Boyer on behalf of westcountry land - cornwall.gov.uk · Ben Curnow – Senior Legal Officer ... A...

F.2

7th March 2018 160 Aztec

Our Ref: BRS.16.9003 Aztec West

Bristol

BS32 4TU

T 0117 428 7970 Jo McCabe Programme Officer 3rd Floor Pydar House Pydar Street Truro TR1 1XU

Dear Jo

Re: Cornwall Site Allocations DPD Examination in Public: Matter 6: Falmouth and Penryn

Spatial Strategy and Allocations

On behalf of my client, Westcountry Land (Representor ID 212a/212b), I write in respect of a recent

planning decision by Cornwall Council which, in our view, has significant implications for the spatial

strategy for Falmouth and Penryn. Such that it justifies direct correspondence to the Examination

Inspectors via you as the Programme Officer.

At the 15th February 2018 Cornwall Strategic Planning Committee, the Council resolved to grant

planning permission for an outline application for the development of a student village (circa 2,000

student bedspaces), new highways access, landscaping and associated infrastructure (LPA Ref:

PA16/11983). The minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee are attached at Appendix 1 to this

correspondence and the Committee Report attached at Appendix 2.

The decision of the Strategic Planning Committee to grant planning permission was contrary the

recommendation of Council Officers. Of particular relevance to the current Examination in Public,

specifically Matter 6, is the conclusion reached by Officers, and agreed by the Head of Service

Representative, regarding the implications of granting planning permission, where it states:

“Further from a policy perspective, the sheer scale of the scheme would significantly undermine

the land use strategy for delivering Purpose Built Student Accommodation in the Council’s Site

Allocations Development Plan Document, to the extent that planning permission ought to be

withheld.”

Section 16 of the Committee Report sets out the comments from the Council’s Policy Team. This

notes that the site was considered and discounted during the development of the Site Allocations DPD

and goes on to state:

Boyer Planning Ltd. Registered Office: Crowthorne House, Nine Mile Ride, Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 3GZ. Registered in England No. 2529151. VAT 587443501. Offices at Bristol, Cardiff, Colchester, London, Midlands and Wokingham.

of 3

“It is considered that permitting the application would put at risk the Council’s strategy for

dealing with student accommodation AND the proposals for Falmouth & Penryn’s economic

growth.” (Our emphasis)

The Council’s Policy Team also identify those policies set out in the LP:SP which the application

proposals do not accord with:

Policy 2: ‘Protecting, conserving and enhancing the natural and historic landscape.’

Policy 2a: ‘The provision of bed spaces within purpose built accommodation commensurate

with the scale of any agreed expansion of student numbers . . .’)

Policy 7: There is not ‘the special circumstances’ to support the application, which represents

development within the open countryside.

Policy 21: ‘To ensure best use of land, encouragement will be given to sustainably located

proposals…’

Policy 23: ‘protect and where possible enhance Cornwall’s natural environment’.

It is not our intention to consider the suitability of the application site for development, or its compliance

with relevant policies set out in the extant Development Plan, not least because such matters are not

part of the Site Allocations Examination process.

Our concern relates to the implications of the grant of planning permission, specifically on the strategy

for growth at Falmouth and Penryn, set within the explicit concerns raised by Council Officers as

identified above.

Table 2 of the Council’s Matter 6 Position Statement sets out the additional supply of Purpose Built

Student Accommodation to meet the growth requirements. This does not include the 2,000 bed space

student village which the Council has resolved to grant planning permission.

Through the Matter 6 Hearing Session, the Council should, in our opinion, acknowledge the decision

of the Strategic Planning Committee and specifically explain to the Examination the following:

The implications on the spatial strategy in terms of the need for allocations for student

accommodation in light of this decision.

The extent to which the existing evidence base is sufficiently robust to understand the impact

of the granting of planning permission, such as the capacity of the highway network.

The implications on the proposals for Falmouth & Penryn’s economic growth.

The extent to which the SA/SEA process is adequate to take into account the cumulative

impact of proposed allocations and the grant of planning permission at this site.

To identify what Main Modifications will be necessary to ensure soundness of the Spatial

Strategy for Falmouth and Penryn

of 3

It is evident from a review of the Strategic Planning Committee Report that resistance to the grant of

planning permission is focused on matters related to the potential of this development to undermine

both the strategy for the delivery of purpose built student accommodation and Falmouth and Penryn’s

economic growth. To advance the strategy for Falmouth & Penryn as proposed in the submitted

Allocations DPD, in light of this decision, given the serious concerns expressed by Officers, puts the

entire strategy at risk.

It is therefore considered imperative that this matter forms part of the Matter 6 Hearing discussion and

that the Council provide a detailed response to outline how they consider that the Site Allocations

DPD, in the context of Falmouth & Penryn, can be considered to be sound and what Main Modifications

will be necessary.

Our comments set out above are provided to assist the Inspectors and ensure the debate takes into

account relevant issues pertaining to the Falmouth and Penryn area.

