Wednesday 15th November

Referring to the financial viability of the extant scheme, Mr Andrew Woods, director of Ampersand, said the development had been carefully costed and would provide a commercially acceptable return on the company’s investment.

“The extant sea wall provides 1:200 year protection to nearly 80% of the residential units and 1:75 or more to 90% of the units,” he said. “There are 49 units which would have less than 1:75 protection.”

The proposed sea wall provides a 1:200 year protection to all units meeting all the Environment Agency’s latest standards.

He provided documents which showed a gross profit of nearly £66 million for the extant scheme by the time the development had been built and the apartments sold.

“We are satisfied that the extant scheme with the approved sea defences is both insurable and viable and I’m confident that the extant sea defences will be built if planning permission is not granted for the proposed sea defences,” he said. “As far as the Group is concerned, there are two basic options: build out the extant permission or obtain planning permission and build out the improved sea defences.

“Our fall back position is to continue building out and ultimately complete the development of the holiday resort, utilising the extant planning permission and the extant, approved sea defences.

“This position is clearly at variance with the Environment Agency’s ‘Alternative Approaches’. The alternative approaches are not a fall back. Each option identified by the Environment Agency would require a new planning permission and rule out any form of residential development and would not be commercially viable, realistic or achievable.

“Faced with an option of either proceeding with the current development or pursuing the Environment Agency’s suggested alternative outdoor sports and recreational development, the Group would have no hesitation in proceeding with the extant scheme, which delivers an acceptable financial return on our investment,” he said.

As far as the 49 units which, in the extant scheme were below the 1:75 storm protection level, Ampersand would look to retain these units as an investment rather than selling them and they would be closed during the winter months from 1st November to 1st April when severe storms were more likely.

Between June 2003 and March 2004, when the units were being sold off plan, contracts on 140 apartments were exchanged proving strong levels of demand for the properties. At that stage, a 10 per cent deposit was put down on exchange with a further 10 per cent expected once the undercroft was completed. For an apartment valued at over £700,000 this would mean an initial deposit of £70,000 – “a substantial amount of money”.

A total of £49 million had been spent to date since buying the site in 2002 which covered the purchase price of £8.5 million, initial construction work, marketing costs and consultancy fees.

Reiterating the fact that Ampersand was, in the main, an investment company, he said: “Development companies such as Barrett Homes are looking for a quick in and out: buy, build and move it on. But we are an investment company, not a development company. “We believe in getting it right for the long term because it’s a better long term investment for us.”

He said Ampersand had not commissioned a survey when they bought the site in November 2002 because they believed that the extant planning permission could be implemented. In 2003 they looked at the extant design to see what improvements could be made without a new planning permission.

After consideration, Ampersand decided to proceed with a planning application for improved sea defences because they believed they would get a better return on their investment.

Commenting on an October 2002 report by Wallingfords which looked at the extant scheme, he said he was not aware of its existence until the public inquiry started and believed it may have been commissioned by a minority shareholder in the company whose shares had been purchased in December 2003 and was no longer involved with the project.

This was a desk top study which was a working progress report and was not an accurate study. Further in depth work was required and this was completed by Wallingfords in 2006. These latest figures provided by Wallingfords superseded the original report.

For Mr Woods’ summary of evidence, click here.

Appearing as an independent supporter for the scheme, Mr Ray Pipe, representing local residents group SAND (Support a New Development) said the group was formed in opposition to Carlyon Bay Watch who claimed they represented all the residents of Carlyon Bay.

“Carlyon Bay Watch made the mistake of assuming they represented all the residents of Carlyon Bay but there were a considerable number of local residents who were of the opinion that the plans of Ampersand were a step in the right direction and they were anxious to air their point of view,” he said.

“We favour the beach development because it opens up employment opportunities and increases the attraction not just to St Austell but to Cornwall in general.

“This county, whether we approve it or not, is all about vacations and holidays and sorely needs employment opportunities having lost most of the mining, fishing and farming over the past 30 years and, more recently, hundreds of positions at Imerys clay works.

“The area covered by the proposed development is run down and we feel that a controlled environment such as planned will do more good than harm to the area. It was scruffy and generally a disgrace to our neighbourhood. The nightclubs encompassed by the Coliseum were venues for drunken and drugged behaviour. At closing time late at night, the local area was vandalized,” said Mr Pipe, who lives 500 metres from the site.

“An upmarket development such as planned surely is far preferable to a tatty holiday camp style erection.

“The sea wall improvement is not really a subject for a public inquiry as it improves what has already been approved and we see this public inquiry as just a further effort by the opposition to procrastinate with a faint hope that Ampersand will give up and go away. Please consider what we could be left with if that should happen.

“Ampersand have been most co-operative - when we asked for the car park to be opened for the summer, it was arranged. We asked for transport for the disabled. It was arranged. Finally, Ampersand must be complemented on the quality of work so far and we feel sure that they have demonstrated the standards we could expect to see when the work finally continues,” he said.

Also appearing to support the application, Mr Tim Jones, chairman of the Devon and Cornwall Business Council, said it was extremely unusual for his organisation to become involved in a private sector public inquiry.

But he and his association believed The Beach was of major strategic importance to Cornwall. The county was the poorest in the UK and the situation had significantly worsened over the past few years with many traditional industries suffering.

“If we are to broker and stimulate our economy it’s essential for us to attract big ticket investors,” he said. “It’s that major kind of investment that we are looking for which will send a message to the corporate world.

“It’s extremely difficult for us to find viable economic opportunities and I would urge you to support this most important project. This is a unique opportunity for Cornwall.”