Development of 20 new homes  – Land At Southdown Road, Millbrook, PL10 1EW.

Feedback from Cornwall Council’s Planning Officer – Email received 26th September 2024

 Thank you for the Millbrook Parish Council response to the above proposal. In the interest of simplicity, I have provided comment against each of your points in red.

 There was a detailed discussion of the pros and cons of the application.

Cllr Wilton said that nothing had changed since the previous application apart from more infill dwellings and the worsening condition of the cliff road, which was likely to result in even more traffic through Hounster Hill. The condition and capacity of the local roads has been reviewed by the Council’s Highway Development Management Officer and he has raised no objection. We would, however, be prepared to include a condition on a planning permission requiring the submission and approval of a Construction Traffic Management Plan before the development commences.

Cllr Wood expressed the opinion that regardless of the Committee’s decision, government policy would override any concerns. Whilst the new Government appears to be driving the delivery of more housing, the application still needs to be assessed in the context of current local and national planning policy.

Cllr Roberts agreed the village is in dire need of more affordable housing, but that the proposed location was totally unsuitable. This comment doesn’t explain why the location is totally unsuitable. It adjoins the built-up area of Millbrook and therefore, subject to other material planning considerations, it has potential to be a suitable rural exception site, for the purposes of Policy 9 of the Cornwall Local Plan (CLP).

Cllr Turner pointed out that home working could reduce the need for car journeys, and also wondered why LiveWest was not looking elsewhere given the reasons for the previous refusal have not been addressed. The Applicant has chosen to submit the current application and therefore it needs to be assessed on its planning merits.

Cllr Roberts suggested the traffic generation figures in the report upon which the CC Highways Officer had relied were likely to be based largely on averages from urban areas and were totally unrealistic for a rural peninsula village with limited public transport and little local employment or facilities. The Transport Statement has been prepared by a suitably qualified professional, and the Highway Development Management Officer who reviewed the Statement (who is also suitably qualified) is satisfied with the assessments contained within. As such, it is not considered to be necessary or appropriate to challenge the findings.

Cllr Lewis drew attention to the Neighbourhood Development Plan, which specifically aims to locate development on the western side of the village above the pinch point of Hounster Hill. She also referred to the poor availability of medical and dental care in the village, requiring further car journeys, the regular surface water flooding of the only access road to Southdown, the risks of adding a further junction to create a crossroads at the bus turning point where traffic already speeds, and to the consultation carried out by LiveWest in 2022 where the majority was against further development in this location. There isn’t a policy in the Rame Peninsula NDP which aims to locate residential development on the western side of the village. In any event, the delivery of affordable housing to meet local need is a strategic objective of the CLP which can’t be unreasonably restricted by the NDP. NHS Kernow is not seeking a contribution from this affordable housing development. The Lead Local Flood Authority is satisfied that the proposal would not give rise to surface water drainage issues beyond the site (subject to a condition). Again, the Highway Development Management Officer is satisfied that the proposal would not give rise to a highway safety impact. Whilst some people may be against the current proposal, it needs to be assessed on its planning merits.

Cllr Wilton said perhaps LiveWest could do a land swap with a landowner on the Gallows Park side of the village to gain a more suitable location for the development. The current application should be considered on its merits.

 It was proposed by Cllr Lewis and seconded by Cllr Wilton that Millbrook Parish Council objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

 – While we are highly sympathetic to the need for more affordable housing in the village, this proposal is for the wrong side of the village, and no adequate improvements to the inadequacies of infrastructure have been made or proposed, contrary to the NDP. Highway matters aside which have been addressed above and in the comments, it is unclear why this is the wrong side of Millbrook for the proposed development. Where infrastructure planning contributions can be sought, these will be secured by a S106 Agreement.

– The current highways infrastructure of Hounster Hill, Tanyard Corner, Quay Corner and Newport Street was proven inadequate for the previous application for this site, rejected on appeal on 1 June 2010; nothing has changed apart from further infill building exacerbating the situation. We refer to the opinion of the then Principal Development Officer – Highways, Paul Steen, in May 2018 when a second pre-app was under discussion, and to MPC’s views supplied to the Planning Department in connection with that same pre-app, which have not changed. As touched upon above, the current application has been assessed on its merits and the Highway Development Management Officer is satisfied with the proposal, subject conditions. We have no reason to disagree with his assessments.

 – Concerns over adding a new road junction on Southdown Road opposite the bus turning area; access through the existing Parson’s Court development would be preferable. The proposed access to the development site has been reviewed by the Highway Development Management Officer, who considers it to be acceptable.

 – Concerns over pedestrian safety, with a lack of proper footpath on the development side of Southdown Road leading to pedestrians needing to cross and re-cross a road with poor visibility and parked cars, especially a problem for the walk to school route. The Highway Development Management Officer recommends, “…conditions for the pedestrian connection to the west prior to the occupation of the first dwelling and the visibility splay as set out free from obstruction above 600mm relative to the adjacent carriageway.” We are content to secure these requirements by condition.

– The inadequacy of the Transport Statement, accepted by the Highways Department as gospel, when it appears to rely on average movements generated at affordable housing developments throughout Cornwall and likely to be relevant to urban sites, rather than site specific data for a rural peninsula location with limited public transport, limited facilities and little local employment. The Transport Statement has been prepared by a suitably qualified professional, and the Highway Development Management Officer who reviewed the Statement (who is also suitably qualified) is satisfied with the assessments contained within. As such, it is not considered to be necessary or appropriate to challenge the findings.

– Insufficient reporting on contaminated land. The Council’s Public Protection Officer is satisfied with the proposal in this respect, subject to conditions.

– Concerns about access to GP and dental services (Millbrook Surgery is part-time and most appointments require a drive to Torpoint; dental services are not available anywhere on the peninsula) and access to shops and public transport. NHS Kernow is not seeking a contribution from this affordable housing development. Millbrook is a large village containing a range of everyday services and facilities, including public transport links to the larger towns in the area and Plymouth. As such, it is considered to be capable of accommodating the proposed development of 20 dwellings.

– Concerns about surface water flooding impacting the only access road. The Lead Local Flood Authority is satisfied that the proposal would not give rise to surface water drainage issues beyond the site (subject to a condition).

– Concerns that backfilling of accommodation currently occupied by those eligible for the new housing would result in further pressure on infrastructure without much reducing the waiting list for local housing. There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed development would not result in a reduction in the size of the waiting list for affordable housing. In other words, the housing proposed would address identified local need.

Motion carried with one abstention. Resolved.

The Council suggests that LiveWest explores the possibility of a land swap with landowner(s) on the west side of the village above the bottleneck of Hounster Hill, to avoid conflict with the NDP. As explained above, there aren’t considered to be strong planning reasons for resisting a rural exception development in this part of Millbrook.

In any event, if the application is successful, a highly detailed Traffic Management Plan must be submitted. We are content to include a condition to this effect.

The application is therefore recommended for approval.

I would respectfully request that your Council considers the following options as set out within the Protocol for Local Councils:

1. Agree with my recommendation
2. Agree to disagree
3. Having made strong planning reasons to maintain your original position on the proposal against my recommendation, it is requested that the application is determined by the Planning Committee*

Please tell me which option you wish to choose within 5 working days from the date of this communication. It may not always be appropriate to take an application to Committee if the planning position is so clear-cut that it would not be right to make a different decision to the one being recommended. In these rare circumstances we will consult the Divisional Member and explain our reasoning when making the planning decision.

If I do not hear from you within 5 working days, a delegated decision will be issued in accordance with my recommendation. If our recommendation changes for any reason we will notify you so that you may reconsider your own position.

*Planning committees can be viewed and accessed remotely. Further information can be found on our website at Webcasts – Cornwall Council

Millbrook Parish Council response sent 27th September 2024

The Council would like the application determined by Cornwall Council’s Planning Committee.

CC Kate Ewert submitted an email on 30th September 2024 “I support this request for calling to planning committee. I believe this is a significant development for Millbrook and it would be best decided at committee. ”