Hayle Rugby Football Club
Potential Relocation Site Selection Assessment
Undertaken On Behalf of Hayle Community Rugby Facilities Limited
By Jonathan Pascoe
Contents Page
Introduction – Site Selection ApproachPage 1
Chapter 1 - Site Assessment Criteria
Land QualityPage 2
Flood RiskPage 3
Movement & AccessibilityPages 4-5
Biodiversity/EcologyPages 6-7
Visual Impact & Landscape CharacterPage 8
Quality of the Built EnvironmentPage 9
Chapter 2 – Site Specific Opportunities & Constraints
Site 1 – Land at Bar View LanePages 10-12
Site 3 – Land Adjacent St Georges Road/High LanesPages 13-14
Site 4 – Land Adjacent to Strawberry LanePages 15-18
Site 9 – Land at PenpolPages 19-20
Site 13 – Land at RivierePages 21-24
Site 15 – Land at Carwin RisePage 25-26
ConclusionPage 27
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Land Ownership Plan & Key
Appendix 2 – Site Selection Matrix
Appendix 3 – Agricultural Land Classification Plans
Appendix 4 – ERCCIS Records
Appendix 5 – Site Levels Information
INTRODUCTION
Site Selection Approach
Hayle RFC set out their requirement for Hayle Community Rugby Facilities Limited (HCRF) to find a suitable alternative site on which they could relocate their existing Club facilities. Some potential sites were put forward by the Club members but to ensure that all potential landholdings were assessed, HCRF undertook a full assessment of the area accompanied by Richard Goldring of Goldring Yates, a local agent acting on behalf of the club, to review all of the landholdings that would not only meet the requirements of Hayle RFC but also stand the best chance of achieving success in planning terms.
All of the sites assessed are on the immediate outskirts of Hayle adjacent to the existing built environment. The majority of the land lies between the A30 bypass and High Lanes/St Georges Road. It was unknown from the outset who owned what property however Richard Goldring had some idea of land owners in the area so once all of the potential sites were identified, surveyors of HCRF approached the people whose contact details they knew, and made further enquiries regarding the other landowners that remained unknown.
The Richards Family are farmers that have been farming in and around Hayle for many generations. They were contacted to discuss whether they had details of who owned what land on all of the areas that were assessed. They were able to confidently confirm the ownerships of all of the land save for a few small parcels that are used as horse/pony paddocks. Because of the number of land owners each owning small parcels insufficient in size to meet the requirements of Hayle RFC, only the sites that are sufficient in size and in single land ownerships have been assessed. The smaller landholdings are generally sandwiched between the larger landholdings therefore even if there are several smaller sites together, when collectively parcelled up they are still not sufficient in size to meet Hayle RFC’s requirements. Sites 1, 3, 4, 9,13 and 15 are the only landholdings sufficient in size in single land ownerships capable of meeting Hayle RFC’s requirements therefore this report only looks at these sites in more detail and discounts the other landholdings from any further investigation. Land owned by the Football Club would be large enough if married up with one additional field however this is not possible because of the aspirations for more beneficial development (housing) by the owners of the neighbouring land.
All of the larger landholdings that are capable of accommodating the needs of the Rugby Club have been assessed using a matrix of potential constraints / opportunities and scored in each category accordingly. The assessment has been made regardless of whether or not the landowners are prepared to enter negotiations to sell their land. This approach justifies the site selection on its planning merits rather than simply having a land owner that is prepared to sell in a location that may not be the most suitable relocation site.
Chapter 1 – Site Assessment Criteria
LAND QUALITY
Source of Information – Natural England
PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (paragraphs 28 and 29) published in August 2004.
Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) Maps for England and Wales were designed to give strategic advice on the distribution of farmland quality. Therefore, in certain instances a local interpretation of the boundaries and specific classifications has taken place. Where significant development of agricultural land is unavoidable, poorer quality land should be used in preference to that of higher quality, except where this would be inconsistent with other sustainability considerations.
