From:Mark Ball Sent:30 Nov 2020 15:22:01 +0000 To:Derek Jackson Cc:Business Location Services Ltd;Julian German CC;Hayley Jewels;Matthew Stephenson Subject:PA20/03842 - Pendower Beach House Hotel, Rocky Lane, Ruan High Lanes

Information Classification: CONTROLLED

Derek,

I write further to our meeting on 15 October and in response to your subsequent email and accompanying plans and draft minutes of the 15 October meeting received 26 October regarding the above site.

With regard to the draft minutes I have the following comments/amendments:

1.4 – I’m not sure what this comment means and whether it makes sense as written. Does this refer to your submission of further information in respect of the Environmental Statement? If so the comment should say that formal consultation and publicity is underway in respect of the further information submitted.

1.11 – This comment is contradictory as it is written. I would suggest the following:

“MB noted the redevelopment of the existing hotel buildings is acceptable in principle but a key issue is how much additional development on the site would be acceptable, having regard to the constraints applicable to the site.”

2.15 – I don’t recall making this comment. It would be fair to say that the LPA would need to carefully consider whether any revised scheme involving a reduction in the amount of development would be considered ‘major development’ in the context of the AONB and having regard to the advice contained within the NPPF.

3.9 – This is not quite correct as written. The point I was making here is that the change from open market resi to holiday use would require the Environmental Statement to be amended to reflect this change because the pattern of movements associated with the different uses would be different because resi places demands on services such as schools and doctors etc and results in commuting trips etc that holiday use does not.

I would ask that the minutes be amended to reflect the above comments.

The current scheme under consideration is judged to be ‘major development’ in the context of paragraph 172 of the NPPF because of the nature, scale and setting of the proposed development and having regard to the sensitivities of the site. Paragraph 172 is clear that planning permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. It is considered that the current proposed development would not meet the tests set out in paragraph 172 and therefore it is not supported by officers. This is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed before a scheme can be supported here on this sensitive site within the AONB and in this regard any scheme needs to be sufficiently and meaningfully reduced in scale in order that it is no longer judged to be ‘major development’ in the context of paragraph 172. Having regard to the submitted alternative options it is my opinion that the reduction in the amount of development including the reduction in the number of dwellings proposed and the footprint of the built development in any of the options presented is not sufficient to alter my conclusion that the development would constitute ‘major development’ in the context of paragraph 172.

The reduction in the overall number of residential units and restricting development to the southern part of the site as shown in the various alternative options is welcomed in principle as is the introduction of additional landscaping in the valley to aid screening of the development and potentially increasing biodiversity net gain. However, one of the key concerns with the current scheme is the spread of built development northwards from the existing complex of buildings up the valley and the resulting adverse landscape and visual impact that is considered to be harmful to the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB and which has resulted in objections from the Council’s Landscape Officer and the AONB Unit, and the impacts upon the County Wildlife Site (CWS) that would result from development taking place within that designation and has resulted in objections from the Council’s Ecologist, Natural and the Wildlife Trust. The Council’s Tree Officer has also raised significant concerns regarding impacts of the development upon some of the existing important trees on the site, in part due to the close proximity of parts of the development to these trees and the resulting adverse impacts upon the trees, which are considered to be important in helping to screen development on the site. My advice is that the scale of development proposed in the alternative options needs to be further reduced both in terms of the number of dwellings and in terms of the overall footprint of built development and that built development should not encroach into the part of the site that falls within the CWS designation and should also preferably not encroach into the parts of the site that are at risk of flooding (i.e. Flood Zones 2 and 3). Given the importance of the existing trees on the site in terms of their contribution towards landscape character and their beneficial role in helping to screen development on the site, any development must retain the existing trees on the site and must also not compromise the health and longevity of the existing trees by ensuring that the development responds appropriately to the above and below ground constraints associated with the trees.

I am of the view that none of the alternative options go far enough in reducing the amount of development proposed and reducing the various impacts of the development. Of the alternatives presented, Option A shown on drawing no. SK501 is perhaps the most promising because it involves the most significant reduction in terms of the number of residential units and reduction in the spread of development northwards along the valley. However, it is noted that even this option still results in built development within the CWS, which I am not able to support. In respect of Option A I would question why there is a need for the access road and parking to continue northwards beyond the proposed buildings and within the CWS and would encourage you to explore providing any necessary roads and parking areas within the complex of buildings and outside the CWS. In addition to minimising the visual impact of built development in this sensitive location and reducing impacts upon important ecological interests this would help to reduce opportunities for crime by ensuring all parking areas are overlooked by occupiers of the development. I would strongly encourage you to further explore a reduction in the amount of built development and restricting any additional development beyond the existing complex of buildings to an absolute minimum. Unfortunately it is not possible to comment in greater detail on the alternative options presented and their likely impacts given the limited information provided.

