St Eval Neighbourhood Development Plan –
Consultation Statement
1 - Introduction
This Consultation Statement has been prepared to fulfil the legal
obligations of the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations 2012 (set out in
Section 3) relating to the St Eval Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).
Extensive community engagement and consultation work has been
undertaken and this is summarised in Section 4.
2 - Background
The rural, coastal Parish of St Eval is situated in North Cornwall, adjacent
to Mawgan in Pydar, St Ervan and St Merryn in the Community Network
Area of Wadebridge and Padstow.
The Parish has a population of 8041. The largest settlement in the Parish
is Trevisker St Eval, located between the larger settlements of Newquay
and Padstow. Padstow is approximately 4 miles northeast of the site and
Newquay approximately 8 miles to the south west.
The original motivation for a Neighbourhood Plan came about because of
the MoD’s intention to sell some of their land at Trevisker St Eval. The
Parish Council and St Eval Area Community Action Forum (SEACAF CIC)
saw this as an opportunity to be proactive in shaping future development,
as well as a way to help safeguard and enhance the area.
With the relocation of the post office/shop and community centre on to
the area being marketed for sale, the parish were keen to ensure that
these facilities were protected for existing and future residents of the
parish.
With the MoD Development Brief defining a potential for development of
up to 100 houses, the need for facilities was seen as ever more key to the
future of the parish.
Initially, the parish considered undertaking a Neighbourhood Development
Order (NDO) to influence the development on the MoD site but, following
consultation with the community in December 2012, decided to widen this
out to an NDP in order to set policies across the whole of the parish and
encourage all parish residents to have an active say in the future. The
Parish Boundary/Neighbourhood Plan Area is shown in Figure 1.
Cornwall Council Parish Population 2010 figures:
http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=28029
1
1
Figure 1 - St Eval Parish Boundary and Neighbourhood Plan Area
(Source: Cornwall Council, 2013)
2
The NDP has not only been driven by the need to protect and enhance
parish facilities. The withdrawal of the majority of MoD personnel from the
area has changed the make-up of the parish and there is an awareness
that the area would benefit from some growth and a range of residents,
which will aid the sustainability of the parish and in fact, bring positive
change.
It is intended, through the NDP, to shape development through the
policies themselves and by engaging with potential developers to look at
how the area can be developed to the mutual benefit of the developer and
the community. Good quality development that works positively with the
environment and conditions, and adds social value will make St Eval a
better and more sustainable place to live and should be embraced.
3 – Consultation on the proposed St Eval
Development Plan - Legislative Requirements
Neighbourhood
Section 15(2) of Part 5 of the 2012 Neighbourhood Planning Regulations
sets out what a consultation statement should contain:
(a) contains details of the persons and bodies who were consulted about
the proposed neighbourhood development plan;
(b) explains how they were consulted;
(c) summarises the main issues and concerns raised by the persons
consulted; and
(d) describes how these issues and concerns have been considered and,
where relevant, addressed in the proposed neighbourhood development
plan.
Consultation and community engagement has been fundamental to the
development of the Neighbourhood Plan and has gone far beyond the
requirements of the regulations. The work that has been carried out over
4 years is outlined below. The requirements of the regulations are covered
in Section 4.12.
4 - The Development of the St Eval Neighbourhood Development
Plan – Community Consultation
4.1 - The consultation process
Figure 2 shows the evolving process of developing a plan for St Eval over
4 years, including extensive community engagement and consultation at
every step along the way.
A summary of the issues that were identified throughout the community
engagement and consultation is included in Section 4.2. More detail on
each stage of consultation is included in Sections 4.3 – 4.12.
3
Figure 2 –Chart showing key milestones in the process undertaken in St. Eval
4
4.2 - Summary of Consultation Results by Theme
Below is a summary of the key issues that were identified throughout the
various stages of consultation and engagement, which formed the basis
for the policies in the St Eval NDP.
Housing







Support for a maximum of 100 houses
Support for affordable housing for local people
Development mainly accepted as being on the area shown in the
original NDO as per Development Brief (although the exact location
and grouping of houses may be negotiable)
Some interest in small scattered housing developments in the
parish
Support for environmentally sustainable build
Some interest in self build
Support for use of local materials and design that is sympathetic to
needs whilst factoring in well-being of community: tenure, type,
appropriate spacing, garden and parking facilities
Environment and Open Spaces





Protection and enhancement of natural environment
Protection and increase of trees (as natural wind-break and to
enjoy for aesthetic and environmental reasons)
Pathways and cycle trails to link up facilities and to provide
walks/leisure routes – ensuring that the natural environment is
accessible for local use, and potentially link into a tourism initiative.
Protection of playing field
Outdoor leisure space - linked to sports
US Navy/American Buildings




Of significant importance to residents as part of their heritage
Should, where possible, be made practical use of
Community usages highlighted for various buildings e.g. sports hall
could once again be used as a sports gym, sports facility; church
could provide a media/cultural venue etc
Also support for buildings to be considered for employment space
use
Energy


Support for renewable energy initiatives (such as solar PV) subject
to defining appropriate options and having this endorsed by the
community
Energy efficiency to be considered in relation to any housing
development
5
Employment/Business




Local employment likely to become more important with future
growth of population
Support for small tourism initiatives
Support for small-scale employment space and business
development
Business growth supported but sympathetic to the area i.e. no large
scale development. Primarily local shops, small workshops, nonindustrial businesses and office space supported
Infrastructure



Mobile phone reception and broadband services need to improve in
order to enable business and economic growth
Ensure that transport and road network (inc. traffic safety)
considered as part of the wider housing and business development.
More facilities or improved facilities (shopping, health, leisure and
social) to be considered as part of the sustainability of the parish.
4.3 - Initial Development Brief Consultation – March 2010
In March 2010, having been made aware of the fact that the MoD
intended to close the NAAFI (Navy, Army and Air Force Institute) building,
which was the only community use building for Trevisker St Eval, a survey
was conducted to discover whether the residents and other local people
felt that it was necessary to maintain certain community activities and
services.
Approximately 120 surveys were distributed throughout Trevisker St Eval
and the Parish; 72 were returned (60%).
4.4 – Further Development Brief Consultation – August 2011
SEACAF CIC was formed from an existing community group in order to
provide an appropriate structure to produce a business plan and to
acquire a new community building, due to the closure of the NAAFI
building.
“The objects of the Company are to carry on activities which benefit the
community and in particular (without limitation) to provide community
facilities and activities for the residents of Trevisker St Eval and the
surrounding area”
In order to acquire a replacement building, the MoD required SEACAF CIC
to produce evidence for a Development Brief. A further, more wide-spread
survey was undertaken.
6
Consultation took place in St Eval on the 13th August 2011 at the local
village fete in order to better understand the type, scale and position of
development that people living within the area would like to see happen.
Additionally, approximately 120 surveys were distributed and 82 were
returned (68%). This survey concentrated on development, community
facilities and infrastructure brief. This informed the production of the
Development Brief for the former MoD land, which was then adopted by
Cornwall Council in December 2011.
