Cornwall

Planning Application to Develop Falmouth's Pitch and Putt Course

Carrick District Council is currently considering a plan to build 107 Residential Units, including 43 Affordable Homes, as well as a Community Centre and a Retail Unit, together with the provision of open space and landscaping, on land that is presently used as a pitch and putt course at Swanpool.  The proposal can be viewed on Carrick District Council's website, www.carrick.gov.uk, using planning reference EA 02/1841/08/M.

CPRE Cornwall's Treasurer and Vice-President, Chris Burton, has already submitted objections to the scheme on behalf of CPRE Cornwall.  The following points were included in his letter of objection:

The site is located within the Falmouth / Helford Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty on the extreme western outskirts of the urban area of Falmouth.   The Pitch and Putt has been a popular local and tourist leisure amenity since 1969 and includes a café and a crazy golf course.

The site represents a very attractive landscaped area with country views that is adjacent to a small garden centre and near Falmouth golf links.  The direct access to Falmouth is via a narrow winding road from Swanpool or a more roundabout route via the Bickland Water Road.

As the proposed development is contrary to the national guidelines listed in PPS 1, PPS 7 and PPG 17, we have requested the application be called in for the Secretary of State to adjudicate.

It is contrary to Policies 1 ,2 & 13 of the County Structure Plan.

It conflicts with Policies 3A, 3AD & 10D of the Carrick-wide Local Plan.

No housing is allocated in this area in the, as yet unadopted, Falmouth and Penryn Action Plan.

For the above reasons we request that this application be refused. 

In planning terms National Parks and AONB's have equal status for protection from inappropriate development.  We feel that if the site was within a National Park then the application would never have been made. Since the decision-making process for AONB's involves the District Council rather than the Parks Board the developer hopes that the regulations might be waived.

We acknowledge and welcome the substantial contribution towards more affordable housing incorporated in the proposal.  However this could all be equally well included in a proposal on an alternative site.  We contend that alternative less sensitive sites are available nearby with better access to the town centre.  These sites would be to the west of the Bickland Water road, but located in Kerrier district.  This should not present any problem as the draft Regional Spatial Strategy has recognised that there are both natural and environmental constraints to the expansion of Falmouth within Carrick.  This is also recognised in the County Structure Plan; see paragraph 112, Policy 18.  Consequently in the housing provision for Falmouth / Penryn [2006 - 2016] of a total of 2800 dwellings, 800 dwellings are allocated as an urban extension within Kerrier.

We note that in the Falmouth and Penryn Action Plan prepared by consultants no housing is planned for the area of this application. This plan has not yet been adopted.

We consider that the proposed development is contrary to Policy 1 of the County Structure Plan [2004] in being incompatible with the conservation and enhancement of Cornwall's character and distinctiveness, which is a key principle for sustainable development. 

It conflicts with Policy 2 of this Plan as documented in paragraphs 32, 33 and 34, which states that AONB's require the strongest protection from any adverse effects arising from development as set out in national policy guidance.

In terms of Tourism and Recreation [Policy 13] it is stated that development should not harm visitor facilities and other features that contribute to Cornwall's attraction for tourism and recreation.  This will undoubtedly happen with the loss of the Pitch and Putt course along with the associated crazy golf and café.

The proposed development is comprehensively contrary to Policies 3A and 3AD of the Carrick-wide Local Plan, which seek to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of the AONB and not permit development.

It also conflicts with Policy 10D, which seeks to protect formal and informal recreational open space from development.

We note that an acceptable open space standard within the development does not appear to be incorporated in the proposal.

All the Policies within the National Guidance PPSs, the Regional Spatial Strategy, the County Structure Plan and the Carrick-wide Local Plan have been the result of lengthy and detailed discussion and consultation over a large number of years.  Circumstances have not changed dramatically over the course of this time and the protection of our landscape remains a principal objective and it would be perverse to override the collective decisions of such a body of opinion.

Hopefully, Carrick District Council will take note of Chris Burton's robust letter of objection, along with objections from many other people and organisations, and refuse planning consent.

Ted Venn

20^th November 2008

Impending Changes to the Common Agricultural Policy

In advance of an imminent agreement on changes to the CAP by Ministers from EU Member States, this briefing sets out CPRE's position on some of the key 'CAP Health Check' proposals. European negotiations are continuing in Brussels today (Wednesday, November 20^th) and are due to conclude either later today or tomorrow.

