<p>PLANNING</p><p>1. Planning for new homes very important for locals</p><p>2. Extensions on second homes should not be allowed</p><p>3. Within reason if needed for family and local housing</p><p>4. At any one time in this village there are a number of properties for sale – why build more with such a bad traffic structure?</p><p>5. This is a village, do not turn it into a town</p><p>6. Making it easier for local people to remain living on the Roseland by making planning permission for new homes and extensions easier for local individuals but harder for developers. This will help to keep a community together on the Roseland rather than it simply being a holiday location</p><p>7. We do not want dozens of little houses everywhere in estates – if they are needed then they should be built as infill in the centre of our villages where the people will be included in a community and not become a separate set</p><p>8. Local style and materials</p><p>9. Should be passive and sustainable</p><p>10. Local planning charge could be issued, requiring all house sales/purchases to declare if property to be used as a main residential or second home. If latter, % charge payable to Parish council, handed to Parish council led housing charity. Housing charity set up by Parish council, monies collected paid to it, and these monies applied towards purchase of houses within the parish, and subsequently let to local families at a low rent on a full repairing lease (i.e. tenant repairs) Second home owners could also be asked to make voluntary annual donations to this charity. Above would negate need for new house builds on fields and expansion of villages, with new housing full of locals and more traditional ‘pretty’ houses reserved only for second home owners as they’re the only ones who can afford them at present</p><p>11. Presume this means retaining planning regulations & not relaxing them!</p><p>12. Change of use from commercial to residential</p><p>13. Within existing villages</p><p>14. As long as by planning you mean restricting eye sores</p><p>15. Parking can be an issue and any developments should take this into consideration</p><p>16. Keeping our young people/families on the Roseland for its future i.e. nurseries, affordable childcare, jobs ensuring planning can give priority to special cases</p><p>17. Ensuring future of our communities – shops, leisure, post offices – allowing to expand in non-traditional ways</p><p>18. In keeping</p><p>19. Must fit in architecturally. </p><p>20. Numbers to be controlled. 21. No more second/holiday homes</p><p>22. There seems little point in encouraging more people to holiday in Cornwall if there is insufficient parking</p><p>23. Homes which are not permanently occupied should require permission for change of use</p><p>24. Local Parish councils must have a say on planning decisions on the Roseland</p><p>25. New homes in small developments</p><p>26. Extensions in keeping with surrounding properties</p><p>27. Extensions must not be allowed to the detriment of surrounding properties</p><p>28. In keeping with rural Cornwall</p><p>29. Poor enforcement of planning regulations such as UPVC windows in conservation areas where they are banned such as Portloe. As well as stone, walls, window shapes not in keeping with area e.g. ‘Harbour View’ in Portloe</p><p>30. No to Nare application </p><p>31. New homes for local people only</p><p>32. No extensions on or new holiday homes</p><p>33. Planning decisions should be made at a much more local level with Parish councils having more say over all developments (More training for Parish councillors) It’s our Roseland let’s keep it as we want it. Localism can & will work if enough people can be bothered to try and make it work</p><p>34. The beautiful Roseland must be kept for one and all. Not spoilt by selfish individuals seeking short term profit</p><p>35. Good planning to allow businesses to be developed/start up</p><p>36. Single units. Sustainable sites i.e. live and work in same place</p><p>37. Extensions and older property improvement i.e. empty houses preferable over new builds</p><p>38. People should be able to build extensions or new homes in keeping with the location</p><p>39. Must protect this area and environment</p><p>40. There are too many now and no new property should be allowed to be a second home</p><p>41. Only very small scale developments and none should be allowed as second homes</p><p>42. Agricultural development – have noticed some very larger ‘sheds’ being put up which are affecting visual amenity</p><p>43. The environment including the landscape must head the list as the most important asset we have. It attracts visitors thus jobs and businesses flourish. Developers must not be allowed to spoil our villages and the landscape – all they are interested in is the money</p><p>44. Restriction of second homes would be desirable however each time a new development is proposed for affordable housing it seems to be part of the package that there are always open market houses to be sold which inevitably are sold as second homes 45. Regarding new homes and extensions it would be quite wrong to relax planning laws. Already small bungalows are pulled down to build large private houses using the maximum size of the plots, and unregulated extensions could become eye sores and very un-neighbourly. </p><p>46. Farmland should be kept</p><p>47. But not too many, keep it spaced out here</p><p>48. New homes should be of a similar style to those already in existence</p><p>49. No over development of Cornish beaches i.e. Pendower</p><p>50. Protection of the landscape is in our view the most important thing on the Roseland so that it remains unspoilt which means a major restriction on new homes and commercial development</p><p>51. Less restriction. More encouragement. Positive development</p><p>52. The top priority should be the prevention of development on greenfield sites. Any future housing needs should preferably be met by infilling, use of brownfield sites etc.