The ALC system classifies land into five grades, with Grade 3 subdivided into Sub-grades 3a and 3b. The best and most versatile land is defined as Grades 1, 2 and 3a by policy guidance (see PPS7). This is the land which is most flexible, productive and efficient in response to inputs and which can best deliver future crops for food and non food uses such as biomass, fibres and pharmaceuticals.
Little weight in agricultural terms should be given to the loss of agricultural land in grades 3b, 4 and 5, except in areas (such as uplands) where particularagricultural practices may themselves contribute in some special way to the quality and character of the environment or the local economy. If any undeveloped agricultural land needs to be developed, any adverse effects on the environment should be minimised.
Threshold5 / Absolute Sustainability
Constraints / ALC grades 1 and 2. Development fails to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land.
4 / Problematic Sustainability
Issues / ALC grade 3a. Development fails to protect good versatile agricultural land.
3 / Mitigation Achievable
Sustainability Issues / ALC grade 3b. Development fails to protect moderate quality agricultural land.
2 / No Sustainability
Constraints / ALC grades 4 and 5. Development fails to protect poor quality agricultural land.
1 / Development supports
Sustainability Objectives / Previously developed land and therefore protects all agricultural land
FLOOD RISK
Source of Information – Environment Agency Interactive Flood Mapping Service
PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk
The aims of planning policy on development and flood risk are to ensure that flood risk istaken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate developmentin areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas at highest risk. Where new development is, exceptionally, necessary in such areas, policy aims to make itsafe without increasing flood risk elsewhere and where possible, reducing flood risk overall.
Flood risk should be considered alongside other spatial planning issues such as transport, housing, economic growth, natural resources, regeneration, biodiversity, the historic environment and the management of other hazards. Policies should recognise the positive contribution that avoidance and management of flood risk can make to the development of sustainable communities, including improved local amenities and better overall quality of life. They should be integrated effectively with other strategies of material significance such as Regional Economic Strategies.
Local planning authorities should apply the sequential approach as part of the identification of land for development in areas at risk of flooding bydirecting the most vulnerable development to areas of lowest flood risk, matching vulnerability of land use to flood risk.
Threshold5 / Absolute Sustainability
Constraints / Located within zone 3b: the functional floodplain. Only suitable for water-compatible uses and essential infrastructure
4 / Problematic Sustainability
Issues / Located within zones 3a: high probability of flooding. Only suitable for water-compatible, less vulnerable uses and essential infrastructure.
3 / Mitigation Achievable
Sustainability Issues / Located within zone 2: medium probability of flooding. Only suitable for water-compatible, less vulnerable and more vulnerable uses of land and essential infrastructure
2 / No Sustainability
Constraints / Located within zone 1: low probability of flooding
1 / Development supports
Sustainability Objectives / Located within zone 1: low probability of flooding and scope to provide remediationagainst flood risk off site
MOVEMENT & ACCESSIBILITY
Source of Information: site work, professional judgment, Public Transport operators.
Policy Requirement: PPG 13 Transport
Movement and accessibility is considered over four criteria: walking, cycling, public transport and the private car and whether a site would provide good access and how the site relates to a good range of services and facilities. A good range of services and facilities is taken to be those needed to meet our daily needs (such as a primary school, shop or post office).
Walking - Good access by walking is taken as a good range of services and facilities within a 5 minute walk (about 400m). Also considered are the ease of connections (such as are there pavements), safety and the topography of the walk.
Cycling - Sites are assessed in relationship to links to the National Cycle Network, or whether there is a safe and inviting route to the local services.
Public Transport - Good access to public transport is taken as a bus stop within 400m of the site. Also considered are the frequency of the service, the end destination (i.e. what services/facilities are available there), and duration of the journey. Rail is also considered for Ivybridge and Totnes.
