Fears housing will impact on sensitive wildlife lake

Early plans for housing near a sensitive wildlife site have been approved, despite reservations by members of a Cornwall Council planning committee. Councillors felt their hands were tied due to planning policy.

Cornwall Wildlife Trust, Bude-Stratton Town Council and a growing number of residents are all opposed to plans by applicant Mr C Trewin to build nine houses on land near Lake View Drive, Bude, which is located a lane away from Maer Lake nature reserve.

The application was brought before Cornwall Council’s east area planning committee today (Tuesday, August 5) by Cllr Faye Emery, who represents the area, due to her concerns that the development would extend into open countryside between Maer Lake and Maer Downs on the edge of Flexbury in Bude.

The lake is managed as a nature reserve and co-owned by Cornwall Wildlife Trust (CWT) and the Cornwall Bird Watching and Preservation Society.

CWT has raised concerns about development at the location. It wrote to the council stating: “The county wildlife site is of great ornithological interest being extremely important for breeding, feeding and roosting birds and is particularly valuable for wintering and migratory bird species.

“The field where development is proposed is functionally linked to Maer Lake meaning that it plays a role in supporting the biodiversity of the county wildlife site. The field is used by species of conservation concern such as wintering curlew and black-tailed godwit for roosting and foraging.”

Both species are on the UK Red List for birds meaning they are species which have suffered declines and are at risk.

“The development will lead to loss of supporting foraging habitat for important bird species and there is also a risk of disturbance for example during both the construction and operational period as a result of noise and increased traffic movements,” added the trust.

The council’s own ecologist said in a report: “The applicant should be aware that there are significant ecological concerns to be addressed should this proposal proceed to technical details consent stage.”

Cornwall Council’s planning department recommended approval for permission in principle (PIP) – the first stage of the planning process before a full application with more detail is submitted. It said any potential harms would not significantly outweigh the benefits of the scheme in providing housing in a sustainable location.

However, members of the planning committee were not so sure. Cllr Jane Pascoe said: “This piece of land is not rounding off an existing development, there are no affordables and it’s not social housing either, so it’s not a rural exception site. Normally this would come in with a refusal on it, so what justification other than the supply target are you giving to this land being developed?”

She was told by a planning officer that on top of the need for housing there is a “fairly permissive” Neighbourhood Development Plan in Bude which allows for up to 30 units adjacent to the edge of a settlement, so the proposed site is supported for development.

The committee was advised it would need to see wildlife impact reports at a later technical details stage to ascertain if there would be any impact on the lake.

Cornwall Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land under Labour’s new planning guidelines. Under the Government’s new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the council must now plan for 4,421 homes annually, a significant increase from the previous 2,707. This shift is prompting a review of the current Local Plan, as older plans may not meet the new housing requirements.

“Are we being asked to sell our souls and our land because of the five-year land supply? We’re in grave danger of agreeing to things because we have this threat over us. That location is not the right location for a housing development,” added Cllr Pascoe.

Cllr Jim Candy felt that the committee’s hands were tied and members were being asked to make a decision without the full information “because a PiP doesn’t require us to have the full information”.

For a second time at the east area planning committee meeting, he reluctantly supported an officer’s recommendation. The committee voted unanimously to support but stressed their concerns about the possible impact on the sensitive wildlife site.