Christmas Lights

Village News

Comments | PA17/00288 | Application for removal of condition 2 in respect of Decision Notice PA15/01953 - 12 Back Lane Angarrack

Via http://planning.cornwall.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.d...

Mr chris bray (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 08 Feb 2017

i object to this planning application to resign the buildings.
my objection is related to size and scale of the new proposed footprint. i feel that this is fast becoming a case of over development of this site as the footprint size appears to now be increased.
i am also concerned about the possibility of excess surface water run off. i understand that on the original application the EA made stipulations regarding the management of water issues, not only to protect this proposed development but also to protect other properties in the immediate area from flooding.
Have the original conditions of the planning consent PA15/01953 been met and adhered to? and if not, why not? considering that work has been started.
I look forward to your reply to this complaint and i would also request a sit visit with all concerned parties.

Mr Tony Harris (Neutral)

Comment submitted date: Tue 07 Feb 2017

What measures will be in place to ensure that access to Back Lane is not obstructed during construction?.We have already experienced several instances of contractors completely blocking the lane during preparation work . This is not acceptable. The residents of Back Lane do not wish to be unreasonable or difficult but this has to work both ways. The lane is very narrow and is not suitable for large scale developments. Particular consideration therefore needs to be shown to the people who currently live on it.

Mrs Maureen Scales (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 07 Feb 2017

Is it possible to request a visit from the planning department so that they can see the situation of access in Back Lane for such a huge development. My concern is the removal of waste material and the delivering of new materials as this site has no proper access. Back Lane is very very narrow and also needs to be kept clear for residents use. My worry is also the disruption, noise and inconvenience to the residents of the village.

Mrs Rebecca Hunt (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 06 Feb 2017

Although I do not object to the design or style of the properties, I am concerned about the lack of proposals for the management of the waste and run off water. The planners should be taking this issue seriously, as we are all at risk of flood water. I believe the building plots are in an area of sodden land, and all waste water and run off should be channelled into the mains sewage.

Mr James Lloyd-Durrant (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 06 Feb 2017

Objection , based upon the extra removal of ground suitable to absorb surface water and protect the properties below .

We purchased our property in late 2016 so we're unable to comment on the original planning application , it would appear there is a gaping hole where a transparent view of the surface and waste water management scheme for the development is not in place for the affected residents to view !! This not only causes great concern but also a complete lack of respect for neighbouring properties , I have personal contact with the family who have owned our cottage for many generations since its new build status in the 1880s , for many years the properties only flood risk was from the river and not the rear which is why the rear was used as the only access before any construction of individual bridges .

The rear land acts as a natural water table and is able to absorb surface water but would be unable to manage a large amount of water gathered upon the expanse of roof and terrace proposed , the only solution would be for this to be harvested and pumped vertically away from the site but again there is no plan to view !! I beleive it would be in everyone's interest that the surface and waste water management for the site be put on display before the March decision is made , there is a perfectly good village hall where this could be facilitated .

Currently the land to the rear of us is set lower and acts as a natural pond when required , it would also be grately appreciated to know which official body will monitor this and garuntee the height will not increase .

Based upon the already passed planning decision that has been granted I assume Cornwall County Planning along with the developers are happy to accept full responsibility and financial liability if any properties were to suffer from surface or waste water effects based on he development .

Mr Mel Williams (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 05 Feb 2017

I object to the fact that there is no plan for parking their vehicles when working on their site. If they continue parking on Riverside near our private access bridge this causes dangerous traffic problems as it's on a blind bend hidden by the viaduct and restricts our access considerably as well as the free flow of all traffic along Riverside which includes tractors, oil-tankers, refuse collection vehicles etc.

