The council meeting was well attended with 30 to 50 people there. They seemed to mostly be against the proposed development. (Nobody from the public spoke up for the development.)
The key concerns presented by the public seemed to be:
- Not all of the required animal surveys had been undertaken so an environmental impact assessment could not as yet be properly carried out.
- Insufficient bat surveys
- The current surveys excluded required protected mammal surveys.
- Their had been agro chemical spraying of the proposed development site, where the individual(s) doing the spraying warned those surrounding residents he knew (several were in the audience) to close windows and doors, to stay indoors, to not go onto the land for at least 2 weeks. This was presented as a deliberate move by the owner of the land to cull the current bio diversity.
The key issues raised by the councillors seemed to be:
- The highways report was not conclusive with regards to access being sufficient, so this needs further investigation. This related not only to the immediate site access up from Tregundy Lane, but also those roads that lead up to the proposed road into the development (Tregundy Lane up from Tywarnhayle Road, Cliff Road and Droskyn Way).
- They were concerned by the public point that not all wildlife surveys had been completed as apparently required.
- There is a fundamental need for affordable housing in Perranporth. With 200 to 250 people on the local affordable housing register, the village MUST allow expansion which includes affordable housing. Of the 3 developments the village has on the way, this is the first to come to the table, but it is not the development preferred by the parish council (they are currently biased to the Lisky Hill site). To keep the village young, affordable housing needs to be within reach of the current youth. There seemed to be discussion that the proposal affordable housing was going to be £67,000 for 1 bedroom units and £134,000 for 3 bedroom units.
So the council voted to neither approve or disapprove of the development, but say they wanted further investigation and information on the access and wildlife surveys.
Two other points of note were that the developer was not going to be who everybody thought it was going to be. I had heard, more than once, that Norwegian Properties were to be the developer, so it’s presumably not them?
Secondly that the land is currently owned by Ian Moore.