I therefore respectfully request that this correspondence is accepted.

Yours sincerely

James Millard Associate Director

Tel: 0117 428 7972 / 07393 012 493 Email: [email protected]

Enc

mailto:[email protected]

APPENDIX 1

CORNWALL COUNCIL

STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE

MINUTES of a Meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee held in the Council Chamber, Cornwall Council, County Hall, Truro, TR1 3AY on Thursday 15 February 2018 commencing at 10.00 am.

Present:- Councillors: Nolan (Chairman) J Thomas (Vice-Chairman)

Bastin, Batters, M Brown, Bull, Dyer, Greenslade, Herd, Jewell (for Evans), Long, Olivier, Rushworth (for Fitter) and Tudor.

Also in attendance:-

Councillors: Jenkin, Keeling, J Kirkham, May, McCarthy, Saunby, Summers and P Williams.

Officer in attendance:- Peter Bainbridge – Principal Development Officer

Ben Curnow – Senior Legal Officer Chris Daly – Strategic Development Management Group Leader David Edmondson – Strategic Development Manager Huw Gibbon – Principal Development Officer (Highways) Jacquie Rapier – Democratic Team Leader (Regulatory)

Apologies for Councillors: Evans, Fitter and Rand. absence:-

EMERGENCY EVACUATION AND DOMESTIC PROCEDURES (Agenda No. 1)

SP/34 The Democratic Team Leader (Regulatory) advised of the emergency evacuation and domestic procedures.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (Agenda No. 3)

SP/35 There were no declarations of interest.

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 21 DECEMBER 2017 (Agenda No. 4)

SP/36 It was moved by Councillor Nolan, seconded by Councillor Thomas and

1

Strategic Planning Committee 15 February 2018

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee held on 21 December 2017 were correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA PA17/04181 HAYLE HARBOUR SOUTH QUAY HAYLE CORNWALL TR27 4BL - MR SIMON CLARKE (Agenda No. 5.1)

SP/37 It was noted that with the consent of the Chairman the item had been withdrawn from the agenda.

PA16/11983 LAND TO EAST OF A39 BETWEEN A39 AND RAILWAY LINE NORTH OF PENRYN PENRYN CORNWALL -OCEAN REACH (PENRYN) LTD (Agenda No. 5.2)

SP/38 The Chairman advised that there technical issues with the webcasting equipment which he hoped would be resolved as soon as possible.

The Principal Development Officer outlined the application, including the showing of plans and photographs to the Committee and summarised the key issues. He referred to the Committee update, (previously circulated), which contained details of:-

1. Additional information from the applicant. 2. Update on the application to increase student numbers at the

Penryn Campus. 3. A further letter of objection had been received. 4. A further letter of support had been received. 5. Consultation response received from the Principal Public Space

Officer, (Landscape). 6. Consultation response and summary comment from the Ecologist,

(inc. Marine Ecology and Biodiversity). 7. Detailed comments; impact on hedges, lighting impact, green

infrastructure, Fal and Helford SAC Impacts. 8. Ecological Mitigation. 9. Planning Officer Assessment, conclusion and recommendation.

The Principal Development Officer recommended that Application No. PA16/11983 be refused for reasons as set out in the report.

Councillor Emma Williams of St Gluvias Parish Council attended the meeting, was permitted to speak and spoke against the application.

Councillor Peter Tisdale of Mabe Parish Council attended the meeting, was permitted to speak and spoke against the application.

2


Mr Mark Dawes attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, spoke in support of the application and answered questions put by Members.

Mr Martin Pollard attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, spoke in support of the application and answered questions put by Members.

Councillor Peter Williams, (Electoral Division Member), made the following points in relation to the application:

1. Fully in support of the comments made by the St Gluvias and Mabe Parish Councils.

2. Concern at the huge impact upon the highways; the A39 was a very busy road and had a poor accident record in places.

3. The proposal comprised the largest development within the Parish to date; a number of home owners had been in contact to express their fears and concerns.

4. Concern at the effect upon the landscape and the importance of protection of historical agricultural land.

5. Concern that the proposal was against the DPD and the following had raised objections:- Planning Officers, Highways, the University, St Gluvias and Mabe Parish Councils and the Police.

Councillor May, (adjoining Electoral Division Member), made the following points in relation to the application:

1. Consultation had taken place with all the local Parish Councils within the last 12 months.

2. The site was not put forward in the DPD as an allocated site. 3. The proposal would have a significant impact upon the local

parishes and residents of Mabe and Penryn. 4. Concern that the proposal was sited on best and most versatile

agricultural land and would have an effect upon natural habitats. 5. The Treliever Road was very busy, there was a lack of pedestrian

routes, the proposal would generate a significant amount of traffic by the university students.

6. Student numbers fluctuated, the proposal was premature and did not fit with the long term ambition of the university for development of other identified sites.

7. The development would not stop the use of HMOs in the 2 closest towns.

Councillor McCarthy, (adjoining Electoral Division Member), made the following points in relation to the application:

1. Falmouth Town Council were unanimously in support of the proposed scheme.

2. It would be good for the area, relieving the pressure of HMOs in Falmouth; good consultation had been undertaken by the applicant.

