The Boundary Review ... "frankly a bit of a mess"

My article in this week’s Cornish Guardian covers the Devonwall threat. It includes material I have already placed on this blog, but it is all reproduced for the sake of completeness. It was as follows:

I make no apology for writing about the parliamentary boundary review for the second week running, as my initial representations have drawn a response from Chris Skidmore, the Minister for the Constitution.

I had written to him to express my opposition to the creation of a cross-Tamar "Devonwall" seat, requesting that he amend the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act. As I explained last week, the Act is guiding the boundary review and its rule that individual seats must have electorates within 5% of an average UK quota means it is impossible for the Boundary Commission to propose five whole seats for Cornwall and Isles of Scilly.

Mr Skidmore's letter was predictably disappointing, as he asserted that central government did not wish to "change the rules."

It is all frankly a bit of a mess. The Boundary Commission is obliged to use the electoral roll from December 2015. This records Cornwall’s then electorate at 392,223, while that of the Isles of Scilly was 1,651, making a total of 393,874.

Many people who were not registered at this time because of governmental changes to registration and this does not include those individuals who, earlier this year, registered to vote in the EU referendum. The present number of voters on the electoral roll for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly is actually over 427,000!

But taking the flawed December figures as their starting point, the Boundary Commission has ruled that all constituencies must have between 71,031 and 78,507 electors, except where the legislation sets out an exception for some Scottish island seats and the Isle of Wight. But how can central government seek to “protect” the Isle of Wight, allowing it to have two seats with 52,180 and 52,268 voters respectively, while choosing not to respect the historic nation of Cornwall?

Based on these inaccurate figures, if Cornwall had five seats, the average electorate would be about 78,775 – which is ridiculously close to the top end of the Commission's own range of between 71,031 and 78,507 voters. I cannot fathom why central government – for the sake of such a slight numerical difference – would seek to breach Cornwall's thousand-year-old border and erase Cornwall from the political map?

In his letter, Mr Skidmore also failed to give any weight to the recognition of the Cornish through the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in 2014, which took place three years after the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act was agreed.

I therefore find it find it indefensible that the UK Government is failing to meet its obligations with regard to the various articles in the document and the imposition of a Devonwall seat, breaching the political integrity of Cornwall, is a stark manifestation of this neglect

To stop a cross-Tamar seat, we need a simple amendment to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act. Please join me in lobbying Chris Skidmore MP, the Minister for the Constitution, at the Cabinet Office, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2AS or via chris.skidmore.mp@parliament.uk.

Application for costs by Greener for Life: The Inspector says no!

In addition to the main decision, the outcome of which I outlined in a previous post, the Inspector ruled against Greener for Life’s application for costs against the Council.

Greener for Life argued that the actions of Cornwall Council were “unreasonable” and resulted in “unnecessary costs” to their company. In particular, they moaned about the fact that councillors took a different view to planning officers and even criticised elected members for deferring both appeals on 19th November in order to consider the possibility of an alternative access off the A30 and deferring Appeal A on 11th February to look at the detail of specific conditions.

The Inspector did not agree with Greener for Life and his ruling was very critical of them.

He wrote: “The deferral from the November 2015 Committee was sensible so that the Council could explore with Highways England whether an access could be created directly off the A30, which would have overcome most of the residents’ problems with the plant … in view of the breach of several of the conditions attached to the original permission it was not unreasonable of the Council to defer the application from the February 2016 Committee in order to carefully consider the precise wording of the conditions, given the issues raised by neighbouring residents at that Committee meeting.”

It was also quite telling that he added: “The appellant’s response at the hearing to Cllr Cole’s assertion that it had declined to discuss the wording of the proposed conditions following that deferral was unconvincing. The evidence presented by the Council, residents and Cllr Cole points to a lack of urgency on the applicant’s part in seeking to resolve problems to residential neighbours arising from the plant. The Council was obliged to relook at the conditions carefully in view of the significant number and serious nature of residents’ continuing objections.”

And in another part of the ruling, he made clear his view that Greener for Life should have been “more focussed” in trying to resolve problems they had caused.

