Crealy NO Campaign

Letters So Far To The Planners As of 13/1/16.... To object please write to

Mr Paul Banks Ref: PA 15/08900 Bodmin Cornwall Council, Lower Bore Street, Bodmin. PL31 2JX

 

Or go on line. You will need to register.... The camelcreek application comes under crealy

Issues To Consider:-

 

• Highway safety and traffic levels

• Noise, disturbance and smells resulting from the proposed development

• Design, appearance and layout

• Conservation of buildings, trees and open land

• Flood risk

• Impact on the appearance of the area

• Effect on the level of daylight and privacy of existing property

• Need to safeguard the countryside or protected species of plant or animal

• Planning case law and previous decisions

• The need for the development

Mrs Marilyn Day (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 13 Jan 2016

The project at Crealy Park is too large for the area. Traffic problems will be impossible to control with the influx of summer visitors. It is obvious from the application to build on animal display areas that this is a housing development, which will not be to the advantage of the surrounding hamlets and villages, never mind the existing holiday business cottages etc. The land which was purhased buy Camel Creek Ltd was aquired under the guise of a single track for a proposed farm house development for a neighbour, which would have been acceptable. The amount of people which would want to use that track wouldbe in excess of960 holiday makers or residents per day, plus 900 workers (which is doubtful). A new road from Winnards Perch to Padstow would be required to carry this number of people.The loss of Crealy park as an attraction would be a loss to the area, as children who come on holiday and locals (including my grandchildren) would be disappointed. Such a large development would also harm the image Padstow is trying to maintain, high quality resturants, beautiful beaches and countryside, with a quiet and relaxing holidays for familys etc., not overcrowded, with even worse traffic problems on overcrowded roads and car parks. Please remember the Alton Towers problems. Please do not repeat them.

Mrs Elizabeth Russell (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 11 Jan 2016

I am writing to express my concerns and objection to the proposed Camel Creek Resort application reference PA15/08900. I strongly oppose the proposed scheme for the following reasons: Retallack already has permission for 334 new luxury holiday lodges less than 4 miles away and has reported that their proposed development is neither fundable or viable without removing the holiday use restrictions that are required under planning policy - they have already been requesting a change of use from holiday to residential. Why wouldn't this be the case for the Camelcreek venture? Where is the evidence and study? I see no proof of any studies showing the need, or viability of this venture. With Retallack above seeking alternative use, and the closure of Hustyns, the evidence points to the fact that these types of resorts do not work in this area. What would then happen to the resort if built? Dereliction? change of use to residential? static caravan park? Who knows. This is all hypothetical, but worrying. The scale of the development (64,000 square metres of buildings) is totally out of context with this rural tranquil location in a National and Cornwall Character Area and will destroy farmland and the local ecology . The scheme does not meet planning policy as it will have a significant adverse impact on the countryside. This adverse impact on the countryside, would coincide with an adverse impact on the tourism industry in this area. Peace, quiet and space are what Cornwall is all about. It is why people come. For the NATURAL landscape. There is no noise study or light pollution study to assess the impact on the local communities - but it doesn't take one to know that a development larger than St Issey will have a dramatic detrimental effect on the area. The proposed lighting is for low level but Cornwall Police suggest normal street lighting with CCTV which will cause much light pollution. There are no drawings or visuals to show the impact on local views and no detail or commitment on the proposed planting or screening to be created . Although this would really be ineffective given the size and location of the site. With this being a Flood Zone three, to increase the flood risk with such a development seems irresponsible, particularly in the current climate! Flooding will be greater when pasture land is ploughed up, roads and houses built with parking hard standings. The whole area is covered in springs, and with Bodmin moor providing plenty of water run off, the whole area becomes saturated when it rains. It is already a constant fight to battle the lanes safely during such periods of rain. There is no evidence this will bring business to the wider area. The development is set to provide so many facilities, sports, a pub, and other eating establishments within the complex, much of the income will only benefit developers and shareholders. The promised 950 jobs seem misleading as they will mostly be low level part time positions (for students) unlikely to be filled by local people so creating further pressure on affordable housing , and construction workers. A development of this size will contribute substantially further to the already heavy traffic through the summer months. The development is surrounded by one track lanes which no doubt will become saturated and dangerous as people try to navigate (using their satnavs) to the site. There is not sufficient parking provided on the plans (five bedroomed properties have one parking space at each property) and I suspect more fields, not yet with a designated purpose, will be used for this causing more environmental harm. This proposal does not seem to be in line with local or national strategic plans. My understanding is that agricultural land should be protected with an emphasis on the lack of homes for local people being tackled. Existing GP and hospital services are already stretched without potentially an extra 1000 temporary residents in the area every week if we take Mr Broomes projected figures as correct. I also concur with Linda Hughes concerns over the probability that foul water discharge will become a massive issue with this development. I am a holiday home owner, and my concern is not that I would lose business due to people choosing to go to this development instead, but rather that the main attraction bringing people to my property, the tranquil area, will be lost forever. Not only is this bad business for me, but more importantly, awful news for the environment, and generations to come. The developers past history leads me to have major concerns over what they will achieve, their true purpose for the site, and how it will end up. There has been no proper consultation over this project, with my discovering its existence via a text from my brother, via a newspaper. 'Public consultation meetings' if you can call them that, were by word of mouth only. I have had no communication, of any official kind, to tell me it is happening. It is not in the Local plan either. Please reject this development.

Mr Lee Kenworthy (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 11 Jan 2016

I am the owner of the Coach House, Trevibban Barton, St Issey PL27 7SE I have attached for your consideration 2 videos and a highlighted document in respect of flooding at my property over the new year period. I would refer you in the first instance to the document. I have highlighted in pale blue the path that the water took to reach my property on the plan filed by the developers. You will note that the water starts effectively as run off from the fields that are intended to form the new access road for the development and joined by further run off as it travels down the hill. If you follow the blue highlights you will see that the water follows the track down the hill and along the front of my property before entering and flooding my garden. From my garden the natural flow of the water is then to re-join the potential development. If you consider the first video this highlights the flow of water down to my property from the lane and the associated mess it brings with it. The second video highlights the flow of water into my garden which is adjacent to the proposed development. This level of flooding occurred at various times between 29th December 2015 and 3rd of January 2016 and I have further photographs and videos if required. Whilst the rainfall at this time was substantial it could not be described as extreme and my concern is that in extreme circumstances the flooding will not be limited to my garden. In extreme circumstances the areas highlighted for development adjacent to my property are likely to be the subject of flooding. If this development goes ahead the access road by its nature will compact a lot of the higher ground thereby increasing run off and the likelihood of flooding. If the council are minded to let the development proceed what steps are to be taken by the developers to ensure that the properties at Trevibban Barton will not be flooded on a regular basis. Please can you assure us that any planning consent will be subject to adequate drainage being put in place by the developers.