3


Councillor Saunby, (adjoining Electoral Division Member), made the following points in relation to the application:

1. In full support of the proposal; Falmouth could not take any further impact from students.

Councillor Kirkham, (adjoining Electoral Division Member), made the following points in relation to the application:

1. The Falmouth Smithick Electoral Division comprised over 27% HMOs, over a 1/3 of Smithick Electoral Division comprised student accommodation.

2. Reference to the recent appeal decisions in Falmouth. 3. Reference to forthcoming schemes; the proposal would comprise

student accommodation which would be offered at 80% of open market rent and therefore would attract students and assist in alleviating the issues experienced by the residents of Falmouth.

A full and detailed debate ensued, the main points of which were noted as follows:-

1. The University was good for Cornwall, it followed a short term business model. The Local Plan should have flexibility in order to take up opportunities when they arise.

2. The accommodation would attract students as it would be offered at a lower rental cost than HMOs.

3. Concern at the loss of agricultural land. 4. Taking account of the representations made and potential for other

developments coming forward; the proposal may not be the best placed but it was advanced in the planning process.

5. The proposal would comprise a purpose built complex for students which may not have such a significant effect upon local services.

6. The DPD did not meet the needs of the University and Falmouth Town, the current strategy was inadequate.

7. The proposal would bring significant benefits and would outweigh any harm.

8. The DPD had not been adopted, reference to the recent appeals in Falmouth that had been lost; there was a loss of land to development all around the area.

9. Highways could be looked into for further improvement.

It was proposed by Councillor Batters, seconded by Councillor Dyer that Application No. PA16/11983 be refused, on being put to the vote the motion was lost by 2 votes in favour with 11 votes against and 1 abstention.

Arising from consideration of the report and debate it was moved by Councillor Jewell, seconded by Councillor Olivier and on a vote of 12 votes in favour and 2 votes against with no abstentions it was:-

4


RESOLVED that authority be delegated to the Service Director – Planning and Sustainable Development to approve Application No. PA16/11983 subject:-

1. The completion of a Section 106 Agreement and Section 278 Agreement, as appropriate, to secure:-

- Installation of a Broadband Service to the residential accommodation;

- Provision of CCTV, including between the site and Treliever roundabout;

- Funding a traffic island in Ponsanooth; - A highway contribution; - Provision and maintenance of public open space; - SAC contribution; - A discounted weekly rent for the student accommodation; - A percentage of the student rooms to be Category 2: Accessible

and Adaptable Dwellings; - Subsidised bus for students to the Campus and Falmouth; - A Parking Management Plan across the site; - No more than two students in any room and a maximum of 30% of

the units to be for first year students, unless more first year accommodation is required by the Universities.

2. The Section 106 Planning Agreement to be completed within 3 months of the date of the Committee Resolution to give delegated authority to approve the application.

3. If the Section 106 Planning Agreement was not completed by the date, (or by a further extension of time to be agreed), authority be delegated to the Service Director - Planning and Sustainable Development to refuse planning permission on the grounds that the proposal had failed to secure the necessary safeguards to ensure the provision of the necessary mitigation and contributions within a time period deemed sufficient.

4. The conditions, to be agreed with the Service Director - Assurance in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Strategic Planning Committee and Local Electoral Division Member.

The reasons given by the Proposer for wishing to approve the application were that:-

The positive and significant benefits of the proposal, in providing purpose built student accommodation for all year groups, in a comprehensive and timely manner with ancillary facilities on site, was considered to outweigh the harm to the landscape, to the emerging student strategy, as detailed in the Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) and the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land.

5


At 10.55 a.m. the meeting adjourned and reconvened at 11.35 a.m.

PA17/04129 - PENGWEDNA, BREAGE, HELSTON, CORNWALL. TR13 0AZ - MR GREVILLE RICHARDS (RICHLAND FOODS LTD) (Agenda No. 5.3)

SP/39 The Strategic Development Management Group Leader outlined the application, including the showing of plans, photographs and drone footage to the Committee and summarised the key issues. He referred to the Committee update, (previously circulated), which contained details of:-

1. Responses to the ‘Further Environmental Information’. 2. Summary of consultation responses received:- Environment

Agency, Breage Parish Council and the Sithney Parish Council. 3. Public Representations from: Nancegollan Action Group, Online

Petition, 3 further letters of objection and a letter alleging the officer’s report contained false information in relation to distances. It was confirmed that the distances as set out in the report, at the end of page 11 were correct.

The Strategic Development Management Group Leader recommended that authority be delegated to the Service Director – Planning and Sustainable Development to approve Application no. PA17/04129 subject to public consultation and satisfactory discussions with the Environment Agency in respect of the submitted water interest survey and conditions as set out in the report and to be agreed with the Service – Assurance in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman and Local Electoral Division Members.

Ms Margaret Warriner attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, spoke against the application and answered questions put by Members.