Appeal inspector grants consent for biogas plant at Higher Fraddon

The appeal decision into the two related planning applications for a biogas plant at Higher Fraddon has just been published.

The Inspector, Nick Fagan, has issued a planning permission for the site and consented the number of vehicle movements requested by the applicant (Greener for Life), though he has also strengthened some of the 21 conditions attached to the planning permission, as suggested by myself, the Parish Council and local residents.

I will try to summarise the overall ruling as best as I can, in which he showed some sympathy for local residents and the tone of his ruling was clearly critical of both Cornwall Council and Greener for Life.

The decision notes that I had “argued that because the tanks had not been built in the exact location and to the height of the approved plans in PA12/01700” and made the case that the development was unauthorised and no planning permission therefore existed “for the biogas plant as built.” The Inspector acknowledges we argued that little weight should be given to planning permission PA12/01700 and the associated non-material amendments (NMAs), but the Inspector took a different view. He has decreed that “permission PA12/01700 and the NMAs constitute the appellant’s fall-back position and as such are relevant material considerations that must be afforded significant weight.”

The Inspector did say that: “I have read the numerous objections from neighbouring residents and have considerable sympathy for these neighbours in terms of the way the biogas plant has adversely affected their living conditions, in part as a result of the NMAs.” But, in spite of this, he went on to say that “in view of the fact that PA12/01700 has been lawfully implemented I must assess these appeals by comparing the development as permitted, including the amendments in the NMAs, with what the appellant now proposes.”

Because of this, in considering Appeal A (PA15/O3073) which related to the regularisation of the site as built and reduction of the digester closest to residents, he focussed his attention on the height of the digester and came to the view that Appeal A should be allowed.

In terms of Appeal B (PA15/05220), which related to traffic movements, he was critical of the nature of the access road, stating: “I agree that the access road is manifestly unsuitable to accommodate any increase in HGV numbers due to its blind bends, narrow width and lack of any footway or central white line.”

But he went onto state that he needed to assess “whether the appeal proposal would lead to any increase above the number and type of movements that have already been permitted,” adding that “I am concerned to minimise the impacts of HGV traffic to the AD plant on residents living on the access road. But it would be unreasonable to impose a condition limiting such movements to less than that already permitted and implemented.”

He therefore decided that the 35 HGVs per week requested by the application were “less than in the implemented permission,” which “the Council saw fit in 2013 to grant permission for the NMA allowing this.” I fundamentally disagree with his ruling on this, as the first NMA was unworkable and should never have been agreed. I am not sure that the Inspector grasped the significance of the evidence relating to traffic movements presented at the hearing, and he came to the view that Appeal B should also be allowed.

The Inspector issued a single consent for the two appeals with a single set of 21 conditions. Those of particular interest to local residents are as follows:

Condition 14
The Inspector has detailed that: “The weekly number and types of vehicles visiting the AD Plant site shall not exceed the following: 35 Heavy Goods Vehicle movements, 7 Staff/Other Vehicle movements (Light Goods Vehicles) - Total number of movements per week for the Anaerobic Digester Plant: 42.” He also agreed that: “The operators shall keep contemporaneous records of all vehicles visiting the site and shall provide written details of such vehicle movements at the request of the LPA, in order to show compliance with this condition”

One addition he made was that: “The definition of Heavy Goods Vehicles shall be agreed between the applicant and the Local Planning Authority (LPA) by the appellant submitting to the LPA within one month of this decision a list of vehicles types (including dimensions) of this class that will service the plant.” He also stated that once these had been agreed, only such vehicles would be able to be used to “import material for the digesters and remove the digestate.”

I am very disappointed that he did not reduce the number of HGVs in this condition, as I do not believe that the plant would be able to operate with only seven non-HGV movements per week. Indeed, the Inspector himself noted that residents had provided “compelling evidence” that vehicle movements, particularly of smaller vehicles, were consistently are “in excess of those permitted;” but simply concluded that the Council could take enforcement action or allow more (smaller) vehicle movements.