Mrs Alma Yendell (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 05 Feb 2017

I would like to object to this development, on the grounds that they don't seem to have any parking or vehicle management system in place.
I have already experienced problems with the land owners and their vans, parking on my private drive to gain access to their field, instead
Of using back lane, which is the designated access for the development site. Having informed them they were using private land to park on,
They resulted to parking on the front of my boundary ruining my grass area I have to up keep.
I have had to get gates erected to deter them from parking on my drive.
I am worried once it gets the go ahead, there will be traffic coming and going, and parking were ever they like with little consideration for those who live
In the neighbourhood or residents private driveways.
The roads are very narrow and can't cope with additional parked vans and trucks.
If they aren't being considerate now, they are not likely to consider residents later on.
A shame really as a bit of common courtesy could have made all the difference in my discussion to object.

Mr mike yendell (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 05 Feb 2017

I would like to object to this application due to concerns I have already expressed in the past.
We have every right to object as we have serious concern about the surface water run off
implications it could have on all of our cottages below, none of which have the foundations
of a modern built house, any surface water run off and excess water that isn't managed to the highest
standard possible could result in undermining our cottages causing serious damage.
Unfortunately it is not reassuring that some people who don't even live in the village seem to be dismissing
the concerns of of serious flood risk.
The flood risk does exist!
The development land in question IS a deep surface water storage area. Category 3b flood plain!
Our properties lie within the category 3a flood zone.
If there was any surface water management scheme in place for all to view it might of eased some
of our concerns but this doesn't seem to be the case!

Mrs Joy George (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sat 04 Feb 2017

Whilst I have no objections to the development as such my property backs onto the proposed development and I have great concerns for the future safety of my property owing to the fact that this land is designated a 3A Flood Risk.

Cond. 3 - requires parking and turning areas to be provided.
A large amount of clearing has been done and there has been no evidence of any provision for access, parking or turning. Without this there will be utter ciaos in Back Lane for all the residents there with what has already become apparent, no concern whatsoever shown by the developers and the major construction has yet to begin.

Cond. 6 Surface Water Management
As previously stated there is no evidence of details regarding intentions for provision of sewerage and drainage.
I sincerely hope that all responsible parties explore and regularly monitor every detail regarding this development
to ensure the safety and well being of all properties along Riverside. Because of this I would like to see the proposals for a flood management plan, for surface water drainage, the pathways route and flow.

Whilst I understand that members of the developers family write in length to support this application I would like to state that unless you live in the village or adjacent to the development you cannot possibly understand or empathise with the concerns of people that do.

Mrs florence keeler (Supports)

Comment submitted date: Sat 04 Feb 2017

I wish to support this application based on what it actually is, a variation to condition 2 of an already existing and passed planning application.

The application to separate the 2 houses with a stairwell in between, I feel, is perfectly acceptable. I have looked at the current plans against the original and note that the footprint and positioning remains exactly the same. The difference being the separation of the 2 two houses. In doing this, the dwelling sizes have been reduced to allow for the amendment. The scaled plans provided have ensured this to be correct.

The original planning application for this site has already been passed and so the design and choice of materials etc are not really relevant to this application as they are not being changed. The size is not increasing in any way, and so this is also not an issue. I am confident that the developers along with the council will ensure the conditions already in place for this site will be followed. It is in nobody's interest for them not to be.

I look forward to watching the development of this site and no longer having to see it as the untidy dumping ground it had become.

Mr Reginald Butler (Supports)

Comment submitted date: Fri 03 Feb 2017

After viewing the recently amended plans for proposed elevations at Back Lane, Angarrack, I would like to lend my support to this application. From what I understand, this is a variation and NOT removal of condition 2 of the previously granted planning application APP/D0840/W/15/3121461. I feel dismayed at some of the uninformed views and objections that are already on record. From the plans submitted, it is clear that the applicants have actually reduced the size of these dwellings by making them detached. This would subsequently give an appearance which is actually less imposing than the originally passed application and was what most of the previous objections cited as their concern. It appears that these newly proposed elevations would have exactly the same sized footprint as the plans that were previously passed with the only difference being a shared stairwell between the dwellings. Further more, it would also appear that the positioning of the structures has not changed at all and will be located as per original application. It is a shame that some of the people who have concerns that these buildings will be larger or of greater impact have been mislead or have not bothered to do their own research correctly. A scale of 1:100 is clearly marked on all elevation plans submitted. This should enable the people who are concerned about ridge beam height or footprint size to carry out their own calculations before wrongly assuming that structure sizes have been increased.