Mr M Roberts (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 10 Jan 2016

We strongly object to the proposed Camel Creek Resort planning application. Our family have been accommodation providers in the St Issey area for 65 years (3 generations) and are very aware of the tourism industry in this area and Cornwall. The proposal of 236 holiday homes of 6 Star (of which there is no such thing!) will severely affect the many large/small accommodation providers not only in this area, but throughout Cornwall. There is no evidence that this type of large scale development is needed in this area, instead we have only been given verbal claims of a similar project in Portugal! Within 3 miles of this proposed development there is Retallack Resort of 5 Star status, which has approximately 140 holiday homes already built and a further 280 approximately having been granted planning permission. This means along with the proposed development of Camel Creek there could be a total of over 500 extra holiday homes in this area, which would severely lead to saturation point affecting many existing accommodation providers and local services. We have learnt that Retallack Resort have submitted an application for the removal of Condition 10 (holiday occupancy restriction) on decision notice PA13/09392 to allow permanent residential occupation of 334 holiday lodges. This proves our point that there is not the need for this large scale high end holiday resort in this area . The increased traffic on the B3274 and the small lanes of Dark Lane, Tredinnick, Trenance, Rumford and St Merryn will be inevitable. We would also like to see evidence of the creation of 900 jobs and where they will come from, if they are not local what extra pressures would this put on our local services? Mike & Alison Roberts

Mr Fergus Stapleton (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 10 Jan 2016

I write to offer my objection to the development. I am a property owner at Trevibban Barton Barns and have been for the past 14 years. In summary I feel that the scale of the proposed development is far too large for the following reasons. - It does not meet the Cornwall Council planning requirements - There is no need for a development of this scale (evidenced by the failure to sell similar properties at Retallack) - It would destroy the character of what is currently a valley area predominantly made up of deer farm - The noise and light pollution to neighbours would be unacceptable - There are serious concerns regarding drainage and waste - There are insufficient parking spaces - The increase in local traffic would put an unacceptable strain on the local roads, especially at peak times - I don't think it is financially viable. Cornwall is not a fully year round destination. I own a holiday let and can confirm that it is difficult to get lets out of the peak season. - Where are all the construction workers necessary for a 5 year build going to come from and where are they going to be housed? - Has the pressure on local all ready stretched medical services been considered. In addition to the above concerns / objections I would like confirmation that the council has undertaken to address the following - Is there a fund for recovery of the land etc should the project fail? - Is there an economic / viability study that shows the need for a development of this size? - Landscaping and screening for local residents is mentioned but there are no specifics. What measures will be taken to ensure that this will be detailed at an early stage, sufficient in its nature and then provided as stated

Mrs Deborah Stapleton (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 10 Jan 2016

I would like to oppose the development in the plan due to the reasons set out below. I am an owner of a property in the small community of Trevibban Barton Barns which is adjacent to the proposed development. Whilst I am sensitive to the needs of the county to develop, provide jobs, encourage tourists, supply affordable housing and offer holiday homes I feel that the scale of this development is inappropriate. 1. Financing / Viability The company that propose this development have a very mixed financial history that includes the failure of several similar projects. I hope that the council have exercised due diligence in ensuring that the correct finances are available and in place for a project of this size. There is not a need for further holiday let properties in the area and this is evidenced by the nearby Retallack development where several 5 star holiday units have remained unsold for some time, leading to an application for removal of the holiday home only restriction. If a smaller number of 5 star holiday homes cannot be sold 4 miles up the road surely it is not sensible to build so many 6 star holiday homes at the proposed site. Where is the documentation to support the economic feasibility of this development? 2. Noise and Light Pollution The pool complex and conference centre which is only 100 metres from the Trevibban Barn Barton properties is vast and primarily constructed of glass. The latest plans in addition show an external pool area and a rooftop terrace. The combined noise pollution from deliveries, treatment plants and residents, so close to existing residential properties would be disturbing and intrusive. The only noise at present ( when the wind is in the wrong direction) is disturbing and comes from the existing Crealy facility which is some distance away, but at least this stops when the facility closes. Although the plans state that lighting will be low level, the police have advised that there should be sufficient / adequate lighting for security purposes. Also the light pollution from a vast glass structure will be significant. 3. Drainage, waste and run off There are already issues in the area concerning water run off due to loss of grass land / meadow to act as a sponge. This development will lead to further loss of such ground and thus exacerbate the existing problems. I do not believe that there has been adequate information supplied regarding the management of waste and the impact of this. 4. Integrity and Re-assurances When the initial plans were put forward local residents made representation and assurances where made that changes would to be made. These included removal of overflow parking adjacent to the local properties in the North of the site and relocation of the service area (a noisy function initially adjacent to the Trevibban Barton properties). It would appear that the latest plans do not allow for these promised changes. This could be an oversite but does lead me to question the willingness of the developers to be sensitive and respectful of the needs, demands and requirements of the local council and residents. 5. Scale, local balance, appropriateness, meeting planning requirements The suggested area for development is currently a large expanse of peaceful deer farmland that can been seen and enjoyed from significant distances and from many directions. A development of this size would fundamentally change the nature of this view. There are no presented visuals to show the view from multiple points. Secondly this number of properties and a building of the size of the swimming / conference / tennis complex would fundamentally change the area. Cornwall relies on a delicate balance of providing local affordable housing, holiday homes and services that will attract tourists whilst maintaining the very natural nature of the county that attracts the tourists in the first place. Whilst we have been owners of our property at Trevibban Barton Barns for the past 14 years we have seen many sensitive smaller scale developments either new or of existing facilities that blend seamlessly with the locality. This vast development will do no such thing.

Mrs laura messetter (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 10 Jan 2016

