Good News,Actual News Guy!

The UK Secretary of State,Ruth Kelly,who presides over planning, has refused Ampersand permission to build a monstrous structure that would have cluttered Cornwall's coastal landscape and unwisely intruded into  the intertidal zone. Ampersand claim they will revert to a previous planning permission with lesser sea defences.As the Exclusive Footage attached to this NowPublic story by CornwallNews illustrates, that would be extremely unwise and unlikely to attract apartment buyers with their heads screwed into their shoulders properly. Perhaps Ampersand will soon see the wisdom of removing their over-optimistic mess and debris and reveal the actual beach itself for the long term open space enjoyment of ALL the people of Cornwall for years to come.

(Of course Prince Charles,Duke of Cornwall could have nipped Ampersand's silly notions in the bud at a much earlier stage had he been more concerned about the state of Cornwall's coast and pulled back from any financial deals with Ampersand to extend their structures into the area of the foreshore below the existing mean high water mark claimed by the Duchy of Cornwall(corp.div.) .

Below is a quote from CarlyonBayWatch,the main community group which has fought long and hard against this daft plan for a number of years. In it they refer to the exclusive footage in this story at NowPublic which has had considerable exposure in the local press and was also specifically referred to by the Member of Parliament for the area,Matthew Taylor:

The Secretary of State has just announced the decision on the Ampersand proposals for a new sea wall at Carlyon Bay; permission to build it has been refused.

Following lengthy consideration of all the evidence presented at the Public Inquiry, held in December 2006, it has been decided that the plans for a new sea wall and beach re-charge contravene three key areas of current Government policy; Delivering Sustainable Development, Transport and Coastal Planning.

CarlyonBayWatch, one of the groups objecting to the proposals, are delighted with the news.

At the Public Inquiry, Cornwall County Council were instrumental in attacking the errors, contradictions and anomalies in the Applicant’s case, the Environment agency attacked the principle of building a sea wall partly into the tidal zone, and the witnesses for CarlyonBayWatch brought forward expert, fact-based evidence and objections.

Roy Bennett, Chairman of CarlyonBayWatch, says,

"We believe that only those with a financial interest in the development really believe that the so-called extant consent for 511 apartments - granted 17 years ago in 1990 - is either sustainable or safe. Recognition of the effects of global warming has changed the basis of the whole scheme in that time. It is our hope that the outcome of the Public Inquiry will draw a line, once and for all, on plans for a development of such scale and impact on this beautiful stretch of Cornish coastline."

Restormel Borough Council stated during the Public Inquiry that there was a risk to life and property if the original sea wall design was relied upon to defend the development. It also became apparent that the Developer was made aware in 2003 of the danger within the original design.

Mr Bennett adds,

"This judgement is a victory for common sense. CarlyonBayWatch volunteers have put tremendous time and effort into a hard fought campaign over the last five years to raise the public profile of the problems hanging over this development. It seems that the voice of the community has finally been heard."

... 

The group, its supporters and the people of Restormel will now be looking to Restormel Borough Council to ensure that the damage done at Carlyon Bay is reversed as soon as possible and that the beaches are restored as a time-honoured resource for locals and visitors alike to use for leisure and recreation.

.............................................

'New Development Should Not be Built'

So says St Austell MP Matthew Taylor in response to film footage, taken during storms, showing the temporary sea defences at Carlyon Bay being swept away.

Controversial plans for the Ampersand new sea defences were the subject of a Public Inquiry which concluded in December 2006. Restormel Borough Council supported the application, but Cornwall County Council, the Environment Agency and CBW made a strong case in opposition. The government had decided the inquiry was necessary based on evidence from oceanographers and coastal management experts, environmental organisations, wildlife bodies and representations from locals and the wider public.

Matthew Taylor has now added his comments to the chorus urging caution over the Carlyon Bay site and recently told the 'St Austell Voice' that, 'the awesome power of the sea could overwhelm many communities in Cornwall...due to rising sea levels and worsening storms.'

Ampersand have been widely reported stating they will go ahead with plans to build 511 apartments regardless of whether the sea wall plans are approved by Ian McPherson, the Government planning inspector, or not. They claim that a lesser sea wall, for which they have 'extant' planning permission, already gives them permission to build.