After carrying out some simple research of the previous application and appeal decision notice, it is apparent that the dwellings will satisfy any concerns relating to flood risk which also appear to be backed by the Environment Agency. The appeal decision states that:

- The appeal site lies within an area of flood risk, with the western part of the site within the designated high-risk 1:100 year floodplain. In this regard, the application was accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and no objections, subject to suitable planning conditions, were raised by the Environment Agency.
- Having considered the FRA and other information before me, I am satisfied that subject to the imposition of planning conditions the proposal fully addresses the flood risk implications of the scheme, and meets the requirements of the Framework in this regard.

I am sure that the conditions that have been put in place by Cornwall Council Planning Department to prevent flooding in the areas of site that are within the zone will be adhered to by the developers. However, I do find it very strange that the same neighbouring properties that are concerned about this flood risk and who have made their feelings known on this, as well as previous applications, have recently decided to erect a closed fence structure to the west end of this site which is likely to cause an issue with the condition that indicates 'all boundary features in the rear garden within 10m of the south west boundary of the plot shall be of open design to allow free passage of flood waters'.

I understand peoples concerns about the sewer mains servicing Angarrack, but seeing as there already appears to be a newly metered water supply to this site, I am sure that the applicants have also discussed a sewer connection with S.W Water. Some new dwellings have been recently built further along Back Lane, Angarrack which I assume will also connect to this sewer main. After a simple planning search, I am overwhelmed by the hypocrisy of two of the objectors who raise concerns about the sewer not being able to cope even though their newly built dwelling will also need to connect to this same sewage main. The hypocrisy does not appear to stop here as it would also seem that the same objector who believes that this development will 'significantly increase the risk to surface water flooding to the existing properties on the South Western and South Eastern sides of the development site along with down steam properties within Angarrack Village' fails to understand or reason why the newly built residence in their garden would not have the same effect on the properties to their South Western and South Eastern sides.

I believe that the previous appeal officer was very competent, carried out a thorough process and decided to judge this project on its own merits. I find it quite disrespectful and narrow minded of another recent objection stating that this officer didn't consider the Angarrack area or its history. From the plans submitted, it is very clear that the applicants have been very sympathetic in their choice of materials that compliment the surrounding stone structures and woodland back drops.

Already it would appear that an enforcement has been linked to this application EN17/00208 for alleged breach of conditions. Having spoken to the developers of this site, they have indicated that all the required paperwork needed to satisfy the planning conditions has actually been completed and is within the system. From visiting this site, it is apparent that no building works have commenced with only minor clearing of vegetation, making safe of dangerous boundaries and collating of rubbish that has been regardlessly tipped, over numerous years, by surrounding properties. I feel angered that I, as a tax payer, will need to foot the bill for this enforcement to be pursued because of the ease at which nameless people can instigate such a process, their inability to communicate and unwillingness to carry out satisfactory research. It is already refreshing to see such a derelict site coming back to life with such minor clearance and I look forward to seeing every stage of these family homes being built.

Overall I think that these properties, whether built in their already passed design or in their amended form, will reflect current architecture and bring a modern feel to the area. I also think that the materials proposed will compliment the surrounding properties.



Mr Christopher Smith (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 03 Feb 2017

I would like to raise the following objections to:
* the original plans and subsequent apeal that was allowed
* the variation to condition 2

Condition 3 requires designated parking and turning areas to be provided. To date, despite the amount of large scale clearing that has been done there is no evidence of such provision for access, parking or turning.
This, in turn, has resulted in major disruption and congestion on both Back Lane and Riverside.

Condition 4 regarding topography and landscaping, as stated already, a significant amount of clearing has been undertaken with no evidence of approval to said plans.

