Planning

Helston’s Draft Local Plan

Posted by Andrew Wallis on 13:06 Thursday, March 21, 2013
Posted in: Consultations, Helston, Planning. Leave a Comment

Helston’s Draft Local Plan, which covers Helston for the next 20 years is now subject to formal consultation before it becomes ratified. The consultation period runs until April 22nd. The plan and all the relevant details can be found HERE.

Once adopted either as it is now, or with changes, will sit alongside the Cornwall Local Plan. Details on that can be found HERE. And if you want to give your views online, HERE is that link

It is very important people take the time to comment even if it is to agree with the plans. As that will give Cornwall Council a true understanding on the local feeling. I know, I have commented.

If you want any further information, or the whole document electronically, just give me a call, tweet, text, or email.

The proposals for Helston

The proposals for Helston

The Public and Coyte Farm

Posted by Andrew Wallis on 9:28 Thursday, January 17, 2013
Posted in: Planning, Supermarkets, Town Centres. Leave a Comment

Last night I attended a public meeting in St. Austell to hear the publics views on three planning applications. These are:

  • PA12/06049 – Land Adjoining Existing Pentewan Retail Park Pentewan Road. Construction of New food and non food superstore with associated service yard, customer car parking.
  • PA12/08765 – St Austell One Stop Shop 39 Penwinnick Road. Demolition of the existing Council Office Buildings and erection of a new food store
  • PA12/ 10096 – Land At Coyte Farm St Mewan. A large out-of-town Shopping Park, petrol station, pub, car park and other associated works.

The meeting was packed with over 200 people in attendance, leaving standing room only. It was disappointing that while the crowd were very well-behaved, they only talked about one application, and that was the Coyte Farm. It was like the other two applications were forgotten during the evening.

In total 50 people spoke, and the split for Coyte Farm was 15 for, 26 against the application. There were nine who made comments, but did not come down either totally pro, or against. Sadly, one person decided to threaten the committee members with a Judicial Review if Coyte Farm was not turned down. Threats like this are not welcomed, and I am pleased to say are ignored.

I feel these public meetings really work, as it give the wilder public a chance to give their views as not everyone can speak at a planning committee. These three applications will be heard and hopefully decided in March.

Results from the First Public Exhibition on Proposals for Shrubberies Hill

Posted by Andrew Wallis on 10:26 Friday, December 14, 2012
Posted in: Planning, Porthleven, Shrubberies Hill. 2 comments

I now have the results from the first public exhibition on the proposals for mixed-use housing in a field adjacent to Shrubberies Hill in Porthleven. This meeting took place on the 5th October. There was a second meeting in November, but I have not had those figures as yet.

A total of 161 people signed the visitor book at the exhibition and out of that, 99 people left feedback via the forms provided. Though from my understanding the number of visitors actually reached the 200 mark. From those 99 people who left feedback on the day, the split on people’s views is as follows:

Support – 15 (15%)
Support with reservations – 24 (24%)
Unsure – 13 (13%)
Objections – 47 (47%)

The supporters felt the need for the affordable housing, but must be for local people. The objectors highlighted concerns over road and transport issues, strain on the infrastructure, and harm to the character of the village if this proposal was to go ahead. As you can see, the objectors are in the outright majority, but the support (including with reservations) are not far behind. It will be interesting to see and compare the feedback from both exhibitions. I hope to have those new figures in the next few weeks.

Proposed changes to the planning call-in protocol for Councillors

Posted by Andrew Wallis on 12:41 Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Posted in: Planning. 3 comments

Recently, I was sent an email asking for my views on the proposed changes to the protocol that is used for a Councillor to call-in to committee certain types of planning application. I had until the mid-September to reply, but I thought I might as well do it sooner than later.

I am certainly glad I did, as the changes are far-reaching. Currently, the protocol is if the Councillor disagrees with the application, it goes will go to the next planning committee. This I feel has worked very well, and most Councillors will use this function when there are planning reasons to do so. It gives the planning process some democratic oversight, which in turn allows for public confidence in the system.

