«Telephone: 0300 1234 100 Bodmin Town Framework Consultation Responses – April 2013 Housing Comments Issue: Comments raised ...»
Telephone: 0300 1234 100
Bodmin Town Framework
Consultation Responses – April 2013
Comments raised specifically relating to the Priory Urban
177. Development of land between Castle Canyke and the Liskeard Road
should incorporate a safe pedestrian and cycle route
220. BdUE1 – concern that insufficient regarding is had to the settling of Castle Canyke, as an ancient scheduled monument
An idea for a safe pedestrian and cycle route are noted and are highlighted within the emerging Green Infrastructure Strategy.
Whilst it is recognised that the urban extension brings development closer to Castle Canyke, it is felt that the proposal adequately recognises its importance by retaining a green buffer between the site for development and Castle Canyke; plus the supporting text indicated that the heights of buildings on the eastern edge should not dominate the setting.
Comments raised specifically relating to the St Lawrences Urban Extension
31. Urban extensions St Lawrence area development – will exacerbate existing issues of inadequate roads and lorries in this location which may encourage rat-running through the rural village of Nanstallon to the detriment of the countryside.
37. Urban extensions St Lawrence development – will have an adverse impact on Nanstallon particularly through construction traffic and will lead to it joining with Bodmin eventually.
54. Urban extensions - St Lawrence hospital ground suitable for housing and supermarket.
213. BdUE3 – Supportive of the proposed allocation, but doesn’t believe there should be a requirements to provide employment space on site, due to its proximity to the Technology Park and the old St Lawrence’s hospital which would be better for employment space as well
213. BdEU3 – Believes the site should provide a district centre, as previously proposed by the Bodmin Masterplan
220. Housing – Concern that the St Lawrence’s urban extension is now only quoted as an ‘option’, whereas the previous North Cornwall LDF had highlighted as a preferred site
Concerns regarding the traffic impacts of the development on surrounding villages, particularly Nanstallon, are noted. The transport modelling that was undertaken did not highlight any particular transport issues arising from the site, if the transport proposals were implemented. However, this will continue to be investigated as the Transportation Strategy evolves.
Furthermore, a Transport Assessment would also need to be submitted by any developer coming forward with a planning application, demonstrating how they can overcome any adverse impacts.
Having a district centre at Halgavor would not be supported. The clear focus for the strategy was about supporting and enhancing the town centre and it is felt that additional retail development of any scale would only detract from the Town Centre offer.
The North Cornwall LDF and the terminology used does not represent a reason for maintaining the same status in the emerging Town Framework.
Furthermore, the sites were referred to as ‘options’ as the Town Framework was being consulted upon, as a result changes could still be made before the Framework is finalised.
Concerns about putting employment space on the site are noted. It is recognised that the importance providing employment space on site is reduced due to the proximity to the Beacon Technology Park. The relationship between the site, the Technology Park and the St Lawrences Hospital site will be evaluated again, although providing a mix of uses within such a large site is still felt to be a sound proposal.
Continue to review the vehicular impact of the proposed developments with Cornwall Council’s Transportation Team Review the old St Lawrences Hospital site as a location for further brownfield development; as well as the relationship between housing and employment uses within that location.
Comments raised specifically relating to the Callywith Urban Extension
220. BdUE4 – Concerns raised relating to its landscape impact, with the land identified in the North Cornwall Local Plan as a AGLV
227. Housing – Support the proposed housing sites, particularly BdUE4, with it being well located to the A30
Support for the site is noted It is recognised that the site sits within the AGLV. However when reviewing all land surrounding Bodmin various assessments are taken into consideration; when reviewing all of these assessments, it was felt that despite the sensitive landscape, the site still represented one of the better options for development due to: its access to services and facilities; its potential as a commercially attractive site for employment space, etc.
However, the more sensitive landscape is noted and this is why a slightly lower density development is being proposed, which should help to provide mitigation, to ensure it is more in keeping with its surroundings.