Condition 15
The Inspector sided with local residents in terms of delivery times for the plant. He did not consider that Greener for Life should be able to undertake deliveries from 7am to 7pm, and imposed the following condition:

“During school term times, vehicles delivering to and from the site shall operate only between the hours of 9am to 3pm and 4.15pm to 6pm Monday to Friday and between 8am–1pm on Saturday. There shall be no deliveries on Sundays or Bank/Public Holidays. Outside of school term times, vehicles delivering to and from the site shall operate only between the hours of 9am to 6pm Monday to Friday and between 8am–1pm on Saturday. There shall be no deliveries on Sundays or Bank/Public Holidays.”

Condition 20
The Inspector agreed with the unitary authority that “within two months of the date of this permission” the operators had to submit a revised Odour Management Plan to the Council for approval, which had to include “covered storage on site for all imported material.” He further defined “covered storage” as meaning “all waste and biocrops imported by lorry shall be stored either inside the main reception building or that the outside storage bays where the biocrops are currently stored shall be roofed and walled via a scheme to be submitted as part of this revised Odour Management Plan.”

Other conditions
It is also the case that Greener for Life has much work to do in the coming few weeks. As well as agreeing the detail of HGVs entering the site with the Council (within one month) and submitting the Odour Management Plan within two months, Greener for Life will have to supply further information to meet three other conditions. These are as follows: (i) details of surface water drainage, (ii) the company’s vehicle management policy and (iii) the proposed scheme of planting; and must all be submitted within two months. It is also stated that the planting must be carried out within six months.

Costs ...
At the appeal, Greener for Life also attempted to persuade the Inspector that an award of costs be made against Cornwall Council, but failed. I will cover this in a separate blog entry.

My latest report to St Enoder Parish Council

My latest report will be presented to tomorrow night's meeting of St Enoder Parish Council. It covers the period 25th July to 25th September. It will be as follows:

1. Council meetings

I have attended a range of formal meetings at Cornwall Council over the last two months. These included: Planning Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) plus two associated briefings / pre-agenda sessions, Constitution and Governance Committee and associated informal meeting, Electoral Review Panel (two) and associated informal meeting, Farms Panel and associated pre-agenda session, China Clay Area Network meeting, “peer review” meeting about council communications, heritage forum, meeting of Cornwall councillors from the China Clay Area, national minority working group (and two associated meetings), incinerator liaison group, and three member briefings covering topics such as the outcome of the EU referendum, housing and requests to central government for more devolved responsibilities.

As well as the meetings listed above, I have had numerous informal meetings with council officers.

2. Other meetings

I have attended meetings of ClayTAWC (Chairman), the Indian Queens Pit Committee (trustee) and South & East Cornwall Local Action Group, when its Community Led Local Development programme for submission to central government was agreed. In addition, I have had informal meetings with a number of local groups.



3. New play area in Indian Queens Recreation Ground

Much of my time in the last two weeks has been taken up with the construction of the new play area in the Recreation Ground. It has been quite frustrating, as we were told the construction would take four-five weeks but, because of various delays, it has taken about eleven weeks.

It was very disappointing that we were not able to open in August as planned, but I am relieved that the park is now open and it has been getting some very heavy usage over the few days.

The providers have knocked £400 off the bill – because of the delay – so that we could spend this amount on turf to be laid around the new rubber surface to ensure a better finish to the project. I would like to thank everyone who helped with the laying of the turf on the evening of 8th September – your help was much appreciated.

Three picnic benches have been placed around the play area, and the Parish Clerk and I are presently negotiating with the suppliers about a few small “snags” which have yet to be dealt with.

The Parish Council worked for a number of years to pull together the package of funding for this proposal, and we are grateful to everyone who is providing financial support.

As well as the monies from the Parish Council’s own reserves, additional funding for the project has come from:

- Sun Edison; who built a solar farm at Burthy near Fraddon. As part of their planning permission, the company agreed to provide a one-off community payment to St Enoder Parish Council to put towards improvements in the local area.
- Kingsley Developers; who agreed to provide funding towards play equipment in St Enoder Parish (as part of Section 106 agreements) in lieu of not providing small play areas on two of their developments within the locality.
- Cornwall SITA Trust; who awarded St Enoder Parish a grant, which meant that the project had the full funding to go ahead.