Mr Andy Norfolk attended the meeting, was permitted to speak and spoke against the application.

Councillor Anthony Woodhams of Breage Parish Council attended the meeting, was permitted to speak and spoke against the application.

Councillor Mike Tresidder of Sithney Parish Council attended the meeting, was permitted to speak and spoke against the application.

Councillor Dave Smith of Crowan Parish Council attended the meeting, was permitted to speak and spoke against the application.

6


Mr James Whilding, (Acorus Rural Property Services Ltd.), attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, spoke in support of the application and answered questions put by Members.

Mr Graham Frankpitt, (Richland Foods Ltd.), attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, spoke in support of the application and answered questions put by Members.

Councillor Keeling, (Electoral Division Member), made the following points in relation to the application:

1. There had been a very high level of public concern and resistance to the proposal expressed over the past 12 months.

2. A Facebook page had been created, a petition submitted and several public meetings held which guaged public views and reactions to the proposal.

3. The drone footage, delivered at the Committee, did not fully evidence the extent of the area topography, working and valued landscape.

4. Concern at the apparent lack of mitigation measures to protect private water supplies and Hayle River catchment areas in regard to nitrogen levels, including volume of water ‘run off’ leading to potential pollution of water quality.

5. Assurance requested that policy references quoted by the 3 parish councils during public speaking were addressed and taken into account.

6. Concern in regard to the effect upon the occupants of nearby properties, within 400 meters of the area, in particular odours, requested a full environmental impact assessment be undertaken.

7. Concern in regard to transport impacts and the lack of sustainability.

Councillor Loveday Jenkin, (adjoining Electoral Division Member), made the following points in relation to the application:

1. Most residents impacted by the proposed development were located in the Crowan Parish. Initially there had been no consultation with Crowan Parish Council in regard to the proposed buildings.

2. Acknowledgement to the detailed technical responses to the application by local residents.

3. There had been no acknowledgement of the potential for flooding to the area and impact analysis upon the Hayle River catchment area.

4. Concern at the detrimental effect of decaying chicken waste in light of the 4 month removal cycle; the report mentioned there would be no waste stored on site.

5. Concern at the lack of information, surveys and apparent lack of consideration on the effect the proposed buildings would have upon the cultural landscape together with the removal of Cornish hedges which would support the installation of required fencing.

7


6. Concern at the potential for detrimental impact upon natural habitats, bats and reptiles; it appeared such consideration had not been taken into account as there had been no associated surveys or impact analysis undertaken.

7. Concern at the potential detrimental effect upon surrounding private bore hole water supplies, there was no approved water, traffic and waste management plan or impact analysis.

8. Concern that the proposal was contrary to the emerging Crowan Parish Neighbourhood Plan and the development was not in keeping with the area; it was visible from the World Heritage Site and would have a detrimental impact upon the medieval landscape.

Following the presentations, officers responded to Members’ questions regarding:-

1. In regard to impact upon the water course, confirmation the application would be subject to an Environmental Permit, as set out at page 108 of the report.

2. Confirmation there was a nearby caravan site close to the development.

3. Reference to paragraph 90 of the report in regard to vehicle movements; it was noted that deliveries to the site would be via large HGV’s, the numbers of which would be relatively low.

A full and detailed debate ensued, the main points of which were noted as follows:-

1. Concern that vehicle movements to the site may be underestimated.

2. Concern in regard to the impact of water pollution to the surrounding areas and private water supplies.

3. Concern in regard to the visual impact to the landscape which could be viewed from nearby Tregonning Hill.

4. Concern that the development comprised an industrial scale, the size and bulk of which was not in keeping with other agricultural buildings in the area.

5. Concern as to the effect upon the historical landscape of the area. 6. Concern at the absence of detailed information in regard to

potential harm to local water supplies and the effect upon the Hayle River catchment area.

Arising from consideration of the report and debate it was moved by Councillor Long, seconded by Councillor Batters and on a unanimous vote it was:-

RESOLVED that Application No. PA17/04129 be refused.

The reasons given by the Proposer for wishing to refuse the application were that:-

8


1. By virtue of the overall large scale and bulk of the buildings, the proposal for the erection of four poultry units and associated ancillary works on this undeveloped rural site would have an unacceptable visual and landscape impact, would be out of scale with other agricultural development that characterises this rural area and undermine the character and appearance of the countryside. The harmful impacts would fail to be fully mitigated by any landscaping proposed. Such harm would not be outweighed by the economic benefits that the development would deliver. Therefore the proposal does not represent sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposal also fails to accord with adopted Policies 1,2,12 and 23 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030.

2. In the absence of detailed information to satisfy the local planning authority that the proposed development will not harm the adjoining private water supplies and their quality, the proposed development is seen to be contrary to the guidance contained with National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 120-122 and Policies 16 and 26 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030.

