Gwinear-Gwithian Neighbourhood Plan Examiner S Questions

Gwinear-Gwithian Neighbourhood Plan Examiner’s Questions

1. Would the LPA confirm whether there are any saved strategic policies from the Penwith Local Plan that are relevant to the Gwinear-Gwithian Neighbourhood Plan or have they all been replaced by the policies of the Cornwall Local Plan.

Cornwall Council response:

Policy CC5 of the Penwith Local Plan 2004 continues to be saved. This refers to Areas of Great Landscape Value(AGLV) and states:

POLICY CC-5: DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED WHERE IT WOULDCAUSE SIGNIFICANT HARM TO THE CHARACTER AND

AMENITY OF THE AREAS OF GREAT LANDSCAPE VALUE.

The text and maps of the Penwith Local Plan can be accessed from this page:

1. Would the QB include an assessment of whether the Neighbourhood Plan is compatible with the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights.

GwinearGwithian Response

It is considered that the Gwinear-Gwithian Neighbourhood Plan is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998.

1. Would the QB provide a few sentences to be included in the Plan to summarise how the Plan will contribute to sustainable development.
   GwinearGwithian Response

Neighbourhood Planning builds on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) andthe Cornwall Local Plan (CLP) to give an extra level of detail at a local level. The Gwinear-Gwithian Neighbourhood Plan has been developed to ensure that future growth and development is shaped by local people. It seeks to protect the unique character of the parish which has both rural and coastal communities and ensures that any further development will contribute towards creating a stable and more sustainable community.

The steering group focused on different areas of interest within the overall remit of sustainable development for the Neighbourhood Area – people and housing, education, renewable energy, environment, transport , leisure and recreation and business and jobs with a separate task group specifically for GwithianTowans.

By developing clear settlement boundaries which can accommodate the anticipated growth from the CLP our plan helps our community shape the future of the parish in a sustainable way.

1. Has the QB prepared an overview of the plan area such as its history and development and the challenges facing the community today? There is a lot of data in the Evidence Report but very little commentary on the issues that are to be addressed in the plan.
   GwinearGwithian Response

The document titled ‘summary of sources of evidence’ (SSE) would be read alongside the plan to give a background and understanding of how the policies came about. The attached gives a bit more history and could sit before the SSE - See attached

1. The Local Plan sets out a housing requirement for the 5 parishes in the residual part of the Hayle and St Ives CNA of 480. The NP does not give any indication of the scale of housing that is envisaged in the Plan area within the settlement boundaries. I need to assess whether the NP will provide an appropriate level of housing to support the delivery of the Local Plan’s housing requirement for the area. Would the QB provide details of the following for the plan area:

• the number of additional houses that have planning permission that are not started or under construction;
• the number of houses that have been completed over the last five years (to give an indication of the level of windfall development); and

GwinearGwithian Response:

The following have been received from Local Plans Team at CC:-

The figures for Gwinear/Gwithian parish so far this year are 19 built, 39 under construction and45 with permission.

Completions over the last 5 years are 125 but for the plan period are 128 as shown below;-

• an estimate of the potential number of additional homes that may be delivered through windfall sites in the settlement boundaries.
• Permissions within GGNP settlement boundaries since creation of boundaries in November 2014:-

• What proportion of the population of the five parishes that make up the residual Hayle and St Ives CNA lives within the Plan area?

From 2011 data the population of GwinearGwithian was 3261 and the total population of the remainder CNA parishes was 4999, so the proportion living within the plan area is 65.2%

CC response:

In providing figures for housing apportionment for the various community network areas, CC use numbers of dwellings rather than population – since the housing target of the Local Plan is expressed in numbers. We would use the 2011 census data which is close to the beginning of the plan period. On this basis we would say that GwinearGwithian, with 1,517 dwellings represents 65% of the CNA pro rata. They might therefore look at a target of approx. 310 dwellings, as a baseline – but this target would then be refined according to environmental constraints , affordable housing need and/or other community ambitions for development.

With 147 completions and 84 commitments the plan needs to demonstrate the capacity to deliver approx. 80 further dwellings within the plan period todemonstrate general conformity - but could also aim to deliver more, to meet affordable housing need or if this is the desire of the community. The NDP demonstrates this capacity.

1. Would the LPA confirm the planning status of the site referred to in the representation by Ian Luke within the proposed green buffer. Does it have the benefit of planning permission?