Following this work, SEACAF CIC, supported by Cornwall Council’s
Localism Team, successfully negotiated a 5 year lease on one of the
American Buildings, with a peppercorn rent. The Trevisker Community
Centre opened in January 2012 and includes meeting rooms, hairdressers,
social club, Post Office and shop.
4.5 –Formation of the Neighbourhood Planning Steering Group –
March/April 2012
Initially it was felt an NDO was the most appropriate plan to take forward,
to influence the development on the MoD site. In March 2012, a public
meeting was held at Trevisker School to discuss following up the
Development Brief by embarking on an NDO. The purpose of the meeting
was to:



Raise awareness of the process, what this would entail and what it
could achieve;
Explain what impact this might have; and
Attract volunteers and interest.
The first official meeting of the Steering Group was held in April 2012. At
this meeting the group discussed how they would function i.e. their terms
of reference; engagement strategy; and the types of themes that might
need to be covered.
The Steering Group has continued to meet regularly (with minutes taken)
throughout the process.
The Steering Group is made up of a core of members, but they have also
co-opted members informally to undertake tasks e.g. seeking youth input.
4.6 –Neighbourhood Planning – Preliminary Community
Engagement and Consultation – May/June 2012
The Steering Group held events held in May and June 2012 to inform the
initial Neighbourhood Planning work – these included:


Consultation with school children at Trevisker Primary School in
May 2012;
Consultation at the Church Rooms, St Eval in May 2012;
7

Consultation at the Jubilee barbeque and beach party (Porthcothan)
in June 2012.
Additionally, there have been on-going displays at the Trevisker
Community Centre to both inform and to gather views; information on the
SEACAF CIC website and general publicity throughout the entire process.
4.7 – Parish Survey and Housing Needs Survey –
November/December 2012
In November 2012, the Steering Group worked with officers from Cornwall
Council and Cornwall Rural Community Council to devise an in-depth
Parish Survey which, although primarily focused on the NDO, went much
wider in order to identify more holistic community issues and aspirations.
The survey was distributed in hard copy but residents were also given the
option to complete the survey online. There was also an evening session
held at the Community Centre where residents could get independent
assistance with the survey.
The survey was distributed to residents in both St Eval and St Ervan
parishes. In total, there were 482 household questionnaires distributed –
346 of these in St Eval, of which 86 forms were completed (a response
rate of 25%). The remaining 136 questionnaires were distributed in St
Ervan with 10 forms returned (a response rate of 7%). As the MoD land
falls predominantly in St Eval parish, interest from St Ervan parish
residents was low and therefore the lower response rate was not
unsurprising.
The results were analysed, showing similar results to those of the
Development Brief. Residents were keen to influence future development.
A housing needs survey was also undertaken during this period to
establish the need for possible future housing and identify the extent and
nature of the housing needs, and establish the attitude towards residential
development. 482 surveys were distributed to each household on the
electoral role with 63 surveys returned (13%).
4.8 – Consultation Days – December 2012
Two Christmas Consultation events were held at Trevisker School and at
Trevisker St Eval Community Centre, which were both well-attended.
Displays and information on themes/issues that might go into the NDO
made available for community members to view, discuss and comment
on. This was linked to the content of the Parish Survey.
8
4.9 - Change to NDP – February 2013
Following analysis of the Parish Survey results and consultation at the
Christmas events, it was agreed that an NDP would be more appropriate
for St Eval, rather than an NDO.
To publicise this change, posters were displayed in various places within
the parish, it was publicised on the SEACAF CIC website and displayed in
the Trevisker community building. The results of the various consultations
were also displayed, explaining the plan was now an NDP, what that was
and that the evidence was still relevant.
4.10 – Business Survey – September 2013
A business questionnaire was delivered to 40 local businesses in the area
to identify needs and future development. 18 responses were received
(45%).
4.11 - Consultation on Draft NDP Policies – December 2013 and
January 2014
A community consultation event to get feedback on the draft policies was
held at Trevisker St Eval Community Centre on Saturday 14th December
2013 between 2.00 and 8.00pm. The event was timed to coincide with the
community children’s Christmas Party and Christmas Draw taking place at
the centre.
There were photographs and maps on display, explanations about each of
the 7 policies, the policies themselves and opportunities for people to say
if they agreed or didn’t agree and to make comments.
A record was kept of who attended (gender, age and where they lived). It
was staffed by members of the Steering Group, along with a planning
officer from Cornwall Council and a Community Planning Manager from
Cornwall Rural Community Council to answer questions. The event was
visited by 60 people and the comments were all positive and supportive of
the NDP.
On Saturday 18th January 2014, the event was replicated at St Eval Parish
Hall between Porthcothan and Treburrick. The event was attended by 12
people and feedback was generally positive although the respondents’
issues and concerns were different from those who had attended the
event at Trevisker St Eval, and based more on the wider parish.
Both of these events were publicised on the SEACAF CIC website and
through posters and flyers.
As a result of the consultation events, some of the policies in the NDP
were adjusted slightly to reflect feedback received.
9
4.12 - Formal Consultation on the Proposed Neighbourhood
Development Plan – Jan – March 2014
The St Eval NDP was submitted to St Eval Parish Council for approval at
their meeting on Wednesday 5th February 2014. The NDP then went out to
formal consultation for 6 weeks, as per the Neighbourhood Planning
Regulations. This formal consultation began on Monday 10th February
2014.
The plan was sent to the consultees detailed in the table below, along with
their responses and actions taken as a result.
The plan was also available to all members of the public to view and
comment on at the Trevisker St Eval Community Centre foyer and also on
the SEACAF website. This was publicised by posters within the parish, on
the website, and in the parish magazine.
10
Organisation
Environment
Agency
Name
Shaun
Pritchard
Email Address
shaun.pritchard@environmentagency.gov.uk
Address
Environment Agency
Sir John Moore House
Victoria Square
Bodmin
Cornwall
PL31 1EB
Method of
Consultation
Email
Consultation Response
Email
Thank you for your consultation on
this Plan and for forwarding me
the Sustainability Checklist.
No Response
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
N/A
We do not have many comments
on the Plan and these can be
summarised as follows:
We are pleased to note that the
heritage of the area is valued by
its community and that this is
reflected in the Plan’s policies and
proposals.
We note that the focus of planned
development is the ex MOD site
and that a development brief has
previously been produced outside
of the Neighbourhood Plan
preparation process. The Plan is
intended to build on that document
and makes provision for up to 100
new homes within the village
boundary of St Eval (SENDP2).
English
Heritage
David Stuart
david.stuart@english-heritage.org.uk
English Heritage
29 Queen Square
Bristol
BS1 4ND
What is less clear as an evidence
base is how the Plan through that
policy can demonstrate that such
an ambition can be delivered
without generating an undesirable
degree of harm to heritage assets
which allows conformity with the
parent Local Plan and National
Planning Policy Framework and
also with policy SENDP5 on
heritage within the neighbourhood
Plan itself. I note from SENDP 2
itself and the relevant objective
within the Sustainability Checklist
(P21) that “housing proposals
must have clearly considered the
existing context” but there are a
number of nationally designated
heritage assets around the village
whose settings may well be critical
to their significance and upon
Comments gratefully received. In
response to the concerns over the
harm to heritage assets through
housing proposals; the NDP has
holistically looked at the area, its
constraints and limitations. This in
turn has informed the settlement
boundary. In terms of heritage
assets in this boundary, there is 1
scheduled monument (Trevisker
Round) and it is not envisaged
that housing development will be
proposed in its setting, due to the
current use as Trevisker
Community Primary School. If in
the unlikely event that a housing
proposal was submitted in the
setting of this scheduled
monument, a planning application
would be dealt with under the
existing framework of planning
11
Organisation
Name
Email Address
Address
Method of
Consultation
Consultation Response
which the development of such a
number of new homes may well
have a substantial and possibly
negative impact.