Replacement for the Set aside Scheme - Set aside is the old CAP scheme that paid farmers to take a percentage of their land out of production to prevent oversupply. Now that EU farm payments are no longer being paid on the basis of how much a farmer produces but are instead linked to environmental management (see cross compliance below), the scheme is being abolished. Set aside unintentionally resulted in a number of environmental benefits. These included providing habitats for rare plants and feeding areas for birds and helping to prevent pollution of rivers and streams by fertilisers and other chemicals.

Our position:

CPRE has been lobbying for a new measure to be introduced into the CAP that retains the environmental benefits of set aside. In return for public payments through the CAP, we would like to see farmers being required to continue to manage a small percentage of their land to provide similar environmental benefits that set aside produced. The Government has already asked Natural England and the Rural Payments Agency to develop a new measure.

At this time of impending change, CPRE's National Office considers that there are three issues that will need to be resolved before a satisfactory conclusion is reached:

1     CPRE does not believe the current proposals put forward by the European Commission to maintain the environmental benefits of set aside go far enough;

2     CPRE is concerned that other Member States will try to block the introduction of the new measure; and

3     During the negotiations the UK Government should ensure that the European legislation allows for an appropriate replacement measure to be created in the UK.

Cross Compliance - Cross compliance is the set of compulsory environmental requirements and legislation farmers must follow to receive EU farm payments. They aim to ensure that important landscape features are maintained and EU legislation is adhered to by all farmers across the EU.  Given the results from the Natural Environment Research Council's Countryside Survey published yesterday (November 18^th) which showed a number of UK landscape features are declining in extent and quality, making sure farmers maintain and manage these features is even more important.

Our position:

CPRE believes that as the CAP is a public payment to farmers, cross compliance requirements should remain compulsory. They should be extended to ensure the range of landscape features found in the countryside are maintained and prevented from declining any further.  CPRE's concerns about cross-compliance are:

1     That some EU Member States may try to weaken the effectiveness of cross compliance by making it voluntary; and

2     That the UK Government should prevent any moves to reduce the scope or the compulsory nature of cross compliance requirements.

Modulation - Modulation is the transfer of a percentage of CAP funding from EU farm payments (known as Pillar I)  to rural development programmes (known as Pillar II) which include green farming schemes. Environmental Stewardship, the green farming scheme operating in England, pays farmers to manage landscape features, wildlife habitats, and historic sites, and to provide public access.

Our position:

We believe that more money should be transferred to rural development programmes so that green farming schemes remain properly funded and can be expanded. The UK currently receives less EU funding for rural development and is forced to voluntarily transfer a higher amount of farm payment funding to pay for its green farming schemes. All Member States should follow the UK's lead and be required to transfer a higher proportion of their CAP payments to create a level playing field for all EU farmers.

The issues here are:

1     The European Commission has been trying to raise the percentage of compulsory modulation but has run into strong opposition from other less progressive Member States.

2     We are concerned that even the much reduced percentages of compulsory transfer of farm payments being proposed will be blocked by some EU Member States or be cut even further.

3     The UK Government should strongly support increases in compulsory modulation so that the CAP can deliver more environmental benefits through green farming schemes.

Please do not hesitate to contact CPRE's National Office if you would like further information on any of the above issues.

Ian Woodhurst, Senior Farming Campaigner

Mobile: 07939 542690

Direct line: 020 7981 2839

CPRE Cornwall - Editorial Comment

Cross Compliance should certainly include footpath maintenance and access across farmland.  With Cornwall County Council struggling to maintain footpaths within the county due to insufficient resources, surely the payment of CAP to farmers must be dependent on farmers looking after footpaths, including stiles and gates, which are situated on their land.  Failure to do so should see a reduced CAP payment.

There are three types of footpath within the county - gold, silver and bronze, with gold being the priority.  At the present time, Cornwall County Council is focusing its attention to "gold" footpaths, which are basically those that form the Coastal Path.  This means that paths classified as silver and bronze have to wait for any remedial work to be undertaken - and sometimes this may take years.  Tying farmers to an obligation to look after footpaths on their land, and allow these paths to be used, in return for a full CAP payment would make sense, and relieve the pressure on Cornwall County Council.

Ted Venn

20^th November 2008