CC response:

SHLAA site S289 (map attached and link to information about SHLAA ). The inclusion of the land in the SHLAA does not confer any kind of permission or indicate that permission for development will necessarily be granted.

PA13/00889/PREAPP - Pre-application advice given in respect of residential housing and erection of a pre-school building. The proposal contained two distinct sites, either side of the A30.

It was advised that: ‘both sites are Greenfield sites. The smaller site, north of the A30, due toits size and distance from Connor Downs and Hayle is considered to be anunsustainable location for housing and to have an adverse impact on the characterand appearance of the countryside. It is therefore considered that the principle ofresidential development is not acceptable on this site. However should you wish topursue this proposal the advice set out below will be of some relevance.

The larger site does relate much better to Connor Downs and is therefore a moresustainable location. However the site does lie beyond the established edge of thevillage in open countryside. New housing is restricted in such areas. However wherethere is a need policy does allow for affordable housing led schemes as an exceptionto policy. The pre school is a community building and policy is more supportive ofsuch uses on the edge of villages. Therefore it is considered that in principle theproposed development could be acceptable.’

The full response is attached

A preapplication enquiry was made on the land in 2015 - PA15-02711-PREAPP. The full response is attached. The proposal was for 30 open market houses and 30 affordable with public open space and an area for the pre-school. It was advised that this would be considered as an exceptions site, that the level of affordable housing need in the area did not justify the size of the proposal, so the principle of the proposed development was not acceptable. Attention was also drawn to the emerging neighbourhood plan.

1. Would the QB comment on how the need for affordable and intermediate homesin the parish is to be delivered through the Plan. How many sites are expected to deliver affordable homes?Has any assessment been undertaken on the potential of sites to be released as Rural Exceptions Sites?

GwinearGwithian Response:

No. Affordable Housing would come forward outside of the settlement boundaries as Rural Exceptions Sites and would need to meet the requirements in the NP’s DPD doc and the CLP

1. Policies GGP1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 refer to “the Development Proposal Supplementary Document which is set out in the appendices to the NP along with the Character Area Guidance for the settlements”. Would the QB and LPA confirm the status of these documents. My reading of the policies is that they are written so that these documents would be regarded in the same way as Supplementary Planning Documents. Does the LPA intend to progress to adopt the documents as SPD? Would the LPA comment on whether the Development Proposals supplementary document includes any requirements over and above those contained in the Council’s Affordable Housing SPD that would unduly constrain the delivery of affordable housing.

GwinearGwithian Response:

The DPD and CAG are supplementary to the GGNP. The DPD was in line with the LPA’s housing SPD as of August 2016.

Cornwall Council Response:

The LPA does not propose to adopt SPD to neighbourhood plans. The character guidance is part of the NDP to help in interpreting policies and determining applications. The affordable housing team has provided the following comments about the ‘Development Proposals’ document:

Affordable Homes:

First paragraph:

Remove the word ‘preferably’ in reference to use of Homechoice as this is a requirement of the Council.

Second paragraph:

States ‘evidence gathered from the process of registration’ in reference to design. It is not clear what this is.

Third paragraph:

Remove the words ‘where practically possible’ so that the sentence reads: ‘All affordable units within the Parish are to be occupied by somebody with a local connection to the Parish in line with the local Authorities ‘Local Connection Criteria’ as set out in the Affordable Housing SPD.’

The reason for taking this out is that all affordable properties must be occupied by someone with a local connection as set out in a scheme’s Section 106.

Eight and ninth Paragraph:

Relates solely to developments considered under Policy 8 of the Local Plan, however this is not made clear. Further the information refers to old National policy. National Policy regarding thresholds changed in May 2016 with the threshold for Affordable Housing off-site contributions generally being triggered at 10 dwellings. However, if an area is a Designated Rural Area, of which Gwinear-Gwithian is, then an off-site financial contribution can be sought on schemes between 6 to 10 units.

Tenth-fourteenth paragraphs:

This wording has been taken from the old local plan and needs updating to reflect the adopted policies. Paragraphs 12-14 are incomplete but could be removed altogether

Dwelling Sizes & Types:

Second paragraph

This should be changed to read: ’A minimum of 25% of the Affordable Dwellings shall be constructed to Category 2: Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings Standards as set out in the Affordable Housing Mix’

I am assuming other colleagues will comment on Highways and CIL. I would also recommend numbering the paragraphs of this document for ease of reference.

