Where should we be expanding?
Jonathan Griffin continues his series of blogs on the future of housing in our parish with a question: If we are going to expand the existing settlements then where should this be done?
This is probably the most contentious question in the Development Plan. Any new site will spark 101 reasons why they are the Wrong Answer. None of us wants a new estate on our immediate doorstep. It is all too easy to be an unconscious NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard), taking a defensive position and then looking around for arguments to reject a proposed development; reasons such as traffic, lights, noise and even possible dormice, newts or bats.
The task of the Development Plan is to try and match the very real need for homes with possible sites, in the least damaging way possible.
The simplest solution is to slot new developments into brown field sites, between existing houses, or where gardens can be split up, but there are very few suitable sites and none is large enough to accommodate a whole new estate of modern houses. We are therefore faced with giving up some of the precious land from the AONB if we are to provide the homes we need.
A few years ago, Cornwall Council looked at half a dozen possible expansion sites on the margins of Flushing (2) and Mylor Bridge (4), assessing these against a series of measures: their visual impact, their proximity to the main settlements, schools and shops; their transport implications; and the availability of land. Most of the sites involved expanding into the AONB.
One site in Flushing would entail additional traffic through the main street. Another would begin to encroach on a lovely open space.
One of the possible sites in Mylor Bridge may be waterlogged; the Saltbox extension has already been turned down while a third will extend the settlement in a new direction. Another may already have been committed.
None of them is ideal but they are a good starting point for thinking about possible development sites.
Are we right to consider only developments on the edge of Flushing or Mylor Bridge? The Perran Foundry development has shown what can be done in a new or re-purposed site, albeit remote from shops and other community facilities. Are there other similar sites in the parish?
If we plan only for developments adjacent to the two existing villages then what criteria should we use? Should we insist that all development is set back from, or invisible from, the creeks and rivers which are the parish’s environmental jewels? Can we find sites that don’t prejudice significant views and landscapes? Should we look for green belts between existing estates and new ones?
What do you think?
I believe more affordable housing is needed within Flushing Village, Little Flushing being the ideal area for this … accessibility to the local junior school, village shop, village hall, and bus services etc. There is no other place within Flushing that could offer this, due to lack of parking space, accessibility through the village (particularly bad enough now for the emergency service vehicles that are constantly being blocked).
Re: Methodist Church on Kersey Road. I have already emailed my comments regarding this building’s future use. This church was a school for the villagers of Flushing, who have now grown up and most of them stayed in the village as elderly residents. This building would be ideal as the change of use to be An Assisted Living Retirement Flatlets (approx 4) with a live in Warden. No parking would be required on site, whereas if the building were to be renovated into a home/business then several parking spaces would be needed. Our hospitals and care homes are overrun, and understaffed. This project would be the foundation of caring for our elderly citizens within our community, until such times as they would need more medical care.
Parking within the Village: A female fire officer from Falmouth only a couple of months ago commented to me regarding the severity of the parking in the village, and how it was literally a time bomb waiting to happen that they could not get to an emergency on time due to the over parking within the village. I don’t believe that there is enough guidance to the holiday rentals as to where to park exactly when they come to the village (I know that from experience when we first stayed here in Flushing in our 4×4 which we have since sold as we realised it was just too big). If there was a dedicated car parking area for holiday rentals (before coming into the village to avoid further congestion), this would ease the weight of cars within the village and congestion too.
Three excellent points Carolyn. An extension to Tregew Meadows was one of the options looked at by Cornwall Council and it remains on the agenda as a possibility. The existing development is well tucked-in behind the boatyard. Do you think an extension would be so discreet, and how can we stop a sprawl across what is actually a rather lovely valley, up to Trevissome?
The Methodist church does look like a prime candidate as a single stand-alone site but, as the notice on it says, as a charity it is required to sell to the highest bidder. Sad to say, if it is bought by a developer they would be able to put up to five smart open-market houses (more likely flats, I would have thought) and we could not stop them. I am not sure what the existing garage owners would say but no doubt a ‘pecuniary inducement’ (aka a bribe) might persuade them to move out.
And then there is the parking. ‘Amen’ to that (although as the Housing lead, I should not really comment on Transport issues). How could we enforce it?
More pejoratively: can you really see the holiday home people parking at the other end of the village and walking? We maybe talking townies who would regard fresh air as a dangerous interlude between their cottage and the pub/restaurant/boat, and anyway, they have probably lost the use of their legs or cannot cope with the ‘dry’ Cornish weather. ‘We absolutely must have the SUV outside the house, Dahling!’