When I first heard rumours of the possible building development in Penryn’s Glasney Valley I was very concerned and when a local protest movement began petitioning against this project I wanted to know more.

Now I’ve had time to look at the actual proposal, which is on privately owned land on the northern side of the valley, and consider the pros and cons I have to say that I am reluctantly in favour of the potential development. 

I say reluctantly, as it does affect Penryn’s “green belt” but since virtually every last possible bit of “infill building” in the old town has already taken place, and the need for additional housing stock is undeniable; this is one of the few possible areas available. 

I understand that the proposal is to build about 200 houses of which 40 per cent would be “affordable housing” (that’s 80 houses out of the total), and that some would be acquired by housing associations for rental by local people. 

The misinformation put about by anti-development campaigners also bothered me. Campaigners tried to persuade me that it would lead to a loss of local dog walking and recreational amenities in the valley. This is clearly untrue. Although there are public footpaths running alongside it, there has never been public access to the land designated for development. 

As a local resident of some 40 years I have often walked in the valley bottom, and through the woods on the southern edge of the valley. 

The fact that the potential developers wish to give part of their land into public ownership and contribute towards the creation of a “Country Park Corridor” towards the College and Argal Reservoirs with their woodland surroundings seems to me a very positive move. 

These beautiful wooded areas, which for so long have been plagued by illegal dumping, could at last be managed properly by a trust and public access ensured. This is a project dear to the hearts of many locals, and seems to have been the original aim of the “Glasney Green Space Regeneration Group” who now head up the very vocal opposition to development of any kind.

I was unable to attend the recent public meeting on this subject, but have heard disturbing accounts from several sources about the undemocratic conduct of protesters present, who appear to have arrived with a pre-rehearsed presentation, showing little inclination to listen to others or to allow other people to speak without interruption. There were several people present who would have offered countering views but felt intimidated by the mood of the meeting. 

It seems to me that the petitioners and protesters are aiming to give the impression that their view represents a local consensus. My purpose in writing is to make it clear that this is not necessarily the case. 

As I remember from my years on Falmouth Civic Society’s Executive Committee and the Conservation Area Advisory Body, planning issues are rarely plain and simple. There are always arguments for and against which need to be weighed and balanced. In this particular case I would urge Penryn and Cornwall Councils to support this proposed development subject to the already agreed restrictions and the implementation of the safeguards for the valley bottom and the ancient woodlands.

Patrick Haughton,
Lower Market Street,
Penryn