We feel you need to be aware of more of the detail than either Cornwall Council or the developer have yet revealed publicly in the agreement they signed in June 2009, and have chosen to obscure in their recent statements.
Planning consent The very old planning consent, which they both keep trying to revive, was effectively dead and buried at the 2006 public inquiry. The Inspector found it to be no longer a "starter", and the Secretary of State doubted there would be 'investor confidence' in the scheme.
The developers themselves had already "written off" the old plans in their published, statutory accounts as having no development value. The 'certificate of lawful commencement' for the 1990 scheme, obtained on a technicality in 2002, was proven at the inquiry to be of no value, in the light of current policies and understanding of the effects of global warming.
Further a significant part of the 1990 scheme, at the western end of Crinnis Beach, was declared to be dangerous to life and property by one of the developers' own experts. The former chairman of Restormel's planning committee stated publicly in 2005 that "if the development was brought forward today it could never receive approval".
Why then do these protagonists of massive development on the beaches keep using that 'red herring' to gain permission for their plans? It can only be because their plans will offend the local, regional and national planning policies to such an extent that they would not otherwise have any chance of gaining planning consent.
Planning history Their account of the planning history of the site conventiently ignores the occasions on which development on the beaches has been denied, and attempts to find comparable their massive concrete tower blocks with single storey holiday chalets. It also claims that permission was granted for the sea wall which the Secretary of State in reality refused following the public inquiry.
Objectives The objectives of sustainability, no beach recharge, safety, longevity, appropriateness to Cornwall, benefit to the local economy, public access and increased beach size are, of course ambitions we all endorse, but looking more closely it should be noted: The development is to be "not bigger" that the discredited old 1990 scheme, but will still allow over 150 houses on a previously unspoilt beach (Shorthorn). The agreement now refers to "residential" not holiday units as previously included in the 1990 defunct approval. A "modern" design is stated as being "part of the tradition of design in Cornwall" with an urban/higher density scheme applicable for Crinnis Beach. Public Access to the beaches is guaranteed because Cornwall Council has added the footpaths at the eastern and western end of the beaches to the definitive map of public rights of way. The beach cannot be larger than it was naturally before the present developers sought to reduce it dramatically by illegally erecting the seawall presently blighting the beach.
Planning policies The offence to planning policies overall which demand that development does not damage or destroy the environment, and should be located in urban areas near existing centres of population is manifest.
Sea wall The developers' claim that they only lost the public inquiry because of the need for heavy lorries to carry massive quantities of stent material from the clay country to the beach is disingenuous to say the least. It was lost for many reasons. That said, the beach, with any sea wall, will not stop eroding with the natural action of storm and tide. Any defensive structure, and one would inevitably be necessary, will, in the fullness of time, lead to a need for beach replenishment, as the rate of erosion is exacerbated by the sea defence.
Views It is stated that the beaches are "only visible from a few specific places accessible to the public" and that the scheme's buildings should not be higher than the cliffs at the back of the beach and that "gaps should be left in the buildings to ensure those key views are maintained between the buildings". This statement is not only simply inaccurate and unbelievable but outrageous.
Traffic The traffic generated during and after construction of the proposed scheme is simply uncontainable, with a forecast of over one million extra traffic movements annually when the development is complete.
Please attend the exhibitions and make sure these points are made to the developers with the aim that any scheme eventually brought forward will meet the stated objectives of Carlyon Bay Watch, supported by the vast majority of the local residents, which are manifestly reasonable and practical and of long term benefit to the local residents, the visiting tourists and the commercial sector. They may not make as much profit for the developer but profit is not what this should solely be about.