As the development brief is being
referred to as major influence in
the formulation of the
Neighbourhood Plan but is not
seemingly being used as a formal
evidence base to substantiate the
proposals and does not appear to
be available for access through
this consultation process, it is
difficult to know how on this point
the Plan can demonstrate either
deliverability of its aspirations or
its conformity with parent policy
considerations.
This does not constitute an
objection to the Plan or its
contents – merely the highlighting
of the desirability of clarification in
the relationship between the
development brief and the Plan
and a demonstrable narrative
between the assessment of
relevant issues – such as heritage
assets – and how the Plan’s
proposals have been informed.
Email
Natural
England
Consultation
Service
consultations@naturalengland.org.uk
Natural England
Hornbeam House
Electra Way
Crewe Business Park
Crewe
Cheshire
CW1 6GJ
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
and conservation.
Regarding the former American
buildings that are regarded as
undesignated heritage assets;
these assets do not hold the same
protection as nationally
designated heritage assets. As
such, the buildings have been
identified and supported by two
policies. As this is a NDP, rather
than a Neighbourhood
Development Order, it would be
up to the land owner/developer to
demonstrate how the buildings
are considered, if they form part
of a planning proposal.
The Development Brief formed
the starting point of the NDP and
the NDP has grown from that,
informed by extensive research,
surveys and public engagement
and consultation. The
fundamental points that underpin
the NDP are: the number of new
homes that the community would
support; reinforced community
support for existing community
facilities and services; the
importance of the American
Buildings; and the green assets.
Please feel free to contact me
again on this or other points
associated with the Plan process if
this would be helpful.
Thank you for your consultation on
the above dated 10 February 2014
which was received by Natural
England on 11 February 2014.
Additional information was
received on 22 March 2014.
Natural England is a nondepartmental public body. Our
statutory purpose is to ensure that
the natural environment is
conserved, enhanced, and
managed for the benefit of present
and future generations, thereby
contributing to sustainable
development.
12
Organisation
Name
Email Address
Address
Method of
Consultation
Consultation Response
Neighbourhood Plan
Natural England was consulted
upon the original Development
Brief for the proposed 100 houses
on the former Ministry of Defence
Land. The development brief is the
basis of the Neighbourhood Plan
with the additional intention of
providing greater guidance for
development in the wider parish
area and to ensure the provision of
community facilities in St Eval. In
our response dated 1 November
2011, we explained the
importance of a full evaluation of
the potential impacts of the
scheme on landscape and ecology,
including protected species to
inform any subsequent planning
application. Whilst it is appreciated
that this is a neighbourhood plan
rather than application, sufficient
evidence must accompany the
Planning Framework to ensure that
it is deliverable. In the absence of
such work accompanying the
Cornwall Local Plan, which has not
yet been examined, more evidence
than is normally required for a
neighbourhood plan is expected.
Some further ecological work has
been undertaken. This is welcome.
However that work has not been
fully completed. Mitigation
proposals which might inform the
Plan with a view to obtaining best
possible outcomes for biodiversity
resulting from changes in land use
and developments are not
included.
SENDP2
The Ecological Assessment reveals
some discrepancies between its
findings and the original
development brief proposals. That
brief proposed ( land A) 60
dwellings on the land to the east of
the main road, south of the sports
pitches and (land B) 40 houses to
the south of the American
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
Thank you for your comments and
input from the MoD Development
Brief and with the NDP.
As a result of your comments as
part of the MoD Development
Brief, a Phase 1 Habitat Report
has been undertaken and in
consequence, identified
environmental valued areas that
are within and outside the village
boundary. Whilst we appreciate
that further evidence will need to
be provided at application stage,
this is something that the land
owner/developers would need to
provide under the framework of
planning, with specific regard to
the saved polices within the North
Cornwall District Plan, emerging
policies in the submission
document of the Cornwall Local
Plan and policies contained within
the NPPF. Therefore we believe
that sufficient evidence has been
provided to support this NDP.
Policy SENDP2 sets the housing
policy within the village boundary
and therefore we as a community
are unsure of the exact
positioning of future development.
As a consequence, it would be
very costly for the parish to
encounter the costs of biodiversity
surveys and this is something that
the land owner/developers would
need to provide whilst submitting
a planning proposal.
The positioning of the housing in
the MoD Development Brief has
changed in the sense that the
village boundary now takes
precedence; this is primarily due
to the evidence revealed from the
Phase 1 habitat survey and
further consultation and
13
Organisation
Name
Email Address
Address
Method of
Consultation
Consultation Response
buildings west of the main road.
However the ecological statement
shows that land A is important for
Chamomile, a rare plant,
important in Cornwall and that
land B south of Orion Drive
provides a significant area of
lowland meadow priority habitat.
Figure 3 in the Neighbourhood Plan
shows the land south of Orion
Drive as of environmental value
but not the land A save for the
conifer woodland which is of lesser
value.
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
engagement events with our
community. This therefore
explains that there are
discrepancies whilst comparing
the information contain within the
MoD Development Brief and the
draft NDP.
The Sustainability Framework
received on 22 March notes these
surveys but does not show how
the Plan will mitigate for the
findings, and therefore how these
environmental areas can be
protected whilst still providing for
the number of dwellings which can
still relate to the rest of the
village. We advise that policy
SENDP2 should be strengthened
and specifically seek both to
protect priority habitat and to
develop habitat suitable for
chamomile in appropriate places
around the village. We also advise
that the plan should provide
protection for European Protected
Species, particularly dormice,
which may be present in
hedgerows in the military base.
Planning proposals should
maintain, protect and enhance
significant hedgerows especially in
the old military base and be
accompanied by a landscape
evaluation.
Further appropriate survey work
must accompany any application.
In light of these specific
comments, we agree that the
Environment Policy (SENDP4)
could be strengthened. As such
your recommendations for the
modification of wording to
SENDP4 (on page 15 of this
document) have been made in
order to address the concerns
raised.
SENDP3 - Housing in the rest
of the parish.
At point c, we recommend a
modification so that the character
as well as the visual impact of
replacement homes is considered
in relation to Cornwall’s landscape
Following the recommendation of
the amended wording, we have
since amended point c to the
following: The size and design
of the replacement dwelling is
in keeping with its
surroundings and there is no
14
Organisation
Name
Email Address
Address
Method of
Consultation
Consultation Response
character assessment. Any
replacement homes in or within
the setting of the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty
(AONB) should take account of the
AONB management plan and its
statement of significance. Any
replacement development should
not harm the Special Qualities of
the AONB.
We note that this policy relates to
replacement homes only. A policy
regarding additional new
development in the wider area
should be included if only for
clarification. The forum may wish
to consider a policy on changes in
use of agricultural buildings to
residential in the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty or its
setting.
