Telephone: 0300 1234 100
Full planning permission for the erection of a foodstore (A1) with an A2 unit, cinema (D2), three non-food retail units, two small retail units for shop/restaurant purposes (A1 or A3), the creation of a new public realm including quayside promenade and public open space, associated infrastructure including the construction of a raised development platform and related flood prevention measures, new highway junction on Carnsew Road and improvements to the existing highway, car parking and servicing arrangements, and access to the residential development to the north of the quay
Outline planning permission for the erection of 30 residential units, the construction of a new restaurant (A3), associated infrastructure including estate roads, car parking and amenity spaces, the erection of a new pedestrian footbridge over Penpol Creek, and the creation of improved pedestrian access and landscaping proposals to enhance Isis Garden
CASE OFFICER: Jeremy Content on 01736 336785 or email jeremy.content@cornwall.gov.uk
Please follow the link below for the background papers to this report which included the GVA Retail Advice:
Minutes:
The Assistant Head of Planning and Regeneration (Central) advised that Members had visited the site and had been given presentations and a technical briefing on the application prior to the meeting, and he outlined the application and the addenda which had previously been circulated to Members and were tabled at the meeting. The addenda referred to responses from the applicant to the questions raised at the public meeting on 19 January 2011; details of the Section 106 Obligation; amendments to conditions; public opinion surveys; additional correspondence from agents regarding moorings; and responses from statutory consultees Commission for Architecture in the Built Environment (CABE), English Heritage and the Highways Agency. He recommended that if Members were minded to approve the application, that it be deferred for further amendments to the design and layout, taking into account the comments from CABE; further information regarding the delivery of a cinema and footbridge; further information on the impact on fishing; and conclusion of the agreement of the Section 106 Heads of Term.
In response to questions on the officer’s presentation, Members were advised the following:
(i)
The inclusion of a footbridge was essential to the development to
ensure linked shopping trips and would be part of the condition or
legal agreement, although this would require an Order which would
take time to arrange.
(ii)
Longer-stay parking would be important in order to ensure the
spin-off benefits to the town and for the enjoyment of the heritage
site and use of the cinema and this could be further negotiated
with the applicant. However, it was
also important to ensure that it did not simply become a free car
park.
(iii)
Concerns had been expressed by English Heritage regarding the
possible effect on the Outstanding Universal Values of the World
Heritage Site, however, this needed to
be weighed against a number of issues.
If after further negotiation, English Heritage maintained its
objection, then the application would need to be referred to the
Secretary of State for the final decision.
(iv)
Negotiations to date regarding an education contribution had been
based on current advice. However, if
there was a new benchmark, then this would need to be renegotiated
with the applicant.
(v)
The amount of water that was likely to be displaced by the
construction of the development was expected to be minimal and the
Environment Agency was fully involved and was looking at
recommendations to ensure that there would be no flooding
caused.
(vi)
It was estimated that the Cooperative store in the town centre
would lose in the region of £2m of its annual turnover if the
application were to be approved.
(vii)
Less parking had been required of ING’s application than the remaining
applications as South Quay was reasonably accessible on foot,
whereas out of town centres were more car reliant and therefore required more parking
spaces. The 276 spaces proposed were
within the maximum standards set by policy.
(viii)
The current application carried less flood risk than the existing
permission as there were fewer dwellings. The site levels had been reduced slightly, but the
Environment Agency’s recommendations had been fed into the
applicant’s plans. The mitigating
measures were being addressed as part of the conditions by the
inclusion of flood resistant construction techniques.
(ix)
The outline application of 2009 had been divided into two phases
and the first phase was about to commence in order to provide the
infrastructure for North Quay. The
second phase included the sluicing arrangements and the heritage
benefits would be looked at in terms of improvements to the
sluice.
(x)
There had been no submission with the application relating to
dredging of the harbour and there was a need to be wary of
attempting to solve a wider problem on the back of the application,
as the applicant was only required to mitigate against any additional flood risk arising
from the proposal.
(xi)
It was an advantage of the proposal that it had the potential to
increase the flood defences for the whole of Hayle including Copperhouse Pool and Penpol Creek.