I am writing to express concerns regarding the proposed planning application for the development of the Crealey / Trevibban Deer Farm, St Issey. As a resident of Trevibban Barton Barns, the planned development would sit directly behind and adjacent to our small community. As regular visitors to the region for over 20 years and second home owners for the last five, we have come to understand and appreciate the balance between the huge commercial importance of Tourism to the county and retention of the natural beauty and rural character enjoyed by all who live in and visit the area. It would therefore be hypocritical to object in principal to the provision of more holiday homes in the North Cornwall area. However I do have a series of concerns regarding this development, which I have outlined below. Integrity of the project I have significant concerns regarding the team behind the development. With a string of failed high profile projects behind him, I question if Mr Broome and his team are the right people to trust with a development of this scale in the region. I am also concerned that if planning is granted and development starts, then some time into the project it fails due to any number of issues, there could be a significant difference in what is eventually delivered at the site vs. what is currently planned. Scale and impact on the local community We have witnessed successful, controlled development in the North Cornwall coast area providing both housing for local people as well as holiday / investment properties. A subtle balance between supply and demand. Small, successful developments, in-filling or redeveloping existing sites, sympathetically designed and located to work within the local communities in which they sit. This project however will change beyond recognition the nature and character of the area. The sheer scale of the proposed development and all its related services and facilities will dominate the landscape, completely changing the neighbouring small rural communities of Tedinnick, Trenance and Trevibban Barton. Construction and development If the development were granted planning, there will be significant disruption to the local area during construction of a development this size, anticipated to last some five years. Traffic volume, noise and effects on road surfaces from regular heavy construction traffic will have a major impact. Dirt on the roads, dust, dirt and mess in the environment will undoubtedly have a negative effect on surrounding properties. The number of construction workers involved in the project is also not clear. I am not opposed to local jobs for local people, but I would question how many of each of the trades involved in construction will be local and how many will be employing contractors from out of county or even out of country. Where will these workers be accommodated during construction? Will they be bussed in each day, creating even more disruption? Access, traffic and safety We already see the effects on local roads during peak visitor times. A development of this scale will add significantly to this volume. Not just in terms of visitors staying in the properties. 250 accommodation units, an avg. of 2 cars per property = 500. In and out twice a day quickly equates to over 2000 journeys a day. There are also the employees required to run a site of this nature, estimated at 900. There has been talk of bussing them in and out, but they still have to get to the meeting point, so there will be a significant contribution in journeys on the local roads regardless. No matter how clearly it may be sign posted to use the main access roads from A39 to Wynards Perch and down into Padstow, there will without doubt also be a significant effect on traffic through St Issey, Tredinnick, Trenance, and Little Petherick - already a peak time bottleneck. This raises not just environmental concerns but safety concerns and wear and tear on all access and approaches. According to plans the site will have a main access road from Wynards Perch into Padstow. However as part of the land package purchased by the developers there is also the question of access from the Trevibban Barton Barns Lane. Access is currently available from this privately owned lane to the storage barn and current property of the deer farm owners. Whilst not planned to be part of the initial development, these properties will be owned by the developer. The only access to this property being via the private lane, I question planned use of both the barn, the property and the gardens associated with it. This is unclear at present and I believe needs to be defined. Development of Crealy attraction I would also be keen to seek clarity regarding the boundaries between Crealys and the site. My understanding is that the developer has purchased both the farmland and Crealys. What are his plans with regard to running the two locations? Will there be joint access between sites? Yes or no, there could be a significant increase in traffic via the already hazardous Dark Lane or via Treddinick, which again raises concerns for the environment, safety and the use and maintenance of the road surfaces. Service provision and environmental damage Significant investment will be required to ensure the correct management of services such as water, power and waste management to protect the local environment. Drainage in a valley site will always be an issue, and I believe the effects on the surrounding environments, already prone to flooding, need further investigation before approval. The same too for the effect on sewage. Can the local waste management system cope with such a large scale development? Is further investment required to increase capacity? What is the potential effect to our environment? Noise and Light pollution Such a large scale development will be a 24 hr operation with service vehicles needing access at all hours. This will create both noise and light pollution for the surrounding area. Even with the most efficient lighting systems, the change from a dark peaceful valley to a huge development with housing, street and public area lighting and leisure facilities will have a significant effect. Objection summary In summary we would therefore like to register our objection to the size and scale of the proposed plan in this location. It is completely unsuitable for such a rural site. The mix of accommodation and extensive leisure facilities is just not appropriate for the area. Laura and Peter Messetter

Mr And Mrs Tim And Jo Steel (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 04 Jan 2016