Condition 6 - surface water management - it appears that there is a serious lack of evidence of details regarding intentions for provision for sewerage and drainage. This, again, has serious implications resulting in potential flooding of properties on the lower level along Riverside.

Regarding the variation to Condition 2 of the plans, this is out of character with surrounding properties and poses an additional demand on water treatment and sewerage overload. The intenteion to include glass fronted balconies at a high level on the proposed properties would pose a potential intrustion of privacy on adjacent properties.
Also, the incresed footprint will seriously increase level of water drainage and the already sodden ground will result in flood, damaging properties below.

Mrs Helen Barnicoat (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 02 Feb 2017

I would like to change my previous neutral comment to and objection.
I have now seen the relevant designs. It appears that there are no measurements of the proposed dwellings and no final ridge beam height. I feel that without these measurements it is impossible to say how big the eventual houses will be and therefore i feel that the risk to flooding is too significant for me to stay neutral.
I am EXTREMELY concerned about the flood risk to my property given that this development is in a category 3a flood zone.
I would like the council and building regs to do everything in their power to ensure the risk of flooding is eliminated.
I would like to see a continuous staged monitoring of the Environment Agency conditions and not just as a sign of at the end. This project could take 10 years to complete and the risk of flooding DURING the build is high due to work being undertaken.
I would also request that the Surface Water Drainage plans needed to satisfy the conditions be made public so that we are able to consult on them via a third party to absolutely ensure that the drainage schemes are adequate.

Mrs lynn Yendell (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 02 Feb 2017

I wish to object to the proposed change in the planning application for removal of condition 2. I objected to the first application, of the very large design scale and footprint of the properties, it is not with in keeping of the surroundings, and will seem even more intrusive, having 2 separate very high properties looking down on us.
The application was refused and only got the go ahead from outside the county from people who don't know the area, or the history of the land, if they did they wouldn't have approved it.
This development imposes a very high risk of flooding.
I would like to see, proposals for a flood management plan, for surface water drainage, the pathways, routes and flow.
Where they intend to put their sewerage pipes, as the existing ones are old and over used already.
The land is a 3A FLOOD RISK. So I hope this is taken into consideration first, so before approving any changes to the condition 2 lets first see what has been done about their proposed water management scheme, and waste water.

Mrs ruth smith (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 02 Feb 2017

We would like to raise the following objections to:
- the original plans and subsequent appeal that was allowed
- the variation to condition 2
Condition 3 requires designated parking and turning areas to be provided. To date, despite the amount of large scale clearing that has been done there is no evidence of such provision for access, parking or turning.
This, in turn, has resulted in major disruption and congestion on both Back Lane and Riverside.
Condition 4 regarding topography and landscaping, as stated already, a significant amount of clearing has been undertaken with no evidence of approval to said plans.
Condition 6 - surface water management - it appears that there is a serious lack of evidence of details regarding intentions for provision for sewerage and drainage. This, again, has serious implications resulting in potential flooding of properties on the lower level along Riverside.
Regarding the variation to Condition 2 of the plans, this is out of character with surrounding properties and poses an additional demand on water treatment and sewerage overload. The intention to include glass fronted balconies at a high level on the proposed properties would pose a potential intrusion on the privacy of adjacent private properties. Also, the increased footprint will seriously increase level of water drainage and the already sodden ground will result in flooding and subsequent damage to properties below.

Mr Jonathan Barnicoat (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 01 Feb 2017

I would like to raise an objection to application for the variation to condition 2 (plans) in respect of Decision Notice PA15/01953 for the following reasons:

1. The requested amendment poses a significant RISK to further water displacement due to the increased total foot print size from the original application.

2. The amended Scale and Design of the proposed development is not in keeping with surrounding properties that are terraced in nature.

3. The large percentage of glass frontage on the South Western side of the proposed development would likely invade privacy of existing properties on the South Western side of the development site.

4. Attachments 553/1 & 553/2 - The proposed development fails to provide any indication of the finished ridge beam height and floor plan sizes. This allows the developer freedom to build to an un-measured size that again would increase the displacement of water into the deep surface water storage area / category 3B Floodplain and category 3A Flood Zone.