(xii)
Concerns regarding the historic quay could be included in further
negotiations.
(xiii)
All legally required consultation had been carried out, however,
there had not been a ballot conducted on which supermarket was
preferred.
(xiv)
Tests on traffic numbers had been carried out during peak times
looking at traffic flows. There was
already an existing consent for 260 houses and a large non-food and
convenience food retail development area. The current proposal was a reduction in both and a
supermarket was likely to generate traffic more gradually over the
day rather than a large residential area at peak times. The applicant had put forward proposals for
improvements to the Foundry Square roundabout and the highways
officer was content with the provisions in the application as
additional highway works would be brought forward early, imposed on
the consented scheme.
(xv)
The metal roofing was considered an appropriate material, but it
was accepted that the proposed blockwork was a modern material and that there were
concerns regarding design. However,
negotiations were continuing and the design was evolving, including
consideration of the use of natural stone.
(xvi)
The cinema would be built at the inception of the site along with
the supermarket and the residential area would follow later, and
conditions could be attached to ensure this.
(xvii)In regard to traffic
movements from the residential area, the likely percentage of
holiday and second homes had not been taken into account, but the
development of North Quay had been and it was considered that the
roads would cope. The figures from the
2007 Transport Assessment were amended by an updated supplementary
paper in 2009, hence the differences.
The changes from retail units to a supermarket had also been taken
into account. In addition, a site
Traffic Management Plan would be required during the construction
stage in consultation with highways.
(xviii)
The 360 houses planned for the Towans
were part of the Hayle masterplan and had been taken into
account.
(xix)
The applications before the Committee should each be considered on
their own merits and the first consideration was the sequential
test set out in PPS4 which was based on geographical location with
the closest links to the town centre.
It was therefore necessary for the Committee to decide whether it
could approve the application in principle or if it wished to
refuse it, before moving on to the next. Members may wish to defer all of the applications
if the first one were deferred, however, they should consider the
risk of appeal on the grounds of non-determination were they to do
so.
(xx)
The applicant could not be categorically prevented from land
banking, however, it would be perverse of the applicant not to go
ahead with the proposals should they be approved, having invested
in the necessary infrastructure, and therefore the risk was very
low and there were a number of tools available to address the
problem should it arise.
The meeting was adjourned at 11.00 a.m. in order to take legal advice regarding the issue of the sequential test and the implications on the remaining applications to be considered of deferring the application.
The meeting was
reconvened at 11.20 a.m. and the Assistant Head of Planning and
Regeneration (Central) and the Solicitor advised that Members must
make a decision on each application on its merits in
turn. South Quay would remain the
preferable site sequentially even if the first application was
refused on heritage grounds as the site itself would still be
available, suitable and viable.
Although objecting to the application itself, CABE had no objection
to the principle of a supermarket on South Quay and therefore the
application could be deferred pending further negotiations on its
design. Members could make a similar
decision in relation to the remaining applications if they felt
that they had the potential to deliver a supermarket, but if minded
to defer, they would need to give reasons and details of what they
felt was lacking in order for the applicant to bring back revised
proposals at a later date. However, if
Members felt that there was no prospect of approving a supermarket
application on any one of the sites, then it should be
refused.
Peter Channon, objector, attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, and spoke against the application. He answered a number of questions from Members for clarification.
Rob Lello, Hayle Harbour Users’ Association, attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, and spoke against the application. He answered a number of questions from Members for clarification.
Councillor Jayne Ninnes, Hayle Town Council, attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, and spoke against the application. She answered a number of questions from Members for clarification.
Simon Clarke, for the applicant, attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, and spoke in support of the application. He answered a question from a Member for clarification.
Graham Coad, supporter, attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, and spoke in support of the application.
Councillor John Pollard, Local Member, attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, and made the following comments:
(i)
There were only two applications worthy of consideration which were
appropriate and supported the views of the town and the general
public were supporting either the ING or the Asda applications.
(ii)
The application had the capacity for further harbour development
and the development of buildings at the end of the quay could
provide a focus for further development on the rest of the quay,
but the application was not quite acceptable as yet.