Please view related documents tab to view comments with attachment. We are objecting to the proposed scheme for the reasons set out below. We are also making a number of requests for the Council to consider. 1. Commitments made by John Broome to us and other residents in adjoining Trevibban Barton Area north of activities centre/ tropical pool to be undeveloped woodland The overall (and presumably most up to date) Site Plan 1005 M shows the area to the north of the activities building would remain undeveloped woodland with a smaller overflow parking area on the north east. However the plan on page 25 of the Design and Access Statement ("DAS") shows a large overflow carpark in the area and section 5.4 of the DAS says that overflow parking is provided to the east of the central buildings. Similarly the plans on which the Environmental Statement ("ES") are based (eg Environmental Statement Appendix 8.2 Part 2) indicate land to the north east of the activities building would be for overflow parking. The plans in both the DAS and the ES also show a Service area on the north west of the Activities building which is not in Site Plan 1005. John Broome visited us at our property in August 2015 and assured us that this area would remain undeveloped woodland, since it is high up and very visible and also adjacent to the properties at Trevibban Barton. John Broome showed the attached plan to us to demonstrate his commitment that there would be no overflow parking and no Service area in this area. Steel Appendix - Document -15 provided to residents by John Broome.pdf It is not clear what the applicant's actual plans are as the plans in the application are inconsistent with each other and with the attached plan he showed us. We believe the application should be refused but we request that if the planning committee is minded to allow any development that this be subject to a planning condition that this area north of the activities centre and tropical pool and adjacent to the Trevibban Barton community remains undeveloped woodland, as John Broome had committed to local residents and as shown in the attached plan given to local residents in response to concerns raised. Road layout to not be a complete loop We were also told by John Broome that the road would stop at the northern end of the Tropical Pool building and there would be no access for vehicles to pass through to exit the site on the north side, in order to restrict the traffic volume and noise in the north part of the site adjacent to Trevibban Barton. The attached plan shown to us and provided to other residents of Trevibban Barton demonstrates this. However in the submitted plans the road in the northwest corner above activities centre still exists but appears to narrow in some drawings (eg 1008, 1005) whereas it remains a full road in others (eg 1250 and the DAS page 25). We also note that the DAS section 5.7.3 refers to a continuous loop which is contrary to what John Broome told us. Again, if the scheme is allowed to proceed we request this is conditional on keeping the commitment made by John Broome to the residents of Trevibban Barton that the road would not be continuous around the northern part of the site. Use of Private access lane to Trevibban Barton There is single track privately owned access lane to the Trevibban Barton complex which the previous owner of the site was entitled to use to access his deer farmland on which the proposed scheme would sit. John Broome also assured us in person that this lane would not be used to access the site either during the construction phase or thereafter as it would be unsuitable for this purpose. He offered to provide a padlocked gate where the lane meets his land, which we would hold the keys to. We also request that if any permission is given it is conditional on not using the Trevibban access lane to access the site. 2. No need or demand for the development Substantial new holiday accommodation already approved nearby The nearby Retallack planning applications demonstrate there is no need for this proposed development either in terms of need for more luxury holiday accommodation in the area or to satisfy existing or create new demand. Retallack is less than 4 miles from Crealy and was granted permission in January 2014 to build another 334 holiday lodges (which they refer to as providing luxury tourism) and 32 staff accommodation units in addition to their existing lodges, as well as swimming pools and other leisure facilities. [We note the Camel Creek application appears to make no allowance for staff accommodation]. Surely having already granted permission for 334 new holiday homes nearby, there is no need to permit the complete destruction of tranquil and attractive agricultural land (which the applicant notes in para 7.55 in the Planning Statement may include Grade 3a quality land and would therefore contravene Local Plan Policy 22), and all the wildlife it must support, in a National Landscape Character Area for further new holiday homes? Ability to create quality jobs The first listed benefit claimed by the applicant in 3.2 of the Design and Access Statement ("DAS") is the creation of 705 full time employees and a further 250 from "enhancements to Crealy Adventure Park". In section 3.3 it says it will create 1400 new jobs of which 50% will be full time. If this is a deciding factor for granting consent then the viability of the scheme and its ability to provide quality jobs should be proven (see below). Even if the scheme were to be viable the majority of any new jobs created would in fact likely be flexible hours or part time and around minimum wage. Most positions would be unlikely to be filled by local residents and therefore create further transport and affordable accommodation needs. We note the Planning Statement refers in paragraph 6.28 to Policy 2 in Cornwall's emerging plan containing an objective to support an increase in "better paid full time employment opportunities" which these will predominantly not be. Viability of scheme given market failure for new holiday accommodation Retallack recently applied in July 2015 to have the holiday use restriction removed from their planning consent because of the "market failure in holiday occupancy restricted developments" (extract from their July 2015 Planning Statement section 1.3). In section 1.4 of the Statement they say "the position regarding market failure in the new holiday accommodation sector is fully recognised by Cornwall Council". In their Planning Statement conclusion 8.1 they state "with the holiday use condition, the proposed development is neither fundable nor viable both for the developer and potential investors/owners". We note that the applicant is proposing holiday use restrictions at Camel Creek and acknowledge that otherwise it would not comply with the Development Plan and national policy (see paragraph 3.4 and 7.11 of their Planning Statement). The applicant is promising so-called "6 star" accommodation. But there is no evidence provided in the application documents to support the feasibility of the scheme. We are extremely sceptical that the location of the site, being 5 miles from the coast with no coastal views, with indirect road access to the coast, being adjacent to Crealy, being a highly seasonal destination and being at least 5 hours from London, will attract sufficient investor or tourist demand for 236 "high quality six star holiday dwellings". John Broome told us that the double villas would sell for around £2m each whereas local estate agents we have spoken are very sceptical that holiday homes this far from the coast could sell for anywhere near this amount, particularly given the holiday use restriction makes it difficult to obtain mortgages and the recent stamp duty increase on holiday homes. We noted that Will Broome told the Cornish Guardian that the applicant has carried out extensive due diligence but we also note that the applicant has a track record of similar grandiose projects which have failed. We believe the planning authorities should not consider allowing this scheme without a thorough independent and objective feasibility study by a reputable expert to consider whether a six star holiday use restricted scheme is viable, whether it will really support 705 full time equivalent jobs, and whether the applicant will likely be able to obtain sufficient funding to ensure that the project can be completed as envisaged. If not there is a risk of an incomplete or abandoned project or the planning authorities being forced to consent to a modified plan, perhaps of lower quality or higher density and/or removing the holiday use restrictions in contravention of planning policy as is being requested at Retallack. 3. Scale of proposed development and impact on views and character of the site Vast scale of proposed buildings We note the scheme proposes siting the tallest and largest proposed buildings on the highest part of the site. Section 4.5 of the Design and Access statement says the eastern elevation of the Tropical Pool, which is on the upper part of the site and around 100 metres from the existing neighbouring properties, will have a height of 21.5 metres (per table 4.1 in Environmental Statement chapter 4). We estimate from drawing 1250 the building would be around 160 metres long and the north eastern end wall would be around 80 metres long (note the scale on plan 1251 indicate this north eastern elevation would be 160 metres long but we hope this is an error in the drawing). This is an absolutely vast building which, as another objection notes, is six stories high and approximately twice the size of a typical Tesco superstore. The proposed accommodation covers an area of 43,400 square metres (dwelling schedule 001) and the proposed facilities have an area of 19,500 square metres (facilities schedule 003). This would completely adversely change, and is totally out of keeping with, the current tranquil agricultural landscape. Impact on character of a National Landscape Character Area The applicant's Landscape Appraisal acknowledges that the proposed development sits within National Landscape Character Area NCA 152 - Cornish Killas (para 7.1) and Cornwall Landscape Character Area 34 - Camel Estuary (para 7.2) and is situated ""in an isolated rural location, consequently tranquillity levels are generally considered to be high" (7.28). This massive development would significantly damage the quality of the local area. The site is highly visible from the B 3274 which is a primary access route for tourist visitors and currently provides the first view of the Camel Estuary for visitors in a scenic, rural landscape. We expect this would be significantly impacted by this vast development, including a 20m high, 160m long and 80m wide predominantly glass-walled pool building only 500m away. Lack of drawings or visuals provided to show impact on views There is a Landscape Appraisal document (B.0387 06B LVIALR Landscape Appraisal) which discusses the impact on the views from 11 viewpoints but surprisingly only one of these is a short range view (which notes major impact) and none of these cover the views from adjacent communities such as Trevibban Barton (despite these being identified as sensitive in the contextual analysis in page 17 of the DAS) or the nearby B 3274. There are no drawings provided which show a cross section through the site and its surroundings to illustrate the heights of the buildings and how prominent the buildings such as the activities centre and tropical pool will be from the surrounding areas. Document AA5538 01.07 001 DAS ("DAS") section 2.3.10 p17 says it is important to protect the rural character of the surrounding area and the visual impact should be limited to respect views from existing properties to the north of the development. But there are no drawings showing what the visual impact will be on the existing houses at Trevibban Barton adjacent to the site or from the nearby roads. It is not possible for affected parties or the planning authorities to assess the impact of the proposed scheme without drawings showing the intended impact on the landscape and on the views from the existing properties and from the B3274. Planting The applicants state, in section 4.4 of the DAS, that nearby properties will be screened from the development and that "this approach will effectively eliminate the visual impact on any potential surrounding areas" but how can this statement be demonstrated without drawings illustrating the impact? Furthermore, it says "the properties that do adjoin the site will be screened from any development by extensive planting". Do the trees illustrated in the plan 1005 represent the committed planting plan - there appear to be no details provided of the planned planting in terms of the number, type, size, maturity of trees that will be provided. Will the trees really be tall and mature enough to screen a 21.5 metre tall and 80 metre wide glass building 100 metres away from the Trevibban Barton community? We request that any permission given is conditional on evidence of a committed detailed planting plan that will genuinely "eliminate the visual impact on any potential surrounding areas". 4. The scheme does not in our opinion meet Planning requirements This scheme would have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding countryside and settlements Planning Statement ("PS") para 6.10 refers to planning Policy ECN 12: Purpose built holiday accommodation which states that new purpose built self-catering accommodation will only be permitted where they are suitable in scale and character for the location and meet one of 3 conditions. The first 2 (conversion of existing schemes or farm diversification) are clearly not met and condition (c) requires that they are located outside the designated landscape areas, will not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding countryside and that it provides accommodation unlikely to be met by the adaption and improvement of available existing sites in the locality. PS para 6.34 refers to Planning Statement 22a: Protection of the Countryside in Cornwall's emerging plan which "seeks to prevent the loss of undeveloped countryside and states that permission will only be granted where they: - Can show existing urban capacity and unallocated land cannot meet the local need, and/or: - Have no significant adverse impact upon biodiversity, its beauty, diversity of landscape, the character and setting of settlements, the wealth of natural resources, agricultural, historic and recreational value. In para 7.38 and 39 the PS concludes that the development would respect the existing landscape character and would not have a significant adverse effect on the character areas and surrounding areas and therefore complies with ECN 12 and Local Plan Policy 23. This must be an area where the planning authorities need to apply judgement but we find it difficult to accept that 43,400 square metres of accommodation and 19,500 square metres of facilities, including a 21.5 meter glass building twice the size of a Tesco superstore, can be suitable in scale and character for this rural location and would not have a significant adverse impact on the site which is currently a scenic and tranquil deer farm, on the adjacent Trevibban Barton settlement or on the views from the nearby roads. Furthermore the conditions in ECN12 are not met as there is accommodation available at existing sites in the locality at Retallack. Claimed holistic link with Crealy PS para 5 refers to ECN 3: Business expansion which states that "proposals for expansion of an established business on land adjoining an existing site will be permitted where the development cannot be satisfactorily accommodated on existing or allocated employment land"" In para 7.7 the applicant argues that the proposed scheme is located next to Crealy Adventure park which is an established tourism business and accordingly complies with ECN 3. We disagree with this claim. The proposed scheme would not be expanding an established business. John Broome told us there will be limited access between the proposed resort and Crealy and the plans confirm this. The target market for six star accommodation is completely different to the established customer base of Crealy. If the applicant genuinely regards them as the same business either he does not really intend for Camel Creek to be "six star" or Crealy will need to significantly change away from the established business. We do not believe this meets the objectives of ECN 3. 5. Likely adverse impact on local businesses As the Retallack applications demonstrate, the market for quality holiday accommodation is already over-supplied and the proposed development would further adversely impact existing holiday accommodation businesses and particularly local people letting accommodation in the local area. Planning statement 7.16 and 7.17 says that the retail and leisure facilities would not compete with town centre facilities and are primarily to serve the holidaymakers staying in the complex. The plan shows buildings 2, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are respectively a Tree House restaurant, a Restaurant/Café, a Fine dining restaurant, a Mid-market restaurant, another Café and (another ?) Tree House restaurant. Other documents refer to a planned pub. We question whether guests staying in 236 units, most of whom would not choose to eat in the resort facilities each day, could provide enough demand. For this many outlets to be financially successful they would surely need to attract visitors away from Padstow and elsewhere. 6. Noise and light pollution No noise study provided Planning statement para 7.52 states that the development would not result in a material increase in noise which would result in disturbance, noting that the area is not particularly tranquil because of the Crealy Adventure Park. There does not appear to be any study performed to evidence this assertion and it seems likely to us that there will inevitably be a material increase in noise from such a vast tourist park. Trevibban Barton does suffer from noise from Crealy during opening hours if the wind is coming from that direction, however the proposed development is much closer and there is currently complete silence (other than natural sounds) after Crealy closes at 5pm or 6pm. Also the fact that Crealy can already create some disturbance for local properties is a reason to ensure no further noise pollution is allowed, not an excuse to allow it to get worse! Tropical Pool noise Some drawings (eg 1005 site plan) indicate that the Tropical Pool buildings will be totally enclosed whether the pool plans (1251 to 1252) indicate that part of the pool will extend outside the building. Local residents were told by John Broome that the buildings would be enclosed and there would be no noise created. No external pool areas should be permitted so close to existing properties. Furthermore it is not clear where the heating and cooling plant, which will need to be very large to service the pools and the vast central buildings, will be situated and what the noise impact will be. We believe there must be an assessment of what will the noise impact be on the nearly properties. Traffic Noise The transport assessment (Environmental Statement Appendix 8.1) predicts 524 vehicle journeys per day and a peak rate of 73 per hour. This appears to ignore staff and non-resident visitor (eg convention centre) traffic and is based on data from a Butlins site - we question whether this is really comparable or relevant given visitors to the Camel Estuary area are more likely to want to leave the site to visit the local beaches or towns. Even based on the applicant's assessment there will be almost continuous traffic noise from the site. Night light pollution The area is currently completely dark and tranquil at night time. There is no night glow and one of the features of the area is the view of the stars on a clear night. The Landscape Appraisal (prepared by Pegasus who also prepared the planning application) section 8.37 states that the properties to the north may experience minimal night glow and paragraph 8.43 concludes there would be an overall minor adverse effect. No evidence is provided to support this view. We believe the light pollution from the scheme will create a very significant adverse change to the environment given its size; in particular the vast tropical pool building appears to have primarily glass walls - the north east side elevation alone which faces the Trevibban Barton community appears to have a surface area of around 1,700 square metres (80m long and 21.5m high). Surely this would be highly visible from these properties and the B 3274 and other roads after dark, even if screened with planting? We believe a proper independent study should be required and if permission is granted conditions should be applied to mitigate light pollution such as requiring all glass walls to have shutters that close whenever artificial lights are switched on. 7. Parking One of the inconsistencies in the different plans in the application relates to overflow parking as noted above. Section 5.4 in the DAS addresses parking space but there appears to be little analysis of the parking spaces required. It states there is parking for 100 "service" cars but will this be adequate for the claimed 955 full time equivalent employees? It is not clear from the plans where guests would park on arrival whilst checking in at reception, where delivery lorries would deliver goods and turn around or where taxis or shuttle buses for the convention centre would drop visitors off. 8. Drainage and flood risk The DAS section 2.3.7 notes that the site falls within low Flood Risk Area 1 and some parts of the site are within Flood Risk Areas 2 and 3. We know from experience at Trevibban Barton this area is susceptible to flooding and the flood risk assessment does not adequately address the worst case impact from the removal of land which currently absorbs surface water and the additional output from this enormous proposed development. 9. Summary In summary we strongly oppose the proposed scheme because: - Commitments made by John Broome to residents of Trevibban Barton have not been seen through in the final plan submitted - Retallack already has permission for 334 new luxury holiday lodges less than 4 miles away and has reported that their proposed development is neither fundable or viable without removing the holiday use restrictions that are required under planning policy - We do not believe a so called "six star resort" is viable in this location or adjacent to Crealy and there is no indication of any objective feasibility study to evidence viability - The promised jobs, if provided, would mostly be low level part time positions unlikely to be filled by local people so creating further pressure on affordable housing - The scale of the development (64,000 square metres of buildings) is totally out of context with this rural tranquil location in a National and Cornwall Character Area and will destroy farmland and the local ecology - There are no drawings or visuals to show the impact on local views and no detail or commitment on the proposed planting or screening to be created - The scheme does not meet planning policy as it will have a significant adverse impact on the countryside, there are already available existing sites and it would be a new business not an extension of an established business - There is no noise study or light pollution study to assess the impact on the Trevibban Barton communities - This will likely create additional flood risks. We sincerely hope you will reject this application.