Continue to promote a slightly lower density for the site
Comments raised specifically relating to the Halgavor Urban Extension
4. Housing: Concern regarding hydrological issues at Halgavor
4. Housing: Halgavor object to it, as it will ruin the rural environment;
plus object to the site having a community hub
34. Development at Halgavor – this is on a flood plain
37. Flooding in Stoney Land and waterworks here already cause unpleasant smells.
76. Housing – Opposed to BdUE2 as on marshy ground (check for rare and endangered flora and fauna)
185. Housing – Against the proposed Halgavor site. Putting 700 houses here would increase the traffic, add pollution, and felling hundreds of trees that filter pollution
185. Housing – the proposed Halgavor site would destroy agricultural fields that could be used to grow and market local food, the plan claims to want to promote agricultural food marketing
185. Housing – the land at Halgavor is marsh land and prone to flooding.
Development would destroy an ancient footpath and wildlife habitat and be on flood plain. Development here would also take away a sports field
220. Employment – Believes BdUE2 should be highlighted as mixed use, like the other urban extensions
229. Housing – Concerned about the Halgavor urban extension proposal due to hydrological issues
244. Housing – Raised hydrological issues relating to the Halgavor site
160. Housing – BdUE2 a good location – brings new dwellings close to existing facilities and has reasonable low visual impact
204. Housing – BdUE2 is in the wrong location and there are too many houses for a single access
204. Housing – BdEU2 will put too much strain on Lostwithiel Road
Concerns regarding hydrological issues are noted. Cornwall Council’s hydrologist visited the site prior to the publication of the Town Framework and it was his opinion that the springs, collects, high water table etc within the site would not prevent the development of the site, in principle, but felt that these issues could be addressed by an appropriate Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS). As a result, it will be the responsibility of a developer, when bringing forward applications for the site, to demonstrate that an appropriate SUDS system has been put in place to appropriately deal with the issues, which in turn does not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area
The proposed development would not see the reduction of sports pitches.
Concerns regarding the environmental impact are noted; however in seeking to deliver the Local Plan housing target, assessments of landscape value of all land surrounding Bodmin indicated that this wasn’t as sensitive an area as many other locations; although it is recognised that it still represents a quality landscape for local residents.
Work has been undertaken on the highway impacts and it is felt that these issues can be overcome with the proposed highway schemes associated with the site. However, more detailed transport assessments would have to be prepared by a developer as part of any planning application, which will be scrutinised by Cornwall Council.
Continue to liaise with Cornwall Council’s hydrologist and Transportation Team on the deliverability of the site
Concern raised regarding the Castle Street mixed use site
117. Against the development (M1) on Castle Street – feels the existing Camping/caravan use should be expanded instead
Concerns are noted; however this represents a good site for development.
Without the site coming forward, it will place more development of more peripheral Greenfield sites which is felt inappropriate.
Against Greenfield development
2. Urban Extensions: Against greenfield sites because there is capacity in the urban area, through vacant sites and intensification of existing built areas
20. Housing – Brownfield sites should be utilised and finished before any out of town development is commenced.
208. Housing – Believes there should only be housing development on brownfield sites
244. Housing – Believes that greenfield sites are an important agricultural resource and this land should be protected
The importance of Greenfield land is recognised, however to reach the growth targets set within the local plan there is a need to provide some of the housing on Greenfield land. The reason for this is that as a result of reviewing the urban capacity of Bodmin it is estimated that it can only provide in the region of 1000 dwellings; which means 2000 dwellings will be required on the edge of the urban area, to reach the Local Plan target of 3000 dwellings
Concerns raised regarding the number of dwellings to be built within the plan period in Bodmin
31. Housing and jobs numbers – where is the justification for 3,000 homes, why only 650 job envisaged this will result in more unemployment and be detrimental to existing residents.