It is my hope that we will soon have a formal opening of the new play area, so that we can celebrate the provision of this wonderful new facility for the local area.

4. New path to play area in Queens

As reported previously, on behalf of the Parish Council I submitted an application to the National Lottery’s Awards for All programme for a grant of £10,000 to construct a tarmac path from the car park area to the new play area in the Recreation Ground. This was because of the need to improve access across the Recreation Ground during the winter months when the field can get quite wet and boggy.

I can report that the National Lottery will be publicising the outcome of our grant application on 11th October.

5. Fraddon Millennium Green

As one of the trustees for the Fraddon Millennium Green, I am pleased that it has had a bit of a “facelift” over the summer.

A new rocker has been put in the play area in the place of the old one that had been removed quite a while ago; some small repairs have been undertaken on the play equipment; gaps in the rubber surfacing around the equipment have also been filled; while contractors have trimmed around the field and cleared vegetation from the path.

Many people probably don’t realise that, unlike the Recreation Ground at Indian Queens and Summercourt’s Thomas Playing Field, the Green is not owned by the Parish Council. The Millennium Green is actually an independent Trust, run by five volunteer trustees, though we are very grateful for the annual grant from the Parish Council towards our running costs.

I can also report that a contractor will be on site during September / October, when all of the play equipment will be repainted.

6. Thomas Playing Field

Now that the longstanding project to construct the new play area in the Indian Queens Recreation Ground has been completed, I can report that it is the intention of St Enoder Parish Council to review what is being provided in the Thomas Playing Field in Summercourt.

Local residents may recall that the last new equipment to be provided were a replacement climbing frame and a replacement roundabout in 2010 and the skate park, which was built in 2012.

I will be circulating a newsletter in the autumn which will seek views from local people about what improvements they would like to see.

7. Planning hearing; Land to east of the Kelliers

On 16th August, I attended the informal hearing into the part-retrospective appeal into the proposal for seventeen caravans on land to the east of the Kelliers (PA15/06186).

Councillors will recall that the landowner placed seven caravans on the site without any form of planning permission in the autumn of 2014. Subsequent applications for 12 and then 17 caravans were refused by Cornwall Council and the landowner went to appeal.

Cornwall Council was represented by two planning officers and an enforcement officer, while I was there with Cllr Michael Bunyan on behalf of the Parish Council. I did however address some of the policy issues relating to Cornwall Council’s position.

In our detailed representations, we made the case that this was an inappropriate location for such a development, that deliberate unlawful development is now a material consideration and the applicant did not even own all of the land on which he wished to build.

The landowner was represented by a planning agent, a consultant on transport matters and, even though this was meant to be an “informal” hearing, a top-level barrister or QC (Queens Counsel).

I had a number of meetings with affected local representatives in advance of the hearing. A number of these residents were present at the hearing and made a series of points against the development.

8. Planning hearing; biogas plant at Higher Fraddon

On 2nd September, I attended the informal hearing relating to the “non-determination” appeal into the “regularisation” application for the biogas plant (PA15/03073) and the associated appeal of Cornwall Council’s decision to refuse the related application (PA15/05220) to modify traffic movements to the site.

Councillors will recall that I had produced a quite comprehensive statement on behalf of St Enoder Parish Council, which ran to over 11,000 words, and this was the basis of the arguments at the hearing which lasted from 10.00 through to around 7.00.

Cornwall Council was represented by a planning officer and an enforcement officer, while Greener for Life (GfL)were represented by one of their members of staff, a legal representative, two transport consultants and a noise consultant.

I had a number of meetings with local representatives in advance of the hearing. A number of these residents were present at the hearing and made a series of points against the development.

Topics covered were wide-ranging, as previously detailed in my updates to the Parish Council, such as the weight to be given to the non-material amendments which allowed the consent to be modified, the extent of traffic movements, the impact on the amenity of local people and more.

GfL did put forward a statement setting out their recent traffic movements, which contradicted what they had claimed in previous documents. Residents meanwhile put forward their records of GfL traffic movements, which showed them to be much more extensive.