Comment submitted date: Wed 30 Dec 2015

We own Oakie Barn in Trevibban Barton which adjoins the proposed scheme. We strongly oppose the proposed scheme and have sent a letter to the planning committee setting out our reasons (please include this in the documents section) which are in summary that: - Commitments made by John Broome to residents of Trevibban Barton have not been seen through in the final plan submitted - Retallack already has permission for 334 new luxury holiday lodges less than 4 miles away and has reported that their proposed development is neither fundable or viable without removing the holiday use restrictions that are required under planning policy - We do not believe a so called "six star resort" is viable in this location or adjacent to Crealy and there is no indication of any objective feasibility study to evidence viability of the project or its ability to provide the promised jobs - The promised jobs, if provided, would mostly be low level part time positions unlikely to be filled by local people so creating further pressure on affordable housing - The scale of the development (64,000 square metres of buildings) is totally out of context with this rural tranquil location in a National and Cornwall Character Area and will destroy farmland and the local ecology - There are no drawings or visuals to show the impact on local views and no detail or commitment on the proposed planting or screening to be created - The scheme does not meet planning policy as it will have a significant adverse impact on the countryside, there are already available existing sites and it would be a new business not an extension of an established business - There is no noise study or light pollution study to assess the impact on the Trevibban Barton communities - This will likely create additional flood risks in an area already prone to flooding. Please reject this scheme. Tim and Jo Steel

Mr neil chapman (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 03 Jan 2016

