Follow-Up from Tremayne Hall Meeting on Oct 11th

I think we agreed on the night,  that there are many reasons to object to
this proposal.  The main relevant ones being:

1. Traffic.  Dangerous junction without sight-lines onto Bissom Road.
Narrow lane with few passing places.  No footpath or possibility for
footpath along most of the length of SaltBox Road.  Increase in car
movements along Salt Box Road would number an extra two hundred a
day minimum. Increase in traffic passing through the village which is
already extremely difficult at peak times.  The number of houses in such a
small site would inevitably give parking issues at the site and along
SaltBox Close and SaltBox Road.  Government guidelines state that
average car number per household is nearly three cars, therefore an extra
90 cars all trying to park.

2. Loss of Amenity for current residents, both in Salt Box Close and its
proximity.  (see above!)

3. Agricultural Land should be retained for food security according to
Governments own guidelines. *

4. Flooding A previous application on this site was rejected due to the
increased load on the sewerage system in the area.  Southwest Water
have made comments on the pre-application that the sewerage system is
still inadequate.  Rainwater Run-off from development on site would
exacerbate risk of flooding.  The bottom of the field is swamp land running into a stream which crosses under the road and this would be unable to cope with the volume of extra rainwater runoff.  Flooding along the length of this stream would directly affect several houses.

5. School capacity.  The school is presently running at 104% capacity.

6. Not in keeping with the surroundings, changing the character of
the village.  I think the massively increased traffic alone would change
the nature of the village as we know it.

7. AONB  It cannot be denied that a high density housing estate would be
visible from all areas of the village.  What is the point of designating an
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and then despoiling it?

Interesting to note that numbers 5 & 6 above were cited for refusal of a
proposed development in St Clere recently, but all of the above have valid
reasons for objections within the planning legislation guidelines.  We hope
to publish on the web-site the relevant references to the legislation on
each category.

* I am in correspondence with Friends of the  Earth about how to get the
purported ‘low-value grassland’ re-designated into Agricultural Grade land, especially as we can show two crops harvested this year.

Please feel free to add further points.

Best regards, Andrea