9. Pines Tip

I have just been informed that REG Windpower Ltd has appealed the refusal of their application for three wind turbines on Pines Tip (Strategic Planning Committee; 10th March 2016). It is my understanding that they have requested the appeal should be by written representations, and I will update members when I have more information.

10. Other planning matters

There have also been a range of other planning applications or associated matters, where I have been in regular contact with planning officers. These have included the potential changes to the conditions controlling the holiday village at Carvynick near Summercourt, and the discharge of conditions relating to the redevelopment of Kingsley Village, where the issue of surface water drainage is presently being considered.

11. Neighbourhood Plan Working Group

The most recent meeting of the Working Group took place on 2nd August, when the next consultation document was scoped. This is presently being worked on and it is planned that this document will be distributed this autumn.

I am also pleased to report that I have secured a grant of £3,950 towards the cost of this work, which must be spent by the end of this financial year.

12. Road traffic issues in St Enoder Parish

I can further report that two projects have been placed on the unitary authority’s capital programme following requests from me. The first will be the problem area to the east of Queens Garage, where water regularly rises up through the pavement. The second is the road drains through Fraddon, but in this case, the initial work includes further investigation to understand more about how the below-ground pipework is interlinked.

13. South West Water works at Trevarren

I am pleased to report that the main works to realign part of the foul sewer around Trevarren and the construction of an associated attenuation tank, to end flooding problems in the hamlet, have been completed. I ampresently liaising with South West Water about future monitoring and other related issues.

14. Ocean Housing properties in Fraddon

The new properties on Ocean Housing’s Harvenna Heights scheme is Fraddon are nearing completion. The company is presently seeking expressions of interest in the six shared ownership properties (three 2-bed and three 3-bed). For the 15 rental properties, there will be a “coming soon” advert on Homechoice on 29th October while the actual opportunity to bid will open on 12th November. This will be for four 1-bed, seven 2-bed and four 3-bed properties.

An open day was held by Ocean Housing on 21st September, which was attended by many local people.

15. The Kelliers

I have been pushing Cornwall Council to speed up the transfer of the land known as the Kelliers into the ownership of the Parish Council so that it can be improved as a countryside area. This is now happening and I can confirm that, on behalf of the Parish Council, I have requested a grant of £4,950 from the unitary authority’s “devolution fund” for some of the works on the site. I understand this application will be supported at “County Hall.”

16. War memorial at St Enoder

One hundred years on from the First World War, I am very pleased that St Enoder Parish Council has successfully requested that the war memorial in St Enoder Churchtown be Listed. Well done to the Clerk for all her hard work on this.

17. My Community Fund

I can confirm that I will be awarding the £2,000 in my personal Community Fund for 2015-2016 (allocated to all Cornwall Councillors) as follows:

· Fraddon Millennium Green – £500
· Indian Queens Pantomine Society – £500
· St Enoder Age Concern – £500
· Wesley Under-5s – £500

18. Political campaigns

In addition to my local activities, I have been involved in a range of political campaigns. These include the battle against the creation of a cross-Tamar “Devonwall” seat for the 2020 General Election, and I spoke on this topic at the Conference of the Cornish Gorseth in St Keverne on 2nd September.

19. Inquiries

During the last two months, I have also helped numerous people with advice and guidance. Issues have included planning concerns, housing problems, various enforcement matters and so much more.

AN IMPORTANT DATE FOR YOUR DIARY … MK’s 2016 CONFERENCE

Mebyon Kernow’s Annual Conference will take place on Saturday 19th November 2016 in the Council Chamber at Lys Kernow (“New County Hall”), Truro.

The Conference will be a fully open event and, as well as party members, anyone interested in finding out more about Mebyon Kernow would be very welcome to attend.

There will be a range of speakers and there will be many updates on campaigns such as MK’s call for meaningful devolution to a National Assembly, our opposition to the cross-Tamar “Devonwall” seat, our push for greater investment in Cornwall’s public services, our demand for greater control over planning, and so much more.

In addition, there will be a range of interesting stalls and the chance to meet up with many friends.

Watch out for regular updates about the 2016 Conference on the MK website in the coming weeks.