Header Image for Mabe Parish Council

Planning Comments

Application Summary
Address:Land Off Antron Way Antron Way Mabe Burnthouse Penryn Cornwall TR10 9HS
Proposal:Proposed residential development of 56 dwellings, access and estate roads
Case Officer:Chloe Pitt

Comments by Mabe Parish Council:

As per our objections to similar development proposals received recently Mabe Parish Council objects strongly to the proposal due to the following summarised reasons:
• No need shown for additional housing – affordable or otherwise
• Issues occupying recently completed Kingston Way development
• Not an housing allocation site
• Highways issues / visibility / parking - Concerns over services and infrastructure
• Mabe is not part of Penryn, it is a distinct rural Parish
• The development does not constitute infill or rounding off and the development is seen to be in the countryside

We are dumbfounded by a number of the conclusions and statements provided by the developer on this application – many of which are false. The quarry is definitely not disused – it is an extremely active quarry and is one of the few in the region still supplying hand cut granite. The area comes under the Minerals Safeguarding Development Plan (Maps A3/B35) and is shown nowhere on the DPD (Site Allocations Plan). The parish council would not consider this a development to warrant it’ support as an exclusion site as it fulfils none of the criteria this would require (referencing Policy 9 of the Local Plan).

Mabe is already suffering with traffic problems which would be exacerbated with 56 additional homes – especially leading out to the confusing and dangerous ‘lozenge’ junction between Church Road and Antron Hill. Recent data shows that traffic number for 2016 at 3400 journeys on the road from the village up to Longdowns and 5900 down to Asda – the rough calculations then show a potential for another 268 simply from homeowners in this development – before factoring in all associated delivery/supply services.

The plans for this development show no proposal for financial contributions for educational provision; any kind of specific open space provision; any kind of sustainability (where it conflicts directly with Policies 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 of the Local Plan), no reference to a Section 106 agreement (or the intent for one) and, as they stand, would give no enhancement to the village or parish in any way.

This development would also place more housing on the opposite side of the village from all services (shops, school, community centre). Other community infrastructure is already stretched – the primary school alone is already working at 107% of capacity. We do not need to increase the size of the parish through unrestrained large development within the village environs – this development would constitute almost an 8% increase in the total housing stocks of the PARISH.