</p><p>53. It is probably the case that the rapid growth of Truro in all directions could provide all our housing needs anyway, rather than expanding significantly settlements in the Roseland (for the people who will probably choose to work in Truro anyway!)</p><p>54. Careful examination</p><p>55. Very important</p><p>56. Remembering the ONB (?) defeat at the Rosevine where one bad building was used as a planning precedent to allow another one. What additional teeth can you give them to prevent a repetition</p><p>57. Strict control of</p><p>58. Planning permission should be sought for all areas where boats are stored with masts in</p><p>59. Only for affordable new homes</p><p>60. House extensions should only be approved if there is genuine residential need and not for speculative development</p><p>61. The only new homes to be built should be ‘affordable’ type and sold only to full time residents</p><p>62. Due to the expansion of St Just in Roseland and proposed further development of more housing it might be a good idea to think about more amenities e.g. a village general shop</p><p>63. Strict control of both new and old developments</p><p>64. We are very concerned that any relaxation in planning consent will result in spoiling the natural beauty of this wonderful place. Much stricter control should be exercised particularly along the coastline and with regard to the over development of plots</p><p>65. Only developments sympathetic to the surrounds allowed</p><p>66. With a restriction on second and third homes there would be no reason to build more homes</p><p>67. No solar panels overlooking the sea at St Mawes please</p><p>68. More parking in residential estates 69. Control is important</p><p>70. Important and the default position should not be ‘no’ to everything as it so far is</p><p>71. Cornwall council is allowing the environment to be spoilt by inappropriate development. Ultimately this will severely damage the tourist industry</p><p>72. Planning permission given too readily without consideration to local feelings and Parish council opinion and advice</p><p>73. New development affects local residents i.e. new business affects quiet local lanes and beaches, noise pollution, traffic etc.</p><p>74. The villages are getting too big to be termed villages</p><p>75. There should be more consideration for genuine locals and not importees</p><p>76. Not enough land space</p><p>77. Before further developments it is crucial that adequate off road parking be put in place/provided prior to planning consent being granted</p><p>78. Must be controlled aesthetically</p><p>79. New homes have been built twice!</p><p>80. Neighbours consulted where possible</p><p>81. Planning, affordable housing and protecting the landscape are all important but not necessarily compatible</p><p>82. Make it easier planning wise to refurbish old buildings as small scale office/workshop hubs. </p><p>83. Remove bias towards accommodation</p><p>84. Fear – too much housing</p><p>85. Fear – too many buildings. No estates</p><p>86. Fear - overdevelopment</p><p>87. Fear – inappropriate development</p><p>88. Hope – no major developments</p><p>89. Fear – overdevelopment</p><p>90. Fear – small houses being demolished and replaced by mansions! i.e. ending up like Restronguet Point and Feock</p><p>91. Fear – too many houses</p><p>92. Fear – sale of gardens and division into smaller plots</p><p>93. Fear – overdevelopment</p><p>94. Fear – lots more big expensive properties</p><p>95. Hope – that the landscape remains unspoiled by inappropriate development 96. Hope – only build enough houses for local need not for second homes</p><p>97. Hope – sympathetic planning</p><p>98. Fear – too many big glass type buildings</p><p>99. Hope – stick with traditional extend design</p><p>100. Fear - overdevelopment</p><p>101. Fear – development being blocked unnecessarily</p><p>102. Hope – we need controlled development to provide local needs – housing and jobs</p><p>103. Hope – modest development – single houses/2 or 3 houses. Extensions/alterations OK (2nd home owner)</p><p>104. Fear – excess development e.g. lots of new houses at edges of villages (spoil the nature of the Roseland) (2 nd home owner)</p><p>105. Fear – overdevelopment (2nd home owner)</p><p>106. Hope – that it is not overdeveloped (2nd home owner)</p><p>107. Hope – more nice residents family homes</p><p>108. Fear – new homes not for Veryan Parish residents</p><p>109. Fear - overdevelopment of awful boxes for people to subsist in</p><p>110. Fear – overdevelopment</p><p>111. Fear – no more housing estates when so many houses are already empty</p><p>112. Hope – prevent building of hotels/houses</p><p>113. Fear – overdevelopment to provide affordable housing brings in non-locals or too many homes being sold to second home owners. There needs to be a sensible happy medium to keep our community thriving on the Roseland without selling out. Self-build schemes may be a solution</p><p>114. Fear – that it will be overdeveloped</p><p>115. Fear – large development takes place – houses and commercial</p><p>116. Fear - overdevelopment</p><p>117. Fear – overdevelopment</p><p>118. Fear - that it will become over commercialised and overcrowded (planning permission too lax)</p><p>119. Fear – that modern building styles and materials will dilute local character</p><p>120. Fear – expanding hotels</p><p>121. Fear – being overdeveloped</p><p>122. Hope – sensitive development</p><p>123. Hope – need buildings sympathetic to the locality 124. Fear – buildings that are opulent and OTT</p><p>125. Hope - not too much development</p><p>126. Fear – don’t overdevelop. Not estates</p><p>127. Hope – small clusters</p><p>128. Hope – 1 bedroom flats</p><p>129. Hope – small developments 10 for local people</p><p>130. Fear – too many houses in a development</p><p>131. Fear – overdevelopment i.e. holiday camp</p><p>132. Hope – reasonable houses – OK with more modern architecture</p><p>133. Fear – overdevelopment – too many houses</p><p>134. Hope – houses for local people</p><p>135. Hope – more thought about selling off land related to property</p><p>136. Fear – that it might be over built</p><p>137. Fear - that it becomes overdeveloped. No large housing estates</p><p>138. Hope – don’t overdevelop. Keep it residential</p><p>139. Hope – village style houses rather than Weybridge!</p><p>140. Fear – danger of constant spread/infill between communities. Keep separate identities</p><p>141. Fear – that planning authority will override all local ideals and be guided by financial gain only!</p><p>142. Fear – inappropriate developments</p><p>143. Hope - appropriate development based on jobs and local housing</p><p>144. Fear – my greatest fear for the Roseland is that there will be an increase in inappropriate development due to recent, more relaxed planning laws. I’m also concerned that the Cornwall Planning Committee will ignore the views of bodies such as AONB and natural England, when considering applications</p><p>145. Fear – very large properties are still being built, which spoil the landscape for everyone. These homes are usually bought by people who don’t live permanently on the Roseland</p><p>146. Fear – overdevelopment. Protection for green field sites</p><p>147. Hope – planned expansion (2nd home owner)</p><p>148. Fear – a free for all with planning permission (2nd home owner)</p><p>149. Fear – overdevelopment like the Spanish Costas (2nd home owner)</p><p>150. Hope – cater for younger generation – housing</p><p>151. Fear – over expansion 152. Fear – overdevelopment</p><p>153. Hope – fill inside village boundary</p><p>154. Fear – irresponsible housing development</p><p>155. Hope – well planned housing for all</p><p>156. Hope – don’t take down old houses and replace with huge out of character houses (showy)</p><p>157. Hope – small developments 10-12 properties (2nd home owner)</p><p>158. Fear – a large development of say 100 houses (2nd home owner)</p><p>159. Fear – might get spoiled – don’t overdevelop. At what point do you cross the line and damage (2 nd home owner)</p><p>160. Fear – overdevelopment (2nd home owner)</p><p>161. Hope – low key not Newquay (2nd home owner)</p><p>162. Hope – discrete small villages (2nd home owner)</p><p>163. Hope – define village ‘envelope’ which circumscribes the area of development (2nd home owner)</p><p>164. Fear – too much infill in St Mawes (2nd home owner)</p><p>165. Fear – stop development between villages (e.g. St Just and St Mawes ) (2nd home owner)</p><p>166. Hope – development is controlled and considerately done (2nd home owner)</p><p>167. Hope – that it’s not developed/spoilt by insensitive building</p><p>168. Fear – more huge expensive houses built (driving up house prices even further) forcing out locals due to 300k houses</p><p>169. Fear – don’t want too many houses (for outsiders)</p><p>170. Fear – too much development (2nd home owner)</p><p>171. Hope – retain character of houses – should be in keeping for local people for permanent residence (2 nd home owner)</p><p>172. Hope – sensitive development on appropriate land with minimal use of currently unspoilt areas (2nd home owner)</p><p>173. Fear – the Pink Hotel will turn into a holiday horror! (2nd home owner)</p><p>174. Fear – developers offers of money to help ease the impact of their developments will lead to unsympathetic development (2nd home owner)</p><p>175. Fear – big houses on hill tops, cliff tops (2nd home owner)</p><p>176. Hope – develop in a sensitive way to the area’s history and nature (2nd home owner)</p><p>177. Hope – make sure that any building extension is in keeping with the property and surroundings</p><p>178. Hope – do not build on green belt for new developments as is it considered an area of outstanding beauty 179. Fear – over expansion in poor dwellings and poor businesses</p><p>180. Fear – that too many large house extensions are allowed and that rebuilds replace small house with something much larger which is inappropriate to the size of the plot</p><p>181. Fear – over commercialisation of the river and the urbanisation of St Mawes in particular</p><p>182. Fear – insensitive new development (2nd home owner)</p><p>183. There is a problem in St Mawes where ‘second home’ owners behave in a fashion no better than property speculators. There has been a rash in recent years of properties sold, mature trees being cut down before planning approval sought to overdevelop sites and the new houses being put on the market shortly afterwards. These activities generally do not take into consideration what is high on most people’s concerns – protection of existing landscape and development</p><p>184. No overdevelopment</p>