5. Attachment 553/1 - North West / South East Elevations, fail to show dimensions of the indicated garden areas. Should these garden areas extend further than 16.3 meters from the SW boundary, it will result in a direct infringement to Condition 4 of APP/D0840/W/15/3121461.

6. Due to the displacement of water from the proposed development, surface water run-off will significantly increase the risk to surface water flooding to the existing properties on the South Western and South Eastern sides of the development site along with down steam properties within Angarrack Village. As a result should the application be approved, full buildings regulations MUST be submitted that are available for public consultation on the proposed water management scheme. The development should NOT be permitted against a building notice due to the significant RISK from flooding.

7. Any such water management scheme should provide for all surface water run-off and further displaced water, to be stored and removed from site, due to the site being a deep surface water storage area / category 3B Floodplain and category 3A Flood Zone. All storage should not be within the vicinity of the deep surface water storage area / category 3B Floodplain and category 3A Flood Zone.

8. The main sewer supporting the village feeding from Gwinear passes through the plot area with no existing accessible manholes. Recently a house within the village was flooded due to the sewer being at capacity, resulting in legal action being taken against Southwest Water. In my opinion supporting sewage waste from ten (10) bathrooms, two (2) utility rooms and two (2) kitchens would significantly impact this main sewer and all connected households. I propose that Southwest Water under take a full survey as to prevent retrospective legal action being against them again!

Should you require further clarification or details on my comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Mrs Helen Barnicoat (Neutral)

Comment submitted date: Wed 25 Jan 2017

I take exception to the fact that Phil Brookes has loaded my private email to him to this page and has decided, on my behalf, that i object to this application.

I DO NOT object to this application. And i do not object to the redesign of the dwellings. However, I would like my flood concerns to be addressed. I would like the council to ensure that all flood prevention schemes are monitored at the correct stages to absolutely ensure that my property is not not flooded in any way. If the new design of the houses means more floor space per house, i would like the council to ensure that any environmental (flood risk) assessments that were carried out on the previous square footage be recalculated on the new sizes.

 

Book page

TitleCreated
170909 | Well, on the plus side, it's more attractive than the current view ... | Stephen Cornish - Hayle Development Discussion 1 week 3 days agoBook page
1709 | 9,000 sq ft of newly built retail accommodation adjacent to a proposed Asda petrol filling station | Foundry Yard 2 weeks 1 day agoBook page
1709 | Highway Plans 2 weeks 5 days agoBook page
1709 | Marsh Lane realignment 2 weeks 5 days agoBook page
170904 | St Erth Park and Ride scheme and air quality on the agenda at the Hayle and St Ives Community Network Panel meeting 3 weeks 2 days agoBook page
170818 | Hayle harbour tonight. Water going out.. I hope it's not what I expect it is in front of those tankers... especially as 5 weeks 13 hours agoBook page
170821 | Hayle Harbour | Pirate FM - News - WATCH: Reports of sewage in Cornwall sea 5 weeks 13 hours agoBook page
170719 | PA17/06782 | Erection of a new dwelling and detached garage. - Land NW Of 5 Grist Lane Angarrack Cornwall 5 weeks 4 days agoBook page
170807 | St Erth roundabout A30 section to be restricted to 30mph limit for eight months | Cornwall Live 6 weeks 2 days agoBook page
170622 | Grigg’s Quay, Lelant – LATEST | Hayle development discussion group FB 6 weeks 5 days agoBook page
170726 | Tools from Cornwall’s first farmers among important archaeological finds at Hayle construction site (From Falmouth Pack 6 weeks 5 days agoBook page
170725 | Dave on Twitter: "Crazy that the biggest ship built in #cornwall #SSRamleh at 3,800 tonnes was built in #hayle in 1890 7 weeks 5 days agoBook page

tags for Comments | PA17/00288 | Application for removal of condition 2 in respect of Decision Notice PA15/01953 - 12 Back Lane Angarrack