We object to this planning application We are residents of 14 years in the rural hamlet of Tredinnick, North Cornwall and attended the Parish meeting on Saturday 12/12/15 regarding the proposed development at Camel creek. We view this development with great consternation and concern. 236 proposed units is too many by far it overwhelms the adjacent rural hamlets of Tredinnick , Trenance , St Jidgey and Canalidgey. This development has even more units than the village of St Issey. The proposed development will have a massive impact on noise, light and traffic on what is still a very rural farming community. Nothing that was said at the meeting by the developers assuaged our very real concerns. We both felt the proposed development was ill conceived and made no effort to blend in with this quiet ancient rural environment. We are very concerned about the environmental impact. Dark lane is not suitable for any large flow of traffic and it is inconceivable that residents and renters in the new Camel Creek development who have almost certainly driven to the site would not get in their cars and take the shortest route to the adventure park, especially in wet weather. Dark lane is prone to flooding and is at the base of a short flood valley. Last winter the floodwaters were over the bridge . This development will increase run off and drastically affect the ecology of this pretty camel creek. Pollution and flooding downstream to Little Petherick is a major concern. The developers say they have taken this into account however even the plans presented at the meeting were wrong. The so called lakes are to be only six inches deep and linked up in an "S" shape with water flowing down the hill with no facility to pump water back up. This deveopment will increase run off Similar developments have failed to live up to the hype often ending in bankruptcy and loss of control of the site by the local Parish council. One only has to look at the failings of the similar development at St Winnard's Perch . Insufficient space has been allocated for staff car parking. 950 full time jobs will create a massive car parking problem. Areas 18,19 and 20 on their plans, supposedly set aside for parking would be vastly insufficient and exacerbated if the convention centre is in use or outsiders/guests of residents use the facilities, such as restaurants and covered pool. The proposed car parking will be highly visible perched as it is high up on the slope. We are very concerned that the area of land above the proposed development and below the main road, that has also been bought by the developers will eventually become an overflow car parking area; leading to further expansion of this inappropriate development. The 150 spaces allocated for users of the facilities and staff is woefully inadequate and the developers suggestion that half of this might be allocated for staff does not stack up. 950 full time jobs appears to be highly exaggerated and is a political head line grabber. The idea that workers will be "bussed in" , as suggested by the developer is ludicrous and very badly thought out. The parking issue has been ignored in the attempt to cram as many units into this rural green field site. The single road access to this site appears to be insufficient for the volume of traffic. We believe the developers will eventually wish to enlarge the site , increase road access and car parking once full occupancy has been achieved further ruining a rural community in an area of outstanding natural beauty. It appears that the development is being pushed through quickly as the developers take advantage of changes in planning to create more housing in North Cornwall. The application just before xmas seems to us a blatant attempt by the developers to avoid as much local opposition as possible, as many people are otherwise occupied. The fob of allowing free use to locals within 1 km of the site has been set to cover only the minimum number of houses, taken from the centre of the new proposed development it doesn't even reach Tredinnick the nearest hamlet. The so called "six star resort" has absolutely nothing to do with affordable housing. There is a big concern in the community that those residents who rely on an income from holiday lets will be massively affected. No reassurances were forthcoming at the meeting nor had the planners taken any steps to assess this effect.

Linda Hughes (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 30 Dec 2015

I wish to object to the planning proposal for the reasons below. 1. People come to Cornwall to escape busy lives and enjoy the county's natural resources. Despite the promise of a resource for tourists there is no evidence it is needed or wanted. I believe peace, quiet, and space is needed to protect the appeal of Cornwall and to promote a healthier environment. In the pursuit of the promise of more money, the true value of what exists could be lost. 2. There is no evidence this will bring business to the wider area. There are so many facilities, sports , a pub, and other eating establishments within the complex, much of the income will only benefit developers and shareholders. This development could be positioned anywhere, and preferably in an area with better road access so that it would not contribute further to the already heavy traffic through the summer months. 3. There is not sufficient parking provided on the plans. Five bedroomed properties have one parking space at each property. 4. There is a sewage plant at Trevibban Barton and the owners have the right to discharge treated sewage water from that Treatment plant into a ditch which passes through pasture land now proposed to be changed to building land. 5. Prior to the meeting at Crealys in August it had been agreed by the Broomes to adjust the original plans to include some changes which could go a small way to protect residents from noise, light, and service traffic, and the leaflets given out at the meeting included those changes. It appears those changes are not included in the plans now submitted and this has done nothing to build a relationship of respect or trust. 6. With regards to light pollution. We were told at the public meeting lighting would be low, near the ground and would be subtle. The police are recommending a well lit site with CCTV to assist crime prevention. 7. I do not see how this proposal is in line with local or national strategic plans. My understanding is that agricultural land should be protected and emphasis is on the lack of homes for local people. 8. It is important to provide facilities for tourism and enhance the Cornwall Brand, but a balance has to be struck. Cornwall has a natural rustic charm. This development would be large, manicured and man made! 9. Retallick is about 3 miles away and includes 5star holiday homes and these are not being used or purchased in the way projections forecasted. From the point of view of a layperson, it would not seem sensible to build such a huge number of new holiday homes knowing already we have a development nearby which isn't working as envisaged. There is still an opportunity to learn from that situation. 10. Leaflets describe there will be 950 new jobs. Some will be in construction ,possibly brought in teams from outside the county. Others will be students on work experience or low pay. The reality of so many jobs is uncertain as in any case we were told will be a phased development and the development may take 5 years to build. 11. Existing GP and hospital services are already stretched without potentially an extra 1000 temporary residents in the area every week if we take Mr Broomes projected figures as correct. 12. The wildlife in the area include bats, owls ,and buzzards . They could lose their habitat. I would be grateful if my comments could be added to those on the website opposing the proposal. We have taken specialist advice and a copy of that report is below and I'm sending a copy to the Environment Agency. Thank you , Linda Hughes. 4 Mill Cottages . Trevibban Barton . REPORT ON FOUL WATER DISCHARGE - CAMEL CREEK DEVELOPMENT plan Looking through the documents submitted to date, there is little or no reference to the subject of wastewater. Not withstanding all the concerns that have been raised, this is the one that is likely to have the biggest influence in the viability/scale of the development. At present wastewater from the existing facilities and lodge on site is collected and treated in a sewage treatment plant before treated effluent is discharged to the nearby watercourse. I note that the EA consent covers a current discharge estimate to be 50m3 per day and has a maximum permitted flow of 100m3 per day at which point UV disinfection is required. To put this into context, it is worth comparing with the proposed development. As I understand it, this will consist of 236 holiday units that will sleep 6-10 people. Additionally you mentioned there is talk about employment of 900 people, although it is unlikely they will be all on site at any one time, so let us assume 50%. To calculate the theoretical flows produced by the development, I have attached the British Code of Water Practice guide for sewage flows and loads. This states that for holiday chalet residents the flow is 227 litres per person per day and staff. It also states that for full time day staff, 90 litres per person per day should be used and 45 litres per person for part time staff. Therefore, taking a conservative approach, I have estimated that the development will produce the following flows: 236 Holiday lodges (6 person average) = 236 x 6 persons x 227 litres per person = 321m3/day 900 Staff (assume 50% on site and 50% part time) = 225 x 90 and 225 x 45 = 30.375m3/day Total = 351.375m3/day It is important to note that this makes no allowance for the existing flows produced by the development. Of course the developer will try to argue this figure down, although it could also be argued that you could justify this is already conservative, particularly if some of the lodges have 5 bedrooms. Whilst the above flow is a peak figure it is worth noting that every EA consent license has to be calculated in this way, even if for 50% of the time these volume of flows will not be achieved, as it is the maximum daily flow that is permitted. The first challenge for the developer will be to obtain EA consent to cover this projected flow. I believe it is highly unlikely that the EA would support anything other than a nominal increase on the existing consent. It is clear they are already concerned as they have stipulated a UV requirement. The watercourse will undoubtedly run to the Camel estuary, so the EA will be very concerned with possible impact on bathing waters and fishing grounds. If consent was granted, the scale of the treatment plant and of course cost would be significant. Aside from a major capital investment, likely to be approaching £1M due to the high level of treatment necessary, the required plant would be a large and complex installation and would require expertise on site to run the plant. Additionally, the extra flow into the small stream is likely to increase flooding risk. In view of the above, the best option for the site would be to look at connecting to the South West Water main sewer. If the EA were to consider a revised consent to discharge, they would want evidence that the connection to main sewer has been fully considered. I am not aware of a SWW treatment works in the near vicinity, so it is likely that the site would have to construct a sewage pumping station and pump across private land to the nearest connection point. Whilst this may be possible, it is worth noting that this level of additional flow to be accepted by any SWW works, is likely to involve the upgrading of the SWW works which would be paid for by the developer as well as the cost of the pumping station and pipeline itself. This order of cost is likely to be similar to that of an onsite treatment plant at least. I would suggest that these issues are raised formerly, both at the next meeting and also in writing to the EA and planning officer. I would have thought that, overall it is the scale of the development that will need to be significantly reduced if the developer wishes to obtain permission and support from the EA at least. http://www.britishwater.co.uk/media/download.aspx?MediaId=72

