Village News

Christmas Lights

PA10/04297 | Sainsburys second application to develop Marsh Lane

Proposed Masterplan	03/08/2010

PA10/04297 | Construction of supermarket, petrol filling station, car parking, highway works, nature reserve and associated works (revised scheme of W1/09-12730)

|

Land Between Loggans Moor Roundabout And Marsh Lane Industrial Estate Marsh Lane Hayle Cornwall

From Cornwall Council Online Planning System

Reference:

PA10/04297
Alternative Reference:

 
Application Received:

26 Jul 2010
Address:

Land Between Loggans Moor Roundabout And Marsh Lane Industrial Estate Marsh Lane Hayle Cornwall
Proposal:

Construction of supermarket, petrol filling station, car parking, highway works, nature reserve and associated works (revised scheme of W1/09-12730)
Status:

Pending Consideration
Appeal Status:

 
Appeal Decision:

 

 

 Important Dates

Application Received Date: 26 Jul 2010
Application Validated Date: 26 Jul 2010
Expiry Date: 27 Aug 2010
Actual Committee Date:  

Latest Neighbour Consultation Date: 29 Jul 2010
Neighbour Consultation Expiry Date: 19 Aug 2010
Standard Consultation Date: 06 Aug 2010
Standard Consultation Expiry Date: 27 Aug 2010
Last Advertised In Press Date: 05 Aug 2010
Latest Advertisement Expiry Date: 26 Aug 2010
Last Site Notice Posted Date:  
Latest Site Notice Expiry Date:  

Decision Made Date:  
Decision Issued Date:  
Permission Expiry Date:  
Decision Printed Date:  
Target Determination Date: 25 Oct 2010
Determination Deadline: 25 Oct 2010

 

 

 

AttachmentSize
Meeting 18 Feb 2010 - EQ, WYG - PPS25 Sequential Test Methodology63.86 KB

Cornwall Wildlife Trust

Cornwall Wildlife Trust

Comment Date: Fri 27 Aug 2010

RE: Construction of supermarket, petrol filling station, car parking, highway works, nature reserve and associated works (revised scheme of W1/09-12730); Land Between Loggans Moor Roundabout And Marsh Lane Industrial Estate, Marsh Lane, Hayle

Thank you for consulting Cornwall Wildlife Trust on the above proposal. Further to our response letter dated 18th August 2010, we would like to offer the following additional comments: Alternative Sites In line with section 1(vi) of PPS 9, we advise that this proposal will cause significant harm to biodiversity conservation interests, and therefore the local planning authority will need to be satisfied that the development cannot reasonably be located on any alternative sites that would result in less or no harm. (PPS 9, section 1(vi)).

Mitigation, compensation and management Should the authority decide there are no suitable alternative sites, the following will apply; In the absence of any such alternatives, local planning authorities should ensure that, before planning permission is granted, adequate mitigation measures are put in place. (PPS 9, section 1(vi)). PPS 9 goes on to state that where adequate mitigation is not possible, adequate compensation should be sought. In this case, adequate mitigation measures will not be possible as the proposals involve loss of marshy grassland habitat designated as a County Wildlife Site (CWS) to hardstanding. Proposals will therefore need to demonstrate there is adequate compensation in order to offset the loss of the above habitat.

The Trust welcomes proposals to include the additional land to the east of the site as part of a hand-over package to be owned and managed by an appropriate body for biodiversity conservation interests. There is potential for the biodiversity of this land to be significantly improved; however, it is likely that recreation of marshy grassland habitat will not be practical here due to hydrological constraints. The Trust are not satisfied that the loss of CWS marshy grassland can be adequately compensated solely through creation of alternative ecologically valuable habitats in the land to the east. However, implementation of a suitable management regime in the rest of the CWS would be likely to increase the sites value for biodiversity.

Therefore, in combination, the additional compensation land and management of the rest of the CWS may result in no net loss of biodiversity if the development is approved. In order to inform whether this combination of compensation and management will offset loss of the marshy grassland, we advise that the following surveys are undertaken prior to determination. The survey area should include land within the development footprint, plus that extending up to the dismantled railway to the north and the whole of the easternmost field:

1. A National Vegetation Classification (NVC) survey

2. An invertebrate survey (with reference to Natural England Research Report 005).

We advise that the applicant utilises the results of the above surveys and pending bat activity survey data (currently ongoing), and consults with local experts to provide outline proposals for management specific to this site. At this stage, proposals should be outline only and seek to answer the question of offsetting loss of marshy grassland and associated species. Should the application be approved, detailed management plans would need to be informed by survey of the rest of the CWS to ensure management is appropriate, and adequate funding would need to be provided for this.