Now, with the new proposed protocol, this could change. And a change no for the better either! Granted a Councillor still has the ability to call in certain applications like those classed as major and minor:

  • New dwellings
  • Offices / research and development / light industry
  • General industry / storage / warehousing
  • Retail distribution and servicing
  • Gypsy and Traveller pitches
  • All other large scale major developments
  • All other small scale major developments
  • All other minor developments

At face value, it still looks like there is still a fair amount of applications that can be brought to the planning committee. However, it is those that have been removed from the call-in procedure that has cause for concern. Furthermore, it could  further undermine the public’s confidence in the planning process. Those types of applications that are proposed to be removed from call-in are:

  • Minerals Processing (ie ancillary mineral operations defined under the GPDO)
  • Change of use (no significant building or engineering work involved)
  • Householder developments - Included in householder developments are extensions, conservatories, loft conversions, dormer windows, alterations, garages, car ports or outbuildings, swimming pools, walls, fences, domestic vehicular accesses, including footway crossovers, porches and satellite dishes.
  • Advertisements
  • Listed building consents to alter / extend
  • Listed building consents to demolish
  • Conservation area consents
  • Certificates of lawful developments
  • Notifications (where no planning application is required)
  • Discharge of planning conditions
  • Non-material amendments
  • Works to trees in a conservation area
  • Works to trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order

You might think it is much about nothing, but I will disagree. As in my experience, anyone of these types of applications can be controversial as placing 100 homes in a hamlet. I see no point in these types being removed from the protocol because as long as the rules on call-in are followed with proper planning reasons like –  Highway safety and traffic levels; design, appearance and layout; flood risk; effect on the level of daylight and privacy of existing property; planning case law and previous decisions; the planning history of a site: there should be no reasons for their removal.

Currently, nearly 95% of all applications are dealt with by delegated powers and with this change could be even more dealt with this way. Where does that leave democracy in the planning process? You do not have to answer that one, because we all know the answer.

Planning: solve the noise issue by not opening the window!

Posted by Andrew Wallis on 17:02 Thursday, July 26, 2012
Posted in: Planning. Leave a Comment

At today’s Strategic Planning Committee there was an application for a major development in Bude. As with any development you have those for and against the application. As a member of that committee (or any other planning committee) you have to weigh-up the different arguments and come to a decision. This in itself is never that simple. However, in the report, there was a paragraph that really made me check it was not April 1st.

The paragraph in (page 16) question and relates to noise is:

 “In my opinion this will have a negative impact on the desirability of the proposal as a place to live. However, the noise assessment indicates that, provided thermal double glazing is installed where noise levels would otherwise be higher it will be possible to achieve acceptable internal noise levels. This gives rise to the problem of how to ventilate the premises without opening the windows, particularly at night-time when the recommended levels are lower”.

Yes, this person is saying the noise levels would be acceptable if the windows are double glazed and you could not open them!  It then goes on to say how you would overcome the issue of not being able to open a window.

“The report recommends the use of passive ventilation in line with the requirements of Part F of the Building Regulations. It is my understanding, however that the Building Regulations do not take account of situations where windows can’t be opened due to the external noise levels being high. I would therefore recommend that if you are minded to approve the revised proposal a condition is attached to secure the submission and implementation of a noise protection scheme”.

I would have thought it would have been far simpler to just to say building a house next to a noisy road is not a good idea and should not be encouraged/allowed. Not, you solve the noise problem by keeping your windows shut!