LIST OF APPEALS DECISIONS RECEIVED OF APPEALS LODGED AND DATES OF PUBLIC INQUIRIES (Agenda No. 6)

SP/40 The Strategic Development Manager referred to results of recent appeals and expressed caution in relation to Local Authority Performance Measures. He advised that the appeals results related to a mix of delegated and committee items.

A general debate ensued and it was agreed that it would be beneficial if further information/training on appeals were shared with wider membership and officers.

The meeting ended at 1.23 pm.

[The agenda and reports relating to the items referred to above are attached to the signed copy of the Minutes].

9

APPENDIX 2

Development Management Planning and Sustainable Development Service

Strategic Planning Committee Report 15 February 2018

Application number: PA16/11983

Site address: Land to East of A39 Between A39 and Railway Line North of Penryn Penryn Cornwall

Proposal: Outline application for proposed development of a student village, new highways access, landscaping and associated infrastructure

Application type: Outline Application

Parish: St. Gluvias

Applicant: Ocean Reach (Penryn) Ltd

Target date for decision: 16 February 2018

Reason for application being called to Committee:

By the Electoral Division Member, due to the scale of the Application and the relationship with the Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) and Universities’ expansion

Departure: Yes, but does not require referral to the National Planning Casework Unit in accordance with the Departure Regulations

Electoral Division Member: Peter Williams CC

Case Officer: Peter Bainbridge

Link to view full documents: http://planning.cornwall.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary &keyVal=OIHOKHFG1OB00

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

Report sign off Report cleared by: Date:

Legal: Ben Curnow 1 February 2018 Head of Service representative:

Chris Daly 30 January 2018

Introduction:

1. This application was considered by the Strategic Planning Committee on 21 December 2017 and a copy of that Report and Update Sheet is attached, at Appendix 1.

2. The application was deferred by the Strategic Planning Committee for the following reasons:

http://planning.cornwall.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OIHOKHFG1OB00



3. RESOLVED that consideration of Application No. PA16/11983 be deferred and referred back to the Strategic Planning Committee Meeting to be held on 15 February 2018 pending the outcome of the following:

1. To explore opportunities for controls on how to address highway, landscape and ecology matters and negotiations to achieve a draft S106 Agreement, together with clarification of the nature of student accommodation; i.e. provision of second and third year student accommodation.

2. Seek the views of the University in terms of the reported number of students.

3. To set up a briefing with Members of the Strategic Planning Committee and representatives of parish and town councils together with the Applicant and representations from the University.

4. Following the December meeting, a Technical Briefing was held on 18 January 2018, where presentations were heard from the Strategic Policy Officers from the Council, the Universities and the Applicants for this scheme. As had previously been requested by Members, the Briefing included details of the number of students currently attending the Universities and the projected increases up to 2020. The notes of the presentations have been circulated and are publicly available.

5. The applicants have since met with the Council’s Highways, Landscape and Ecology Officers. Their further consultee responses and other updates are set out, below.

6. A Section 106 Agreement has been drafted and discussions are ongoing.

Balance of Considerations and Conclusion:

7. Following the deferral of the application, on 21 December 2017, further discussions with Officers have taken place in relation to the issues raised by Members at the meeting and in the recommended reasons for refusal. Based on the discussions and further information received to date, it is considered that three of the previous reasons for refusal have now been addressed and overcome. These relate to the lack of a Section 106 Agreement, ecology considerations and concerns over the proposed highway modelling.

8. However, while some of the concerns of Officers have been addressed, significant concerns still remain over the principal of this proposal, as set out in the original report. Principally, these centre on three main issues:

- The degree of conflict with the Development Plan and the strategy that the Council is promoting to secure the appropriate growth for Falmouth and Penryn;

- The significant adverse landscape impact from a large development in the open countryside;

- The poor links for pedestrians and cyclists.

9. After careful analysis of the further information provided, including representations received from the Applicants, your Officer’s previous position is

maintained and it is recommended that planning permission be refused. After weighing up the relevant issues in the planning balance and acknowledging there would be some economic benefits to the scheme, these are considered to be outweighed by the unacceptable harm to the character and setting of the local landscape. Further, from a policy perspective, the sheer scale of the scheme would significantly undermine the land use strategy for delivering Purpose Built Student Accommodation in the Council’s Site Allocations Development Plan Document, to the extent that planning permission ought to be withheld. The strategy has been developed by the Council, the University and other stakeholders to provide Purpose Built Student Accommodation in the Falmouth and Penryn areas and this development does not form part of that Strategy. This is an important issue, as the Allocations DPD is being developed to provide sustainable development that underpins the aims and objectives of the adopted Cornwall Local Plan. Further, this would conflict with a fundamental principle of National policy for land use planning that should underpin decision making; namely that planning should be genuinely plan led and empower local communities. It is clear from an examination of the comments received from the Parish and Town Councils that there is no local support for this scheme and while the support for this scheme, as expressed by Falmouth Town Council and Falmouth local interest groups, is accepted and understood, it should be framed in the context of the emerging Development Plan position, which identifies sites that have been through public consultation. These are considered to be compelling reasons for withholding planning permission in the public interest.