(iii)
It should have been possible to conclude negotiations prior to the
meeting and the applicants had not delivered a fully fledged
proposal.
(iv)
He would welcome a deferral of no more than six months and would
wish to be involved in negotiations as a Local Member.
(v)
There was already planning permission in place for four-storey
buildings along the whole length of the quay.
(vi)
The provision of a public realm and a cinema was to be applauded
and negotiations had begun with a cinema group.
(vii)
The concerns of English Heritage were resolvable, but any
development should not overshadow the harbour.
(viii)
The harbour company had a scheme for dredging and sluicing which
would be presented to the Harbour Committee on 9 March
2011.
(ix)
The recommendation for deferral should be supported and he was
shocked by the vehemence of the response from English Heritage
which was not indicative of previous discussion with
them. However, he believed a compromise
could be reached.
(x) The Section 106 Obligation needed to be watertight and to include further development of the harbour.
Councillor John Coombe, Local Member, attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, and made the following comments:
(i)
Hayle Town Council’s vote on the
application had been extremely close with ING and Asda being highlighted at the
frontrunners.
(ii)
The ING application was a catalyst for further regeneration of
South Quay which would revitalise the town centre.
(iii)
The site was an area of outstanding industrial past and had never
been a picturesque setting, but had created jobs and had been
deteriorating over the last 30 years.
(iv)
The proposal would improve the footways and add a bridge over
Penpol Creek which would make the quay
more accessible to pedestrians and cyclists and encourage
supermarket shoppers to visit the town.
(v)
The sluicing must be included in the overall scheme in order to
ensure a safe passage for fishermen.
(vi)
The South Quay walls would be repaired to a high
standard.
(vii)
He expressed concern regarding the traffic flow in and around
Foundry Square which must be looked at, but the development was
essential to the town.
(viii)
The consultation had been biased and had contained loaded
questions.
(ix) The findings of the Grimley report and the sequential test, together with what fits best for the people of Hayle, should be the overriding considerations.
Councillor Ray Tovey, Local Member, attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, and congratulated the Committee on its rigour, but advised that he did not feel able to separate his views from his family business connections in the area and would therefore make no further comment.
Councillor Julian German, Cabinet Member for Waste Management, Climate Change and Historic Environment, attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, and underlined the importance of South Quay to the World Heritage Site and advised that any development needed to be sympathetic. He added that the sequential test did not take account of the historic environment and the World Heritage Site. He added that Hayle was identified by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) as being particularly sensitive to change. He advised that the Council would need to satisfy UNESCO that any development accorded with the World Heritage Site management plan, and if it could not do so, then there was a possibility that Hayle would be included on the World Heritage Site risk register which could ultimately result in the loss of the World Heritage status of the whole area, not just Hayle. He asked that Members take into account that the development would not enhance nor conserve the World Heritage Site.
A full and detailed debate ensued, the main points of which were noted as follows:
(i)
It was commented that there were no objections from the statutory
consultees to the principle of a
supermarket on South Quay, and although they had raised concerns regarding the application itself,
its location had the potential to deliver a major step toward a
long-awaited regeneration of Hayle.
(ii)
It was further commented that it would be difficult to build an
iconic supermarket, however, it would be possible to build an
iconic footbridge, thereby creating a future heritage for the town,
but it would need a primer, and regrettably, that would be the
supermarket.
(iii)
Comparisons were made with Tesco on Garras Wharf in Truro where it was commented it
would have been preferable to have shops and cafes as in the
permission already granted to ING for South Quay, Hayle. It was suggested
that the application should be refused as it was sterile and
nothing to do with Hayle
itself.
(iv)
It was suggested that the application should be deferred in order
that the claim that the proposal would reduce traffic movements
could be scrutinised.
(v)
It was commented that the application was premature and that there
were strong grounds for refusal with objections from English
Heritage and the International Council on Monuments and Sites UK
and the potential to jeopardise the World Heritage Site.
(vi)
It was requested that the amount of comparison goods to be sold in
the supermarket be looked at in any renegotiation.