Private Car - The district is predominantly rural, therefore the reality is that most residents, particularly those living in villages will have to rely on the private car to meet some of their daily needs. This section considers the ease with which the site itself can be accessed for car use and the capacity of road infrastructure in the vicinity to accommodate additional car movement.
Threshold / WALKING5 / Absolute Sustainability
Constraints / Isolated, poorly connected and/or difficult topography which cannot be addressed
4 / Problematic Sustainability
Issues / Relatively isolated and possible limitations in the range of facilities, poorly connected and/ordifficult topography
3 / Mitigation Achievable
Sustainability Issues / Relatively close proximity but possible limitations in the range of facilities and the quality ofconnections and/or difficult topography
2 / No Sustainability
Constraints / Relatively close proximity and good access to a basic range of services and facilities
1 / Development supports
Sustainability Objectives / Close proximity and unhindered access to a wide range of services and facilities
Threshold / CYCLING
5 / Absolute Sustainability
Constraints / Isolated, poorly connected and/or difficult topography which cannot be addressed
4 / Problematic Sustainability
Issues / Relatively isolated and possible limitations in the range of facilities, poorly connected and/or difficult topography
3 / Mitigation Achievable
Sustainability Issues / Relatively close proximity but possible limitations in the range of facilities and the quality ofconnections and/or difficult topography
2 / No Sustainability
Constraints / Relatively close proximity and good access to a basic range of services and facilities
1 / Development supports
Sustainability Objectives / Close proximity and unhindered access to a wide range of services and facilities
Threshold / PUBLIC TRANSPORT
5 / Absolute Sustainability
Constraints / No existing public transport links or opportunity
4 / Problematic Sustainability
Issues / Relatively isolated from public transport link, and/or very limited service
3 / Mitigation Achievable
Sustainability Issues / Relatively close proximity to public transport link but possible limitations in the frequency and / or access to a range of facilities
2 / No Sustainability
Constraints / Relatively close proximity to public transport link which have good frequency to a basic rangeof services and facilities
1 / Development supports
Sustainability Objectives / Close proximity to public transport link to a wide range of services and facilities
Threshold / PRIVATE CAR
5 / Absolute Sustainability
Constraints / Absolute highway constraints
4 / Problematic Sustainability
Issues / Highway constraints which significantly limit access to services and facilities
3 / Mitigation Achievable
Sustainability Issues / Highway constraints which limit, to some degree, access to services and facilities
2 / No Sustainability
Constraints / No highway constraints
1 / Development supports
Sustainability Objectives / No highway constraints and would improve current development constraints on or around thesite
BIODIVERSITY / ECOLOGY
Source of Information - Environmental Records Centre for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly (ERCCIS)
PPS9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
In the context of this PPS, biodiversity is the variety of life in all its forms as discussed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Geological conservation relates to the sites that are designated for their geology and/or geomorphological importance.
Working with the grain of nature: a biodiversity strategy for Englandsets out the Government’s vision for conserving and enhancing biological diversity in England, together with a programme of work to achieve it. It includes the broad aim that planning, construction, development and regeneration should have minimal impacts on biodiversity and enhance it wherever possible.
In moving towards this vision, the Government’s objectives for planning are:
• to promote sustainable development by ensuring that biological and geological diversity are conserved and enhanced as an integral part of social, environmental and economic development, so that policies and decisions about the development and use of land integrate biodiversity and geological diversity with other considerations.
• to conserve, enhance and restore the diversity of England’s wildlife and geology by sustaining, and where possible improving, the quality and extent of natural habitat and geological and geomorphological sites; the natural physical processes on which they depend; and the populations of naturally occurring species which they support.
• to contribute to rural renewal and urban renaissance by enhancing biodiversity in green spaces and among developments so that they are used by wildlife and valued by people, recognising that healthy functional ecosystems can contribute to a better quality of life and to people’s sense of well-being; and ensuring that developments take account of the role and value of biodiversity in supporting economic diversification and contributing to a high quality environment.
