the following is written by the core group of writers leading the objection campaign presented here by MELANIE MARTIN please read.it is so excellent and well researched. i think we may have a cat in hell chance. Thanks to the devoted researchers doggedly chasing this attack on the magestic Treloyhan Mannor Woodland and its dependent creatures. Dear Sir, Planning Application PA14/00811 | Restoration of Treloyhan Manor Hotel including extension to hotel, 5 self catering units and enabling residential development for 16 plots in hotel grounds. | Christian Guild Holidays Treloyhan Manor St. Ives Cornwall TR26 2AL With reference to the above application which is still under consideration. The following material changes are relevant to the consideration of a continuity of approach by the Planning Authority. 1 The Planning Officers omission to consider the following Inspector’s appeal: Appeal Ref: APP/DO840/A/12/2186493 Former Tea Gardens, Primrose Valley, St Ives, Cornwall TR26 2DR The Inspectors decision confirms that TV2 and TV3 would not be complied with by developing this space. It also emphasizes that in reaching his decision the Planning Inspector has given due regard to the importance that NPPF attaches to conserving and enhancing the natural environment. Although adopted in 2004, the Local Plan remains the Development Plan for this area. As confirmed in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), it is the starting point for the determination of this appeal. Policies TV-2 and 3 make it clear that proposals for development which would result in the loss of, or have an adverse effect on, the local environmental value of Open Areas will not be permitted. Having regard to the importance the NPPF attaches to conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and the absence of evidence on any overriding need to provide additional single housing sites in St Ives, I consider that these Policies should still carry significant weight in the determination of this appeal. I consider that development of the site as proposed would unacceptably erode that Open Area to the detriment of that part of St Ives. The Planning Application for building plots at Treloyhan Manor is in the same area of protected open space as the former tea gardens at Primrose Valley yet any consideration of this inspectors findings have not been bought to the Planning Committees attention or been considered in the preparation of the planning Officers recommendation for approval. The Planning Officers findings for the proposed building plots at Treloyhan are in direct contradiction to the Inspectors findings at Primrose Valley yet they are in the same area of designated protected open space. If 1 plot at Primrose valley is refused due to the inspector concluding that it would unacceptably erode the open area. How can 16 building plots and the felling of 68 trees to make space for them, be anything other than an unacceptable erosion of the same open area and for this reason should not be supported. To approve the Treloyhan proposal would demonstrate a lack of consistency on the part of the Planning Authority who have successfully and robustly resisted appeals against their decisions at Primrose Valley to ensure that development within the open space protected by the local plan is not permitted. 2 The Planning Officers omission to consider the following Inspector’s appeal: Appeal Ref: APP/D0840/A/14/2212145 Pelican Hill, Trenwith Lane, St. Ives, Cornwall TR26 2BD The appeal site is part of the same green corridor open space area in which Treloyhan Manor is located. The inspector regarded this semi rural and sylvan character as significant. The appeal site lies close to the edge of St. Ives where generally low density housing set in spacious landscaped gardens is interspersed with unbuilt areas and woodland, giving the area a semi-rural and sylvan character. In particular, there are areas of woodland to the north-east of the site on the opposite side of a public right of way (‘RoW’) which abuts its eastern boundary, and areas of woodland and trees to the east of Belyars Lane. The Council has made both those areas of woodland the subject of a Tree Preservation Order (‘TPO’). The inspector also pointed out that the compensatory planting would take a considerable time to mature and that in the meantime the loss of the trees would have a significant harmful affect on the character and appearance of the area. The inspector was not persuaded that the council could adequately ensure the long term protection of other trees on the building plot through the use of conditions or a TPO. The loss of trees at Treloyhan is thus likely to be double, triple or even quadruple the 68 trees stated as it will be impossible to safeguard against further losses. However, any such planting would take some considerable time to mature and in the meantime there would be a significant harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, whilst the siting of the proposed dwelling is a reserved matter, given the relationship between the proposed dwelling and the woodland planting areas, and with due regard to site levels and the sun’s trajectory, future occupiers may have concerns about the effect of large trees on their living conditions, for instance as a result of any overbearing or overshadowing impact, effect on their outlook, or safety concerns. Future occupiers may therefore seek to prevent those trees from reaching maturity. In the face of such concerns, and notwithstanding the proposed 5 year maintenance regime, I am not persuaded that the Council could adequately ensure the trees’ long term protection through the use of conditions or a TPO. The inspector has given weight to the saved local plan policies as they accord with the NPPF requirement that proposals should contribute to protecting and enhancing the natural environment and should take account of the character of different areas. Amongst other matters, policies GD-2, CC-1, CC-12 and TV-4 of the Penwith Local Plan 2004 (‘Local Plan’) require, in broad terms, that proposals should not significantly harm the character of the area, and should retain and incorporate existing trees and woodland which contribute to it. That approach is broadly consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) requirement that proposals should contribute to protecting and enhancing the natural environment, and should take account of the character of different areas. I find that the proposal would conflict with those Local Plan and Framework policies. The inspectors conclusion is that the loss of trees would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and that the proposed replacement planting would not mitigate against this loss. He concluded that for these reasons it is therefore not sustainable development. The proposal would result in the loss of a large number of trees which would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. I am not persuaded that the proposed replacement planting would appropriately mitigate that impact. Whilst the scheme would contribute to the supply of housing, for the reasons above it would not satisfy the environmental dimension of sustainable development. It is therefore not the sustainable development for which the Framework places a presumption in favour, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. The Planning Application for building plots at Treloyhan Manor is in the same area of protected open space as Pelican Hill, yet any consideration of this inspectors findings have not been bought to the Planning Committees attention or been considered in the preparation of the planning Officers recommendation for approval. The Planning Officers findings for the proposed building plots at Treloyhan are in direct contradiction to the Inspectors findings at Pelican Hill, yet they are in the same area of designated protected open space. The inspectors conclusions relate to 1 proposed dwelling in the designated open space. Treloyhan Manor proposals multiply this by 16 times as the application is for 16 such dwellings on individual development plots which encompass hundreds of trees in an area protected by a current area TPO. The conclusion can only be that the Treloyhan proposals are also not sustainable development and thus should not be supported. To approve the Treloyhan proposal would demonstrate a lack of consistency on the part of the Planning Authority who have successfully and robustly resisted this appeal against their decisions at Pelican Hill to ensure that development within the open space protected by the local plan is not permitted. 3 The Commons Communities and Local Government select committee this week published its report into the National Planning Policy Framework and made a number of recommendations to change the NPPF including requiring that environmental and social aspects of development proposals be given the same weight as economic aspects The Planning Officers findings in favour of development at Treloyhan must therefore conclude that the benefits of the economic case for the enhancements to the hotel must outweigh the fact that the Treloyhan proposal is contrary to the development plan and significantly erodes a defined open area. It must be of such an overwhelmingly substantial economic benefit that it outweighs 16x the damage of the refusal at Primrose Valley plus the removal of 68 trees, or 16 times the harm to the character of the open area as concluded at Pelican Hill and be so substantial that it overrides the importance that NPPF attaches to conserving and enhancing the natural environment or for the development to be sustainable development. The Planning Officer has given the economic case undue and inappropriate weight in balancing harm against benefit and has taken no account of the inspectors findings as recorded in sections 1 & 2. This imbalance in favour of economic aspects over environment is a known and identified failing of NPPF and the recent review of the NPPF seeks to redresses the balance so that environment and business are given equal weighting. Committee welcomes simplification of planning through the NPPF The Commons Communities and Local Government select committee this week published its report into the National Planning Policy Framework. In it, the MPs acknowledged that the NPPF “brought a welcome simplification and consolidation of planning policy” on its introduction in 2012. The committee made a number of recommendations to change the NPPF including requiring that environmental and social aspects of development proposals be given the same weight as economic aspects, and that permission be granted for development only if the necessary infrastructure was included. In response, Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis said: “This Governments planning reforms have ensured strong protections of the open countryside and the Green Belt, while at the same time putting power back in the hands of local people through the abolition of top-down Regional Strategies. Our locally-led planning reforms are working, as 240,000 badly needed new homes received planning permission in the last 12 months. But the simple way for councils to send speculative developers packing is to have an up-to-date local plan - 80 per cent of councils now have a published Local Plan and slow-coach councils should be held to account by local voters for dragging their feet. planningportal.gov.uk/…/stor…/2014/december14/181 214/181214_2 4 Neighbourhood Plan submitted to be ratified on 2nd Jan 2015. In addition to this the emerging Neighbourhood plan is in the final stages of acceptance. This gives even greater weight to the protection of the open spaces and again the importance and weight to be given to the plan is emphasized in the NPPF review. Conclusion To approve the Treloyhan proposal would demonstrate a lack of consistency on the part of the Planning Authority who have successfully and robustly resisted appeals against their decisions at Primrose Valley and Pelican Hill to ensure that development within the open space protected by the local plan is not permitted. Items 1-4 inclusive are also material changes, which would result in the Treloyhan application not being recommended for approval if it was reappraised in the light of those material changes and was in line with a consistent approach by the Planning Authority. The Treloyhan Manor application is still under consideration and is not completed until the section 106 agreement is signed. In view of this and the material considerations 1-4 above I ask that the Treloyhan Manor application is reviewed and reappraised in the light of these highly relevant new material considerations and that the Planning Authority maintain a consistent approach to considering development within the open space designated and protected by the development plan. Planning Portal - This page cannot be displayed PLANNINGPORTAL.GOV.UK we should not have to fight our planners and councillors, they should do this for us.
Posted on: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:04:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015