SENDP 4 - Environment
As a result of the initial surveys we
advise the following modification
to the Policy
Development that is likely to have
either a direct or indirect adverse
impact upon either
the locally designated sites
identified within Figure 3 for
nature conservation
priority habitats
protected species including
European protected species
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
increased character or visual
impact on Cornwall’s
landscape that is in, or within
the setting of, the AONB.
In response to these comments
regarding a further policy on
additional new homes; the parish
understands that saved policy
HSG4 within the North Cornwall
Local Plan will continue to be used
until the Cornwall Local Plan is
adopted. Once the Cornwall Local
Plan is endorsed, then Policy 7 will
then be used and the community
of St Eval believes that an added
layer is not required for that
particular policy.
Modifications have been made
to Policy SENDP4.
should ensure demonstrate that
appropriate mitigation and/or
compensation could will be
provided and where possible
achieve a net enhancement to the
biodiversity within St Eval.
In the case of European protected
species, a licence will be required
from Natural England for any
works affecting that habitat.
Favourable Conservation Status of
protected species must be
maintained or permission will be
refused.
15
Organisation
Name
Email Address
Address
Method of
Consultation
Consultation Response
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
Proposals which will deteriorate or
remove irreplaceable priority
habitat or veteran trees will be
refused.
Natural England has published
Standing Advice on protected
species. The Standing Advice
includes a habitat decision tree
which provides advice to planners
on deciding if there is a
‘reasonable likelihood’ of protected
species being present. It also
provides detailed advice on the
protected species most often
affected by development, including
flow charts for individual species to
enable an assessment to be made
of a protected species survey and
mitigation strategy.
Standing Advice is a material
consideration in the same way as
any individual response received
from Natural England following
consultation.
The Standing Advice should not be
treated as giving any indication or
providing any assurance in respect
of European Protected Species
(EPS) that the proposed
development is unlikely to affect
the EPS present on the site; nor
should it be interpreted as
meaning that Natural England has
reached any views as to whether a
licence may be granted.
Policy SENDP7 – Sustainable
Development
We advise that whilst renewable
energy is likely to be acceptable on
existing and new buildings and in
some cases brown-field land,
impacts upon the special qualities
of the AONB should be considered.
These include the area’s peaceful
and wild nature and panoramic
views. Given the character of the
flat plateau adjacent and within
the Areas of Outstanding Natural
As a result of the suggested
sentence to policy SENDP7, a
second point has been added to
the policy which now states the
following: Renewable energy
projects that harm the Special
Qualities of the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty,
in particular its peaceful, wild
nature and its panoramic
views will not be supported.
16
Organisation
Name
Email Address
Address
Method of
Consultation
Consultation Response
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
Beauty we advise that proposals
for solar farms may be difficult to
achieve without harming these
Special Qualities. Similarly wind
turbines may be acceptable in
certain areas but should not affect
the Special Qualities of the AONB.
We therefore advise the addition of
a sentence at the bottom of policy
SENDP7, as follows:
Development within St Eval
should seek to achieve high
standards of sustainable
development. In particular,
demonstrate in proposals how
design, construction and
operation has sought to:
a) Reduce the use of fossil
fuels.
b) Promote the efficient use of
natural resources, the re-use
and recycling of resources and
the production and
consumption of renewable
energy.
Renewable energy projects
which harm the Special
Qualities of the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty, in
particular its peaceful, wild
nature and its panoramic views
will not be supported.
We hope these comments are
helpful.
Cornwall Area
of Outstanding
Natural
Beauty
(AONB)
info@cornwall-aonb.gov.uk
Cornwall AONB Unit
13 Treyew Road
Truro
Cornwall
TR1 2BY
Email
We would be happy to comment
further should the need arise but if
in the meantime you have any
queries please do not hesitate to
contact us.
No Response
N/A
17
Organisation
Cornwall
Wildlife Trust
National Trust
Name
Cheryl
Marriott
Michael Calder
Email Address
cheryl.marriott@cornwallwildlifetrust.
org.uk
michael.calder@nationaltrust.org.uk
Address
Cornwall
Federation of
Small
Businesses
The Fuchsias
Fore Street
Albaston
Gunnislake
Cornwall
PL18 9AJ
enquiries@cornwallalc.gov.uk
Devon And
Cornwall
Housing
Association
Coastline
Housing
Sport England
Unit 1, 1 Riverside House
Heron Way
Newham
Truro
Cornwall
TR1 2XN
The Mount
Paris Street
Exeter
EX1 2JZ
Ocean
Housing
Cornwall
development@oceanhousing.com
Laura Haynes
Tom Bowkett
customer.service@coastlinehousing.c
o.uk
tom.bowkett@sportengland.org
Email
Sent an email stating they had
been unable to find the plan on the
website and asked for weblink.
South West Region
Killerton House
Broadclyst
Exeter
EX5 3LE
69 Arundel Way
Newquay
Cornwall
TR7 3AG
Cornwall
Association of
Local Council's
(CALC)
Consultation Response
No Response
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
N/A
Five Acres
Allet
Truro
Cornwall
TR4 9DJ
Campaign to
Protect Rural
England
(CPRE)
Ann
Vandermeulen
Method of
Consultation
Email
Stennack House
Stennack Road
St Austell
Cornwall
PL25 3SW
Barncoose Gateway Park
Redruth
Cornwall
TR15 3RQ
N/A
Weblink was sent on 17th February
2014.
Post
No Response
N/A
Post
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Post
No Response
N/A
Email
Thank you for contacting the
Development Team
N/A
You should hear from us with a full
response within 10 working days.
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
Thank you for consulting Sport
England on the above
Neighbourhood Plan.
Thank you for your comments. As
part of the NDP process, the
community highlighted St Eval
Playing field as being important to
18
Organisation
Name
Email Address
Address
Method of
Consultation
Consultation Response
Planning Policy in the National
Planning Policy
Framework identifies how the
planning system can play an
important role in facilitating social
interaction and creating healthy,
inclusive communities.
Encouraging communities to
become more physically active
through walking, cycling, informal
recreation and formal sport plays
an important part in this process
and providing enough sports
facilities of the right quality and
type and in the right places is vital
to achieving this aim. This means
positive planning for sport,
protection from unnecessary loss
of sports facilities and an
integrated approach to providing
new housing and employment land
and community facilities provision
is important.
It is important therefore that the
Neighbourhood Plan reflects
national policy for sport as set out
in the above document with
particular reference to Pars 73 and
74 to ensure proposals comply
with National Planning Policy. It is
also important to be aware of
Sport England’s role in protecting
playing fields and the presumption
against the loss of playing fields
(see link below), as set out in our
national guide, ‘A Sporting
Future for the Playing Fields of
England – Planning Policy
Statement’.
http://www.sportengland.org/facili
ties-planning/planning-forsport/developmentmanagement/planningapplications/playing-field-land/
Sport England provides guidance
on developing policy for sport and
further information can be found
following the link below:
http://www.sportengland.org/facili
ties-planning/planning-for-
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
the role in facilitating social
interaction and creating a healthy
and inclusive community. As a
consequence, policy SENDP6
safeguards the playing field from
inappropriate development, but
also sets out criteria for
appropriate development, that
can provide facilities of the right
quality.