1. Would the QB and LPA comment on the representation requesting that the settlement boundary be redrawn to include the house and garden at 41 Turnpike Road, Connor Downs to reflect previous planning permissions. Would the LPA confirm the details of the permission granted.

GwinearGwithian response:

The boundaries have been drawn to show the built form of each area at that moment in time and evidence is provided to show they are capable of sustaining development over the plan period. Any permission’s outside of the boundary granted between the boundaries being established and the plan being adopted will not form part of the settlement boundary.

Cornwall Council response

Settlement boundaries can be drawn to exclude properties or large gardens where they protrude into an area of open countryside. The planning history of the site is W1/06/P/1446 Mon 11 Dec 2006

Address

Elm Cottage 41 Turnpike Road Connor Downs

Proposal

Change of use from agricultural land to domestic garden

Head No(s): 23964

Status

Decided

Decision

Approved with conditions

Decision Issued Date

Fri 09 Feb 2007

This link takes you to the planning documents:

W1/04/P/0394

Application Validated

Thu 29 Apr 2004

Address

Elm Cottage 41 Turnpike Road Connor Downs

Proposal

Change of use of land from agricultural to domestic garden

Head No(s): 23964

Status

Decided

Decision

Approved unconditional

This link takes you to the planning documents:

There is also outline approval for 5 dwellings:

PA16/11352

Application Validated

Thu 01 Dec 2016

Address

Land Adjacent Elm Cottage Turnpike Road Connor Downs Cornwall

Proposal

Outline planning application with all matters reserved: Erection of 5 dwellings

Status

Decided

Decision

Approved with conditions

Decision Issued Date

Tue 07 Mar 2017

This link takes you to the planning documents:

1. Several policies refer to the provision of infrastructure to ensure that superfast broadband can be installed, or a financial contribution is made towards off site works. This is not included in the Infrastructure Needs Assessment. Has any assessment been undertaken as to what works will be required, whether these are reasonable and whether the level of contribution would affect the viability of development?

GwinearGwithian response:

The criteria is aimed to ensure provision is laid down to allow the householder to connect to superfast broadband or other technology when it becomes available ie pipes/cables from the development outwards ready for connection. This is due to many rural areas not having superfast broadband at present but new homes should be built with the potential to be connected.

1. Policies GGP2 and 3 are entitled “Outside Settlement Boundary” and relate to the release of additional sites for market housing and affordable housing on rural exceptions sites. Would it be more appropriate to title these policies as “Housing Sites Adjacent to the Settlement Boundary” as the policies do not cover the other forms of exceptional housing development in the countryside that may be permitted under NPPF paragraph 55 or Cornwall Local Plan Policy 7.
   GwinearGwithian response:

QB can change title to “Housing Sites Adjacent to the Settlement Boundary” (see answer to question 7)

1. Is there any reason why Policy 4 does not include criterion i) of Policy 2 concerning financial contributions? Would the LPA comment on whether the contributions towards open space, educational provision and other infrastructure are acceptable on small sites or whether they would affect their viability and deliverability.

GwinearGwithian response:
No this criterion is relevant to Policy 4 – agree to add ‘Financial contributions, or on site provisions are made through the Local Authority with a suitable S106 agreement and/or from CIL contributions to assist in the delivery of the Infrastructure Needs Assessment for Gwinear-Gwithian’ to policy 4.

Cornwall Council response:

Agree: these contributions will be collected as set out in strategic policy. Neighbourhood plans cannot require separate contributions but can have a priority list of projects for their local share of CIL.

1. Policies 2 and 4 rely on evidence of “genuine local housing need” before sites adjacent to the settlement boundaries are released. How is this need to be assessed for market housing where there will be no controls over the purchaser of the houses?
   GwinearGwithian response:

See answer to question 9 – this would be assessed against the LPA’s housing need list (currently known as Homechoice)

Cornwall Council response

The intention of the policy is to allow exception sites – so they would only be allowed if there was affordable housing need. An element of market housing could be allowed for cross subsidy purposes, but the need would be for affordable housing.