37. Housing numbers – Why do we need this many houses? 650 jobs will not be enough for 3,000 houses and will increase unemployment.
91. Housing – 3000 houses too many.
117. Housing – Amount of housing is not needed.
130. Housing – Believe number should be between 3,000 and 5,000 as Bodmin is a good strategic location.
159. Housing – 3,500 new houses will create pollution
185. Housing – No need for 3000 houses, there are lots of houses on the market
208. Housing – Questions the need for the amount of housing proposed (no alterative suggested)
220. Housing – concern raised regarding whether the housing numbers are objectively assessed (believe it should be more for Cornwall and Bodmin). Believes that with 1400 families of the housing register and the affordable housing policy seeking 40%, then there should be a target of at least 3500
202. Strategy – against the proposed developments
226. Vision – against 3000 dwellings
244. Housing – Does not support the housing target
The Town Framework is not able to set levels of growth; this is an issue that is addressed / set by Cornwall Council’s Local Plan. As a result, the Town Framework can only address where the Local Plan’s housing and economic growth targets for Bodmin will be located.
However, the 650 jobs referred to in the Town Framework relate to an estimate of jobs that could be created within the B1, B2 and B8 planning use classes (industrial and office space); however in addition to this there will be further jobs as a result of service industries, retail, etc. When factoring in all types of employment it is estimated that there might be the potential to deliver up to approximately 2000 jobs within the plan period.
Issues raised regarding the housing mix and affordable housing
4. Housing: Concern that too much focus is on lower income families and this will not help the local economy, would like more ’executive homes’
20. Housing – Agree with affordable housing for local residents but not incomers
21. Housing – Plan does not account for social housing need
31. Affordable housing – affordable housing needs to be for local people
34. Housing – how many social houses will be built? affordable housing is not affordable as people can’t afford to live in them.
117. Housing – Cornwall Council build social housing.
120. Housing – Concerned over affordable housing numbers – should show clear split between social housing for rent and sale
177. Housing – a disproportionate amount of Council housing in the town, need to build more quality housing to attract wealth to the town
179. Housing – needs to be balanced
185. Housing – the houses to be built would be unaffordable to young families, put the money towards social housing
244. Housing – Would like to know How many people appear on both of these registers
244. Housing – Would like to know Are any of these houses for overspill from other areas of the country and how many houses will end up as second homes
Providing a good mix of housing is very much supported and is referenced at the start of the housing section within the Town Framework Concerns regarding the perceived focus given to lower income families is noted. Firstly, the document does also reference the need for a mix of housing; although it is recognised that more words are devoted to affordable housing; however due to the scale of the need, it was felt that this was needed It is impossible to tell how many of the open market dwellings will end up as second homes; although it is anticipated that this would be very limited, as Bodmin is not an area with a significant amount of second homes There are approximately 700 families on the Council’s HomeChoice Register that have a local connection to Bodmin; plus 1439 families on the HomeChoice Register who wish to live in Bodmin None of the affordable housing proposed is for ‘overspill’ from other parts of the country; however the Council is not able to place any restrictions on the open market dwellings, so will be available for anyone to buy
Ensure the final Town Framework provides an appropriate focus on both affordable housing and other more aspirational housing, to fit with the economic aspirations of the town
General support for the housing strategy
13. Housing: Agree with the locations for future housing development
95. Housing – if the figures are justified the proposals seem acceptable.
135. Housing – Support new residential areas if of good quality
160. Housing – proposed sites appropriate for the needs of the area
210. Housing – Supportive of the need for good quality housing
227. Housing – Believes the 3000 dwelling target is more realistic than previous targets
225. Housing – Supports the housing sites
226. Housing – No issue with the location of the housing
245. Housing – Support locations for housing
Concerns regarding sites that mix housing with employment and the compatibility of the two
31. Mixed use development – concerns that industry and housing provided together are not compatible. Light industry needs to be clearly defined.