In addition to this the Policy
states that development proposals
within the parish of St Eval must
‘retain and enhance the existing
walking, cycling and horse riding
network, and make new links
where feasible’ thus encouraging
the community to become more
physically active through walking
and cycling.
It is however regretted that the
Tennis Courts were not referenced
within the draft NDP as a sporting
facility/green asset. As a result,
the text below has been added to
SENDP6:
Proposals for development
which would result in the loss
of the existing tennis courts
identified within figure 3 will
not be permitted unless
equivalent alternative
provision which would be
accessible, convenient and
attractive can be secured
through the use of a planning
obligation.
The St Eval Parish believe that the
plan has looked holistically at the
plan area and has supported
housing and employment land
within the village boundary which
is prescribed in policy SENDP1
and SENDP2/3.
In light of the comments
regarding the submission
document of the Cornwall Local
19
Organisation
Name
Email Address
Address
Method of
Consultation
Consultation Response
sport/forward-planning/
Sport England works with Local
Authorities to ensure Local Plan
policy is underpinned by robust
and up to date assessments and
strategies for indoor and outdoor
sports delivery. If local authorities
have prepared a Playing Pitch
Strategy or other indoor/outdoor
sports strategy it will be important
that the Neighbourhood Plan
reflects the recommendations set
out in that document and that any
local investment opportunities,
such as the Community
Infrastructure Levy, are utilised to
support the delivery of those
recommendations.
http://www.sportengland.org/facili
ties-planning/planning-forsport/planning-tools-andguidance/
If new sports facilities are being
proposed Sport England
recommend you ensure such
facilities are fit for purpose and
designed in accordance with our
design guidance notes.
http://www.sportengland.org/facili
ties-planning/toolsguidance/design-and-costguidance/
Western
Power
Distribution
Peter Roberts
Wales and
West Utilities
Limited
enquiries@wwutilities.co.uk
Alison Smith
(development
co-ordinator)
If and when future sport facilities
are proposed St Eval endeavour
to work with Cornwall Council and
Sports England to ensure such
facilities are fit for purpose and
designed in accordance with Sport
England’s design guidance notes.
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
Thank you for your email below. I
can confirm that I have forwarded
it to our Plant Protection team and
they have confirmed receipt of the
enquiry and you will receive a
response within the following 28
days.
No Response
N/A
peterjroberts@westernpower.co.uk
Martyn Dune
South West
Water
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
Plan, it is believed that no indoor
or outdoor sports delivery has
been planned for in the St Eval
Parish and as such not applicable
for this particular NDP.
devplan@southwestwater.co.uk
Customer Section
Wales and West House
Spooner Close
Celtic Springs Coedkernew
Newport
NP10 8FZ
South West Water
Peninsula House
Rydon Lane
Exeter
Devon
EX2 7HR
Email
N/A
20
Organisation
Name
Email Address
Address
Method of
Consultation
Email
Consultation Response
Thank you for the opportunity to
comment on the plan.
My only thought is that it might be
useful to include a line to the
effect that all new development
should properly consider the need
to design out crime, disorder and
anti-social behaviour to ensure
ongoing community safety and
cohesion.
Devon and
Cornwall
Constabulary
First Devon
and Cornwall
National Grid
DPM
Consultant
Martin
Mumford
martin.mumford@devonandcornwall.p
nn.police.uk
Marc Reddy
The Ride
Chelson Meadow
Plymouth
PL9 7JT
Julian Austin
Gables House
Kenilworth Road
Leamington Spa
CV32 6JX
n.grid@amec.com
Po Box 4805
Worthing
BN11 9QW
Freepost RRYZ-BRTT-CBJS
Osprey House
Osprey Road
Exeter
EX2 7WN
British Gas
EDF Energy
Trevisker
Community
Primary
School
St Austell Police Station
1 Palace Road
St Austell
Cornwall
PL25 4AL
Mrs Kaye
Pitcher
Post
This in itself is rather vague but
deliberately so as then could apply
to literally any future development
be it housing, footpaths,
commercial, play spaces etc.
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Post
No Response
N/A
Post
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
Thank you for consulting us on the
Neighbourhood Development Plan
Draft. We have attached a plan to
illustrate the area of land that is
under our ownership and also to
show the areas that are subject to
safeguarding and a restricted
building height of 3.4m by legal
agreement due to potential for
interference with the adjacent
MOD aerial communications. This
height restriction limits any
secretary@trevisker.cornwall.sch.uk
Telephone
conversation
Meeting
Stirling
Housing – St
Eval
Alex Hensher
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
Thank you for your comments.
The suggested modifications
have been made to Policy
SENDP2.
alex@a7energy.com
21
Organisation
Name
Email Address
Address
Method of
Consultation
Consultation Response
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
building to a single floor which
presents an additional viability
challenge as single storey homes
are more expensive to construct
than two storey homes. All of this
area was previously in use as an
airfield and contained significant
accommodation blocks in the past.
Our main concerns on the draft
NDP are that the areas identified
for proposed development on the
Development Brief for St Eval
dated October 2011 which was
also subject to public consultation
are now largely the subject of an
‘Environment’ designation which
could restrict development, we are
also concerned about the
justification of the ‘Environment’
designation as the ecology report
it is based on is not available for
public inspection and we have not
seen it.
When the ‘Environment’
designation is placed on top of the
height restriction little room is left
for locating homes of more than a
single storey. The Development
Brief was only adopted 2 ½ years
ago and when areas earmarked for
development so recently are
having policies proposed on them
potentially restricting development
within such a short time since
adoption it creates complexities.
We are grateful to have the
opportunity to provide feedback
and below we will respond to each
of the policies in order.
Consultation responses to
proposed policies:
Policy SENDP1
SENDP1a – Can the wording be
changed to “Creates local
employment opportunities OR
community facilities.” Creating
employment and community
facilities at the same time is too
tight a restriction
Thank you for your comments.
Understandably, when initially
looking at Figure 3 there are large
areas of environmentally valued
areas identified. However, this is
not to say that development is
completely prohibited; what the
policy seeks to achieve is that
development that is likely to have
either a direct or indirect adverse
impact upon the locally
designated sites identified within
Figure 3 for nature conservation
should demonstrate that
appropriate mitigation and/or
compensation could be provided
and where possible achieve a net
enhancement to the biodiversity
within St Eval.
In response to the suggested
amendment, the wording has
been altered.
22
Organisation
Name
Email Address
Address
Method of
Consultation
Consultation Response
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
SENDP1b – This policy suggests
that only ‘community enterprise’
will be supported in the buildings
but there are other potential
business uses that also provide
employment but will not
necessarily be community
enterprise and we put forward that
these normal business uses should
not be precluded.
Upon reflection of the
observation regarding the
restriction of point b of
SENDP1, this has been
removed.
SENDP1c - A4 & A5 are not
included. B2 & B8 are not
included. These could be included
to maximise the chances of these
buildings supporting local
employment.
With regards to use classes
A4 and A5, the community of
St Eval Parish consider that
these uses are appropriate
and, have been added to that
effect. However, B2 (general
industrial) and B8 (storage and
distribution) are not appropriate
uses for the former American
buildings, or for the neighbouring
uses. As a consequence they will
not be included as appropriate
use classes.
