Development Boundaries

Output of meeting with Stoke Climsland Parish Council on 31st May 2017

Overall Objectives

When the local community was asked if the Stoke Climsland Neighbourhood Plan should specify Development Boundaries, 88.4% of those who responded said ‘yes’.

At this meeting the Neighbourhood Plan team were asking the Parish Council for their views on where new boundaries should be to enable them to produce proposals.

The local community will then be consulted for feedback on these proposals before a final housing policy is written for the Neighbourhood Plan. Consultation will take place at Luckett Duck Day and theStoke Climsland Show. To ensure they are covered, it was suggested that properties in Bray Shop and Downgate are also leafleted. It was noted that it would be good to have maps with Development Boundaries and AONB etc all shown.

Housing Policy

As there is no current Neighbourhood plan planning policy, current development proposals are governed by policies in the Cornwall Plan (mainly Policy 3 and Policy 9).

It is the experience of the Parish Council that these policies do not sufficiently reflect the local needs of the Parish. In addition to Development Boundaries, the Parish Council would like to see policy statements that specify the type of developments preferred

Suggestions made included:

  • Dwellings should have a size of garden that is commensurate with the size of house; for example a family house should have a family size garden.
  • Development needs to be sustainable and must maintain the value of the landscape
  • For any proposals, priority will be given to the type of development highlighted as of need in the Neighbourhood plan questionnaire; ie individual homes (rather than estate development)of starter, family, self-build and retirement dwellings.

Development Boundaries

The previous Development Boundary plans were then discussed and the following proposals were made.

Bray Shop

  • Whilst there is a potential field for possible development, the Council felt it would be inappropriate as it would double the size of the village.
  • It was agreed it would be more appropriate to extend the boundaries to include a small strip along the side of the field.
  • Suggestions were also made that any development favour affordable housing or include a play area for children.
  • The Neighbourhood Plan team agreed they would investigate plans for this area in the Neighbourhood Plans of the adjoining parishes.

Luckett

  • Much of Luckett is in a World Heritage site, AONB, Conservation Area, Scheduled Monument Area, or Flood Plain, which restricts available land for development.
  • There is potential for development along the road to the allotment and along Greenscombe Lane.
  • Whilst many areas were considered and rejected in the discussion, the conclusion was that the existing Development Boundaries remain and each application is considered in its own merit.

Downgate

  • It was noted that there had been considerable infill development outside of the previous Development Boundaries in Higher Downgate and the Council agreed to extend them to cover the area already developed along the lower side of the Lane with no name.
  • Lower Downgate has issues with the sewage system. Whilst many areas were considered and rejected, it was decided to extend the Development Boundaries across the bottom of the Duchy field on the road to Holmbush but be specific about the type of property on the site.
  • It was agreed that any development in Lower Downgate must put in new sewage works.

Stoke Climsland and Venterdon

  • It was agreed that the Development boundary be squared off in the area behind the Primary School for a couple of houses, but not for the whole strip of land.
  • It was also agreed to correct existing boundaries in line with permission already given (Venterdon Farm) which would mean squaring off the boundary at the top of Venterdon.

Considerations and rejections – for reference only

Bray Shop – on the surface it appears a field suitable for development, it had been discussed previously for an affordable housing scheme and the people of Bray Shop were very against the development.

Luckett – Potential was considered along Greenscombe Lane or above the river but this is in a flood plain so is unsuitable.

Downgate –It was stated that the Duchy of Cornwall had expressed an interest in building on their field alongside Downgate Hill It was suggested that the boundary could extended all along the western side of Downgate Hill, opposite the houses. However the objection to that as it would destroy the rural feel of the hamlet. It was also stated that it would not be a good idea to join Lower and Higher Downgate. Discussion then turned to the houses in Higher and Lower Downgate (along Hightrip Land and the Higher Downgate road with no name) which have large gardens with potential for infill.

Stoke Climsland and Venterdon – the area along Pound Lane was considered by the lane was deemed to be too narrow with insufficient passing places. An area was identified behind the graveyard but is too small. Development here could be possible if the Duchy released land, but some of the Duchy land was already earmarked for possible extension of the churchyard in future years. There is a small area of land just beyond Trecorner, which has potential and could be considered as rounding off. The field opposite the school was suggested but S Jones reiterated that people do not want large housing developments. Some of the allotment field was also suggested but this would lead to a loss of the allotments, which would not benefit the community as they were well used.