Our final concern is the practicalities of handing the land over to be owned and managed by an appropriate body for biodiversity conservation interests we advise details are firmed up at this stage in order to provide assurance that the compensation proposed will definitely be implemented and suitable funding will be allocated. Summary In summary, whilst we maintain our objection, we will be happy to review our position after: 1. Submission of the above survey results 2. Submission of outline management and other compensation proposals as informed by local consultation and survey results 3. Assurance that the management and compensation proposed will definitely be implemented

West 1 Historic Environment Service

West 1 Historic Environment Service

Comment Date: Fri 13 Aug 2010

Thank you for consulting Historic Environment Advice (Archaeology) on the above application.

The Proposed Development Site The proposed application is on land recorded by the Cornwall and Scilly Historic Environment Record as being Upland Rough Ground (URG). The Cornwall Landscape Assessment 1994 describes URG as: Typical Historical/Archaeological Components: The semi-natural vegetation community is the most immediately visible component but there is also usually a wealth of archaeological remains, many of which may be fairly ephemeral, not making a significant impact on present landscape form. Others do, for instance, hill-top Bronze Age barrows, long post-medieval pasture boundaries, areas of peat cutting, medieval fields and crofts (enclosed and partly improved rough ground) which have reverted through abandonment to rough ground. (Page 145) Potential for historical and archaeological research: Great. Survey, excavation and analysis of remains will yield much valuable information, as will palaeo-environmental work, particularly that investigating the ancient pollen preserved in deep bogs. (Page 146) Policy Context It is Government and Cornwall Council policy that the historic environment is taken into account in the planning process.

The former Penwith Local Plan includes: Local Plan Objectives 1. To ensure that development does not have an adverse effect on landscape, nature, conservation, historic, archaeological and geological values;

Recommendations We recommend that an archaeological desk based assessment and walk over survey is conducted to provide the Local Planning Authority, the Developer and Historic Environment Advice with the archaeological potential of the site and potential methods for mitigation. If, however, consent is given we would expect an archaeological recording condition to be included. PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide recommends including words to the effect: No works pursuant to the consent are to be commenced or the development beneficially occupied before a relevant part or the whole of a Written Scheme of Investigation is carried out. This Written Scheme of Investigation will be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Cornwall Council Historic Environment Advice.

I hope this is of assistance, please do contact me if anything is unclear or further discussion is required. Yours sincerely Phil Markham MA MIfA Historic Environment Planning Advice Officer Environment Service Tel: 01872 322546 Email: pmarkham@cornwall.gov.uk

No objection | Natural England - Devon Cornwall And IoS Team

Natural England - Devon Cornwall And IoS Team

Comment Date: Mon 23 Aug 2010

Thank you for your consultation dated 29th July 2010.

Natural England does not object to the proposed development.

The proposed development is within c. 450m of the Loggans Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and is also close to two other SSSIs, namely Hayle Estuary and Carrack Gladden SSSI and Gwithian to Mexico Towans SSSI. Natural England is satisfied that the application is unlikely to affect these SSSIs. This reply comprises our statutory consultation response under the provisions of Article 10 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 and Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Natural England also considers that the proposed development is unlikely to significantly affect any other SSSIs or European protected sites in the local area. Natural England in Cornwall will not, except in exceptional circumstances, object to or provide detailed or case-specific advice on protected species. This should not be interpreted as a statement that there are no potential impacts on protected species and other bodies and individuals may wish to comment. As the local planning authority Cornwall Council has a duty under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in exercising its functions. This duty includes the requirement to have regard to protected species. The protection afforded these species is explained in Part IV and Annex A of ODPM Circular 06/2005 to PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System. The presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a local planning authority is considering a development proposal that could result in harm to a species or its habitat. If there is a reasonable likelihood of a protected species being present which could be affected by a development then you should require the applicant, through a professional ecological consultant, to provide the following information prior to determination:

1. Survey - thorough and robust survey of the development site and any other areas likely to be affected by the proposals for protected species;

2. Impact assessment - clear assessment of the likely impacts of the proposal upon protected species;

3. Mitigation strategy - to clarify how the likely impact will be addressed in order to ensure no detriment to the maintenance of the population of the protected species at a favourable conservation status. This should be proportionate to perceived impacts and must include clear site-specific prescriptions rather than vague, general or indicative possibilities; and

4. Delivery mechanisms - to include additional information as appropriate to the mitigation strategy that will be required to ensure that the proposed mitigation works are feasible and deliverable e.g. architects plans, licensing arrangements, planning agreements, contractors precautionary method statements. Such information should only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances.