SENDP1d – We understand the
sensitivity of competing business
uses but are not sure if it is the
role of planning policy to restrict
competition in the market.
Policy SENDP2
SENDP 2a - In January 2014
Cornwall Council voted to increase
the housing target from 42,250 to
47,500 homes and the housing
target for the Wadebridge and
Padstow CNA was increased from
405 additional homes to 505
additional homes and is currently
in the Local Plan public
consultation. NPPF 184 states that
Neighbourhood plans and orders
should not promote less
development than set out in the
Local Plan or undermine its
strategic policies. St Eval has the
potential to make a larger
contribution of housing than 100
homes. National Planning policy is
supportive of redevelopment of
brownfield land. We put forward no
upper limit on the number of
homes should be put in place, the
number of homes should be
determined as to the ability of the
area to support the development
of housing as identified at the time
Due to the size and rural location
of St Eval, it is really important to
consider the existing business
uses and to ensure that support
is given to them in enabling a
viable future. Therefore, future
uses in the other 3 American
Buildings, must be considered as
part of a change of use planning
proposal.
The community of St Eval Parish
are familiar with the housing
target for Cornwall. We are also
aware of paragraph 184 in the
NPPF which states that
Neighbourhood Plans and orders
should not promote less
development than set out in the
Local Plan or undermine its
strategic policies. In addition to
this, that the ambition of the
neighbourhood should be aligned
with the strategic needs and
priorities of the wider local area.
As such, St Eval have set out
23
Organisation
Name
Email Address
Address
Method of
Consultation
Consultation Response
of a planning application and not
be subject to a cap.
Policy SENDP3 - No comment
Policy SENDP4
SENDP4. 1. - There are 4 statutory
defined woodland BAP priority
habitats around St Eval. These
have been identified on the
enclosed plan and all fall outside
the proposed St Eval village
boundary. There are no statutory
land based designations within the
proposed St Eval village boundary
except for Trevisker Round and no
SSSIs or SPAs within 500m of the
village boundary, none of the
proposed ‘Environment’ areas have
a statutory land based designation.
The phase 1 habitat survey that
informed the ‘Environment’ areas
has not been made publicly
available in the consultation
despite being requested and it is
therefore not possible to consider
and comment in a transparent
manner on the results of the Phase
1 habitat survey. We are not
supportive of this policy and
designating large swathes of land
as ‘Environment’ when there is no
publicly available evidence and feel
this is not following due and
proper process.
We would suggest removing all of
the areas indicated as
‘Environment’ on figure 3 and
replacing policy SENDP4. 1. with
something to the effect of “All
development will require an up to
date phase 1 habitat survey to
check for protected species and
sensitive habitats. Development
that is likely to have either a direct
or indirect adverse impact for
nature conservation should
demonstrate that appropriate
mitigation and/or compensation
could be provided and where
possible achieve a net
enhancement to the biodiversity
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
their own approach to housing
density to reflect local
circumstances, thus in
accordance with paragraph 47 of
the NPPF. Therefore 100 new
homes over the 20 year plan are
proposed. If St Eval went on past
build rates and based upon
housing need and the services
and facilities that are currently
provided, then 20-30 homes
would be a realistic number to
consider. However, the
community of St Eval Parish
understand that by having a
higher number, development on a
proportion of the brown field land
would contribute to a selfsustaining and sustainable
settlement. Understandably, the
cap on 100 new homes is to
remain in SENDP2.
The NDP can designate areas of
importance locally and don’t have
to be based on national or
international designations. A
Phase 1 Habitat survey carried
out in 2012 identified the areas
highlighted in Figure 3 as priority
habitats. The importance of these
areas is also emphasised in
Natural England’s consultation
response above.
What Policy SENDP4 seeks to
achieve is that development that
is likely to have either a direct or
indirect adverse impact upon the
locally designated sites identified
within Figure 3 for nature
conservation should demonstrate
that appropriate mitigation and/or
compensation could be provided
and where possible achieve a net
enhancement to the biodiversity
within St Eval.
24
Organisation
Name
Email Address
Address
Method of
Consultation
Consultation Response
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
within St Eval.”
SENDP4. 2. – We agree with
retaining the hedgerows, however
retaining all of the existing trees
creates a significant restriction on
development. Where existing trees
are removed we would seek to
plant new trees to mitigate any
loss. Any new trees should be
informed by independent expert
opinion to ensure that the optimal
species are utilised to withstand
the local environment and soil
conditions, paying particular
attention to the windswept
conditions and choosing tree
species that can stand up to this in
the long term. We would propose
amending the policy to SNEDP4. 2
“Development proposals within the
Parish of St Eval must retain and
enhance hedgerows, where any
trees are felled for development
the impact shall be mitigated by
planting new trees, before any
new trees are planted an
independent expert opinion must
be sought to ensure that optimal
species are utilised to withstand
local environmental conditions.”
In response to the comments
made, we believe that retaining
the existing trees is fundamental
to any development proposal.
Paragraph 118 of the NPPF states
that “planning permission should
be refused for development
resulting in the loss or
deterioration of irreplaceable
habitats, including ancient
woodland and the loss of aged or
veteran trees found outside
ancient woodland, unless the
need for, and benefits of, the
development in that location
clearly outweigh the loss” Due to
the recommendation not being
supported by the NPPF or the
community; the policy wording
will remain in its current format.
Policy SENDP5 - The American
buildings are less than 20 years
old. We do not feel this justifies
heritage asset status due to the
short length of time they have
been in use and therefore request
if this policy can be removed.
Although the community
recognise that the buildings are
not of any particular vernacular
architecture, they do present
historical value in the sense that
the buildings contribute to telling
the story of how St Eval evolved.
In addition to this, the buildings
have associational value to the
Americans, due to their
involvement in the construction.
There is also cultural value
because of how the buildings
were used when the MoD land
was an operating naval base. The
community therefore regard the
former American buildings as
being of strong local significance
and as such, Policy SENDP5 will
remain.
Policy SENDP6 - We are supportive
of this policy and the contribution
that outdoor sport facilities with
good ancillary buildings can make,
we would ask that this policy takes
into account national policies and
guidance on potential for
alternative developments on part
of the playing fields where an
excess of provision can be
identified in line with national
policy in particular as illustrated by
25
Organisation
Name
Email Address
Address
Method of
Consultation
Consultation Response
NPPF 74.
Therefore we suggest if two
further points could be added to
the policy as:
SENDP6 C - (or) an assessment
has been undertaken which has
clearly shown the open space,
buildings or land to be surplus to
requirements; or
SENDP6 D - the loss resulting from
the proposed development would
be replaced by equivalent or better
provision in terms of quantity and
quality in a suitable location.
Policy SENDP 7 - We are
supportive of this policy
Allotments – Paragraph 5.10 of the
Development Brief discussed an
opportunity for allotments perhaps
along the western boundary
abutting the American Buildings.
There is no mention of allotments
in the NDP draft and this could be
an aspect worth adding.
Allotments may serve local needs
and also a wider area that would
effectively bring in more people
from outside the area to work on
allotments and also support local
facilities at the post office and The
Dragon.