Mr Brian Brock (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 24 Dec 2015

Planning Application PA15/08900 I have thought long and carefully and attended two open meetings in respect of this proposed development and come to the conclusion that I must formally object for the following reasons: 1. Having listened to both Mr. Broome Senior and Junior I am not convinced of the need for a Six Star resort especially in such a location next to an Amusement Park and down valley of a Soil Tip also in a Flood Zone three. The flood risk will be greater when pasture land is ploughed up, roads and houses built with parking hard standings. Here at Trevibban Barton we see flooding every time there is heavy rain with the run off from fields on higher ground. This flood water currently flows across pasture that will be removed and houses built upon. 2. This development will be for more second homes, some to be sold and others for rent through a Management Company, in an area where there are other similar developments that cannot fill their properties during the year. The larger five bedroom properties may cost up to two million pounds (Broome Jr. figures given at first meeting) well out of reach of many locals therefore any rental income will not stay in the County. 3. At the public meetings we were told that it was intended that people using these Holiday homes would be encouraged to use local facilities however it is proposed that there will be three dining areas and a Pub which contradicts the initial statement. We were also advised that there would only be one parking position for each house, some of these will have five bedrooms meaning that it is likely more than one car will arrive. Our experience here at Trevibban Barton with rented properties is that quite often a two bedroom property will have two cars, a four bedroomed property can have three cars and sometimes a visiting car to each. 4. The developers told us the number of extra vehicles that will enter and exit the development from the B3274 will not be many but I would expect 236 properties could have as many as 500 or more plus the vehicles used by the envisaged 950 workers and service vehicles. This summer has seen the B 3274 extremely busy, Padstow packed till you can not move and beach carparks full. The entrance to the site will cause traffic flow problems, especially in the Summer months even if the corners are removed. 5. There are twelve properties at Trevibban Barton, ten of which have a right to discharge treated sewage water into ditches that run through meadows where houses are proposed. Any disruption could impact on the stream at the bottom of the valley. 6. The proposed lighting is for low level but Cornwall Police suggest normal street lighting with CCTV which will cause much light pollution. 7. Wildlife will loose a valuable feeding ground. Currently there are two pairs of Barn Owl in this area plus a pair of Buzzards all rearing chicks in the Spring. 8. People come to Cornwall because of the open views, peace and tranquility, wide beaches etc, this development detracts rather than contributes to the area's natural resources. Brian Brock, 4 Mill Cottages, Trevibban Barton.

Mr Lee Kenworthy (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 23 Dec 2015

I am the owner of The Coach House, Trevibban Barton, St Issey, Wadebridge PL27 &SE and my property adjoins the proposed development under application reference PA15/08900. I wish to strongly object to the proposed development and in so doing endorse and adopt all the comments set out in the objection filed by my neighbours Peter and Sally Ann George. Further I would like to add the following 1) The application site lies within Flood Zone 3 defined by the Environment Agency Flood Map / Strategic Flood Risk Assessment as having a high probability of flooding. To place artificial lakes within a recognised flood zone will surely only increase the probability of flooding. My Garden which adjoins the site has flooded on numerous occasions over the last 2/3 years. 2) The proposed development is on prime agricultural land, which incidentally was subject to an agricultural restrictive covenant until earlier this year. Government policy set out in Paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that: 'Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.' If the Local authority view there is a need for this kind of project on agricultural land then national policy indicates that poorer quality land should be sourced. I see nowhere in the application any indication that alternate sites more suited to this type of development have been considered. 3) The nearest comparative development is less than 4 miles away at Retallack and is seeking to serve a similar market. The local authority should consider the success or otherwise of this scheme as a likely indicator of market forces. In July 2015 the developers applied to have this holiday use restriction lifted because of the "market failure in holiday occupancy restricted developments". In section 1.4 of the Planning Statement they say "the position regarding market failure in the new holiday accommodation sector is fully recognised by Cornwall Council". The local authority should also consider the likely effect of an increase in Stamp Duty on second home purchases being introduced in 2016. It is recognised that this will lead to a falloff in second home buyers by all commentators. 4) I would ask that in considering this application that the Local authority give sufficient weight to the developers past history in connection with similar ambitious projects. A search of the internet will give some idea as to the scale of this developers ambitions. Battersea Power Station, Carden Park and and Trentham Gardens were all previous developments that failed at various stages resulting in insolvencies, litigation and abandoned projects. Given this background it is incumbent on the Local authority to take sufficient financial safeguards to ensure history does not repeat itself. 5) If the authority is minded to approve this application then I would ask that the matter be considered for calling in as I believe the application falls outside the Local plan as at no stage during any previous consultation process has this land been identified for development. A development of this size for second homes on agricultural land also falls outside national planning guidelines 6) Due to the timing of this consultation leading up to the Christmas period I reserve the right to submit further objections as expert advice is sought

Sally Ford (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 23 Dec 2015

I am writing to express my concerns and objection to the proposed Camel Creek Resort application reference PA15/08900. I, along with several other local residents, was greatly disappointed not to have been told of the public meeting held recently at St Issey Village Hall. There was no publicity for this meeting which meant that many locals could not attend to voice their concerns. This has led me to email you in order to meet the deadline for objections and voice my opinions. The B3274 is already a heavily utilised and chaotic road. Local property have safe access issues when attempting to leave their properties and enter the B3274. These problems are made much worse during the summer months when vehicle load is greatly increased due to tourism. The proposed new extended site with its proposed large number of properties will add to the required drainage requirements of this area which are already stretched. I believe that this proposed project will make adequate drainage unsustainable. Traffic flow to the site is going to be enormous with visitors, residents and proposed staff. This down narrow access roads which are not designed for this proposed amount of traffic. Added to this where are the proposed parking facilities to be for all these vehicles and delivery lorries? Finally and, in my opinion more importantly, this proposed development will be in an area of outstanding natural beauty. Will this turn 'beauty' into 'the beast'? Visitors to Cornwall come for its unique charm and unspoilt landscape and this proposal will ruin what is at present an asset to Cornwall. WRONG IDEA WRONG PLACE For what will be a purely commercial Theme Park totally out of character for the locality. As such I strongly object to this application being granted.