The planning system has a significant part to play in meeting the Government’sinternational commitments and domestic policies for habitats, species and ecosystems.
A precautionary principle is taken, therefore, a site can only receive a “1” or “2” grade once site survey work has been conducted, which demonstrates no biodiversity constraints or protected species.
This objective considers the impact on the environmental designation therefore a site may not be within a designation but adjacent to it and this is reflected in the threshold grading.
5 / Absolute Sustainability
Constraints / European designated site
4 / Problematic Sustainability
Issues / Nationally protected sites or features or known protected species
3 / Mitigation Achievable
Sustainability Issues / Local designated site or site contains habitats which may contain protected species
2 / No Sustainability
Constraints / Site known not to have any biodiversity constraints.
1 / Development supports
Sustainability Objectives / Site known not to have any biodiversity constraints and to have opportunities for
biodiversity enhancement.
VISUAL IMPACT & LANDSCAPE CHARACTER
Source of Information- Personal Judgement together with Professional Input
PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas
Assessment of visual impact and landscape character considers conservation and enhancement of local landscape character, primarily through views into and out of the site and the visual interrelationship of a potential development with adjoining land uses.
Threshold5 / Absolute Sustainability
Constraints / Unacceptable adverse visual impact. Could not be integrated into existing landform and landscape features, with no opportunities to conserve or enhance landscape character
4 / Problematic Sustainability
Issues / Significant adverse visual impact. Integration into existing landform and landscapefeatures along with opportunities to conserve or enhance landscape character constrained
3 / Mitigation Achievable
Sustainability Issues / Limited adverse visual impact. Integration into existing landform and landscape featuresalong with opportunities to conserve or enhance landscape character possible
2 / No Sustainability
Constraints / No adverse visual impact. Achieves integration into existing landform and landscapefeatures along with opportunities to conserve landscape character
1 / Development supports
Sustainability Objectives / No adverse visual impact. Achieves integration into existing landform and landscapefeatures along with opportunities to conserve and enhance landscape character
QUALITY OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Source of Information – Site Work and Personal Judgement with Professional Input
PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development
Consideration is given to how a site would relate to adjoining land uses and how its development could contribute to the quality of the surrounding built environment.
Threshold5 / Absolute Sustainability
Constraints / Poorly integrated, poor relationship to adjacent land uses, no opportunities to improve quality of public realm or local landscape
4 / Problematic Sustainability
Issues / Poorly integrated, poor relationship to adjacent land uses, with limited opportunities to improve quality of public realm or local landscape
3 / Mitigation Achievable
Sustainability Issues / Reasonable integration and relationship to adjacent land uses, with opportunities to improve quality of public realm or local landscape
2 / No Sustainability
Constraints / Good integration and relationship to adjacent land uses, with opportunities to improve quality of public realm or local landscape
1 / Development supports
Sustainability Objectives / Very good integration and relationship to adjacent land uses, with significant opportunities to improve quality of public realm or local landscape
Chapter 2 – Site Specific Opportunities & Constraints
Site 1 – Land at Bar View Lane
This land is to the south of Bar View Lane along an unmade road leading on to a public bridleway / private access lane. Whilst the site is accessible by foot, generally accessibility is poor. The approach into Bar View Lane is not completely apparent, partly because of the road condition but also it is concealed by vehicles parking along the adopted highway – please see image below.
The site itself is very prominent and floodlighting of the proposed sports pitches would have an impact from the A30. Floodlighting would also impact upon the residents living in the south of Hayle from the estates served byMellanear Road and by residents as far away as Lelant. Appendix 5 provides information on the levels across the various potential sites with Site 1 located on the ridge line of the contours. Appendix 5 also shows that there are issues with the levels as they fall away quite steeply meaning that to achieve a level playing field quite a lot of engineering works are needed with the cut and fill of the ground and retaining features built to support any made-up ground.