I also recommend that in considering this application you take into account the guidance set out in Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: Planning Good Practice Guide for Cornwall (Nov 2007) jointly produced by the former local planning authorities in Cornwall, The Environment Agency, Cornwall Wildlife Trust and Natural England. When dealing with European protected species your Council is a competent authority as defined by Regulation 9(5) of the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2010 (the Habitats Regulations). This requires you to have regard for the requirements of the Habitats Directive in the exercise of your functions. Where a European protected species (listed in Schedule 2 to the Habitats Regulations) could be affected, as the local planning authority you must be satisfied that the development meets the 3 requirements of Article 16 of the Habitats Directive: that there is no satisfactory alternative; that there are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest; and that the favourable conservation status of the species will not be affected.

Imposing a condition on an applicant requiring them to obtain a licence from Natural England will not be sufficient to discharge your duties under the Habitats Regulations. Applicants should be informed that planning permission, if granted, does not absolve them from complying with the relevant law, including obtaining and complying with the terms and conditions of any licences required. Licences are administered by Natural Englands Wildlife Management and Licensing Service based in Bristol, rather than Natural Englands local office. A professional ecological consultant should be able to advise their client (the applicant) regarding any licensing requirements that may apply.

We welcome the revised ecological compensation proposal detailed in the revised application. However, it is unclear whether it will fully compensate for the loss of c. 20% of the County Wildlife Site.

We therefore recommend that you first consult the County Ecologist for her views on the application. We also advise you to contact the Cornwall Wildlife Trust who may wish to comment on the nature conservation implications of the proposals. We recommend that the implementation of any ecological compensation measures should be assured through planning conditions and/or s106 agreement as appropriate.

Gwinear Gwithian Parish Council

Gwinear Gwithian Parish Council

Comment Date: Wed 15 Sep 2010

NEED - should there be another major food store at the eastern end of Hayle? There are already 3-Co-op, Lidl & M&S. These provide variety & competition and attract a lot of traffic. Another is proposed for the harbour. There could be better locations for this scale and type of development.

FLOOD RISK - Marsh Lane is well-named - the site lies near the Angarrack stream which has restricted connection to its outfall. If more of the area is covered by impervious buildings and tarmac, reducing ground absorption, heavy rain (such as has been seen elsewhere in Cornwall) may result in flooding affecting not only the retail park but also the A30.

ENVIRONMENT - further urban sprawl towards Connor Downs should be avoided.

TRAFFIC - the five-way Loggans roundabout is already at capacity in the tourist season with queues forming on the westbound A30. Exit from the retail park is sometimes difficult because of the volume of traffic. Drivers from the east are finding their way through Connor Downs to avoid the A30 queue, and also via Angarrack Lane to avoid the roundabout altogether when travelling to the retail park or the adjacent industrial estate and the spoils field/car boot sale. A Highways group with knowledge of the surrounding area and a good imagination is needed to create a new roundabout layout joining the complex which would benefit all roads leading off it. Any out of town shopping development encouraged the use of a car and ways in which to reduce this would have to addressed.

SURROUNDING AREA - A wider view of the surrounding area is needed and issues such as a park and ride scheme for the Towans and other nearby areas, traffic calming for villages such as Connor Downs and the other relevant infrastructure such as schools, doctors and housing are all issues in the wider area.

The key issues are the environmental issues, better traffic flow for surrounding roads and a pedestrian friendly layout and the impact on neighbouring communities.

