will only be supported where they do not diminish the open, green character of these areas or harm their character, setting, appearance, accessibility, general quality or amenity value.
We hope that these amendments to the area and policy will allay your concerns.
With reference to the points made in your email of 6 August 2020 accompanying your objections, the Plan, once finalised, will be submitted to Cornwall Council, together with our Consultation Statement which contains a summary of comments received and our responses, plus an appendix which contains individual comments in full and responses in full. Cornwall Council will publicise the Plan under Regulation 16 and this will include how to proceed if you wish to send your comment again at this stage. If you do, it will be passed on to the independent Examiner. I hope this clarifies.
Kind regards
Cllr Sue Osbrink
Secretary – SG Group
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 122
St Austell Bay Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement P a g e | 123