Relevant grounds for comment

Major development in the AONB (aka Cornwall National Landscape)

The development cannot demonstrate that is conserves and enhances the AONB for reasons of landscape, visual and ecological impacts.

The Planning Officer’s letter to applicants of previous application makes clear that any major development within the AONB will not be supported.

NPPF 182, 183

CLP23/2a, 2b

RNDP LA1

POL

Harm to designated areas

AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, now call National Landscape), Heritage Coast, County Wildlife Site, immediately adjacent to SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest), SAC (Special Area of Conservation), SPA (Special Protection Area).

NPPF 182,183

CLP 23/2a, 2b

CLP23/3a, 3b, 3c

RNDP LA5

Biodiversity

Loss of biodiversity of over 18% within the red line boundary. The suggested mitigation wholly ecologically inappropriate.

NPPF 185 - 188

CLP 23/3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 23/4

RNDP LA5

Night time disturbance

Major increase in light and noise: effect on wildlife. Pile driving for cliff stabilisation: effect on rare species in Gerrans Bay.

CLP23/2

Size and scale

Increase 2.5 times larger than original Pink Hotel. Accommodation for 96, 64 cover restaurant. = “Major development” within the AONB.

NPPF 182

POL

Flooding risk

One part of the development extends into flood zone 3.

Traffic and access

Flawed methodology based on traffic survey done out of season, and failure to take account of different types of additional traffic, eg delivery vans to apartments and restaurant.

Cornwall Local Plan Policy 27: Transport and Accessibility states that “All developments should: Provide safe and suitable access to the site for all people and not cause a significantly adverse impact on the local or strategic road network that cannot be managed or mitigated.'“

Public amenity

Beach access compromised as a result of major increase in traffic. Reduced access to beach and coast path during construction. Those with mobility issues especially affected.

NPPF 183/3C

RNDP SF4

‘Need’

Cannot demonstrate that it’s sufficiently required and in the public interest to meet the tests for a “major development” set out in the NPPF.

NPPF 183/1A

‘Aparthotel’

Not class C1 as used in hotel industry for very short leases by a single lessor ie single ownership. Application is C3, a holiday residential model: apartments sold on long leases to individuals who will be allowed to sublet. This is not a hotel.

The scheme also includes 3 open-market houses.

NPPF 182-184

Viability and viability risk

Unquantifiable costs, both in the construction and operational stages.

Note: In the recent Poundstock Crematorium Judicial Review, the judge ruled against Cornwall Council.

In paragraph 91 he stated that the planning consequences of a lack of viability needed to be spelt out such that the members of the Cornwall Council Planning Committee would understand the risks that the grant or implementation of the permission would be running. 

Applying this to PA24/00042, any determination of the application would need to be informed by a full understanding of any potential lack of viability and the consequent planning risks associated with an approval for a scheme which proves not to be viable. If the application were to go to the CC planning committee, the Planning Officer would have to highlight the risks associated with viability.