1. Policies 2 and 4 could raise expectations from landowners that sites outside of the settlement boundaries may be suitable for additional market housing with the consequence that sites may not come forward for affordable housing on Rural Exceptions Housing sites under Local Plan Policy 9. Limiting sites to less than 10 dwellings will also mean that no affordable housing will not be delivered on the market housing sites outside the settlement boundary. Would the QB and LPA comment on whether they consider that there are sufficient sites within the settlement boundaries of these two communities to deliver the affordable housing required.
   GwinearGwithian Response

(see answer to Question 7)

CC response:

Small sites within the settlement boundary will generally not meet the threshold to trigger the need for an affordable housing element. Development outside the boundary should be exception sites only, in accordance with Policy 9 of the Cornwall Local Plan.

1. The background section to Policy 2a (line4) states “and downwind to the existing residents and the school”. Would the QB check and correct this sentence and there appears that some text may have been omitted.

GwinearGwithian response:

Should read ‘noise and air pollution and downwind to the existing residents and the school’

1. Is it the intention of Policy GGP 2a that the green buffer is to be landscaped and managed for biodiversity in any case, in which case how is this to be delivered?GwinearGwithian response:NoOr do the provisions of criteria c) and e) only apply should new development be permitted in this area?GwinearGwithian response: yes

1. Policy 8 GwithianTowans permits the development of new chalets in the defined settlement boundary.

• Is there a definition of “chalet development”?GwinearGwithian response:the definition comes under GTDG
• Is it intended that this policy should relate only to the replacement and extension of existing chalets as stated in Penwith LP Policy TM8?GwinearGwithian response: No some areas within the GTDG allow for new chalets such as the development on Morrops Field
• As written Policy 8 permits new chalet development(eg through the demolition of a chalet and its replacement with more than one new chalet) which would be contrary to the Penwith LP Policy TM5 – is this the intention? GwinearGwithian response:The GTDG states the zones for each area and what can be built within those zones and parameters of each site
• How is it intended to protect the areas of open land?GwinearGwithian response:This is covered within the GTDG
• Are there any holiday or seasonal occupancy controls on the occupation of the chalets?GwinearGwithian response:Not currently although they are predominantly holiday use and the LPA does not see this as being a sustainable location for permanent homes. The QB does not want to put restrictions on the use as the concern locally is how the chalets look, their height, scale, density and materials used were what was important to the community, there was no real desire to control occupancy at a local level.
• How is the conversion of the holiday chalets to permanent homes to be managed?GwinearGwithian response: Through the LPA

1. The representation from the Barrie Bennett re the Charles Hockin Trust refers to the Northern Registered Boundary of GwithianTowans. Would you provide a map showing this boundary and explain the significance of the request made in this representation.
   GwinearGwithian response:
   The settlement boundaries were drawn following the existing line of residential development not land boundaries. The boundaries can cater for the level required within the CLP so there is no requirement to extend them. The land referred to is essentially an area of sand between the development at GwithianTowans and the LNR. The general area outlined red on the first map attached is the area the Hockin Trust is referring to -Map attached.

1. Policy 9 is considered to be very wide ranging in making provision for both the re-useof buildings in the countryside and their demolition and reconstruction. The policy does not state the type of uses that may be acceptable. As worded it would appear to accept the demolition of buildings and the redevelopment of the site for new housing in the countryside which is not within the exceptional circumstances of NPPF paragraph 55 or Local Plan Policy 7. Is it the QB’s intentions that the provisions should be applicable to all types of uses including housing and business / tourism uses? Or should there be controls over the type of uses that may be acceptable in reconstructed buildings?
   GwinearGwithian response:
   The QB does not want to restrict the use
   Should there be controls over the size of any enlargement or extension to reconstructed buildings?
   GwinearGwithian response:
   Yes see criteria 9f
   The final paragraph of the policy states that it will not apply to temporary agricultural or commercial buildings. Would the QB provide a definition of these buildings?
   Cornwall Council response:
   Definition could be reworded to reflect Cornwall Local Plan Policy 7, criteria 3: ‘reuse of suitable constructed redundant, disused or historic buildings that are considered appropriate to retain and would lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting. The building to be converted should have an existing lawful residential or non residential use and be ten years older or greater.’ However this is more restrictive than the NDP policy as currently worded.
2. Policy 10 c) requires financial contributions to be made for the conversion of holiday accommodation to permanent residential use. Is this feasible on single homes? Would the LPA explain the Council’s policy position on the conversion of holiday accommodation to permanent residential use? I can find nothing in the Local Plan on the topic other a statement in the justification to Policy 7 that the building should have been used for the purpose for which it had a lawful use for at least ten years before it will be considered for conversion.

GwinearGwithian response: