Community Network Area: Hayle & St Ives...evidence • submitted • Moore (Hayle) Information Classification: PUBLIC Summary of submissions received Unique reference number List of

Information Classification: PUBLIC

Community Network Area: Hayle & St Ives

Total number of parishes: 5

Contents

Summary of submissions received..........................................................................................................2

Gwinear-Gwithian – Parish Council ........................................................................................................7

Gwinear-Gwithian – Individual .............................................................................................................27

Hayle – Town Council............................................................................................................................30

St Erth – Parish Council (1)....................................................................................................................42

St Erth – Parish Council (2)....................................................................................................................51

St Erth – Parish Council (3)..................................................................................................................101

St Ives – Town Council ........................................................................................................................123

Towednack – Parish Council ...............................................................................................................126

1


Summary of submissions received

Unique reference number

List of Parishes (Geographical based on CNA Map)

Submitter Summary of Proposal (extracted from submissions)

• Summary of evidence submitted

Any other Parishes affected?

201 Gwinear-Gwithian Parish Council

Boundaries – 1) Loggans Moor (Hayle) Take 13 properties that lie within Hayle Parish (HP) but either associate with Connor Downs or relate to the area, out of HP and into Gwinear-Gwithian Parish (GGP). Some have to travel through GGP to leave their properties. 2) Angarrack (Hayle) Give two properties that currently lie within GGP on the edge of the village of Angarrack which currently lies predominantly within HP. The two properties cannot enter GGP without going through HP. 3) Nanpusker (Pump House) – (Hayle) Take one dwelling, currently in HP but they cannot access HP without coming through GGP. There is also a County Wildlife Site (CWS) which is currently split between GGP and HP. 4) Fraddam (St Erth & Crowan) There are four properties which associate as part of the hamlet of Fraddam, three lying in the St Erth Parish (SEP) and one lying in the Crowan Parish (CRP). The property lying in the CRP has to go through GGP to make a journey. By bringing these properties into GGP it ensures the hamlet of Fraddam lies within one Parish. The majority of Fraddam currently lies within GGP. 5) Leedstown (Crowan) Leedstown is a large village with majority lying

• Map 1 Loggans Moore (Hayle)

• Map 2 Angarrack (Hayle)

• Map 3 – Nanpusker Pump House (Hayle)

• Map 4 – Fraddam (St Erth & Crowan)

• Map 5 – Leedstown (Crowan)

• Map 6 – Hallancoose (Crowan)

• Map 7 – Roseworthy/ Merry Meeting (Camborne)

• Map 8 – Godrevy (Camborne)

• Appendix b - 11 additional appendices

Camborne Crowan Hayle St Erth

2







within Crowan Parish (CRP). Spread of sporadic development out of Leedstown into GGP. These developments associate with Leedstown. Move 8 properties into CRP to ensure both sides of the road are in the same Parish. Move the 2 properties in the small area around Lambo into GGP by continuing the GGP boundary straight on. 6) Hallancoose (Crowan) Take one property in the defined triangle which has to go through GGP to leave their property but is currently in CRP. 7) Roseworthy/Merry Meeting (Camborne) Take 12 properties - These hamlets are currently split between GGP and Camborne Parish (CP). We have seen evidence of residents living in Merry Meeting thinking they are part of GGP. Merry Meeting relates better to Roseworthy and GGP and the spread of development is towards GGP. 8) Godrevy (Camborne) Take three properties - all go through the GGP to leave their properties. These properties would associate with Godrevy and the main road is a strong feature.

detailing correspondence and meeting minutes

• Appendix c, details and responses to comments from neighbouring Parishes

3







Individual Councillors - six councillors representing each ward, this may have been appropriate in the first half of the last century, when possibly the number electors in each ward was more equal. However, because of its location and connectivity the growth in the Gwithian ward has outstripped that of the Gwinear ward. Therefore, either the ward boundaries need to be adjusted, or the allocation of councillors to each ward needs amending to reflect the number of electors, to ensure the value of each vote as far as is possible is equal. By increasing the number of councillors to 14 (8 for Gwithian, 6 for Gwithian) this would future proof the apportionment, in that the Gwithian ward continues to attract greater development than the Gwinear ward.

Evidence and options provided

No

202 Hayle Town Council

Parish boundary, Parish Ward boundary, Number Councillors in each ward – various movements of houses based on who they may identify with. Increased councillors. The two properties at Mutton Hill, currently part of Hayle Parish, be realigned to the Gwinear-Gwithian Parish as the properties are clearly within the Connor Downs area and the residents are part of that community The two properties at Trungle Mill, Angarrack currently part Gwinear-Gwithian Parish, be brought into the Hayle Parish. These properties and the residents are very much part of the community of Angarrack and are completely isolated from any other settlement.

Maps Gwinear-Gwithian

4







The properties known as The Nanpusker Lakeside Lodges, currently within Gwinear-Gwithian, be brought into the Hayle Parish on the basis that they are either attached or form part of the same complex as The Old Pump house which is within Hayle. The proposed internal ward boundaries should be amended to ensure equal representation, ideally with 8 and 7 councillors representing the respective wards as opposed to proposed 10 and 5 councillors.

203 St Erth Parish Council (option 1)

No change - St Erth Parish Council believes that the residents in the two households, which would be affected by the Gwinear-Gwithian Parish Council submission, will identify with the Parish of St Erth rather than the ‘community’ of Fraddon.

Meeting notes No

Parish Council (option 2)

Parish Boundary - Realign the boundaries between the Parishes of St Erth and Ludgvan along the Western approach to the St Erth Roundabout (grid ref SW5441636149), adapting both the Ludgvan Parish Eastern boundary and the St Erth Parish Northern boundary, moving from a North/South orientation (along the A30) to an East/West orientation (river at the bottom of the Canon’s Town Valley, adjacent to Heather Lane.

Maps Minutes

Ludgvan


No change - St Erth Parish Council believes that the identities and interests of the residents within the current St Erth Parish boundary are clear and well catered for.

Minutes Feedback forms Plans

No

204 St Ives Town Council

Change – Other – Ward name change – current names do not reflect community identity. No

Cover letter No

5







further information provided. 205 Towednack Parish

Council (option 1)


No change regarding Towednack’s status as a Parish in its own right.

No


Change – The current Parish boundary with Ludgvan lies on the river which runs through Nancledra village splitting the village across two parishes. Towednack proposes to move the boundary to include the whole of Nancledra village including recent new developments.

Letter Map Email Article

Ludgvan

6


Gwinear-Gwithian – Parish Council

7


8

COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW

Background

Cornwall Council is currently undertaking a Community Governance Review for the whole of Cornwall. This provides an opportunity to review and make changes to governance arrangements at parish level. This is to ensure they are working as efficiently and effectively as they should be. It also ensures that they are reflective of the identity and interest of local communities.

As part of this review, Gwinear-Gwithian Parish Council set up a working group to re-evaluate the parish boundaries as well as consult with adjacent Parish and Town Councils and their communities.

The remit of the working group is as follows:-

To take the following into consideration in formulating proposals for amending the parish boundaries -

i) To reflect the identities and interests of the communities within the parish.

ii) To ensure the provision of efficient and convenient local government for the communities within the parish.

iii) To take into account the residents representation through local organisations and groups within the parish.

iv) To be aware of any boundary changes on the new Cornwall Council Divisions.

The initial brief was –

i) To produce detailed maps of proposed alignment of sections of the boundary with neighbouring parishes.

ii) To provide statistical details of –

The number of dwellings involved in the proposal.

The number of electors plus or minus that will be transferred into or out of the parish.

The implication of the movement of electors between neighbouring parishes on the L G B C’s Review and the principle of the equality of voters.

9

Gwinear-Gwithian Parish

The rural Parish of Gwinear-Gwithian lies in the west of Cornwall, in the former Penwith District. The Parish covers 2,977 hectares, and stretches from the coastline at Godrevy Point down to Fraddam. It incorporates the villages of Gwithian, Upton Towans, Gwinear, Connor Downs, Carnhell Green and Reawla/Wall which all lie well within the Parish. The hamlets of Fraddam and Roseworthy lie on the fringes of the Parish but predominantly within it. The civil parishes of Gwinear and Gwithian were combined to form the parish of Gwinear-Gwithian in 1934.

Gwinear-Gwithian Parish is bordered by Camborne Parish to the north-east with the hamlet of Merry Meeting sitting across the border with Gwinear-Gwithian. Hayle Parish is to the west of the Parish with the rural village of Angarrack sitting across the border with Gwinear-Gwithian. St Erth Parish sits to the south-west with the hamlet of Fraddam bordering it. Crowan Parish is to the south where the large village of Leedstown has crept into Gwinear-Gwithian Parish.

Gwinear-Gwithian Parish Council (GGPC) has two wards, Gwinear and Gwithian and is served by twelve volunteer Parish Councillors, six Councillors serve each ward.

GGPC currently has two members of part-time staff. The Clerk, Mrs Vida Perrin, who is also the Parish Council’s Responsible Financial Officer and Mrs Tracey Goldsworthy, Administrative and Finance Assistant.

The Parish Council holds a contract with a Community Pride Operative Team (CPOT) which plays an integral role in the upkeep of our Parish, maintaining and managing the Parish assets.

This includes frequent inspections of our playing fields, being responsible for reporting potholes to Cornwall Council Highways, and overgrown verges carrying out minor trimming where appropriate. Reporting roadside litter and fly tipping to Cornwall Council as well as broken street lights and missing or damaged street name signs to CC.

The CPOT empty the Parish Council litter bins and keeps its five bus shelters clean. They regularly check the Parish Council buildings, defibrillators, cemetery, allotments and the Gwithian Green nature reserve.

The Council also holds a contract with a Playground Management Team who ensure the parks at Reawla and Connor Downs are safe to use as well as maintaining the grass, flower borders and equipment on our behalf.

Contractors are used to fulfil duties with other organisations such as under the Local Maintenance Partnership (LMP) which ensures certain Public Rights of Way (PROW) are usable, these are generally gold paths as set out by Cornwall Council (CC). This Partnership is held with CC and they are legally responsible for the PROW. The Contractor who undertakes this work also carries out voluntary work on signs around the Parish for PROW as he has a deep passion for the Parish and the PROW network within it.

The Council manages Gwithian Green Local Nature Reserve/Common with Natural England along with a team of volunteers with expert local knowledge and a keen interest in conservation.

Gwinear-Gwithian Parish Council works with its community and provides many facilities to include:-

Parish Community Facility building with spacious hall to hire, well equipped kitchen, two toilets to include disabled and baby changing facilities. Community office/function room to hire. The Parish Council base. Ample parking.

Civil cemetery in peaceful surroundings open to all Allotment space Local Nature Reserve at Gwithian Public open space and play area at Connor Downs Public open space and play area at Reawla Bus shelters in Connor Downs x 2, Carnhell Green x 1, Reawla x 2

10

Various seats, dog bins and litter bins Community notice boards in Reawla, Gwithian, Connor Downs, Gwinear & Carnhell Green Public Access Defibrillators at Gwinear, Gwithian, Upton Towans, Gwithian Towans, Reawla &

Carnhell Green and a further two life saving Defibs at the schools in Connor Downs and Gwinear bought with funding from the Parish Council.

Recycling scheme for certain plastic waste which cannot be recycled through the CC householder recycling scheme.

On average has been successful in raising funds for the Parish of nearly £44k a year from grant applications, donations, devolution, S106 funding and income in the last 10 years.

Provides annual grant funding to local community groups and organisations. Works with the community;

o Gwithian Green Advisory Group – Voluntary group who help manage the LNR/Common o Connor Downs Residents Association – Voluntary group who help manage the playing field

in Connor Downs o Gwinear District Villages Association - Voluntary group who help manage the playing field in

Reawla

The Parish Council was the 10th Parish Council in the whole of Cornwall to have its Neighbourhood Development Plan ‘made’. The plan helps the community understand planning for the Parishes future.

The Council meets on a regular basis, usually at least twice a month at the Parish Community Facility and around the Parish at other locations to ensure those parishioners living in isolated locations have access to the Parish Council, we go to them. Meetings of the Parish Council are open to the public and it holds a period of public participation at the start of each meeting.

11

Initial submission

Using the brief given to the CGR working group, the following areas were considered:-

1. the ordinary year of election;

GGPC sees no reason to alter the ordinary year of the election.

2. the council size;

GGPC sets out in its report below reasons for looking at the boundaries of the parish.

3. the number of councillors to be elected to the council;

GGPC sees no reason to change the number of councillors to be elected to the council.

4. warding;

GGPC sees no reason to alter the current warding arrangement for the parish other than the minor changes set out in the report below.

5. group parishes under a common parish council;

GGPC sees no reason to group the parish with any adjoining parishes.

6. request the Commission to alter a unitary Council division boundary so that it is coterminous with a parish boundary;

GGPC requests the Council approaches the Commission to make the minor alterations as set out in the report below to ensure the unitary Council division boundary is coterminous with the parish boundary

7. consequential matters;

The consequential matters are set out in the report below.

Draft Proposals

The following information shows the draft plans from GGPC for the Community Governance Review along with the attached maps at Appendix A:-

Map 1 – Loggans Moor - Hayle

Reasoning To bring properties that currently lie within Hayle Parish (HP) but either associate with Connor Downs or relate to the area, out of HP and into Gwinear-Gwithian Parish (GGP).

Logic Looking at the area to the west of Connor Downs which currently lies within the HP, it is evident that there are two bungalows on Mutton Hill which currently lie in HP but should clearly be in GGP. There are also three farmsteads known as Pulsack, Angarrack Hill and Carwin with a cluster of properties which currently lie in HP but not all can leave their properties directly through HP and have to come through GGP to get to HP.

Features The majority of the current border here uses field systems and a similar approach has been used but further research may be needed on the exact boundary. The Northern extent of GGP boundary follows a river, this will remain unchanged.

Number of dwellings

12

13

Plus or Minus to GGP Plus

Implications The Council Tax for these properties would be reduced by around £99 p.a. The only additional feature or asset within this area is one small PROW (102/47/1) requiring 1 cut

per year currently within HP. There would be no change to the Cornwall Council division due to this change. There would be a change to the Neighbourhood Plan boundaries for both Parishes.

Map 2 – Angarrack - Hayle

Reasoning To take properties that currently lie within GGP but either associate with Angarrack or relate to the area out of GGP and into HP.

Logic Two properties that currently lie within GGP are on the edge of the village of Angarrack which currently lies predominantly within HP. The two properties cannot enter GGP without going through HP.

Features The current border here uses field systems and a similar approach has been used.

Number of dwellings Two

Plus or Minus to GGP Minus

Implications The Council Tax for these properties would be increased by around £99 p.a. The only additional feature or asset within this area is half of one small PROW (101/20/1) requiring

2 cuts per year currently within GGP. It is not unusual for PROW’s to run from one Parish to another.

There would be no change to the Cornwall Council division due to this change. There would be a change to the Neighbourhood Plan boundaries for both Parishes.

Map 3 – Nanpusker (Pump House) - Hayle

Reasoning There is only one dwelling in this area currently in HP but they cannot access HP without coming through GGP. There is also a County Wildlife Site (CWS) which is currently split between GGP and HP.

Logic This is a difficult area to split easily, it is impossible to take in the entirety of the CWS without taking in Angarrack.

The current boundary follows a river, until it deviates to include The Pump House into Hayle South.

The area is within a County Wildlife site (CWS). Approx. 40% of which is already within GGPC.

Features The current map shows the stream as the guiding principle.

Number of dwellings One


13

Implications The Council Tax for this property would be reduced by around £99 p.a. The only additional feature/asset in this area is a small part of the CWS; we do not currently know

if HTC manage the site, it looks like it is managed by CWT. Further info on this feature can be seen here - https://intranet.cornwallwildlifetrust.org.uk/sites1/sheets/default.aspx?oid=428-cws

There would be no change to the Cornwall Council division due to this change. There would be a change to the Neighbourhood Plan boundaries for both Parishes.

Map 4 – Fraddam – St Erth & Crowan

Reasoning There are four properties which associate as part of the hamlet of Fraddam, three lying in the St Erth Parish (SEP) and one lying in the Crowan Parish (CRP). The property lying in the CRP has to go through GGP to make a journey.

Logic By bringing these properties into GGP it ensures the hamlet of Fraddam lies within one Parish. The large majority of Fraddam currently lies within GGP.

Features Using road features for the two properties in SEP and the property boundary for the property in CRP.

Number of dwellings Four


Implications The Council Tax for properties coming from SEP would be reduced by around £38 p.a. but would

increase for the one coming from CRP into GGP by around £21 per annum. There appears to be no additional feature or asset within this area. There would be a small change to the Cornwall Council division. There would be a change to the Neighbourhood Plan boundaries for both Parishes.

Map 5 – Leedstown - Crowan

Reasoning Leedstown is a large village with the vast majority of it lying within the Crowan Parish (CRP). Over recent years there has been a spread of sporadic development out of Leedstown into GGP. These developments would associate with Leedstown.

Logic This is one of the more difficult areas to manage as the development is sporadic over a large area, the map shows a few properties which lie on one side of the main road but are in GGP as opposed to those on the other side which lie in CRP. It makes senses for those properties on either side of the road to be in the same Parish. The small area around Lambo makes sense to come into GGP by continuing the GGP boundary straight on.

Features Current boundaries use the road system.

Number of dwellings

Plus or Minus to GGP Minus 8/Plus 2

Implications The Council Tax for some of these properties would be reduced by around £21 coming from GGP

to CRP but would increase for the 2 coming from CRP into GGP by around £21 per annum.

14

10

https://intranet.cornwallwildlifetrust.org.uk/sites1/sheets/default.aspx?oid=428-cws

There would be a change to the Cornwall Council division. There would be a change to the Neighbourhood Plan boundaries for both Parishes.

Map 6 – Hallancoose - Crowan

Reasoning There is one property in this triangle which has to go through GGP to leave their property but is currently in CRP.

Logic The existing boundary uses the road and PROW this will not change it will just ensure properties on different sides of the road are not in different Parishes.

Features Main roads/PROW

Number of dwellings One


Implications The Council Tax would increase by around £21 p.a. The only additional feature or assets within this area are two PROW (207/69/1 & 207/68/1)

requiring 1 and 2 cuts per year currently within CRP. There would be a small change to the Cornwall Council division. There would be a change to the Neighbourhood Plan boundaries for both Parishes.

Map 7 – Roseworthy/Merry Meeting - Camborne

Reasoning These hamlets are currently split between GGP and Camborne Parish (CP). We have seen evidence of residents living in Merry Meeting thinking they are part of GGP.

Logic The hamlet of Merry Meeting relates better to Roseworthy and GGP and the spread of development is towards GGP.

Features Field sets and development trends.

Number of dwellings Twelve


Implications The Council Tax for these properties would reduce by around £114 p.a. coming from CP to GGP. There are no additional features or assets within this area. There would be a change to the Cornwall Council division. There would be a change to the Neighbourhood Plan boundaries for both Parishes.

Map 8 – Godrevy - Camborne

Reasoning There are three properties within this area which all go through the GGP to leave their properties.

Logic These last few properties would associate with Godrevy and the main road is a strong feature.

15

Features Main road

Number of dwellings Three


Implications The Council Tax for these properties would reduce by around £114 p.a. coming from CP to GGP. There are no additional features or assets within this area. There would be a change to the Cornwall Council division. There would be a change to the Neighbourhood Plan boundaries for both Parishes.

GGPC consulted with adjacent Parish Council’s between 21st May 2019 and the 14th June 2019 on the above proposals and the responses are set out in Appendix B attached. The CGR Working Groups response to the matters raised by adjacent Parish Councils is at Appendix C.

Next steps

GGPC will now undertake community consultation with both its own Parishioners and any households within the affected areas. This will be undertaken through an online survey monkey questionnaire as well as mail outs to affected areas. We will also hold at least two public meetings to allow residents to speak direct with us and explore the maps as well as advising residents they can visit the Parish office for more information and discussion.

GGPC appreciates that certain areas may feel they align better to a Town but equally welcome responses from households, communities or villages who feel they have more in common with rural areas.

The possible questions could be:-

Question 1. Are you a resident of the Parish or an adjacent Parish?

Question 2. Do you agree with the plans for the following:-

Map 1 - Loggans Moor Map 5 - Leedstown Map 2 - Angarrack Map 6 - Hallancoose Map 3 - Nanpusker Map 7 - Roseworthy/Merry Meeting Map 4 - Fraddam Map 8 - Godrevy

Question 3. If you do not agree please give your reasons why?

Question 4. Do you think there should be any other changes to the Gwinear-Gwithian Parish or an adjacent Parish?

Question 5. If yes please give your reasons for this change.

Gwinear-Gwithian Parish Council will now advise each of the adjacent Parish Councils of our submission to Cornwall Council. The GGPC CGR Working Group would welcome a meeting with Cornwall Council to discuss the proposals we are making and is open to any new suggestions on the boundaries with the appropriate rationale for any proposals.

16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


Emails to the parish clerks for all affected parishes were also included with the submission. An example email is shown below:

25


26


27


Gwinear-Gwithian – Individual

Submission on the Community Governance Review for Cornwall 2019

Please complete and return this form with any accompanying papers to Cornwall Council, by email or post, no later than noon 17 July 2019. Email: [email protected] Postal address: Community Governance Review, Cornwall Council, Room 3E.01, County Hall, Treyew Road, Truro, TR1 3AY 1. Please state the area or Parish to which this submission relates: Gwinear Gwithian Parish Council

2. Is this submission from: ☐ A Parish Council (City, Town, Parish or Community Council, or Parish meeting) ☐ A community organisation ☐ Any other body or organisation X One or more individual resident(s)

3. Please indicate whether this submission relates to a change or no change: ☐ No Change – please continue to section 5 X Change – please continue to section 4

4. Submission proposal: Please tick any that apply ☐ Change to Parish boundary ☐ Create a grouped Parish with at least one other Parish ☐ Creation of a new Parish

☐ By separating part of a Parish ☐ By aggregating parts of a Parish ☐ By amalgamating Parishes

☐ Change to Parish name ☐ Create Parish wards ☐ Change the boundaries of existing Parish wards ☐ Abolish Parish wards X Change the total number of Councillors (say how many you want in the future) X Change the number of Councillors in each ward (say how many you want in the future) ☐ Other (please provide details below)

5. Details of proposal(s): Please give details of any submissions that you are proposing or, if appropriate, reasons why you do not want change. Please give sufficient evidence to support your submission, including any information that you may have already provided to Cornwall Council. Please explain why you consider that the submission you are making will ensure that community governance within the area will reflect the identities and interests of the community and will be effective and convenient. Currently there are two wards in the Gwinear Gwithian Parish, that is –

28

mailto:[email protected]


Gwithian Ward consisting of polling districts C G G 1 and C G G 2 Gwinear Ward consisting of polling district C G G 3

With six (6) councillors representing each ward, this may have been appropriate in the first half of the last century, when possibly the number electors in each ward was more equal. However because of its location and connectivity the growth in the Gwithian ward has outstripped that of the Gwinear ward. Therefore either the ward boundaries need to be adjusted, or the allocation of councillors to each ward needs amending to reflect the number of electors, to ensure the value of each vote as far as is possible is equal.

(please attach additional pages as required) 6. Evidence in support of submission: If your proposals involve any changes to existing boundaries, please submit ordnance survey base maps showing clearly proposed new boundaries. Please give detailed information on the number of dwellings and other significant buildings (shops, industrial premises etc.) affected by your proposed changes. Please give details of any consultation that you may have carried out with affected residents, and the outcome. If your proposals affect other parishes, please state what discussions you have had with other parish councils and the outcome.

Please see the attachment mailed with this submission, headed ‘Evidence’. My proposal concerns only the number of parish councillors within the Gwinear Gwithian Parish.

(please attach additional pages as required) 7. List of attachments:

One attachment headed ‘Evidence’

29


Evidence

The number of electors in each ward is –

Gwithian Ward polling stations C G G 1 & 2 electors - 1514

Gwinear Ward polling station C G G 3 electors - 1208

Total electors in the parish being - 2722

It is evident that the number of electors within the Gwithian ward exceeds that of the Gwinear ward by 25.33%, how be it both wards have equal representation that is six councillors per ward. Although currently the Parish Council functions efficiently and there is a strong community identity to the parish within both wards, the disparity between the value of a vote as high as 25.33% could and may lead to elector disillusionment with parish governance.

This can only be remedied by either adjusting the ward boundaries, or the number of parish councillors representing each ward.

The current ward boundaries could be amended by moving 150 electors from the Gwithian ward to the Gwinear ward, but it would not be possible to create a recognisable functional boundary. (Should the Community Governance Review Committee decide to accept the G G P C submission concerning parish wide boundaries this would not remedy the disparity, as the G G P C submission is primarily neutral, with the modest increase being in the Gwithian ward.)

If the Community Governance Review Committee considers adjusting the number of parish councillors so as to create a more equal balance to the councillor elector ratio, then the table below details three possible combinations together with the percentage of number of councillors to electors.

By increasing the number of councillors to fourteen (14) this would future prove the apportionment, in that the Gwithian ward continues to attract greater development than the Gwinear ward.

If the committee were to consider reducing the number of councillors to eleven (11), this would bring a more equable distribution of councillors per electors in the short term. However it would still over represent the Gwinear ward, and as a result of the current rate of development within the parish continue the under representation of the Gwithian ward.

30


Hayle – Town Council

31


32


33


34


35


36


37


38


39


40


41


42


St Erth – Parish Council (1)

43


44


45


Notes of a meeting of the St Erth Parish Council Governance Review Working Group with invited guests held on 11 June 2019, commencing at 7.00pm, in the Vestry Rooms, Fore Street, St Erth.

Present:

St Erth Parish Council (SEPC)

Councillor Kevin Buzza – Chairman

Councillor Ted Taylor – Vice-Chairman

Councillor Angelo Spencer-Smith – Councillor

Pete Rylett – Parish Clerk

Hayle Town Council (HTC)

Councillor Clive Polkinghorne – Mayor

Ellie Giggal – Town Clerk

Gwinear-Gwithian Parish Council (GGPC)

Councillor Mike Smith

Ludgvan Parish Council (LPC)

Councillor Roy Mann – Chairman

Cornwall Council (CC)

Vanessa Luckwell – Hayle and St Ives Community Network Manager

1. Chairman’s welcome

Councillor Buzza welcomed all those present and confirmed that the principal purpose of the meeting was for the guest councils to outline their governance review proposals, which affected the St Erth parish, followed by discussion and questions/answers.

As a general point, Councillor Buzza expressed his personal disappointment that informal dialogue between councils had not started much earlier in the process, despite an attempt to do so between the Clerks and Community Network Manager.

46


Nevertheless, it was likely that following this meeting, there would be a need for meetings of the four councils to continue the dialogue which had started tonight, with the aspiration of working together on the proposals.

2. GGPC

(SEPC received GGPC ‘s proposal on 21 May.)

Councillor Smith stated that in all proposals being made by GGPC, its guiding principle was “community identity” i.e. where people felt they belonged, and attempting to resolve geographical anomalies where some communities were split.

GGPC did not want to be seen as expansionist and would try to end up as “breaking even” in terms of the overall number of properties in its parish following the changes.

GGPC had agreed the first version of its proposals and was now consulting the councils affected. Following this, GGPC would meet on 24 June to sign off its proposal and then start consulting the residents/communities affected.

As part of its consideration, GGPC had considered where planning applications had been made in the recent past to gain a picture of the impact.

Referring to the map, Councillor Smith suggested that the two properties in the St Erth parish appeared to have more in common with the Fraddam community, hence the proposal to include them within a new GGPC boundary.

Councillor Buzza, thanked Councillor Smith for the explanation but asked him to consider the close relationship SEPC had developed with the residents of those two properties during the protracted planning and planning appeals processes concerning Mably Solar Farm.

SEPC had invested considerable resources to oppose those applications and appeals and had, through those efforts, safeguarded the wellbeing of those residents.

Councillor Buzza said that GGPC could not have been expected to recognise that such a consideration existed by simply looking at a map.

In answer to questions about process, Councillor Smith explained that GGPC would review all of the interactions they had throughout the process and were keeping CC informed along the way, especially as it was CC which would make the final decision.

Councillor Smith was asked that, bearing in mind GGPC’s guiding principle of “community identity”, if the residents of the two properties affected felt they had a closer connection to the St Erth parish, would GGPC omit this particular proposal from its overall submission to CC and Councillor Smith confirmed that they would.

It was agreed by GGPC and SEPC that if the proposal was to be moved forward by GGPC, GGPC would discuss the possibility of a joint communication by GGPC and SEPC and that no communication would take place with the residents of the properties until both Parish Councils had discussed the best way forward.

47


3. HTC

(SEPC received HTC’S proposal on 10 June.)

Councillor Polkinghorne stated that as a matter of principle, HTC considered that the natural boundary was the A30 and so the estate of 18 properties and the single detached house, off Water Lane, as shown on the plan, appeared to relate better to the Hayle parish rather than the St Erth parish.

Councillor Buzza asked that if HTC considered the A30 to be the natural boundary as a matter of principle, then had it also considered any other land along the A30 boundary which was also in the St Erth parish?

Councillor Polkinghorne responded that at present, HTC’s brief was only to consider developed land on which there were existing properties but it was a valid observation and so he and the HTC Clerk would revisit this and have further discussions with SEPC if appropriate.

Councillor Buzza commented that if the A30 was considered to be the natural boundary as a matter of principle, then, for consistency, some consideration might need to be given to land on the south side of the A30 currently within the Hayle parish.

Again, Councillor Polkinghorne acknowledged that to be a valid point and agreed that he would revisit this with the HTC Clerk.

In terms of the 18 (predominantly affordable) properties, Councillor Taylor stated that a S106 Agreement existed whereby people with a local connection to the St Erth parish had a first priority nomination with Homechoice. If the properties transferred to the Hayle parish, he was concerned that those with a local connection to the St Erth parish would no longer fall within the priority nomination area.

The SEPC Clerk was tasked to investigate this point and inform HTC and SEPC when advice had been received from CC.

Councillor Polkinghorne and the HTC Clerk agreed with Councillor Buzza’s suggestion that it might be possible to work together to develop options and Councillor Polkinghorne agreed to get back to the SEPC Clerk to confirm whether a meeting would be mutually beneficial.

In terms of process, HTC would consider all of the feedback it received at its meeting on 4 July, including public consultation which had not yet been undertaken.

Councillor Buzza confirmed that as matters stood at the moment, SEPC would base its consideration on the current proposals affecting the St Erth parish at its meeting on 2 July which was prior to the HTC meeting.

It was agreed by HTC and SEPC that no communication would take place with the residents of the properties included in the proposal (or any updated proposal) until both HTC and SEPC had discussed the best way of approaching the community.

48


4. LPC

(SEPC received LPC’s proposal on 20 May.)

Councillor Mann outlined his understanding of the main elements of the LPC proposal. Councillor Mann explained that it was a first draft and that details were still to be finalised.

Although a ‘rough’ map and brief description of the proposal had been received, Councillor Mann accepted that it lacked adequate clarity about certain key issues such as:

● the actual number of dwellings involved; ● the number of electors who would be transferred; ● whether the proposed new boundary included some of the commercial premises

along the A30 or not, (for example, the Lamb and Flag Pub did not have planning permission for conversion into flats as was suggested);

● the potential for the creation of ‘islands’ as some properties/premises appeared to be circumvented by the potential new boundary; and

● the rationale for the proposed design, i.e. why LPC believed that the identities of the communities and the interests of the residents affected would be better reflected by moving from the St Erth parish into the Ludgvan parish.

Councillor Buzza emphasised that these observations were intended to be constructive and that such information would enable SEPC to gain a better understanding of LPC’s proposal.

Following further discussion, it was agreed that LPC would be requested to supply SEPC with accurate maps detailing where the proposed boundary line could be drawn, clearly showing what was included and what was not, and with an explanation of the rationale for doing so.

It was agreed by LPC and SEPC that no communication would take place with the residents of the properties that might be included in a more detailed proposal until both LPC and SEPC had discussed the best way of approaching the community, should a proposal be formulated.

49


50


51



52


53


54


55


56


57


Minutes of the Special Meeting of St Erth Parish Council held on Thursday 3 November, 2011 in

St Erth Parish Church, commencing at 11.40pm.

Councillors present: Mrs. W.M. Chappell, Mrs. A. Denton, C.P. Driscoll, D. Pellow, A. Spencer-Smith, E.T. Taylor and Mrs. K. Tilby (Vice-Chairman in the Chair.)

Others present: approximately 50 members of the public, CC R. Tovey and Mr. P. Rylett (Clerk to the Council).

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M.J. Hanley, Miss D.E. Harry, E.B. Jenkin and Mrs. B Rickard.

104/11-12 Declarations of Interest

None declared.

105/11-12 Planning Application: PA11/07713, Construction of heliport including improved vehicular access point on Station Approach/Treloweth Lane, car parking areas, terminal building, hanger, fuel installations and 1 helipad, Land adjacent to Station Approach/Treloweth Lane, St Erth, British International Helicopters Ltd

The Chairman invited Councillors to address the meeting with their views on this application.

The Clerk read out a letter he had received from Councillor Hanley and advised that 56 letters and 19 emails had been received related to this application which ranged from expressing concern to strong objection.

At the conclusion of the discussion it was:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY - that this application be refused on the following grounds:

1. excessive noise 2. excessive smell 3. generation of additional traffic 4. detrimental effect on the physical and mental health and wellbeing of residents 5. devaluation of property values and disregard of compensation 6. inappropriate use of a greenfield site 7. detrimental effect on the natural environment

and that the Clerk write to Cornwall Council, setting out these grounds of refusal in more detail.

The Chairman closed the meeting at 12.14am.

58


ST ERTH PARISH COUNCIL

This is to notify you that St Erth Parish Council will hold a site meeting to view the site for the proposed Mably Solar Farm, situated on land at Bunkers Hill, Townshend, Hayle, TR27 6ER, on Wednesday 9 October 2013, commencing at 4.00pm.

Following the conclusion of this site meeting, the Parish Council will re-convene in the Vestry Rooms, 25 Fore Street, St Erth, to consider this planning application (details below) and make its recommendation to Cornwall Council.

Members of the public are welcome to attend both meetings, express their views and ask questions.

The planning application can be viewed at http://planning.cornwall.gov.uk/online-applications and by searching under PA13/08286.

59

http://planning.cornwall.gov.uk/online-applications

http://planning.cornwall.gov.uk/online-applications


AGENDA

1. Apologies for absence

2. Declarations of interest

3. Opportunity for public participation

4. Parish Council’s consideration of the application (Parish Council only)

PA13/08286: Proposed 6.2MW solar pv development, associated landscaping and habitat creation, to include ground based racking systems, mounted solar panels, power inverter stations, transformer stations, security fencing and CCTV security cameras: Land at Bunkers Hill, Pilgrims Way: Mr Chris Ivess-Mash

5. Chairman closes the meeting

60


Parish of St Erth (Cornwall) 2014 Residents’ Survey

Report written for St Erth Parish Council

Report written by Brian Wilson Associates

January 2015

61


Summary

In late 2014 St Erth Parish Council ran a survey to generate evidence in support of its work to create a Neighbourhood Plan. Some 241 households responded, which is equal to almost 40% of households in the parish.

Housing development

There is a fairly high level of concern about the volume of new housing which the draft Cornwall Local Plan expects will be built by 2030 in the local area.

Respondents are particularly concerned about the impact this may have on congestion, road traffic and pedestrian safety, plus the impact it may have on open countryside and biodiversity.

However, they also recognise potential benefits. This includes helping young people and older people to remain in the local area, and helping secure the future of the village primary school.

There is a small majority who favour concentrating new housing onto one or two more sizeable development sites, rather than spreading it between a greater number of small development sites.

Respondents would like to see priority given to small family houses, starter houses or apartments and housing adapted to older people with special needs. They would also like priority to be given to homes for rental from a housing association and mixed tenure homes (part bought and part rented).

It is considered that key features for new housing are that it should have off-street car parking and should be energy efficient.

Housing need

22% of the survey responses were from one person households, 36% from couple households and 38% from family households. A good proportion of the family households contained mainly grown up (age 19+) children living with their parents.

The majority of these households have lived in St Erth for over a decade. However, there is turnover, with 8% arriving in the parish during the last year alone.

Some 69% of survey responses came from households who were owner occupiers (either owning outright or with a mortgage). Most of the rest were renting privately or from a housing association.

In most households no-one had experienced recent problems finding suitable housing in St Erth. However, a sizeable minority (19%) did contain household members who faced such problems now or within the last year. Another group expect to face problems within the next five years.

62


The critical issue for these household members is the price of housing. Most often they cite rental prices as being too high, with many others citing high house purchase prices.

Most of those expressing housing need say that a 2 or 3 bedroom home is most suited to their need, though there is also a stated need for some 1 bedroom homes. The great majority wish to remain in St Erth or in a nearby area.

If the households responding to this survey are representative of all St Erth households, we can estimate that there are roughly 62 households in the parish (over 10%) containing someone who is currently in housing need.

Compared with other households, those containing someone in housing need are more likely to be families, more likely to be renting and more likely to be employed (less likely to be retired).

Green spaces

The survey respondents place a particularly high value on the riverbank and Green Lane as an area of accessible open green space. Indeed, almost three-quarters indicate use of the area on a daily or weekly basis.

Whilst not to the same extent, there is also a high value placed on Vicarage Gate Field and considerable use made of that area on a regular basis.

Various other open spaces are suggested as important and so would be worth consideration.

Community facilities

Residents place a particularly high value on St Erth’s village shop/post office. Four other facilities in the parish are rated very important by at least half of the survey respondents.

The village shop/post office is also regularly used by most respondents. Three other facilities are used on a fairly regular basis by a good proportion of the respondents.

Economic opportunities and commercial development

Roughly half of respondents are employed or self-employed on a full or part-time basis. Around a third are retired and around a tenth are unable to work or are unemployed.

Almost two-thirds of those employed travel out of St Erth to their place of work. Amongst the third who do work in St Erth, a majority say they sometimes work in the parish and sometimes elsewhere.

Some 38% of respondents consider it very important that more jobs are created in St Erth and another 39% consider this fairly important.

There is a clear majority who see the area by the A30 and railway station as an appropriate location for significant commercial development, but who see the village and countryside parts of the parish as inappropriate in this regard.

63


For travel in and around St Erth the car is the main mode of travel and most of that car use is on a daily basis. Walking is the other popular mode, with it again being a daily activity for most walkers. Public transport and bicycle use are at lower levels. The use of public transport tends to be on a more occasional basis. The main part of this report comments on interpreting these findings.

A variety of other issues were raised by survey respondents in a comments box. The most frequent comments were those about traffic, parking and road congestion. Others are briefly summarised in this report.

64


Introduction

St Erth Parish Council is creating a Neighbourhood Plan so that local people can help to shape future development and land use in the area. In due course a draft of the Plan will be subject to some checks by the local authority (Cornwall Council) and an independent Examination. It will then be put to a local vote or referendum. Assuming it passes these stages, the Plan will be ‘adopted’ by the local authority, making it a statutory part of the Cornwall Local Plan used to help decide planning applications in St Erth.

The Neighbourhood Plan itself will contain a number of detailed planning policies but, prior to developing them, St Erth Parish Council is considering the Plan’s objectives. They will be the key local issues which the Plan seeks to address. Setting objectives should ensure that the Plan is a focussed and manageable document, which commands local support. The Parish Council is soon going to consult residents and others with a local interest, to see whether they endorse the draft objectives (see the box below) or believe they should be altered.

The five draft objectives are:

To identify appropriate sites for future housing, giving particular weight to the traffic implications and constraints arising from the parish’s narrow roads, old bridge, on-street parking and lack of public transport.

To understand, plan and provide for locally generated housing needs, by managing development and encouraging a mix of sustainable housing types and tenures that will help residents remain within the area through different life stages.

To protect and enhance important areas of local green space (such as the riverbank and allotments) which are highly valued and much used by local people.

To retain buildings with a community focus (such as the ‘School Room’) which are a significant asset underpinning the vitality of the local community.

To ensure that any large scale, commercial and/or industrial developments (individually or cumulatively) are sympathetically sited and do not impact significantly on landscape character.

Alongside its consultation, the Parish Council wishes to gather information from local residents that can help to provide it with an evidence base. It is vital that any Neighbourhood Plan is built upon evidence about local need and local priorities. If Plan objectives and policies cannot demonstrate that they respond to some evidence of need they may be rejected at Examination. Similarly, if objectives and policies do not reflect local priorities they may be open to challenge and could fail at referendum.

St Erth Parish Council, therefore, recently ran a survey among local residents, to gather information which can help it demonstrate local priorities and needs. The information generated will be used:

65


To help test and revise or refine the draft objectives (alongside the upcoming consultation); To inform the subsequent development of draft policies for the Plan; and To help substantiate the Plan’s objectives and policies when it is tested and examined.

It will form a key component of the evidence base for the St Erth Neighbourhood Plan.

This report sets out the findings from the residents’ survey. It has been written by Brian Wilson Associates, who have assisted the Parish Council with the design and analysis of their survey. The external costs of running the survey were funded from a grant which St Erth Parish Council received from Locality.

The Survey

The survey was designed to ask some pertinent questions about each of the five draft objectives. It was deliberately kept reasonably short – 27 questions were asked – as longer survey forms can be off-putting and typically receive fewer responses. Residents were given 3 weeks in which to complete the survey, which ran from 14th November through to 5th December 2014.

The survey was made available in two formats. Residents could reply to an online version or they could complete a paper copy of the form. Paper copies could either be posted back (using a stamped addressed envelope provided) or they could be left for collection at the village shop or the Parish Council office. The survey was widely promoted by posting copies through households’ doors, by email notification (with a reminder) and on the Parish Council website, and by reminding local groups and individuals when opportunities arose.

Respondents were asked to send back one form per household, though the form encouraged them to discuss it with others in their household. The reason for this is that the second draft Plan objective – which is about meeting local housing needs – can only be assessed at a household level. (An option which was considered but rejected, because it would have caused confusion, was to run two surveys, one for households and one for individuals.) A copy of the survey form is appended to this report at page 23.

Some 241 households completed the survey, which can be considered a very good response level. In response to questions on the form, 4 of these said they lived outside the St Erth parish area and another 3 said that St Erth was not their main place of residence (it most likely being a second home). Another 6 skipped these two questions, so may or may not be primarily St Erth households.

Official figures from the 2011 Census show that there were 588 households within St Erth Parish. This indicates that almost 40% of St Erth households responded to the survey (the response rate).

The 4 responding from outside the parish boundary and the 3 for whom St Erth was not their main home still have valid views, if we assume they have some involvement or interest in the area (perhaps through employment or as second home owners). Moreover, they are few in number, making it unlikely their responses could alter the overall findings. This analysis, therefore, includes

66


all of the responses. The exception to this rule is where it estimates local housing need and where only those whose main place of residence is St Erth parish are included.

Finally, it is worth noting that a useful spin-off from the survey appears to be that is has sparked further interest in the work to create a Neighbourhood Plan. This can only be a useful by-product.

Technical notes:

Rows of percentages shown in this report may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding.

Although there were 241 replies to the questionnaire, some respondents skipped certain questions. The actual number responding to each question is shown throughout this report.

Like all surveys this one can be considered robust within given limits. The response rate means we can be statistically confident that results (percentages) which are near 90% or near 10% are accurate to within plus or minus 3%, compared with results to be expected if every household in St Erth had replied. In other words, a 90% survey figure would fall in the range 87% to 93% if all households had replied. We can equally say that survey results near 70% or near 30% are accurate to within plus or minus 4%, and results near 50% are accurate to within plus or minus 5%.

Housing Development

This section summarises findings from the survey questions that were asked about future housing development in the area. In common with all areas, it is almost certain that St Erth will need to accommodate some housing development over the proposed Plan period, which runs to 2030. There is, therefore, a draft Neighbourhood Plan objective about the location (or sites) for such development.

Residents were asked (question 3) for their views about the quantum of development, since the Cornwall Local Plan (which is still a draft) expects 47,500 new homes to be built over the period 2010 to 2030 and sites need to be found for them, mostly in and around towns. The Local Plan expects 350 of them to be within the three parishes of St Erth, Gwinear-Gwithian and Towednack (though it should be added that recent high development rates in this part of Cornwall mean sites are only still needed for fewer than half of this total).

The survey finds there is a fairly high level of concern about the level of development proposed by the Cornwall Local Plan. 69% of respondents are either very or quite concerned about the level of development proposed for the County (as a whole) and 76% are very or quite concerned about the level of development proposed for the three local parishes (including St Erth).

67


Q3. How concerned are you about each of the following? Percentages and numbers

Very concerned

Quite concerned

Not concerned

No opinion

Totals

47,500 new homes in Cornwall 40% 96

29% 70

24% 57

6% 15

100% 238

350 new homes in St Erth, Gwinear-Gwithian and Towednack

51% 122

25% 61

20% 49

4% 9

100% 241

The survey then asked (question 4) about potential benefits which might arise from new housing development at St Erth. From the responses we can conclude that various types of benefit are widely recognised. The most frequently noted is that it could help young people remain in the area. A clear majority also recognise four further benefits, namely: helping to secure the future of the primary school, helping older people remain in the area, supporting local businesses and services, and supporting community activities and clubs. A minority (around a third) recognise bringing new people into the area as a likely benefit of housing development.

Q4. How important do you feel new housing development in St Erth is for each of the following? (percentages)

50%

45%

38%

34%

27%

8%

37%

33%

43%

42%

39%

24%

8%

14%

15%

20%

26%

62%

5%

8%

5%

4%

8%

6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

To help young people remain in the area

To secure the future of the primary school

To help older people remain in the area

To support local businesses and services

To support community activities and clubs

To bring new people into the area

Potential benefits of new housing development (percentages)

Very Important Quite Important Not Important No opinion

The numbers which underlie the percentages in the above chart are shown in the table below.

Very important

Quite important

Not important

No opinion

Total

To bring new people into the area 18 58 147 15 238 To support community activities and clubs 65 92 61 19 237 To support local businesses and services 80 101 47 10 238

68


To help older people remain in the area 91 102 35 18 239 To secure the future of the primary school 106 79 33 18 236 To help young people remain in the area 118 89 19 12 238

At question 5 respondents were asked, conversely, about potential disbenefits that might result in St Erth from new housing development. All six of the issues listed in the question are concerns for a majority of residents, with between 79% and 90% being very or quite concerned about them. However, the top two concerns are the effect it may have on congestion/traffic/pedestrian safety and the effect on open countryside/biodiversity.

Q5. If new housing is built in St Erth, how concerned would you be about each of the following? (percentages)

78%

60%

58%

54%

52%

48%

12%

28%

25%

26%

27%

31%

6%

8%

12%

16%

17%

18%

3%

4%

5%

5%

5%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

The effect on congestion, road traffic and pedestrian…

The effect on open countryside and biodiversity

The effect on flooding and drainage

Having more housing built within the existing village

The demand on local services e.g. schools, health…

Whether it fits visually with existing building styles

Concerns about new housing in St Erth

Very Important Quite Important Not Important No opinion

The numbers which underlie the percentages in the above chart are shown in the table below.

Very important

Quite important

Not important

No opinion

Total

Whether it fits visually with existing building styles 114 75 43 8 240 The demand on local services e.g. schools, health services 125 64 40 11 240 Having more housing built within the existing village 128 62 38 11 239 The effect on flooding and drainage

140 61 28 12 241 The effect on open countryside and biodiversity 143 67 20 10 240 The effect on congestion, road traffic and pedestrian safety 188 29 15 8 240

69


At a broad level it could be said there is a choice, whether future housing development in the parish should take place on just one or two sizeable sites or it should take place on a greater number of small sites. Question 6 therefore asked for preferences. Views are fairly mixed about this, though the survey finds a small majority in favour of concentrating housing development at one or two larger sites.

Q6. If new housing is built in St Erth, which of these would you prefer? Percentage and numbers

Preferences That it is concentrated onto one or two larger sites 56%

130 That it is spread among a greater number of small sites 44%

101

The survey then sought views about priorities for the types of new housing that could be developed in St Erth parish. Question 7 asked about this in terms of housing size and its suitability for different types of households. Respondents see the top priority as being small family houses with 2 or 3 bedrooms. Two other types of housing are also viewed as priorities, if to not quite the same extent. They are small starter houses/apartments (1 bedroom) and houses adapted for older people with specific needs. These responses are consistent with the findings above about the perceived benefits of new housing development. That is to say, starter homes and small family houses are likely to help young people remain in the area, whilst adapted housing is likely to help older people remain in the area. For two thirds of respondents new large family houses (4+ bedrooms) are seen as a low priority.

Q7. What priority would you give to different types of new housing in St Erth? Percentages and numbers

High priority

Medium priority

Low priority

No opinion

Total

Smaller family houses (2 or 3 bedrooms)

47% 112

35% 84

13% 31

5% 11

100% 238

Small starter houses or apartments (1 bedroom)

39% 92

29% 68

27% 65

5% 13

100% 238

Houses adapted for older people with specific needs

33% 80

42% 100

19% 45

6% 15

100% 240

Houses that include some dedicated 9% 26% 51% 14% 100% workspace 21 61 123 34 239 Large family houses (4+ bedrooms) 8%

20 16% 38

68% 163

7% 17

100% 238

Question 8 again sought views for priorities about types of new housing that could be developed in St Erth parish, except this time the question asked about different housing tenures. Two types of tenure could be considered as top priorities. If measured in terms of those seeing it as a high priority, then housing to rent from a housing association comes out on top. If measured in terms of those seeing it as either a high or medium priority then mixed tenure housing (which can be part bought and part rented) comes out on top. There

70


is, however, a fair degree of support across different tenures. Only privately rented housing is considered by most to be a low priority.

Q8. What priority would you give to different tenures for new housing in St Erth? Percentages and numbers

High Medium Low No Total priority priority priority opinion

Houses to rent from a housing association

40% 95

26% 61

31% 73

4% 10

100% 239

Houses that can be part bought and part rented

30% 71

42% 100

21% 51

8% 18

100% 240

Houses to buy at a discount (for eligible groups)

27% 65

33% 78

31% 74

9% 22

100% 239

Houses to buy on the open market 24% 58

34% 82

37% 88

5% 12

100% 240

Houses that are self built 18% 40% 30% 11% 100% 44 96 72 27 239

Houses to rent from a private landlord 5% 11

23% 56

66% 158

6% 15

100% 240

Finally, in this section of the survey, respondents were asked (question 9) what priorities they attached to certain design features for new housing in St Erth. Two features clearly stand out above the others. That it should have off-street car parking is seen as the top priority. That it should be energy efficient housing is the other frequently prioritised feature. There is, though, a reasonable degree of prioritisation given to the other three features that were listed in the survey question, especially if we count both the high and medium priorities.

Q9. What priority would you attach to the following features for new housing developed in St Erth? Percentages and numbers

High priority

Medium priority

Low priority

No opinion

Total

It has off-street car parking 82% 197

13% 30

3% 6

3% 6

100% 239

It is energy efficient housing 76% 182

14% 33

7% 17

3% 7

100% 239

It is designed to match existing house styles

50% 119

25% 59

21% 49

5% 12

100% 239

It contains a mix of house types and sizes 39% 94

42% 100

14% 33

5% 12

100% 239

It has a reasonable sized garden 33% 80

46% 109

17% 41

4% 9

100% 239

Housing Needs

71


The survey was used to explore and generate better information about the level of housing need that exists in St Erth parish. Such information could be used as evidence to support Plan policies which favour particular types of housing within new developments.

Responses to question 10 found that 22% were from one person households (17% single females and 5% single males), a category which will include older people. Couples comprise another 36% of household type, a category which may comprise younger couples without children as well as older couples. A further 38% of respondents were families (15% with young children up to age 10, 11% with older children aged 11 to 18 and 12% with mainly grown up children aged 19 or more). The households with grown up children still living at home are of notable interest from a housing needs perspective, since some may not do so from choice.

Q10. How would you describe your current household? (239 responses)

36%

17% 15%

12%

11%

5% 4%

Type of household

Couple

Female living alone

Family with mainly young children (up to age 10)

Family with mainly grown up children (age 19+) living at home

Family with mainly older children (age 11 to 18)

Male living alone

Another type of household

72


Question 11 asked how long households had lived in St Erth. The majority of those responding had a long association with the area, having lived there for more than a decade. However, there is clearly also turnover within the population, since 8% had lived there for less than a year and another 18% for no more than five years.

Q11. How long have you lived in St Erth? (240 responses)

61%14%

18%

8%

Length of residence in St Erth

11 years or more

6 to 10 years

1 to 5 years

Less than a year

It is helpful to know the current housing tenure of those replying to the survey, since some may wish to be in a different tenure. As the pie chart below shows, a sizeable majority were home owners (either owning outright or with a mortgage). Most of the remainder comprise those renting from a private landlord or renting from a housing association. However, there are small numbers with other types of tenure, including those in tied accommodation and in mixed tenure housing.

73


Q12. What is the tenure of your current home? (239 responses)

12%

14%

69%

2% 2% 2%Tenure of current home

Rented from a housing association

Rented from a private landlord

Owner occupied (either owned outright or with a mortgage)

Other

Tied accommodation that comes with a job

Shared ownership (part owned and part rented)

Approaching three quarters of respondents say that no-one in their household has had a recent problem finding suitable accommodation in St Erth. However, 11% report a current problem and a further 8% report a recent problem. There are others again who anticipate that they may face such a problem within the next five years. Answers to question 13 can therefore be said to indicate a fair degree of local housing need.

Q13. Have you or any member of your household (even if they don’t live with you now) had a recent problem finding suitable accommodation in the parish?

% no. No 73 171 Yes, currently 11 27 Yes, within the last year or so 8 19 No, but I anticipate a problem within the next five years 8 18 Totals 100 235

Questions 14 to 16 explore in more detail the nature of the housing problems that are faced by some St Erth households. One asks about the nature of the problems. Overwhelmingly, it is price which is stated as the key issue. Moreover, the most common problem is the lack of affordable housing for rent, with the lack of affordable housing to buy being a secondary (if still important) problem. This would seem to indicate a need for more social housing which can be rented from a housing association or registered provider. It is worth adding that this question did not identify any current lack of special needs housing.

74


Q14. If you answered yes at Q13, what is the nature of the problem finding suitable accommodation? (54 respondents who gave 60 reasons between them)

35

18

5

2

0

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Lack of houses to rent at an affordable price

Lack of houses to buy at an affordable price

Lack of small enough houses

Lack of large enough houses

Some other problem

Lack of houses suitable for special needs eg limited mobility

Nature of problem finding suitable accomodation, (numbers)

Question 15 then asked what size of property would realistically suit those with a housing need. Most of the answers given express a need for medium-sized properties which have 2 or 3 bedrooms. There is also some stated need for small (1 bedroom) properties, but almost no need for large properties. Whilst this is self-assessed, the answers provide little obvious evidence that respondents have over-stated the size of properties needed, and they are therefore considered a useful guide.

Q15. If you answered yes at Q13, what size of property would realistically suit the person or people with a problem finding suitable accommodation? (53 respondents gave 56 answers)

23

22

10

1

0 5 10 15 20 25

Two bedroom property

Three bedroom property

One bedroom property

Four bedrooms or more property

Size of property that would be suitable to meet needs (numbers)

Finally, the survey (question 16) asked if the people with housing needs would be prepared to move away from St Erth in order to find suitable housing. Their answers may well reflect a complex mix of factors, including job location, whether they have children in local schools and the extent of local ties with family and friends. A small number are prepared to move

75


further away. However, the great majority wish either to stay in St Erth or to be no further away than a nearby area. In the bulk of cases, the expressed housing need is therefore very definitely local.

Q16. If you answered yes at Q13, would the person or people with the problem be happy to move outside St Erth parish to find suitable accommodation?

Numbers Yes, but only to other nearby areas 25 No, they wouldn’t 21 Yes, including to areas further away 4 Don't know 3 Total 53

There are 224 survey responses which provide particular evidence of housing need in St Erth. This differs from the total of 241 survey responses used in the rest of the report, because it excludes: 4 from outside the parish; 3 whose St Erth home is not their main place of residence; 6 who skipped these questions (so did not confirm their main residence being St Erth); and 4 more who skipped the specific question whether their household contains any housing need. These 224 responses represent roughly 38% of all St Erth households. If they are a representative sample, survey numbers can be multiplied by 2.6 to give rough estimates for the whole parish.

Within the 224 responses there are 60 who indicated that someone in their household was, is or will be unable to find suitable accommodation within the parish. This divides into: 24 who currently have such a housing need (existing need); 18 who faced such a housing need during the past year or so (recent need); and 18 who expect a housing need to arise within the next five years (future need).

Scaled up (or 24 multiplied by 2.6) this indicates that there is an ‘existing’ housing need of roughly 62 within the parish. This represents over 10% of households. Other figures quoted in this section could similarly be scaled up to give estimated numbers for the whole parish.

Those who had a need within the last year or so have presumably resolved their difficulty in one way or another, though in certain cases that may be by moving out of the parish and some may wish to move back, given the opportunity. Those with a future need are also of interest from a Neighbourhood Plan perspective, though that survey question response is inevitably based upon expectation rather than experience. There may be others again who live outside the parish but have some justifiable reason for wanting to live there e.g. nearby employment. It is fair to say that the concept of local housing need is a complex one.

Indeed, the survey allows us to assess whether those from St Erth in housing need are willing to move away from the parish in order to find suitable accommodation. As the table below shows, those in current need are typically reluctant to move elsewhere, though a third would go to nearby locations. Figures for those in recent need lend weight to the view that many have moved away. Many with a future need do not yet hold a view or didn’t state one.

76


Willingness to move among those in housing need (numbers) Current need Recent need Future need All needs

Want to stay within St Erth

14 4 2 20

Willing to move nearby

8 11 4 23

Willing to move further away

1 2 0 3

Don’t know or didn’t answer

1 1 12 14

Column totals 24 18 18 60

The survey also allows us to find out a bit more about the households where someone had, has or is expecting a housing need. For example, we can say that: 33 (out of 60) have lived in St Erth for more than a decade and only 5 have arrived within the

last year. This is a similar profile to that for all the survey respondents; This group spans every type of household (singles, couples, families and other). However, 32

(out of 60) are family households and 13 of these have grown up children living at home. Families and especially those with grown up children are more likely to have housing need than the other survey respondents;

Assessing their employment status is tricky, as the person in housing need may not be the person completing the survey form. With that caveat, 32 (out of 60) are employed or self employed (full or part time). Those in housing need are more likely to be employed and less likely to be retired than are other survey respondents;

17 (out of 60) are renting from a private landlord and 15 are renting from a housing association. Households with housing need are more likely to be renting than are other survey respondents.

A previous chart (for Q14) showed the nature of the housing difficulties faced. If the data is further disaggregated (see table below) we find that current housing need is particularly focussed around a lack of affordable rental property. The nature of expected future need is harder to discern, since many in this sub-group did not answer the question, perhaps unsure what difficulty they might face.

Nature of difficulties faced by those in housing need (numbers) Current need Recent need

(last year or so) Future need (next five years)

All needs

Rent affordable 17 11 3 31

Buy affordable 5 7 4 16

Small enough 2 1 1 4

Big enough 2 0 0 2

Didn’t answer question

0 0 11 11

77


Column totals 26 19 19 64

Footnote: column totals add to more than 24, 18, 18 and 60 respectively, because a few survey respondents cited more than one difficulty.

Similarly, a previous chart in this report (Q15) showed the size of property sought by those in housing need. Further disaggregation of this information (see table below) finds that those with a current need are most likely to be seeking a three bedroom property. That said, half of those with a current need are seeking small (one or two bedroom) properties. Once again, non-responses make it hard to discern what would meet expected future needs.

Type of dwelling sought by those in housing need (numbers) Current need Recent need

(last year or so) Future need (next five years)

All needs

One bedroom 7 1 0 8

Two bedroom 5 9 5 19

Three bedroom 11 7 2 20

Four bedrooms or more

1 0 0 1

Didn’t answer question

1 1 11 13

Column totals 25 18 18 61 Footnote: column totals add to more than 24, 18, 18 and 60 respectively, because a few survey respondents cited more than one size of property as sought.

It is recommended that this survey-based information is used alongside other relevant data sources, such as the local authority’s Homechoice waiting list, if gauging housing needs for Neighbourhood Plan purposes.

Green Space

The survey asked about the value and use of local green spaces, since they may contribute significantly to the area’s quality of life. It could be that St Erth Parish Council will seek to use neighbourhood planning to protect and/or enhance its green spaces.

Responses to question 17 find that St Erth households place a particularly high value on the riverbank and Green Lane area as open green space which they can enjoy. A majority also consider that Vicarage Gate Field is very important for the same reason.

78


Q17. How important do you consider each of the following places in St Erth to be as areas which can be enjoyed as open green (unbuilt) space? (percentage and numbers)

Very important

Fairly important

Not important

No opinion

Total

The riverbank/Green Lane 90% 217

6% 14

1% 3

3% 7

100% 241

Vicarage Gate Field 55% 130

22% 53

16% 37

8% 18

100% 238

Moreover, the survey (question 18) shows that the riverbank and Green Lane is both widely and frequently used by local people. Some 41% say they use it daily and another 32% use it weekly. Although Vicarage Gate Field is not as widely or frequently used, there are still 30% of respondents indicating either daily or weekly use of this site.

Q18. How often do you or your family visit each of the following open green (unbuilt) spaces in St Erth? (percentage and numbers)

Daily Weekly Monthly Never/ hardly ever Total

The riverbank/Green Lane 41% 99

32% 76

15% 35

13% 30

100% 240

Vicarage Gate Field 13% 30

17% 40

21% 50

50% 118

100% 238

Question 19 asked if there were any other open green spaces in St Erth that respondents or their families especially valued and would like to see protected. This elicited 92 responses – some of a general nature and some naming specific sites – which the Parish Council will no doubt wish to review. Open areas which are named fairly often include those at or near Battery Mill, Chenhalls Road and Boscarnek.

Community Facilities

To an extent, the life of any settlement is determined by the availability of facilities, for its residents and businesses. They can offer ready physical access to goods and services, venues for groups and associations to meet, and the sense of a fully functioning community. They can reduce the need for travel further afield. The planning system recognises that the presence of facilities makes settlements more sustainable and it often seeks to protect or enhance them.

Survey respondents were asked how important they considered various facilities at St Erth parish to be. As the table below shows, the village shop/post office is particularly highly valued, with 92% considering it to be very important. Five of the six facilities that were mentioned in this question are considered to be very important by at least half of those who replied.

79


Q20. How important do you consider each of the following St Erth facilities and services to be to the local community? (percentages and numbers)

Very important

Fairly important

Not important

No opinion

Total

The Old School Room 57% 136

23% 55

11% 25

9% 21

100% 237

Village shop/post office 92% 219

4% 10

2% 5

2% 5

100% 239

Pubs 63% 151

22% 52

10% 24

5% 11

100% 238

Youth club 57% 136

29% 68

6% 15

7% 17

100% 236

Chapel Hall 61% 145

25% 58

7% 16

7% 17

100% 236

Vestry Rooms, Fore Street 38% 91

32% 75

18% 43

12% 28

100% 237

The following question asked respondents how often they or their family use these same facilities in St Erth. The answers similarly shows a very high level of use of the village shop/post office, with around half citing daily use and most of the remainder weekly use. St Erth pubs, the Chapel Hall and (to a lesser extent) the Old School Room are all facilities which are used either weekly or monthly by a good proportion of respondents. It is unsurprising that the Youth Club is used be fewer people, given that it targets a particular age cohort.

Q21. How often do you or your family use each of the following St Erth facilities and services? (percentages and numbers)

Daily Weekly Monthly Never / hardly ever Total

The Old School Room 0% 0

16% 38

17% 41

67% 157

100% 236

Village shop/post office 51% 121

29% 69

8% 20

12% 28

100% 238

Pubs 2% 5

25% 60

27% 63

46% 109

100% 237

Youth club <1% 1

6% 14

3% 6

91% 215

% 236

Chapel Hall 1% 3

32% 76

17% 41

49% 115

100% 235

Vestry Rooms, Fore Street 0% 0

10% 23

12% 29

78% 185

100% 237

Economic Opportunities and Commercial Development

It is likely that many residents will want to encourage employment opportunities within the local area (and perhaps within St Erth itself). Yet at the same time there can be concerns

80


about certain types of commercial development and their social or environmental impacts. The planning system must seek to balance such considerations.

At question 22 the survey asked respondents about their current employment status. 36% said they are employed or self-employed on a full-time basis, whilst another 13% said they are employed or self-employed on a part-time basis. Around a third of respondents are now retired. A tenth said they are unable to work or are unemployed. There are just a small number of others, such as carers and students. It may be interesting to compare this with 2011 Census data for the parish to see how representative this is of the total adult population.

Q22. What is your current employment situation? (Based on 241 responses)

36%

32%

13%

10%

5%

2%

1%

0.4%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Employed or self employed, full-time

Retired

Employed or self employed, part-time

Unable to work or unemployed

None of the above

Looking after the home or acting as a carer

Temporary or seasonal work

Student

Current employment status

The next question asked whether people’s current employment was in St Erth parish or elsewhere. Taking only those who are employed, slightly over a third of them worked within St Erth, though most of these said that they sometimes worked in the parish rather than always working there. This could reflect people having home-working arrangements with their employers or that they have mobile jobs (including tradesmen) or that they have more than one job. Nonetheless, almost two-thirds said they always travelled to employment outside of the parish.

81


Q23. If you are currently employed, do you work within St Erth parish? (Based on 241 responses)

50%

32%

11%

7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

This question does not apply to me/I am not employed

No, I always travel to work outside St Erth parish

Yes, I sometimes work within St Erth parish

Yes, I always work within St Erth parish

Do you work within St Erth parish?

Creating further job opportunities in the parish is generally viewed as being of some importance, with 39% rating it very important and another 38% rating it fairly important. That it isn’t rated higher still may reflect the high number of retired respondents and could also reflect the relative proximity of St Erth to other employment centres.

Q24. How important do you think it is to create extra job opportunities in St Erth parish? (percentages and numbers)

Very important Fairly important Not important Total

Responses 39% 93

38% 90

23% 56

100% 239

Countryside locations are seen as inappropriate for significant commercial or business development by a large majority (question 25). There is also a significant majority (two thirds) who view the village of St Erth as being an inappropriate location. In contrast 61% say that the area by the A30 and railway station is very appropriate for significant commercial development and only 8% consider that location to be inappropriate. This essentially supports the area’s current pattern of commercial development and, indeed, could be seen as broadly in line with draft Cornwall Local Plan policy.

82


Q25. How appropriate do you consider each of the following locations within St Erth parish would be for significant commercial (business) developments? (percentages and numbers)

Very appropriate

Fairly appropriate

Inappropriate No opinion Total

The village of St Erth 8% 19

16% 38

66% 156

10% 23

100% 236

By the A30/railway station

61% 145

27% 65

8% 19

4% 10

100% 239

Countryside areas 3% 6

14% 34

75% 176

8% 19

100% 235

Finally, the survey enquired (question 26) about the forms of transport that people used when travelling in and around the area. Perhaps unsurprisingly, use of a car is high. 91% of car users are daily users. Most of those who walk (68%) are similarly walking on a daily basis. Use of public transport is more occasional, with monthly use being the most common answer given.

The apparent relatively low level of public transport use could likely evidence the fact that the village minibus service, the only public transport available in the village itself, is not seen as adequate for accessing regular work/school/college timescales, with the result that some would-be users switch to other means. (This viewpoint appears to be supported by comments made by those completing the survey form.) It is also possible that some public transport users did not tick that box because of the way they interpreted the survey question i.e. they did not see a bus journey to Hayle, Marazion or Penzance as being travel that was “in and around the St Erth area”.

Q26. Which forms of transport do you typically use when travelling in and around the St Erth area? (percentages and numbers, though percentages not shown where numbers very small)

Daily use Weekly use Monthly use Totals Own (or company) car or van

91% 200

7% 15

2% 4

100% 219

Motorcycle 2 3 5 10 Public transport e.g. bus, taxi

22% 14

34% 22

45% 29

100% 65

Bicycle 31% 18

45% 26

24% 14

100% 58

68% 27% 5% 100% Walking 119 48 9 176 Mobility scooter or wheelchair 3 2 3 8

Respondents were given the opportunity to leave other comments at the end of the survey form and 92 respondents took the opportunity to do so. Those comments are inevitably varied and are not presented in detail here, but they have been captured for consideration

83


by the Parish Council as it takes forward its neighbourhood planning and other work. They include a need: To upgrade and/or modernise some community facilities; For footpaths to be made safer and kept in better repair; For more affordable housing, and in particular that it should go to local people; To upgrade infrastructure if more housing is to take place (including roads and

sewers); To retain the rural village scale and feel of St Erth; To address traffic, parking and congestion issues, especially parking on-street and

pavements. This issue attracted the most comments; To take more account of residents’ views when considering planning applications; To improve the bus service, which is inadequate to reach jobs and services, and

which isolates older people; and To restrict the spread of solar farms on agricultural land.

84


Appendix – Copy of the St Erth (Cornwall) Residents Survey form

The survey form starts on the next page.

85


St Erth Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032

Our draft Neighbourhood Plan has now reached an important milestone - we need to ask if you agree with what it says.

What do you think of the work that has been done to reflect your ideas and concerns about our community’s future and how St Erth might evolve over the next 15 years? The draft Plan deals with important matters like new homes, businesses and industrial units. It says where those buildings should go, what they should look like and what infrastructure, such as roads and lighting, should be provided.

How do I comment on the Plan? Monday 22 August 2016 is the start date for our formal consultation with you, local businesses and stakeholders, and it will run until Friday 7 October 2016.

86


Community Events We’ve arranged community events around the parish during August and September, when you’ll have the opportunity to discuss the Objectives and the Policies with the Plan team.

So please join us at:

Old School Room, St Hilary: Wednesday 24 August 5pm to 7.30pm

Smugglers Inn, St Erth Praze: Wednesday 31 August 5pm to 7.30pm

Frankie’s Diner, St Erth Industrial Estate: Wednesday 7 September 4.30pm to 7pm

Chapel Hall, St Erth: Saturday 10 September 2pm to 4.30pm and Thursday 22 September: 6pm to 8.30pm

If I can’t attend these events, how else can I comment? You can let us know your views by completing the feedback form that comes with the summary document being delivered to every household in the parish or by completing the same feedback form online at

www.sterth-pc.gov.uk/np

If you complete the paper version of the feedback form Freepost it back to us using the envelope provided; or drop it in the box provided in the Shop/Post Office in Chapel Hill, St Erth; or post it through the letter box at 25 Fore Street, St Erth.

You can read and download the full draft Plan at www.sterth-pc.gov.uk

request a copy on our answerphone

01736 757575

or contact us through our Facebook page.

The deadline for your comments is 7 October 2016, so there is time to reflect and gather your thoughts - we promise to consider every response which will help us to improve the Plan.

We look forward to hearing from you!

87

https://sterth-pc.gov.uk/np/?doing_wp_cron=1573056626.3306519985198974609375

https://sterth-pc.gov.uk/?doing_wp_cron=1573056643.6111440658569335937500


88


89


90


91


92


93


94


95


96


97


98


99


100


101



Submission on the Community Governance Review for Cornwall 2019

Please complete and return this form with any accompanying papers to Cornwall Council, by email or post, no later than noon 17 July 2019.

Email: [email protected]

Postal address: Community Governance Review, Cornwall Council, Room 3E.01, County Hall, Treyew Road, Truro, TR1 3AY

1. Please state the area or Parish to which this submission relates:

The parishes of St Erth and Ludgvan

2. Is this submission from:

St Erth Parish Council

3. Please indicate whether this submission relates to a change or no change:

Change

4. Submission proposal:

Change to parish boundary

5. Details of proposal(s):

(N.B. All maps with this submission are based on the Cornwall Council Interactive Online Mapping Service and so parish boundaries are assumed to be correctly marked.)

This submission seeks to realign the boundaries between the parishes of St Erth and Ludgvan along the western approach to the St Erth Roundabout (grid ref SW5441636149), adapting both the Ludgvan parish eastern boundary and the St Erth parish northern boundary, moving from a north/south orientation (along the A30) to an east/west orientation (river at the bottom of the Canons Town Valley, adjacent to Heather Lane.

See Map 1 for an orientation map of existing St Erth and Ludgvan boundary.

102

mailto:[email protected]


See Map 2 for an overview of proposed boundary changes.

Submission part 1: To combine the community of Rose-an-Grouse within the St Erth parish boundary, to include the households opposite the St Erth Multi-Modal Hub (the Hub) and the St Erth Industrial Estate.

Submission part 2: To combine the Canons Town community within the Ludgvan parish boundary, using the river at the bottom of the Canons Town Valley (adjacent to Heather Lane and opposite Arch Lane) as the main dividing point.

Reasons for change + an explanation why identities and interests of the community will be effective and convenient

St Erth Parish Council suggests there are four compelling reasons for the proposed changes:

1. To strengthen community cohesion

Historically, the A30 has been the principal man-made boundary between the parishes of St Erth and Ludgvan.

Since the restructuring of local government in 1974, several new properties have been built along this part of the boundary and when added to the additional residential and industrial development targets set out in the Cornwall Local Plan (Community Network Area of Hayle and St Ives) to 2030, both the current (and future) identity and interests of those communities are, and will become, more ineffective and inconvenient.

The community in this area is, therefore, misserved by the existing configuration.

Two areas in particular require realignment:

a) Rose-an-Grouse (see Map 3 for details of the proposed Rose-an-Grouse boundary)

The Rose-an-Grouse community is mainly located to the south and east/west of the A30 junction with Station Approach and the Hub.

Households north of the A30 orientate as a community to the main Rose-an-Grouse/St Erth community to the south and not to the parish of Ludgvan, where the major concentration of

103


population is at some distance to the west.

The main issues and operations that currently affect the Rose-an-Grouse community are related to: the St Erth Roundabout; the Hub; the St Erth Industrial Estate; the St Erth Waste Transfer Station and Recycling Centre; and the SWW Waste Water Treatment Works – all of which are located within the parish of St Erth.

Over many years, St Erth Parish Council has naturally taken the lead role in representing its parishioners’ interests in these issues and operations which has taken the form of: targeted support to eleven households adversely affected directly by the construction of the Hub; all households in Rose-an-Grouse (in both parishes) during the planning application process for the construction of a Heliport in 2012; has long-established liaison groups and regular dialogue with SUEZ and SWW over both operational and more strategic matters.

The most current dialogue, with Derek Thomas MP and Cornwall Council, concerns improvements to the bus services using/not using the Hub and to other destinations, which also affects the Rose-an-Grouse community in the parish of Ludgvan but who are not involved in those discussions.

It is regrettable that the Rose-an-Grouse community in the parish of Ludgvan, is not part of these representation arrangements, and in terms of any development proposals by those operators, would not benefit from protection by the established St Erth Neighbourhood Plan which was adopted more than 12 months ago.

St Erth Parish Council justifiably believes, therefore, that the interests of the Rose-an-Grouse community, currently within the parish of Ludgvan, would be best served if they were included within a new boundary for the parish of St Erth.

There is no doubt that the features of St Erth railway station, St Erth Hub, St Erth Industrial Estate, St Erth Roundabout and St Erth Services all absolutely identify with the parish of St Erth and this review represents a clear opportunity to bring clarity and unity for the community together.

Looking ahead, significant issues are likely to arise from: the development of land allocated for industrial use (see Map 4 for land allocated for industrial use proposed within H-E2); dualling of the A30; improvements to the St Erth Roundabout; and further expansion of the Hub. This gives St Erth Parish Council good reason to believe that the Rose-an-Grouse community would be best served by being included within a new parish boundary for St Erth.

b) Canons Town (see Map 5 for details of the proposed Canons Town boundary)

Since the restructuring of local government in 1974, several new properties have been built in

104


the Canons Town/Heather Lane area.

The main Canons Town community is located to the north of the A30 with linear development of some 11 properties on the south side of the A30 along Canons Town Hill. Within this line of 11 properties are 2 properties which form an ‘island’ as they are within the parish of St Erth with the remaining 9 properties in the parish of Ludgvan.

St Erth Parish Council believes that these 2 properties are likely to relate more closely to the Canons Town community, currently located within the parish of Ludgvan.

St Erth Parish Council proposes two options in this respect:

Option 1 - the preferred option - all of the properties within Canons Town be transferred into the parish of St Erth because that whole community is affected by the current and future A30 traffic issues (see map 10 for reference).

We are mindful, however, that such a transfer could create a potential difficulty with the Councillor/Elector ratio figures agreed by the recent BCE Review of the Cornwall Council Electoral Divisions – although that may not prove to be the case when investigated.

Option 2 - the second choice – the two properties identified, from the south of the A30 and currently within the parish of St Erth, be transferred within a new boundary for the parish of Ludgvan.

The issues that affect the Rose-an-Grouse community (with the exception of the A30 traffic issues) do not affect the Canons Town community and so it is suggested that the natural boundary, between the Canons Town community and the Rose-an-Grouse community becomes the bottom of the valley east of Canons Town, where the river to the north and Arch Lane to the south provide a natural boundary.

2. Allocation of land within Cornwall Council’s Sites Allocation Development Plan Document (DPD) for industrial use

As supplementary planning guidance to the Cornwall Local Plan, land has been allocated for industrial use adjacent to the St Erth Roundabout (see Map 4 for land allocated for industrial use proposed within H-E2).

As the parish of St Erth already contains the St Erth Industrial Estate, St Erth Parish Council proposes that this recently allocated industrial land (H-E2) should be included within a new boundary for the parish of St Erth.

105


By doing so, both industrial sites can be managed more efficiently and effectively, ensuring the complimentary and sustainable economic growth of facilities, services and employment opportunities. This proposal has already been agreed by Cornwall Council, in Neighbourhood Planning terms, during the development process of the St Erth Neighbourhood Plan. The Plan was endorsed by the Independent Examiner, supported by the St Erth community when it approved the Plan at Referendum and no objections to the Plan were raised by Ludgvan Parish Council during the consultation period.

The relevant policy in the Neighbourhood Plan (POLICY ED 1 – Support of Employment) says:

“In addition, proposals for development of larger employment sites well related to the Industrial Estate, as defined on Map 6, for industrial and business uses defined in use classes B1, B2 and B8 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) must provide for:

i. safe access to and from the site supported by a suitable assessment of traffic impact and mitigation measures where appropriate;

ii. the collection and disposal of surface water that will ensure the protection of the Hayle Estuary and Carrack Gladden SSSI (Map 4);

iii. the retention of existing boundary trees and hedges as part of a comprehensive landscaping and tree planting scheme.”

3. St Erth Roundabout and the Hub

The St Erth Roundabout has been over-capacity for a number of years and is a strategically important junction for St Ives and Hayle. Highways England is currently measuring traffic flow to provide an evidence base to support funding applications to central government for improvement works to this Roundabout.

The western approach to this Roundabout, is currently served by two parishes. It is St Erth Parish Council’s belief that the interests of the whole community in this area, would be best served by being within the parish of St Erth so that its well-being would be looked after by one representative body.

The Hub has increased car parking capacity to 520 + spaces, (with the ability for an overflow car park of a further 250 + spaces). This has already resulted in an increased volume of traffic along the A30 necessitating a new traffic-light controlled junction with Station Approach.

This increase equally affects households to the north and south of the A30 and so the same logic and opportunity applies for the whole community in this area to have their interests safeguarded by being within a new boundary for the parish of St Erth.

106


4. Proposed bypass

It has long been recognised that stretches of the current A30 are over capacity (See Maps 6 and 7 for South West Peninsula Route Strategy maps highlighting issues - Highways England 2017 report). There is local community pressure (the A30 Action Group) for a new A30 bypass between the St Erth Roundabout and the Newtown Roundabout and although no decisions have yet been taken about the preferred route, there is high-level political will for change in this respect.

The current preferred route shown in blue (See Map 8 for proposed A30 Dual Carriageway Bypass from St Erth Roundabout to Newtown Roundabout) or any other route starting from the St Erth Roundabout, will impact the area significantly, including the new Hub, St Erth Industrial Estate, the land allocated for industrial use (H-E2) and surrounding residential areas.

Again, households that are located along any proposed route in this area, would have their interests and views best served and by a single representative body within the parish of St Erth.

Our proposed boundary change includes the area between Canons Town and the St Erth Roundabout within one parish boundary, as the most likely route of the proposed bypass would track between that Roundabout and then south of Canons Town along the valley, before connecting to the Newtown Roundabout, following the railway line.

We have also noted that the new Cornwall Electoral Division for Long Rock, Marazion and St Erth does not include the parish of Ludgvan but does include areas between the St Erth and Long Rock communities.