10. The potential economic benefits of this scheme are accepted; however, they do not outweigh the harm identified above. As the Officer’s position on these important issues remains unchanged, the findings in the December Committee Report (attached) should be referred to. It is concluded that the benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the conflict with the Development Plan. Therefore it is recommended that permission is refused.

Updated Consultations:

11. Electoral Division Member (Cllr Peter Williams):

My concerns about this planning application have been aired before so there is no need to repeat them in detail. Suffice to say in my opinion this development is totally unwarranted and would have an unacceptable impact on the rural community and has now shown to be unnecessary to the Council or the University and would give rise to massive irreparable harm to this part of Cornwall.

Members need to be aware that this development is so vast in its scale as a comparison it would amount to 2/3rds the size of the whole Penryn Campus itself. It is huge. All of the development would go on farmland that is Best and Most Versatile.

We have heard that the Council is progressing a strategy to deliver student accommodation working with the University, the local community, fellow Members and infrastructure providers. None of them are planning for or have anticipating this development taking place. In my opinion were this application be approved it would wreck the emerging strategy and create nothing but more uncertainty to everyone living in Falmouth Penryn and surrounding communities.

Members please consider that a large part of this site is not just student accommodation but is a Park and Ride which the Council does not require, it includes shops, hotels and restaurants all of which would adversely compete with town and village centres and draw people away from those centres.

Which brings me onto a significant issue which concerns the s106 measures to mitigate for increased impacts on the highway network. Members it cannot be fair or proper that only a tiny fraction of s106 money arising from this development should be spent on the host community that would suffer from it and that the vast majority of highway contributions would be spent on Falmouth and Penryn Transport Strategy as currently proposed. Mr Chairman this application does not like in Falmouth or Penryn but in the rural parish of St Gluvias and I have no problems in a fair proportion of that contribution being spent in that area but not the majority of it. So I would request that were this application be approved and I sincerely hope it doesn't but if I were, that there be a significant uplift in the contributions to be spent on the rural parish of St Gluvias and I am requesting that I as Ward Member be involved in these negotiations. I know that the Parish are trying to bring about highway improvements in the nearby village of Ponsanooth this has the support of George Eustice MP but they cannot afford that alone and while it is welcome that some contributions would go towards these improvements there needs to be much much more to make real improvements in the village.

Please listen and agree with the three own and Parish Councils and reject this application.

12. St Gluvias Parish Council:

We recognise the need for Purpose Built Student Accommodation but this is a speculative development which does not address the needs of the University.

The application does not comply with national and local adopted policies.

The University stated at the meeting held 18 January 2018 that this application is neither preferred nor required by them Schemes already in land, address both their short and medium term needs. This gives plenty of time to investigate other sites inside the DPD allocated area which are closer to the University.

Serious Vehicular and Pedestrian Concerns. There appears to be a serious underestimation of traffic movements from the student site onto surrounding highways. The safety of both pedestrians and cyclists along all these highways is of significant concern.

There are significant drainage problems from the site which have not been adequately addressed. This applies to both surface water drainage and sewerage.

Despite our frequent requests to the Applicants for a full topographical survey, this has not been forthcoming, The visual impact on this rural parish will be immense, being visible from not only Falmouth, Penryn and the surrounding areas but also from out at sea.

The ratio of student population to the local residents of St Gluvias would be higher than anywhere else in the country.

The question is whether planning permission should be given on a 55 acre Greenfield site for a speculative and predominately commercial development?

In the unfortunate event that this application is approved, a consideration for s106 funding for the Parish of St Gluvias must be considered, to be approved at a later date.

Furthermore we STRONGLY OBJECT to the applicant’s method of encouraging the general public to sign a statement saying “Based upon our considered review of all current proposals for student accommodation and the Council’s strategy for such development, I am firmly of the view that there is only one viable option, which is the Penvose Student Village Development.” This is without them having the full information to be able to make such a statement.

13. Highways Development Management West Majors:

Following a meeting with the applicants the previous concerns regarding the ‘VISSIM’ traffic modelling reports are now resolved.

However the concerns regarding the relatively inadequate means of accessing the site by pedestrians and cyclists remain and are unlikely to be overcome.

It is understood that further information will be forthcoming from the applicants and a full response to this will be provided via the Update Sheets

14. Principal Public Space Officer (Landscape):

Summary Comment:

• This is a major development unconnected with the existing settlement edge and has the character of an out of town development in the open countryside.

• The site comprises valued farmland with its network of ancient Cornish hedges which has remained unchanged since the late 1700’s, there is evidently significant nature conservation value to both fields and hedges.

• There are significant concerns regarding the impact of the development and associated lighting on the landscape, both in terms of visual impacts on local residents and ecological impacts.

• It is not considered possible to successfully mitigate the landscape character, visual and ecological impacts, within the layout presented. Consequently the proposal may be considered as potentially an over development of the land.

• There appears to be uncertainty concerning an acceptable pedestrian and cycleway link to the University Campus and town centres

15. Ecologist (inc. Marine Ecology And Biodiversity):

Interim response – further comments to be provided on the Update Sheets.