Potential investors in coastal developments may not be so easily convinced by such bullishness if they stop to consider Matthew Taylor's other comments regarding Carlyon Bay, however. He went on to say that, 'insurance companies are raising bills and refusing cover for the most threatened homes and businesses.'  "

The Secretary of State,The Rt Hon Ruth Kelly's adjudication:

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 77
APPLICATION BY AMPERSAND LIMITED
BEACH REPLENISHMENT AND REVISED SEA WALL AT CRINNIS, SHORTHORN AND POLGAVER BEACHES, CARLYON BAY, ST AUSTELL, CORNWALL PL29 3RG - APPLICATION REF: 05/00028

1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, J I McPherson, JP BSc CEng MICE MCIWEM MCMI, who held a public inquiry between 7 November and 8 December 2006 into your client's application for planning permission for the placement of beach replenishment material and the provision of a revised design of sea wall at Crinnis, Shorthorn and Polgaver beaches, Carlyon Bay, St Austell PL29 3RG in accordance with application Ref 05/00028 dated 4 January 2005.
2. It was directed on 12 January 2006, in pursuance of section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that the application be referred to the Secretary of State for decision instead of being dealt with by the relevant planning authority, Restormel Borough Council ("the Council").
Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision
3. The Inspector recommended that planning permission be refused. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees, except where stated, with the Inspector’s conclusions and with his recommendation. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report.

Procedural matters

4. The Secretary of State notes that that there is an earlier extant planning permission (95/00966) relevant to this application. She agrees with the Inspector that whilst this earlier permission is clearly a material planning consideration, it is the called-in application that is for determination at this stage (IR 12.2).
5. In reaching her decision the Secretary of State has, like the Inspector (IR12.4), had regard to the Environmental Statement (ES) which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The Secretary of State is content that the ES complies with the above regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for her to assess the environmental impact of the application.
6. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that an assessment for race equality purposes is only required for policies and not in considering a specific planning application such as this (IR12.5).
Matters arising since the close of the Inquiry
7. Following the close of the Inquiry, the Secretary of State received a number of representations from interested parties. A schedule of the correspondence received is attached at Annex A to this letter. The Secretary of State considers that the correspondence neither raised significant issues material to the application before her, nor necessitated reference back to the parties. Copies of the correspondence can be made available upon written request to the above address.
Policy considerations
8. In deciding the application, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the development plan comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West (RPG10), the 2004 Cornwall County Structure Plan (SP), the Cornwall County Council Minerals Local Plan (1998), and the Restormel Borough Council Local Plan (2001).

9. The draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West (RSS10) is an emerging plan. As it is still subject to amendment, the Secretary of State accords it only very limited weight.
10. Material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account in this case include Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1: Delivering Sustainable Development; PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation; Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 13: Transport; PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation; PPG20: Coastal Planning; PPS25: Development and Flood Risk; DCLG's 2006 Good Practice Guide on Tourism; the 1999 non-statutory Rame Head to Lizard Point Shoreline Management Plan; Circular 11/95: Use of conditions in planning permission and Circular 05/2005: Planning obligations.
11. The Secretary of State does not consider that the cancellation of Planning Policy Guidance Note 25: Development and Flood Risk and the subsequent publication of PPS25 raises any issues that would require a reference back to parties.


Main issues
12. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main considerations in determining the proposal are those identified in the call-in letter and set out at the front of the Inspector's report.
Development plan

13. The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies most relevant to the determination of this application are those listed by the Inspector at IR3.2 - IR3.31. She agrees with the Inspector that the aims of these policies are as set out in IR12.9. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the application site is clearly in the coastal zone and part of the generally undeveloped coastline of Cornwall (IR 12.10) and that this application relates to the proposed beach recharge, the seawall and promenade, none of which would be within the area of previous development on the beach (IR 12.11).

14. For the reasons given in IR 12.12-12.31, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the whole development would be satisfactorily protected to a 1 in 200 year standard until 2071. She further agrees with the Inspector (IR 12.31) that the applicant's managed adaptive approach' would be appropriate in meeting the advice in PPS25.

15. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR 12.33) and sees no reason to consider that the proposed concrete wall would suffer any undue staining. She also agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons set out in IR 12.34-12.36, that there would be little risk of harm to the general marine ecology in the bay. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the placing of some stent in the area of the Crinnis RIGS would result in minimal obscuration and notes that satisfactory mitigation measures would be secured through the proposed planning obligation (IR 12.37). The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector that, whilst there would be some benefits in terms of guaranteed public access, they would nevertheless be tempered with significant restrictions (IR 12.38-12.40).

16. For the reasons set out in IR 12.41-12.53, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, overall, and acknowledging that the highway conditions may not be `unacceptable', even allowing for the mitigation measures, there would be material residual harm to amenity and to some extent to highway safety considerations (IR 12.54).

17. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the application proposals themselves would not greatly improve tourism or the economy of the area, but they would facilitate much more (IR 12.55-12.58).

18. For the reasons set out in IR 12.59-12.67 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the application proposals are generally unsustainable (IR 12.68).

Conclusion on the development plan

19. For the reasons set out above, and summarised by the Inspector at IR 12.69, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's conclusion in IR 12.70 that the application proposals, on their own, are contrary to the policies of the development plan. She has therefore gone on to consider whether there are any material considerations of sufficient weight to overcome this conflict.

Other local policy

20. The Secretary of State notes the Inspector's view that the draft RSS for the South West adds little in terms of policy to the consideration of this application (IR 12.71). She also agrees with the Inspector's conclusion that the non-statutory Rame Head to Lizard Point Shoreline Management Plan is not particularly supportive of the proposals because its primary conclusion is to do nothing (IR 12.72).

National Planning Policy

21. For the reasons set out in IR 12.73, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there would be little harm from the proposed development to the ecology or the geology of the area. She therefore concludes that the proposal accords with PPS9.

22. For the reasons set out in IR 12.74 the Secretary of State considers that the proposed scheme would conflict with PPG13.

23. Like the Inspector, the Secretary of State has considered the proposal in terms of national policy in PPG17 and the Good Practice Guide on Tourism. She agrees with the Inspector that the scheme would have relatively little effect on tourism or the economy of the area, but it would facilitate greater benefits (IR 12.75). She considers that the proposal would gain some support from PPG17.

24. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that PPG20 seeks to direct developments away from the undeveloped coastline and considers that, as a stand-alone application, a large engineered development in a largely undeveloped bay conflicts with PPG20 (IR 12.76).

25. The Secretary of State, like the Inspector, considers that the general aim of PPS25 is to direct developments away from locations where people and property would be at risk of flooding (IR 12.77). For the reasons set out in IR 12.78-12.80, she agrees with the Inspector's conclusion that, were the holiday complex to proceed, the proposed sea defences would protect it to the required standard throughout its lifetime, allowing for some possible additional works after 65 years (IR12.81) and concludes that the proposal gains a degree of support from PPS25.

26. For the reasons set out in IR 12.82-12.83, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the application proposals are generally unsustainable and conflict with the principles of PPS1.

Extant permission and fall-back position

27. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is an extant planning permission, granted in 1990, for 511 holiday units, a leisure complex, and ancillary development on Crinnis and Shorthorn Beaches, all of which would be sited behind a seawall (IR 12.84).

28. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the existence of a fall-back position, and the way it should be treated in determining another application, are matters of law. In this case, she considers, like the Inspector, that in order to establish a fall back position, there should be a substantial prospect of the existing permission being developed, and that prospect should be real, rather than theoretical (IR12.87). She further agrees that if such a fall-back position is established, she should then have regard to it and the relative merits of the two schemes (IR12.87).

Flood protection

29. For the reasons given by the Inspector in IR12.88 - IR12.113, the Secretary of State agrees that, in general, the standard of flood protection is significantly below that which should be provided (IR12.114).

Stability of the Primary Wall

30. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector's assessment of the stability of the primary wall of the extant scheme and agrees that there is no reason to question the design of the structure (IR12.115).

Insurance

31. For the reasons set out in IR 12.116-12.117, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is no reason to question the availability of insurance for these units.