No objection | South West Water Services

South West Water Services

Comment Date: Thu 12 Aug 2010

With reference to the planning list for week ending 30/7/10. There are no objections to any of the applications submitted in terms of capacity within our infrastructure to serve the development proposals. However South West Water is committed to eliminating sewer flooding particularly from foul and combined sewers to safeguard both the environment and householders. The Company therefore will oppose all developments where a combined discharge to the public sewer is proposed and will only permit such where it would be unlawful to oppose them. In addition, applicants and their agents should be aware of the fact that public sewers can surcharge up to ground level in some locations. This needs to be borne in mind where developments may be in low lying areas or basement rooms/garages are proposed. South West Water reserve the right to confirm the point of connection to our apparatus to ensure the Company can provide the guaranteed standards of service to proposed new developments and existing customers. The above statements do not give any consent or permission to carry out construction works either over or within 3 metres of our apparatus. Applicants should therefore obtain details of our records to ensure this is complied with. Lucy Hurrell Technical Assistant 01392 443102 South West Water, Peninsula House, Rydon Lane, Exeter, EX2 7HR

OBJECTION | Environment Agency

Environment Agency

Comment Date: Wed 17 Nov 2010

CONSTRUCTION OF SUPERMARKET, PETROL FILLING STATION, CAR PARKING, HIGHWAY WORKS, NATURE RESERVE AND ASSOCIATED WORKS (REVISED SCHEME OF W1/09-12730) LAND AT MARSH LANE, HAYLE I refer to your consultation on the above application and to the Sequential Test which you have prepared. Environment Agency position We OBJECT to this application for two reasons:

1. Flood risk Sequential Test.

2. Risk to controlled waters.

1. Sequential Test: We object because the Sequential Test information prepared by you has demonstrated that there are reasonably available sites with less flood risk on which this development could proceed instead. We therefore recommend that the application should be refused. Reasons The application site lies within Flood Zone 3 defined by Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) as having a high probability of flooding. Paragraph D5 of PPS25 requires decision-makers to steer new development to areas at the lowest probability of flooding by applying a Sequential Test. In this instance the evidence provided to indicate that this test has been carried out indicates that there are reasonably available sites at lower flood risk. Developing this site therefore fails to apply the sequential approach advocated in paragraph 14 of PPS25. We agree with you that the South Quay site, South Quay site combined with the Jewson Site and the Hayle Rugby Club site are sequentially preferable in flood risk terms to the application site. We note that you have accepted that the Loggans Moor and North Quay sites are sequentially less preferable than the application site though they both include an area within Flood Zone 1 which is greater than 2.3 hectares in extent. We would appreciate confirmation as to why these sites have been discounted.

2. Risk to Controlled Waters We object to the proposed development as submitted because there is insufficient information to demonstrate that the risk of pollution to controlled waters is acceptable. There are four strands to this objection. These are that: we consider the level of risk posed by this proposal to be unacceptable. the application fails to provide assurance that the risks of pollution are understood, as a preliminary risk assessment (including a desk study, conceptual model and initial assessment of risk) has not been provided. PPS23 takes a precautionary approach. It requires a proper assessment whenever there might be a risk, not only where the risk is known. under PPS23 the application should not be determined until information is provided to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that the risk to controlled waters has been fully understood and can be addressed through appropriate measures. This is not currently the case. There is a licensed abstraction (15/49/251/S/033 situated at National Grid Reference SW579385) that may be at risk from the development proposals, including from the operational phase. An assessment of risk to this and other identified receptors is required. Reason: To protect controlled waters.

I have kept the applicants agent informed with a copy of this letter. Yours faithfully Mr TIM HAMBLY
Planning Liaison Officer

Direct dial 01208 265045
Direct fax 01208 78321
Direct e-mail tim.hambly@environment-agency.gov.uk cc White Young Green

No objection | South West Water Services

South West Water Services

Comment Date: Fri 27 Aug 2010

Proposal: Construction of supermarket, petrol filling station, car parking, highway works, nature reserve and associated works Location: Marsh Lane, Hayle With reference to the planning application at the above address. I am pleased to advise that South West Water have no objections. The following comments are for information and do not constitute an objection to the proposal. South West Water will only allow foul drainage to be connected to the public foul or combined sewer. Should no separate storm system be available, details of the means of disposal must be submitted for prior approval. The use of soakaways will require satisfactory percolation tests to have been undertaken. If soakaways are not an acceptable solution, we request the applicant contacts this office for further information. Please note that there is a public sewer in the vicinity. This is shown on the attached plan. Please note that no development will be permitted within 3 metres of the sewer, we also request that ground cover is not substantially altered to ensure the security of our apparatus. Should the development encroach on the 3 metre easement, the sewer will need to be diverted. The applicant/agent is advised to contact South West Water to discuss the matter further. If further assistance is required to establish the exact location of a sewer, the applicant or their agent should contact our Waste Water Services Team in writing at the above address to arrange for the sewer to be traced. Should you require any further assistance, please contact the above office.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.