From the meeting the Ecologist had with the applicants it sounds as if they are convinced the site will offer biodiversity gain in terms of habitat provision. However the ecologist is still very sceptical that small plots of wildflower meadow around the blocks will provide suitable mitigation for the rare bee that has been found on site bearing in mind the current land use compared to the proposed. Confirms all the relevant survey work information has been received.

16. Cornwall Council Local Plan Policy Officer:

The development does not accord with either the adopted Local Plan or the emerging Site Allocations DPD

The application site is not identified within the Allocations DPD, which was supported by the Cabinet in March 2016. The application site was considered and discounted during the development of the Site Allocations DPD; reasons for its exclusion was due to more sustainable sites being identified to meet the current and future needs of the Universities, in doing so minimising use of greenfield land. It is considered that permitting the application would put at risk the Council’s strategy for dealing with student accommodation AND the proposals for Falmouth & Penryn’s economic growth.

Furthermore, the application also does not accord with various policies within Cornwall’s adopted Local Plan. As existing permissions and the allocations for PBSA more than cater for the planned growth of the Universities, in more sustainable locations, the application would result in the unnecessary loss of approx. 20ha of greenfield/agricultural land; as a result it does not accord with:

• Policy 2: ‘Protecting, conserving and enhancing the natural and historic landscape’

• Policy 2a: ‘The provision of bed spaces within purpose built accommodation commensurate with the scale of any agreed expansion of student numbers……’)

• Policy 7: there is not ‘the special circumstances’ to support the application, which represents development within the open countryside

• Policy 21: ‘To ensure best use of land, encouragement will be given to sustainably located proposals…….’

• Policy 23: ‘protect and where possible enhance Cornwall’s natural environment’

Furthermore, Policy 3 indicates that applications of a strategic nature should be managed through the Allocations DPD, or Neighbourhood Plan, and it does not feature in either

Finally, it is not considered that the proposal creates well-connected routes between the land designated for the PBSA and the Penryn campus. The PBSA has been located on the eastern side of the site, furthest away from its proposed pedestrian link along the A39 (creating an approx. 1.3km route for students); so does not accord with Policy 12(c) create ‘….safe well connected routes….’, or Policy 27.

Representations:

17. Members, at the Technical Briefing, expressed a clear preference that the Universities should provide a comment on this application. A joint response has been received, on behalf of both Falmouth University and the University of Exeter. Given the views of Members and the fact that the Universities are a key stakeholder in the provision of student accommodation and strategy for growth, the full response is attached to this Report, at Appendix 2.

18. The key planning related points have been summarised, below:

- The University supports the Council’s strategy for the delivery of Purpose Built Student Accommodation and the objective of reducing reliance on Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in Falmouth;

- The numbers of new students requiring accommodation is in the region of 2000 – 2500 over the next 3-5 years;

- The success of reducing HMOs it is necessary to provide a supply of PBSA either on campus (1st years) or near town (2nd/3rd years). The Penvose Farm application does not achieve either of these objectives;

- Other brownfield sites present a more deliverable option within the required timescales. Doubt is raised that significant infrastructure required at the Penvose site could be built by 2021 and the living environment for students in that scenario is a concern;

- Agrees to and supports the commitment to working locally with the local Town and Parish Councils and surrounding communities.

19. It is your Officer’s view that this response provides a welcome clarification on projected student numbers and the University’s position on the emerging Council strategy for delivering student accommodation, as well as their views on the merits of this planning application.

20. For Members’ information, the position with the Section 106 Agreement for the lifting of the student cap planning application has reached an advanced stage and at the time of writing this Report requires signatures before it can be completed and planning permission issued. It is expected to have been completed before the meeting of the Committee and the current position will be provided via the Update Sheets.

Assessment of Key Planning Issues:

21. This section deals with those issues affected by the updates received since the Committee met on 21 December 2017. Therefore they need to be read in conjunction with the original Committee Report and Committee Update. The issues covered are:

- Highways - Landscape - Ecology - Section 106 Agreement

Highways

22. While discussions have been concluded regarding the ‘VISSIM’ method of highway modelling, as submitted by the Applicants, there is still a fundamental

difference between Officers and the Applicant over the nature and quality of the pedestrian routes from the site to the Campus and Penryn. It is not considered that the concerns set out previously can be addressed. In particular, the scheme would require students to travel some distance, through either an upgraded route alongside the A39 or more directly, down narrow and tortuous rural lanes, to access the campus. This is not considered to be an acceptable method of providing accessibility for students.

23. A further issue has arisen around subsidised buses. These are currently paid for by the Universities and run from the Penryn Campus to Falmouth. The U2 route does go past the site, although it is a twice hourly service. The Universities have commented that it would be supportive of the Applicants were they to to seek an extra stop on the route and negotiate the costs of any subsidised fare with the operator. A response from the Applicants is awaited, but at this point it is not clear if this concession would be extended to this site.