Suggestions for other parishes and clarification

● The triangle between Nut Lane (road going north to St Ives from the St Erth Roundabout) and the B3301 going east towards the Hayle Causeway, and the Hayle Estuary (see highlighted area on Map 9). This area appears to be more aligned as a community towards Lelant, Carbis Bay and St Ives to the north and so we respectfully suggest that a discussion about that opportunity could be held between St Ives Town Council and Ludgvan Parish Council.

● St Erth Parish Council is only proposing that its parish includes the land allocated (H-E2 of the Cornwall Council’s Sites Allocation Development Plan Document (DPD) for industrial use) for a possible new industrial use.

● The properties at the mini Roundabout opposite the entrance to H Tempest Limited, is not included. (See Map 9 for reference)

107


(please attach additional pages as required)

6. Evidence in support of submission: Public consultation

You will see from the notes of the meeting held on 11 June (attached) that despite the lack of detail in the draft submission proposed by Ludgvan Parish Council, it was agreed that Ludgvan Parish Council would be requested to supply St Erth Parish Council with accurate maps detailing where the proposed boundary line could be drawn, clearly showing what was included and what was not, and with an explanation of the rationale for doing so.

It was also agreed by Ludgvan Parish Council and St Erth Parish Council that no communication would take place with the residents of the properties that might be included in a more detailed proposal until both councils had discussed the best way of approaching the community, should a proposal be formulated.

St Erth Parish Council was keen to work with Ludgvan Parish Council by holding meetings and dialogue to address some of the anomalies that had evolved over time in the communities of Canons Town and Rose-an-Grouse. Both Council’s acknowledge that there are potential gains for the communities and have offered different solutions in their submissions.

(It is hoped that Cornwall Council will acknowledge that parish councils have received some mixed messages concerning the process and timing of consultation with the public and especially about a Parish Council’s intention to consult residents of an adjoining parish, hence our agreement to discuss with Ludgvan Parish Council the best way to approach this before doing so).

Ordnance survey base maps showing proposed new boundaries

See Map 2 for an overview of proposed boundary changes.

Information on the number of dwellings and other significant buildings affected

Parish Number of dwellings and other significant buildings affected

St Erth Gain of approx. 22 households as shown in Map 3

Loss of approx. 2 households as show in Map 5

Ludgvan Gain of approx. 2 households as shown in Map 5

Plus a small Pumping Station at Grid Ref SW5353535312

Loss of approx. 22 households as show in Map 3

108


(N.B. exact household numbers affected are difficult to determine from Cornwall Council’s Online Interactive Mapping facility, as parish boundaries can pass through properties. The figures shown above represent our best efforts to provide accurate data).

Discussions carried out with affected parishes.

Meeting Date Issues Discussed Result/Action

11 June 2019 in St Erth

draft submission from Ludgvan see notes attached

19 June 2019 in Ludgvan

draft submission from Ludgvan No notes produced by Ludgvan Parish Council which hosted the

meeting

Resident Consultation Details

See notes of meeting held on 11 June 2019 attached and section above on Public Consultation.

(please attach additional pages as required)

7. List of attachments:

1. Notes of meeting held on 11 June; and

2. Email from St Erth Parish Council Clerk to Ludgvan Parish Council Clerk dated 12 June.

109


Map 1: Orientation map of existing St Erth and Ludgvan boundary

Figure 1: Orientation map of existing St Erth and Ludgvan boundary

110


Map 2: Overview of proposed boundary changes

Figure 2: Overview of proposed boundary changes

111


Map 3: Proposed Rose-an-Grouse Boundary – Detailed Map

Figure 3: Proposed Rose-an-Grouse Boundary – Detailed Map

112


Map 4: Map of land allocated for industrial use proposed within H-E2

Figure 4: Map of land allocated for industrial use proposed within H-E2

113


Map 5: Proposed New Cannons Town Boundary - Detailed Map

Figure 5: Proposed New Cannons Town Boundary - Detailed Map

114


Map 6: Highways England South West Peninsula Route Strategy – key challenges map

Figure 6: Highways England South West Peninsula Route Strategy – key challanges map

Map 7: Highways England South West Peninsula Route Strategy – A30 Penzance to Camborne map

Figure 7: Highways England South West Peninsula Route Strategy – A30 Penzance to Camborne map

From the Highways England South West Peninsula Route Strategy Document – March 2017

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file /600337/South_West_Peninsula_Final.pdf

115

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/600337/South_West_Peninsula_Final.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/600337/South_West_Peninsula_Final.pdf


Map 8: Map of proposed A30 Dual Carriageway Bypass from St Erth to Newtown

Figure 8: Map of proposed A30 Dual Carriageway Bypass from St Erth to Newtown

116


Map 9: Current Proposed A30 Bypass and potential stranded area

Figure 9: Current Proposed A30 Bypass and potential stranded area

117


Map 10: Canons Town and Rose-an-Grouse alternative option

Figure 10: Canons Town and Rose-an-Grouse alternative option

118


Notes of a meeting of the St Erth Parish Council Governance Review Working Group with invited guests held on 11 June 2019, commencing at 7.00pm, in the Vestry Rooms, Fore Street, St Erth.

Present:

St Erth Parish Council (SEPC)

Councillor Kevin Buzza – Chairman

Councillor Ted Taylor – Vice-Chairman

Councillor Angelo Spencer-Smith – Councillor

Pete Rylett – Parish Clerk

Hayle Town Council (HTC)

Councillor Clive Polkinghorne – Mayor

Ellie Giggal – Town Clerk

Gwinear-Gwithian Parish Council (GGPC)

Councillor Mike Smith

Ludgvan Parish Council (LPC)

Councillor Roy Mann – Chairman

Cornwall Council (CC)

Vanessa Luckwell – Hayle and St Ives Community Network Manager

1. Chairman’s welcome

Councillor Buzza welcomed all those present and confirmed that the principal purpose of the meeting was for the guest councils to outline their governance review proposals, which affected the St Erth parish, followed by discussion and questions/answers.

As a general point, Councillor Buzza expressed his personal disappointment that informal dialogue between councils had not started much earlier in the process, despite an attempt to do so between the Clerks and Community Network Manager.

119


Nevertheless, it was likely that following this meeting, there would be a need for meetings of the four councils to continue the dialogue which had started tonight, with the aspiration of working together on the proposals.

2. GGPC

(SEPC received GGPC ‘s proposal on 21 May.)

Councillor Smith stated that in all proposals being made by GGPC, its guiding principle was “community identity” i.e. where people felt they belonged, and attempting to resolve geographical anomalies where some communities were split.

GGPC did not want to be seen as expansionist and would try to end up as “breaking even” in terms of the overall number of properties in its parish following the changes.

GGPC had agreed the first version of its proposals and was now consulting the councils affected. Following this, GGPC would meet on 24 June to sign off its proposal and then start consulting the residents/communities affected.

As part of its consideration, GGPC had considered where planning applications had been made in the recent past to gain a picture of the impact.

Referring to the map, Councillor Smith suggested that the two properties in the St Erth parish appeared to have more in common with the Fraddam community, hence the proposal to include them within a new GGPC boundary.

Councillor Buzza, thanked Councillor Smith for the explanation but asked him to consider the close relationship SEPC had developed with the residents of those two properties during the protracted planning and planning appeals processes concerning Mably Solar Farm.

SEPC had invested considerable resources to oppose those applications and appeals and had, through those efforts, safeguarded the wellbeing of those residents.

Councillor Buzza said that GGPC could not have been expected to recognise that such a consideration existed by simply looking at a map.

In answer to questions about process, Councillor Smith explained that GGPC would review all of the interactions they had throughout the process and were keeping CC informed along the way, especially as it was CC which would make the final decision.

Councillor Smith was asked that, bearing in mind GGPC’s guiding principle of “community identity”, if the residents of the two properties affected felt they had a closer connection to the St Erth parish, would GGPC omit this particular proposal from its overall submission to CC and Councillor Smith confirmed that they would.

It was agreed by GGPC and SEPC that if the proposal was to be moved forward by GGPC, GGPC would discuss the possibility of a joint communication by GGPC and SEPC and that no communication would take place with the residents of the properties until both Parish Councils had discussed the best way forward.

120


3. HTC

(SEPC received HTC’S proposal on 10 June.)

Councillor Polkinghorne stated that as a matter of principle, HTC considered that the natural boundary was the A30 and so the estate of 18 properties and the single detached house, off Water Lane, as shown on the plan, appeared to relate better to the Hayle parish rather than the St Erth parish.

Councillor Buzza asked that if HTC considered the A30 to be the natural boundary as a matter of principle, then had it also considered any other land along the A30 boundary which was also in the St Erth parish?

Councillor Polkinghorne responded that at present, HTC’s brief was only to consider developed land on which there were existing properties but it was a valid observation and so he and the HTC Clerk would revisit this and have further discussions with SEPC if appropriate.

Councillor Buzza commented that if the A30 was considered to be the natural boundary as a matter of principle, then, for consistency, some consideration might need to be given to land on the south side of the A30 currently within the Hayle parish.

Again, Councillor Polkinghorne acknowledged that to be a valid point and agreed that he would revisit this with the HTC Clerk.

In terms of the 18 (predominantly affordable) properties, Councillor Taylor stated that a S106 Agreement existed whereby people with a local connection to the St Erth parish had a first priority nomination with Homechoice. If the properties transferred to the Hayle parish, he was concerned that those with a local connection to the St Erth parish would no longer fall within the priority nomination area.

The SEPC Clerk was tasked to investigate this point and inform HTC and SEPC when advice had been received from CC.

Councillor Polkinghorne and the HTC Clerk agreed with Councillor Buzza’s suggestion that it might be possible to work together to develop options and Councillor Polkinghorne agreed to get back to the SEPC Clerk to confirm whether a meeting would be mutually beneficial.

In terms of process, HTC would consider all of the feedback it received at its meeting on 4 July, including public consultation which had not yet been undertaken.

Councillor Buzza confirmed that as matters stood at the moment, SEPC would base its consideration on the current proposals affecting the St Erth parish at its meeting on 2 July which was prior to the HTC meeting.

It was agreed by HTC and SEPC that no communication would take place with the residents of the properties included in the proposal (or any updated proposal) until both HTC and SEPC had discussed the best way of approaching the community.

121


4. LPC

(SEPC received LPC’s proposal on 20 May.)

Councillor Mann outlined his understanding of the main elements of the LPC proposal. Councillor Mann explained that it was a first draft and that details were still to be finalised.

Although a ‘rough’ map and brief description of the proposal had been received, Councillor Mann accepted that it lacked adequate clarity about certain key issues such as:

● the actual number of dwellings involved; ● the number of electors who would be transferred; ● whether the proposed new boundary included some of the commercial premises

along the A30 or not, (for example, the Lamb and Flag Pub did not have planning permission for conversion into flats as was suggested);

● the potential for the creation of ‘islands’ as some properties/premises appeared to be circumvented by the potential new boundary; and

● the rationale for the proposed design, i.e. why LPC believed that the identities of the communities and the interests of the residents affected would be better reflected by moving from the St Erth parish into the Ludgvan parish.

Councillor Buzza emphasised that these observations were intended to be constructive and that such information would enable SEPC to gain a better understanding of LPC’s proposal.

Following further discussion, it was agreed that LPC would be requested to supply SEPC with accurate maps detailing where the proposed boundary line could be drawn, clearly showing what was included and what was not, and with an explanation of the rationale for doing so.

It was agreed by LPC and SEPC that no communication would take place with the residents of the properties that might be included in a more detailed proposal until both LPC and SEPC had discussed the best way of approaching the community, should a proposal be formulated.

122


123


St Ives – Town Council

124


125


126


Towednack – Parish Council

127


128


129


130


131


132


133


134


135


136


137


138


139


140


141


142


143

Documents

Community Network Area: Hayle & St Ives...evidence • submitted • Moore (Hayle) Information Classification: PUBLIC Summary of submissions received Unique reference number List of