Finance

32. The Inspector considers that, in this case, financial viability is a factor in establishing the overall prospect of the extant scheme proceeding in the absence of permission for the application proposals (IR12.118). The Secretary of State fully agrees with the Inspector, and considers for the reasons given in IR12.119 - IR12.131, that there is a realistic prospect of the applicant achieving an acceptable developer's profit on the extant scheme, provided there is sufficient investor confidence in the development (IR12.132).

Investor Confidence

33. The Secretary of State has considered the factors of relevance to investor confidence, as set out by the Inspector in IR12.133 - IR12.136. She considers that the standard of flood protection, the proposed storm warning system and access to the beach over the rock armour are factors that may diminish investor confidence and shares the Inspector's doubts that the development would turn out to be as attractive to investors as envisaged by the applicants (IR12.137).

Viability of the Extant Permission as a Fall-Back

34. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that all the units, apart from those that would be retained by the developer, should be readily insurable by the purchasers and there should be no resulting effect on their mortgageability (IR12.138). She also agrees that the necessary funds would appear to be available to the developer who should be able to achieve an adequate return on the development (IR12.139). She considers that these positive indicators of the viability of the extant permission as a fall-back have to be weighed against those negative indicators, as set out by the Inspector in IR12.139 - IR12.141. Whilst she shares the Inspector's reservations about the viability of the extant scheme, she does not share his overall view, expressed at IR12.142, that there is no real prospect of the extant scheme to be built out if permission for the proposed scheme is refused. The Secretary of State considers that, on balance, the availability of finance for the development and the ongoing preparatory works at the site indicate that there is a real possibility, however small, of the applicants building out the extant permission were this proposal to be refused. For this reason, she considers that the extant permission is a fall-back position that constitutes a material consideration in determining this case.

Comparison of the Proposed and Extant Schemes

35. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR 12.144-12.155) and considers that, as the extant permission is a fall back position which may be realised, it is necessary to compare the differences between the proposed sea defences and the extant defences. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is little to choose between the two schemes in terms of visual impact or public access (IR 12.156). She also agrees that the extant scheme would be marginally more sustainable and would not generate the increased traffic movements of the proposed scheme (IR 12.156). She further agrees that the proposed scheme would provide a full standard of flood protection, an ecological management plan, benefits for the RIGS sites and significantly better enhancement of tourism and the local economy of the area (IR12.156). The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, when attaching appropriate weight to each of these considerations, the balance falls in favour of the proposed scheme (IR12.157).

Compatibility with the Proposed Scheme

36. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons given in IR12.159- IR12.160 that the proposed and extant permissions clearly overlap such that it would not be possible to fully construct both schemes (IR12.161). For the reasons given by the Inspector in IR12.162 - IR12.165, she agrees that there is no need to reject the application proposals because of incompatibility with the extant permission (IR12.166).

Other matters

37. The Secretary of State has considered, and agrees with, the Inspector's consideration of alternative schemes and other consents (IR12.167 - IR12.168). The planning obligation submitted alongside the proposal and the proposed conditions have been considered by the Secretary of State but she does not consider that these overcome the objections to the proposed scheme.

Overall Conclusions
38. The Secretary of State concludes that the proposal conflicts with the relevant development plan policies. She has gone on to consider whether there are material considerations of sufficient weight to overcome this conflict. She concludes that whilst the development would accord with PPS9, and gain some support from PPG17 and PPS25, it would conflict with PPS1, PPG13 and PPG20. She considers that the existence of an extant permission is a fallback position that represents a material consideration in determining this application. However, she does not consider that the material considerations put forward are of sufficient weight to determine this application other than in accordance with the development plan.

Formal Decision
39. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. She hereby refuses planning permission for your client's application for the placement of beach replenishment material and the provision of a revised design of sea wall on Crinnis, Shorthorn and Polgaver beaches, Carlyon Bay, St Austell PL29 3RG in accordance with application Ref 05/00028 dated 4 January 2005.

Right to challenge the decision

40. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court within six weeks from the date of this letter.
41. A copy of this letter has been sent to Restormel Borough Council and to all other parties who asked to see a copy of the decision letter.
Yours faithfully,




Richard Watson
Authorised by the Secretary of State to sign in that behalf

No more Concreting Cornwall 's Coast ?

That would be the finest RESULT.