Landscape

24. The attempts to provide further mitigation are of course welcome. However, it is clear that the avoidance of all impacts is unachievable and that significant harm arises even after mitigation. The fact remains this is a significant scheme (approximately 20 hectares) and notwithstanding the site is undesignated as a landscape constraint in Development Plan policy, the scale of the scheme is such that significant harm arises.

25. In this case, the main harm arises from the change in character, from a historically unaltered pastoral landscape to an urbanised built setting. While efforts have been made to retain some tree species, uncertainties remain as to their longevity; in particular at the site entrance, which is well wooded and is likely to be adversely affected by the proposed development. This would give rise to the potential for opening up views into the site from the A39 and thus exacerbate visual and landscape harm.

Ecology

26. Previously, the application was found to be deficient in the approach and level of assessment of protected species. Further information and clarification has since been obtained, following discussions. This has overcome a number of concerns previously raised. The Ecologist currently harbours some doubts regarding the mitigation proposed and has expressed an interim opinion on this. The final comments are awaited and will be reported on in the Update Sheets and, if necessary, a further reason for refusal will be recommended. However, it is not envisaged that there can be a substantive reason for refusal advanced on ecology grounds.

S 106 Agreement and Conditions

27. A draft Section 106 Agreement has been prepared and the initial response from the Applicant has been received. Whilst still subject to negotiation, the main points within the Section 106 are:

- Installation of a Broadband Service to the residential accommodation, although the applicants are not prepared to provide this in perpetuity;

- Provision of CCTV, including between the site and Treliever roundabout;

- Funding a traffic island in Ponsanooth; - A highway contribution. The Council would seek £1.429 million; - Provision and maintenance of public open space; - SAC contribution; - Initial weekly rent of £100, but linked to average price of student

accommodation; - A percentage of the student rooms to be Category 2: Accessible and

Adaptable Dwellings. The Local Plan, Policy 13, seeks 25% as a standard provision, but the Applicants believe this to be too high for student accommodation and propose 7%, which equates to 140 units;

- No more than two students in any room and a maximum of 30% of the units to be for first year students, unless more first year accommodation is required by the Universities.

28. There are still issues to be resolved on a number of these points. These include:

- Clarification of what the Applicant is prepared to provide in terms of the Broadband provision;

- The acceptability/ enforceability of controlling rents through a Section 106 Agreement;

- Whether or not the CCTV would be monitored 24 hours a day; - The amount of the Highways Contribution and where it would be best spent; - If rent should be controlled, given that the rents charged would reflect the

market rates and any form of rent restriction could affect delivery; - The percentage of accessible units.

29. As discussions are ongoing, an Update will be provided prior to Committee.

30. It is intended that a draft list of conditions will be prepared and agreed with the Applicants prior to the Committee and if this is the case, these will be included in the Update.

Recommendation:

Refuse for the following reasons:

1. Policy 3 of the Cornwall Local Plan states that the delivery of growth in main towns will be managed through site allocations in order to ensure that growth is genuinely plan-led. The application site is not an allocated site for development, is some distance from the nearest town and the scale of the proposed development is so substantial that it is considered that the granting of permission would significantly prejudice the Site Allocations Development Plan Document process by determining decisions about the scale and location of new development around Penryn Campus. Planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the material considerations in respect to accessibility, and landscape impacts are such that a departure from the development plan is not justified at this time. The proposed development is contrary to policy 3 of the Cornwall Local Plan (2016) and guidance contained within paragraphs 2, 11, 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the long standing fundamental of the UK planning system; namely utilising a plan led approach to development.

2. The site is in open countryside which is significant in terms of both landscape character and visual amenity and is productive high value agricultural land. The field boundaries have changed little in recent centuries which add to the character and value of the site. Development will be highly visible even if further mitigation is secured and would erode the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. This harm is not outweighed by the benefits of the proposal in its submitted form and is therefore considered contrary to policies 2, 12, 13, 21, 23 and 25 of the Cornwall Local Plan (2016) and advice in the National Planning Policy Framework, paras 17 and 61.

3. The proposed development, due to its location in the open countryside and high level of on-site parking, would be an unsustainable location. This is because the proposed pedestrian and cycle links lack natural surveillance and are poorly lit and so are not safe or suitable. There is also likely to be a pedestrian desire line between the end of the footway and the main entrance to the Campus, which would lead to safety concerns, with students walking in the highway. The level of parking proposed is contrary to the strategy of restricting student car use and the Universities Travel Plan, which could lead to increased pressure on on-street parking, both close to the Campus and within Penryn and Falmouth. It would therefore be contrary to policies 12 and 27 of the Cornwall Local Plan (2016) and advice in the National Planning Policy Framework, paras 17, 32, 34, 35, 37 and 69.

Boyer on behalf of westcountry land - cornwall.gov.uk · Ben Curnow – Senior Legal Officer ... A...

Documents

Transcript of Boyer on behalf of westcountry land - cornwall.gov.uk · Ben Curnow – Senior Legal Officer ... A...