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
Whilst we appreciate that in some
areas a community may be
flexible in where open space is
provided, St Eval community
want to retain St Eval playing
field due to its positioning in the
community. This is also supported
under paragraph 76 of the NPPF
which states that local
communities through local and
neighbourhood plans should be
able to identify for special
protection, green areas of
particular importance to them
and by designating land as Local
Green Space, local communities
will be able to rule out new
development other than in very
special circumstances.
As part of the public consultation
and community events, there was
no real demand for allotments by
the existing community of St Eval
parish. As a result, allotments
have not been identified within
the NDP. However, this is not to
say that allotments would not be
supported in the future, if there
was a demand for such provision.
Further comments received 24
March 2014 following review of
the Phase 1 Habitat Survey:
Thank you for releasing a copy of
the Phase 1 Habitat Survey
commissioned by Locality. We
have the following comments:
1. As the consultation is finishing
today we have been unable to
assess the report in full detail as it
was only released to us on Friday
21st March 2014 (3 days ago)
The Phase 1 Habitat Survey was
carried out in 2012 by qualified
Ecologists from Cornwall
Environmental Consultants.
Natural England have also
emphasised the importance of the
habitats in their consultation
response.
As previously outlined, Policy
SENDP4 does not intend to
26
Organisation
Name
Email Address
Address
Method of
Consultation
Consultation Response
2. The report includes a plan ‘map’
3. listing 4 areas of conservation
importance including hedgerows,
lowland meadow, open mosaic on
previously developed land and
plantations. Each of these features
will be discussed below:
Hedgerows – We agree with this
feature
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
prohibit development, what the
policy seeks to achieve is that
development that is likely to have
either a direct or indirect adverse
impact upon the locally
designated sites identified within
Figure 3 for nature conservation
should demonstrate that
appropriate mitigation and/or
compensation could be provided
and where possible achieve a net
enhancement to the biodiversity
within St Eval.
Lowland Meadow – We do not
agree with the findings of the
ecology report, although the
surveys were commissioned in July
2012 they do not seem to
acknowledge latest advice and
methodologies for classifying
lowland meadow issued only one
month before as published in the
Natural England Technical
Information Note TIN110 'First
edition 22 June 2012' ‘Assessing
whether created or restored
grassland is a BAP Priority
Habitat’. In particular it is not clear
if the threshold of at least two
frequent and two occasional
indicator species were present in
any sward, and if the methodology
in appendix 2 of TIN110 was
followed. Without utilising this up
to date methodology we do not
feel sufficient weight can be given
to list the land with an
'environmental' designation.
Open Mosaic on previous
developed land – The ecology
report states at the end of section
4.2.8 that the area identified is
‘possibly not matching all the
criteria..…..an argument can be
made…………’ for classification as
‘Open Mosaic Habitats on
Previously Developed Land’. This is
not a firm diagnosis of the habitat
and we feel is not conclusive
enough to justify its inclusion. By
the measure suggested in the
27
Organisation
Name
Email Address
Address
Method of
Consultation
Consultation Response
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
report any broken areas of
vegetation over tarmac justifies
argument for inclusion as ‘Open
Mosaic Habitat’.
Plantations – The plantations as
illustrated on map 3 do not show
any of the qualities for inclusion as
a BAP priority habitat. The
woodland priority habitats are
Lowland Beech and Yew Woodland,
Lowland Mixed Deciduous
Woodland, Native Pine Woodlands,
Upland Birchwoods, and Upland
Mixed Ashwoods. None of these
habitats are present within the
village boundary St Eval, although
there are three areas of Deciduous
Woodland BAP Priority Habitat
within 1 km of the village
boundary. We are concerned at
the inclusion of the ‘plantations’
and ecological justification for this.
Conclusion
St Merryn
Parish Council
Mr W H
Hampton
St Ervan
Parish Council
Mr Barry
Jordan
Mawgan-inPydar Parish
Council
Mr Laurie Lee
Homes and
Communities
Agency
Highways
Agency
Email
We are supportive of further
ecological surveys to accompany
any planning application however
we are not in agreement with the
listing of large areas of land with
an ‘Environment Designation’ for
the reasons stated above
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
williamhampton277@btinternet.com
barry.jordan2@btinternet.com
clerk@stmawganparishcouncil.org.uk
mail@homesandcommunities.co.uk
Ian Parsons
28
Organisation
Name
Email Address
ian.parsons@highways.gsi.gov.uk
Method of
Consultation
Consultation Response
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
Post
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
Thank you for e-mailing Cornwall
Council. Your message has been
received by Children, Schools and
Families and will be referred to an
appropriate member of staff for a
response to be relayed to your
shortly.
N/A
2W Aviation House
Gatwick Airport South
West Sussex
RH6 0YR
Civil Aviation
Authority
MOD
Safeguarding
Address
Jon Williams
dio-safeguarding-statutory@mod.uk
Cornwall Council
Historic
Environment
Service
Economic
Development
Adult Care
and Support
Service
Improvements
and Contracts
Adult Care
and Support
Strategic
Commissioning
Out and About
Service
Children,
Schools and
Families
(Capital
Strategy
Team)
Stephen
Horsecroft
Maria Harvey
Liz Nicholls
Sue Pullen
hes@cornwall.gov.uk
Kennall Building
Old County Hall
Station Road
Truro
Cornwall
TR1 3HA
economicdevelopment@cornwall.gov.
uk
Carrick House
Pydar Street
Truro
Cornwall
TR1 1EB
serviceimprovements@cornwall.gov.u
k
adultcommissioning@cornwall.gov.uk
Room 718
Old County Hall
Station Road
Truro
Cornwall
TR1 3HA
Room 717
Old County Hall
Station Road
Truro
Cornwall
TR1 3HA
spullen@cornwall.gov.uk
children@cornwall.gov.uk
29
Organisation
Health and
Wellbeing
Board
Name
Michelle
Pearce
Community
Intelligence
Team
Community
Safety and
Protection
(Licensing)
Community
Safety and
Protection
(Enforcement)
Email Address
Address
mipearce@cornwall.gov.uk
New County Hall
Treyew Road
Truro
Cornwall
TR13AY
Local Planning
Team
Planning
Neighbourhood Planning
Affordable
Housing Team
Consultation Response
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Post
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
intelligence@cornwall.gov.uk
Bob Mears
Graham Bailey
Bob.Mears@cornwall.gov.uk
graham.bailey@cornwall.gov.uk
Unit 6
Threemilestone Industrial
Estate
Threemilestone
Truro
Cornwall
TR4 9LD
Bodmin Group Centre
Castle Canyke Road
Bodmin
Cornwall
PL31 1DZ
Cormac
Conservation
Team
Method of
Consultation
conservation@cornwall.gov.uk
localplan@cornwall.gov.uk
Circuit House
Truro
Cornwall
planning@cornwall.gov.uk
cornwalldf@cornwall.gov.uk
affordablehousing@cornwall.gov.uk
30
Organisation
Highways
Cornwall Fire
and Rescue
Service
County Farms
Service
Name
Tim Foster
Sarah Kind
Russell
Wheeler
Email Address
tfoster@cornwall.gov.uk
skind@fire.cornwall.gov.uk
ruwheeler@cornwall.gov.uk
Address
County Highways Depot
Castle Canyke Road
Bodmin
Cornwall
PL31 1DP
Room 608
Old County Hall
Station Road
Truro
Cornwall
TR1 3HA
Pydar House
3rd Floor
Pydar Street
Truro
Cornwall
TR11EA
Method of
Consultation
Email
Consultation Response
No Response
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
Thank you for the opportunity to
comment on the St Eval Parish
Draft Neighbourhood Development
Plan 2014-2030. The
Transportation service has
reviewed the draft document and
has the following comments to
make:
Thank you for your comments.