(vii)
It was commented that the condemnation of the proposal by English
Heritage was shocking and the heritage case was overwhelming, and
that ING had not yet replaced the quay wall as previously
agreed. It was further commented that a
supermarket on South Quay would risk more than would be
gained.
(viii)
It was suggested that the proposal could be looked at as an
opportunity to prevent the development of four-storey buildings
already permitted on South Quay.
(ix)
Concerns were expressed at how much longer the Council could
indicate that the site had potential for development without
approving applications that were brought forward.
(x)
Comparisons were made with Penryn,
which was also a through town, and it was commented that there were
supermarkets on the peripheral of Penryn, but people only came to shop in the town
when the supermarkets were closed. It
was questioned whether people really would have time to cross a
footbridge into the town centre when they had finished their
shopping.
(xi)
It was commented that the whole of Cornwall would be affected if
the World Heritage Site was lost.
(xii) In response to a suggestion that the application be refused on grounds including the effect on the fishing industry, Members were advised that the bridge was still only outline and the sluicing argument would be difficult to defend.
Arising from consideration of the report and the debate, it was moved by Councillor Clayton, and seconded by Councillor Wood that the application be deferred for a period of no more than six months pending further negotiations and information regarding the design and layout; the delivery of a cinema and footbridge; concerns raised in the Environmental Statement; and the conclusion of all Head of Terms for a Section 106 Planning Obligation to include heritage and design and the possible impact on the existing fishing industry.
On a vote of 9-11 the motion was lost.
It was further moved by Councillor Plummer, and seconded by Councillor Fitter, that the application be refused on grounds that the application was premature; that it conflicted with PPS5; the outstanding value of the World Heritage Site; the design, layout, scale and siting of the proposal, inadequate provision for the fishing industry; a retail impact of £2.5m on the town centre; and concerns regarding the terms of the Section 106 Obligation, principally in relation to sluicing.
It was moved as an amendment by Councillor Lewarne, and seconded by Councillor Nolan, that the application be refused on the grounds of the detrimental effect on the World Heritage Site.
The vote on the amendment was tied 10-10. Subsequently, the Chairman exercised his casting vote to vote against and the amendment was lost.
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 17.5, more than a quarter of those Members present requested that a recorded vote be taken on the above amendment.
Those Members voting for the amendment were Councillors Biggs, Fitter, Lewarne, Mann, Martin, May, Nolan, Pascoe, Pugh and Rushworth.
Those Members voting against the amendment were Councillors Brown, Clayton, Duffin, Hatton, Pearce, Plummer, Stoneman, Varney, Wallis and Wood.
A vote was taken on the original motion, and on a vote of 7-11 with 2 abstentions the motion was lost.
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 17.5, more than a quarter of those Members present requested that a recorded vote be taken on the above motion.
Those Members voting for the motion were Councillors Fitter, Lewarne, Martin, Nolan, Pascoe, Plummer and Pugh.
Those Members voting against the motion were Councillors Biggs, Brown, Clayton, Duffin, Hatton, Mann, Pearce, Stoneman, Varney, Wallis and Wood.
Those Members abstaining from voting on the motion were Councillors May and Rushworth.
It was further moved by Councillor Wallis, seconded by Councillor Duffin, and on a vote of 11-9, it was
RESOLVED that consideration of Application No. PA10/08142 (ING Red UK (Hayle Harbour) Ltd: South Quay, Hayle be deferred for a period of no more than five months pending further negotiations and information regarding the design and layout; the delivery of a cinema and footbridge; concerns raised in the Environmental Statement; and the conclusion of all Head of Terms for a Section 106 Planning Obligation to include heritage and design and the possible impact on the existing fishing industry.
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 17.5, more than a quarter of those Members present requested that a recorded vote be taken on the above motion.
Those Members voting for the motion were Councillors Biggs, Brown, Clayton, Duffin, Hatton, May, Pearce, Stoneman, Varney, Wallis and Wood.
Those Members voting against the motion were Councillors Fitter, Lewarne, Mann, Martin, Nolan, Pascoe, Plummer, Pugh and Rushworth.
[Following the above item, Councillors Brown and Duffin gave apologies for an early departure and left the meeting.]
Supporting documents:
Copyright Cornwall Council 2010