Tuesday 7th November

The public inquiry into proposed plans for improved sea defences at The Beach began today (Tues 7th November) at St Austell Rugby Club with opening submissions from lawyers on behalf of the developer, Ampersand, and Restormel Borough Council.

An audience of around 50 supporters and objectors gathered to hear evidence Ampersand says will prove that if they do not receive permission to build the upgraded sea defences, they will build on the extant permission which was granted in 1990.

Bill Hicks, QC for Ampersand, said The Beach was a unique opportunity to develop a holiday resort beside the sea. He added there was valid planning permission for 511 holiday dwellings and that the extant wall, which had been tested by sea defence experts HR Wallingford, provided sufficient protection to enable the permitted development to go ahead behind it “and will be built if the proposal is not permitted”.

However, the proposed scheme should be permitted because it was in the public interest and it would provide a higher level of protection for the development behind it. “The proposal will provide and retain a better beach,” said Mr Hicks. “It would look better, provide better amenity and be better for tourism, the economy and regeneration.

“It would secure public access, management and maintenance, an ecological management plan and a construction plan. It would be more sustainable.

“The principal objective of the objectors appears to be to prevent development behind the wall. They seek to achieve something between no development and very significantly less development.”

But, he said, this inquiry was not an opportunity to review the merits of the overall development or whether the extant planning permission should be revoked.

“The issues, simply put, are: is there a real possibility that the applicants will build the extant wall if the proposal is refused and if so, is the proposal to be preferred to the extant wall?

“The applicants are clear that they will build the extant wall if the proposal is refused and the proposal is clearly to be preferred to the extant wall.”

Mr Harry Spurr, barrister for Restormel Borough Council, said: “Carlyon Bay, far from being the blank canvas that some of the evidence to this inquiry apparently assumes that it is, in fact boasts a complicated planning history and, of course, currently accommodates an unattractive range of unused and in most cases derelict buildings.”

He explained that Restormel supported the new sea defences proposal because it was much better than the extant scheme and that they regarded it likely that Ampersand would build the original scheme if necessary.

Some of the merits in the proposed scheme were its improved defences against flooding; the Section 106 agreement obligation which would ensure the proper operation, maintenance and repair of the defences now and into the future as well as a £3 million insurance fund; and the storm warning system which would be the most technologically advanced and comprehensive currently in use.

“These clear advantages over and above the extant scheme are powerful considerations counting strongly in favour of the proposal,” he said.

He said that Natural England agreed there would be no serious adverse impact regarding biodiversity and no risk to eelgrass or maerl.

It was also clear that there was no longer an issue over Regionally Important Geological Sites. The Cornwall RIGS group had withdrawn its objections in light of the contributions towards mapping and on-site infrastructure and undertakings as to access.

“Overall the scheme comprises a massive improvement over the extant scheme,” he said. It was for this reason that Restormel resolved to support this scheme. In fact, it would have been irresponsible to do otherwise.

“Its decision to support the scheme was based on detailed and comprehensive technical advice from independent consultants and, of course, a substantial degree of local public enthusiasm for the proposals, which will undoubtedly provide an enormous economic fillip, both in employment and tourism spending.

“Indeed, for what it is worth, public support for the scheme appears to RBC to continue to outstrip opposition, despite the manner in which Carlyon Bay Watch puts it case in this context.

“The approach of others at this inquiry has been, at times, difficult to understand. There appears to exist… some sort of desperate and, in reality, hopeless desire either that the site be returned to its natural state or that any development is constrained within a tiny area to the north.

“First, the site will never be returned to its natural state. This is not only because of the extant permission which means that further development of the site is inevitable, but also because the existing beach is artificial.

“A sharp dose of reality is what is required. Those who line up against us with such enthusiasm would do well to consider the implications of their vigorous opposition,” he said.

Speaking on behalf of Cornwall County Council and the Environment Agency, Mr Christopher Boyle said: “They dispute the proposition that the fall-back is genuinely available. They consider, on the evidence, that the scheme has such poor consented flood defences that it would be unattractive in the market place and would not be built.

“Ampersand, to that extent, are ‘bluffing’,” he said.