We have since reviewed the
suggestions and agree with
the amended wording, which
will in turn, strengthen the
policy SENDP2 and SENDP4.
Policy SENDP2
Propose amend d) to read:
Adequate car parking and safe
highway access is provided
Add additional condition: g)
connections with existing
walking and cycling routes are
made and on-site
infrastructure is provided to
support sustainable modes of
travel (see Local Plan Policy 27
and Local Transport Plan Policy 21)
Transportation
Hannah Harris
haharris@cornwall.gov.uk
Carrick House,
Pydar Street,
Truro,
TR1 1EB
Policy SENDP4
Add to 3. Development proposals
within the parish of St Eval must
retain and enhance the existing
walking, cycling and horse riding
network, and make new links
where feasible.
31
Organisation
Name
Email Address
Address
Method of
Consultation
Consultation Response
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
Post
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Post
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Post
No Response
N/A
Health
Peninsula House
Kingsmill Road
Tamar View Industrial
Estate
Saltash
PL12 6LE
NHS Cornwall
& Isle of Scilly
Health
Authority
Cornwall Trust
NHS
Partnership
Royal
Cornwall
Hospital Trust
cftenquiries@cornwall.nhs.uk
Garth Davies
Peninsula
Community
Health
Healthwatch
Cornwall
(Cornwall
Council
contact)
garth.davies@rcht.cornwall.nhs.uk
Porthpean Road
St Austell
Cornwall
PL26 6AD
Bedruthan House
Royal Cornwall Hospital
Truro
Cornwall
TR1 3LJ
pch.communications@pch-cic.nhs.uk
Lyn Davey
ldavey@cornwall.gov.uk
Chief Executive’s
Department
New County Hall
Treyew Road
Truro
Cornwall
TR13AY
Voluntary and Community Organisations
Access
Cornwall
41 Penware Parc
Camborne
Cornwall
TR14 7QR
Community
Energy Plus
3-4 East Pool
Tolvaddon Energy Park
Camborne
Cornwall
TR14 0HX
Cornwall
Federation of
Young
Farmers
enquiries@cep.org.uk
Pavilion Centre
RCS
Wadebridge
Cornwall
PL27 7JE
32
Organisation
Name
Email Address
Ramblers
Association
Cornwall
Federation of
Women's
Institute
Frances
Armstrong
cfwi@btconnect.com
Cornwall
Chamber of
Commerce &
Industry
Disability
Cornwall
Vaughan
Temby
Cornwall
Health
Promotions
Service
Young People
Cornwall
Chris Hart
Rural
Community
Link Project
Cornwall Rural
Community
Council
39 Turnpike Road
Connor Downs
HAYLE
Cornwall
TR27 5DT
Chy Noweth an Conteth
Truro Business Park
Threemilestone
Truro
Cornwall
TR4 9NH
Chamber Office
Stanley Way
Cardrew
Redruth
Cornwall
TR151SP
vaughan@disabilitycornwall.org.uk
Unit 2
Foundry House
Hayle
Cornwall
TR27 4HH
info@healthpromcornwall.org
Kernow Building
Wilson Way
Redruth
Cornwall
TR15 3QE
chrish@ypc.org.uk
admin@rclproject.com
Peter
Jefferson
Address
peter.jefferson@cornwallrcc.org.uk
Lemon Street
Truro
Cornwall
TR1 2PE
Unit 2
24 Fore Street
St Stephens
St Austell
Cornwall
PL26 2NN
2 Princes Street
Truro
Cornwall
TR1 2ES
Method of
Consultation
Post
Consultation Response
No Response
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Post
No Response
N/A
Email
Thank you for contacting Disability
Cornwall regarding the St Eval
Neighbourhood Plan.
N/A
Email
Please be aware that we are not
able to respond to this type of
consultative feedback request, but
if you would like to use one of our
dedicated Business Services, then
feel free to contact me direct.
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
A well rounded and thoughtful
Thank you for your comments.
plan. Just some observations if I
may.
Para 2.4 end of 2nd para it might
This has been clarified in the text.
33
Organisation
Name
Email Address
Address
Method of
Consultation
Consultation Response
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
be helpful to clarify that the NDP is
included in the policies referred to.
You use the words "these policies"
which I took to being the Cornwall
Local Plan and the NC Plan.
On page 11 I was left with the
impression that the emphasis was
for Social Enterprises in
Community Centre although the
list of A3-D2 activity is clearly as
much commercial as social.
In response to your comment on
community enterprise and also
other comments received
regarding this aspect, we have
removed point b from the
SENDP1.
Our experience is that, commercial
use mixed into a community
building, brings welcome income
and stability.
Royal British
Legion
Youth
Cornwall
knaylor@britishlegion.org.uk
County Welfare Office
66 Lemon Street
Truro
Cornwall
TR1 2PN
Between 4.3 and 4.7 Housing and
sustainability there is always a
tension between modern eco
design and local character when
considering design. A method of
bridging this could be to aspire to
modern buildings presented in a
local vernacular. CRCC's view is
that modern sustainable materials
in buildings and low energy use
structures lead the requirement
and this is followed by designing
the visual impact to make the
building suitable for the location.
Agreed
Additionally in the middle of page
17 could we suggest that it might
be more positive "to reduce energy
consumption" rather than "increase
energy savings". Our view is that it
makes the aspiration more tangible
As a result of this suggestion,
the ‘Intention’ text has been
amended.
Email
It is great to see the focus on
Community space and Building use
in your policies and plan.
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
youngpeople@cornwall.gov.uk
34
Organisation
Name
Cornwall
Buildings
Preservation
Trust
Cornwall
Playing Fields
Association
Locality
Email Address
Address
Method of
Consultation
Email
Consultation Response
No Response
Action taken as a result of
Consultation Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Email
No Response
N/A
Sounds fine to me
N/A
I agree with the plan as a whole.
St Eval, and Trevisker in particular,
has not evolved naturally as a
settlement and I believes needs a
structure in place to ensure any
development is appropriate for
both its residents and its
environment.
The plan clearly covers all areas I
would expect and seems thorough
and fair.
N/A
enquiries@cornwallbpt.org.uk
Sharon Davey
Peter Jones
sharon.davey@cornwallrcc.org.uk
2 Princes Street
Truro
Cornwall
TR1 2ES
peter.jones@locality.org.uk
Members of the Public
Resident
Resident
Resident
Terry Maguire
Paula Nederpel
Zoe Ashmore
N/A
35
5 – Conclusion
The Consultation Responses that were received have been thoroughly
considered and the response of the Steering Group and resulting actions
detailed in the table above.
This Consultation Statement is considered to comply with Section 15(2) of
Part 5 of the 2012 Neighbourhood Planning Regulations.
36