Peter And Sally Ann George (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 23 Dec 2015

Please see documents tab for full objection

Mrs C Wilson (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 21 Dec 2015

The proposed new access to the leisure park etc with 950 new jobs is going to add a vast amount of traffic to the already very busy B3274 . As the site is on sloping ground , how is all the runoff water going to be coped with in the stream at the bottom of the valley ? How will all the "waste" water from the units & facilities cope during a storm ?

Brian Candy (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 21 Dec 2015

I am writing to lodge my strong objection to the above application. This development is totally unsuitable for this area. It will be of no benefit to local business as all amenities are on site so will not encourage tourists to go off site. There is no affordable housing for local people for which there is a real need as these 6 star houses will not be in the reach of many locals. The site access is on sharp bends which have seen many accidents and the surrounding Lanes are mostly single track, totally unsuitable for many vehicles. The site is also near to the AONB area and an important SSI site. This huge development is wrong for this lovely area and yet again good farmland is being destroyed, the very thing Cornwall prides itself on, green fields and open spaces.

Mrs E Moulsdale (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 17 Dec 2015

Attention Mr P Banks I'm writing to object to this application, I feel it's an unnecessary development in an highly tourist area. It will ruin the landscape and bring no benefit to the local community. The access road is poor and there is no affordable housing provided and local businesses won't benefit as everything is on sight. Please realise this will ruin the local area!! Sent from my iPhone

Mrs J Cowling (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 16 Dec 2015

I am writing to lodge my objection to the above planning application. The creation of this 6 star site is of very little benefit to the local businesses as it is providing all the facilities on site. The access to the site is located on sharp bends which have seen accidents over the years. There is absolutely no benefit to the current affordable housing problems as these holiday chalets will be priced well above local prices. The site is very close to the AONB and also to an SSI site. The nearby Retallack Resort is a similar development and many of the chalets have been unoccupied resulting in the application to turn it into a residential site. This surely must offset reasons for another such site in the area. The narrow country roads around this site are totally unsuitable for heavy traffic and despite sat nav cars will end up on these roads, many are single track! This lovely area is slowly becoming saturated with tourism sites and is ruining the very reason people come to Cornwall, for the beautiful countryside! I strongly object to this application. Sent from my iPad

C And M Wainwright (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 15 Dec 2015

Please see related documents tab for comments

Mr John Wilson (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 15 Dec 2015

Sirs The proposed access from the B3274 in the bends nearly opposite Bogee Farm entrance is another accident waiting to happen . The B3274 is already a very busy road despite being a "B" road . I think I am right in saying a local motorcyclist was killed there in April 2004 . Although the plans show widening on the new entrance it does not show any improvement to the road on Bogee Farm side as you head towards Padstow . The 236 holiday units that are being suggested plus exhibition hall , restaurant, convention centre, shops etc and 950 new full time jobs (their words) is going to put a lot of traffic on to an already very busy road . This proposal appears to fly in the face of what is needed in Cornwall yet again , not providing more houses for people to live in , but can only be used as " holiday units , not residential " ! Yours Sincerely John Wilson

Ray Campsie (Neutral)

Comment submitted date: Mon 14 Dec 2015

Although it is in my back yard,I do not wish to object to this planning application from a NIMBY stance,but merely seek assurances that our complex in Trevibban Barton Barns and the wider area do not suffer disturbance and disruption from either work to be carried out to complete it,or the resultant extra burden on local sytems should it come to operational fruition. 1-FINANCE and associated issues This is a major development from a company with previously mixed fortune in such measures.Can we assume that due financial diligence has been made as regards the financing,insurance against loss due to failure to complete and/or later failure to sell and operate the site?When will that analysis be made public? Is there a proposed sum set aside by the developer to shield the County Council from any loss attendant on failure to complete and therefore costs of necessary remedial work to return the site to its original state? 2-SITE CONTENT-I note that the initial plan refers to a majority of luxury/high cost building which,if sold successfully would contribute to a pleasant visual aspect.May we assume that if,as is likely in an future economic downturn, a failure to sell high cost units will not mean a relapse into less desireable holdings being built and/or a move to substitute static or mobile caravans will be enacted,and that there wil be such a clause instated into any future planning acceptance? Can we be assured that reparations to utility chains,water courses,drainage courses,sewerage runs etc.would be made by the developer should the site either fail to be completed and/or prove to be insolvent? Presumably an economic/market forecast of the likliehood of such a large volume of high cost housing units being released onto the market,(what is the phased release plan for this?)has been made,and when will it be made available to the public?Casual conversation with local Estate Agents leads me to confusion as to the likely uptake of a large number of high cost second homes,(now subject to additionalTreasury tax).The agents would welcome the commission but seem unsure whether sales would be high. As regards the separation of this development from the abutting Trevibban Barn complex,what are the names of the tree types that will be planted at the boundary,at what height will the screening trees be planted initially, and at what distance willl there be between them?The plans do not show this detail,which are crucial to the residents in the Barns. 3-ACCESS-What assurances will be made as to 1-the total restriction of vehicular access by either construction or eventual owners to the road from the B3274 along the narrow one way lane which approaches Trevibban Barton Barns and therefore through the Barn Development along its private access road?This is unclear in the application. 2-How will the developer assure that the considerable construction traffic required in this scheme,be distributed from the B3274,an already busy and bending thoroughfare, without hindering local and visitor traffic?Can we assume that the road widening ,lay by and general safety needs of this road will be made and financed by the developer,or should local residents expect to find those costs leaking into rate payments? 3-GENERAL QUESTIONS- This is a major development for an already overcrowded area.In addition to the disruption of the build process which will inconvenience local travel,will the eventual site add visual value to the environement,or add pollution,congestion and prove a deterrent to future visitors and current residents?Certainly extra car parking is already needed in Padstow,where there seems no space to provide it.What views has the development company on this aspects and how does it propose to alleviate them? At a time when local and government policy aims to increase the supply of affordable housing this plan might seem to fly in the face of that housing policy. Certainly the increase in demand for construction workers will exceed current supply,perhaps leading to hourly rate rises and highr costsfor local residents who need minor works, and will require extra housing for the many workers wjho will be employed on site. Are local medical social, supply facilities being geared up to cope with this future demand which will load even more the seasonal demand for their supply? Will you be replying personally to the points above?If not please let me know how and when I can obtain specific answers.