Note that it is also likely that a reduced scheme would need to be re-screened in order to determine whether it constitutes EIA development for which an Environmental Statement (ES) would be required. It is possible that if the scheme is sufficiently reduced in terms of its scale and impacts then it may not constitute EIA development and therefore an ES would not be required.

Your previously stated intention to amend the scheme to seek consent for dwellings restricted by condition to holiday use only is welcomed because it would overcome a key policy conflict with unfettered residential use in this location. For the sake of clarity unfettered residential dwellings in this location would not be supported by officers because of this policy conflict. The change from unfettered residential to holiday use would also overcome the objection from the Highways Officer to unfettered residential uses in this location due to the additional traffic movements unrestricted residential uses generate over and above holiday accommodation uses, and would also overcome the objection from the Affordable Housing Officer due to the lack of any contribution towards affordable housing provision, which would not be required for a holiday use- restricted development. It would be helpful if any resubmitted scheme that proposes a mix of hotel accommodation and self-catering accommodation could explain the rationale for such a development in the context of changing customer demands regarding the type and nature of accommodation preferred and also sets out the business case for the development.

You will be aware of the consultation responses from consultees including statutory consultees and the issues, concerns and objections that some have raised, including in response to the further information that you have recently formally submitted. These can be viewed on the Council’s website. In light of the objections received it is not possible for officers to support the current application. The issues raised by consultees will need to be carefully considered and addressed before any application can be supported by officers.

I have previously explained that the amendments to the scheme shown in the above submitted amended plans are too significant to be capable of being considered as amended plans under the current application as is the proposed change from open market residential use to holiday use. Furthermore, these changes to the scheme would require the Environmental Statement to be rewritten in order to address the effects of the changes to the scheme and for the various other supporting assessments and reports to be updated to provide all of the information necessary to enable the Council to reach a decision in respect of any alternative scheme and which would be subject to full consideration and assessment in the usual way.

Having regard to the above, I would encourage you to withdraw the current planning application and engage with the Council in further more detailed pre- application discussions in respect of an alternative scheme that seeks to address the concerns raised by officers, statutory consultees and members of the public. I would also recommend that any alternative scheme be considered by the Cornwall Design Review Panel through the desktop assessment route as part of the pre-application process in order to obtain expert design advice to help shape the scheme.

If I do not receive confirmation from you that you wish to withdraw the current planning application within the next 14 days I shall proceed to determine the application using delegated powers, which must result in the application being refused.

I trust the above clearly sets out the Council’s position in respect of the current application and provides a clear indication of the issues that need to be addressed in order to arrive at a scheme that could be supported by officers. If the scheme can be amended so that it stays within the above parameters then the risk of refusal would be reduced.

If you have any queries please do get in touch.

Regards,

Mark

Mark Ball MRTPI | Principal Development Officer (Area Team 3 - Falmouth and Penryn Community Network Area)

Cornwall Council | Planning and Sustainable Development

[email protected] │ Direct Line: 01726 223495 (Internal: 423495) │ Mobile: 07925 360770 www.cornwall.gov.uk │ ‘Onen hag oll’

Level 2, Zone D, Pydar House, Pydar Street, , Cornwall, TR1 1XU

The Planning & Sustainable Development Service has had to change its procedures with regards to Planning Committees, site notices, visiting our offices and on the availability of information by hard copy. Please refer to the FAQs on our Covid-19 impact on planning processes page on our website for further details on revised processes implemented by the Service.

To keep up to date with changes in the Planning & Sustainable Development Service, please check “What’s new in Planning” on the cornwall.gov.uk website.

Important Notice regarding iApply: As the IDOX Company has decided to close the i-apply system to concentrate resources on digital services, applicants and agents will no longer be able to submit planning applications via i-apply (Building Control applications can continue to be submitted until 31 January 2020).

The alternative option for submitting Planning Applications online is to use the Planning Portal website https://www.planningportal.co.uk/

Important Notice that may affect your planning application: is a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Authority, and any new development could be liable to pay a CIL. Visit www.cornwall.gov.uk/cil now to find out how CIL may affect your development.