 

A Supermarket’s Impact Two Years On

Posted by Andrew Wallis on 8:30 Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Posted in: Planning, Supermarkets. 6 comments

Cornwall over the last two years has seen more supermarkets move in. It is not that long ago when seeing a Sainsbury’s was a rare sight in Cornwall. Now, however, they are as common as Tesco. One reason for this is a recession is a good time to expand if you have the money. Tesco did it in the last recession and got an almost got a monopoly. Now by taking a leaf out of the Tesco handbook, Sainsbury’s and Morrisions are on an expansion project

It is often said a supermarket once it gets a foothold in a town will over a period of time destroy that town. Yes, it will have an effect on that town, but it is not the supermarket that kills a town. It is the people of that town who kill it by being lured to the new and shiny supermarket. If we just resisted that lure maybe, just maybe our town centres would be in a better state.

Around two years ago Helston saw one of the new batches of Sainsbury’s get built and open. At the same time the already established Tesco got its ‘extension’. Two years later how has this huge increase in retail floor space affected on Helston and the surrounding areas?

Well, I’ve had a report carried out on the impact to Helston after two years of these supermarkets trading. I managed to convince the people from Sainsbury’s at the Wadebridge application to pay for an independent report. I think Sainsbury’s was so keen on getting planning permission they would have agreed to almost anything. I have now got this copy and it makes for some very interesting reading.

You can read that report HERE

Now conspiracy theorist could claim the report will be biased because it was paid for with supermarket money, but I am not a fully fledged member of the conspiracy club. It is though the first report that’s been carried out since a large scale supermarket development has happened. So it would only be right to give it some credibility.

The perception is a town will suffer and in this report it does show a decline in the town centre, but it is not as bad as popular myth claims it is. The area that has suffered most is in comparison goods (non food). I have felt for a long time the real impact a supermarket has on a town centre is on the non-food goods. It is one reason I have been fighting for a maximum of 20% of comparison good in any new supermarket development. This report gives weight to that theory of mine.

The report also shows that town centres have the knack of adapting to the demands and economic situations. If one type of shop closes it is replaced not by the same type. Helston has adapted in this way. Helston has some very good independent and specialist shops. Like the owner of the hardware shop has just opened a toy shop. Knowing this owner this new toy shop is no punt.

I am not saying supermarkets don’t have an impact as they do. It is just how much of an impact they have. This can be controlled by sensible conditions that restrict certain types of goods. Parking charges also have a part to play in making sure a town centre is healthy. The cost of running a shop plays a big part and there should be more help in rate relief or some other type of incentive will help greatly. These running costs can be just too high for a shop to be profitable, and therefore survive.

At the end of the day the real power is people power. If a few more of us shopped a little more in the town centre, and less in the supermarket beast this would help.

Anyway, let me know what you thought of the report.

Truro’s Eastern District Centre Public Meeting

Posted by Andrew Wallis on 8:25 Friday, December 2, 2011
Posted in: Planning, Truro. 3 comments

Last night I attended the public meeting on the planning application for the Eastern District Centre. These plans are for a new park and ride, Waitrose food hall, a Taste of Cornwall food hall and around 100 houses. Before the public meeting the Strategic Planning Committee had a technical meeting outlining these plans. The plans are due to go before this committee on the 15th December.

The public meeting was held in the council chambers at County Hall. A quick headcount established at least 200 people in attendance. Out of those 52 people decided to speak on the pro’s and con’s to this application. As with the last public meeting I attended on the stadium the audience this evening was more towards the senior element of society. In fact I would say there was no one from the public who was under 25 (closer to 30 really).
Many of the views from those against the planning application were on the harm to the landscape, wrong location, too many supermarkets already in Truro, harm to excisting businesses and highways issues. Out of the people who spoke 33 were against this.
The supporters were infavour because of the improving of the traffic congestion; especially for commuters, job creation, better business opportunities which it was claimed would good for Truro’s economy. These points and similar points were made by the 19 people who spoke in support of the application. 

Interesting in that the RCHT sent an official who was in support of the application. This was backed up with support by SITA. The City Council also made comment, and these comments were not in support of the application.

I got the general feeling there were more of the no camp in the chamber than the yes camp.  However, is this a correct representation of the general population of the local and wider area? This is always hard to tell as most people seemed not bothered until something comes to their own backyard.
I guess that’s planning for you!