Thursday 16th November

A refusal for this “iconic project” would give the impression that Cornwall did not appreciate the needs of business, said Thelma Sorensen, chairman of the Cornwall Business Partnership.

“There is a very strong consensus within the business community that this planning application should be considered in the context of being a positive, economic, strategic development which will encourage economic activity and a new sense of confidence in the future of the area,” she said.

“Many people are engaged in creating a better future for the young people of Cornwall and the delivery of this high quality development can only contribute to the achievement of their ambitions.”

There was a real need to attract the right kind of investment in Cornwall which would take the county away from the current grant assisted economy. Ampersand was a company which had made every effort to accommodate most of the concerns which had been expressed over the proposed development and had demonstrated its commitment to this part of Cornwall which was currently suffering from a severe decline in its principle local industry – the extraction of china clay.

“We have all seen the planned demise of some 600 jobs at Imerys, a very significant loss of well-paid jobs in a county where wage levels were generally lower than the national average. Of course, every effort is being made to find alternative employment for the workforce involved, but finding suitable jobs with comparable wages may not be easy in a fragile economy.

“The development would have a very positive effect on the local economy in raising the aspirations of the local people who have suffered so much recently. It would provide a wide range of employment opportunities and give a real boost to the tourism industry in the county

“We do not purport to have the professional expertise to argue the intricacies of the environmental issues concerning the sea defences and this issue is not within our remit, but the Restormel Borough Council submission appears very sensible,” she said. “The proposal, in respect of the sea wall, would be a marked and more attractive improvement on what is in place at the moment, and that already agreed in the previous planning permission, and further demonstrates the commitment and prudence of the developers to plan for the worst contingency.”

Mr Nick Thompson, director of Nathaniel Lichfield town planning consultants, told the inquiry that the extant scheme was viable although Ampersand would prefer to implement the proposed scheme.

The application was fully in accord with the principle of Government policy regarding main responsibilities for flood defence and would provide superior protection to the existing scheme.

“The proposed sea defence scheme, when compared to the extant sea defence permission, presents numerous advantages and from a planning viewpoint the public interest is much better served by the improved sea defence scheme,” he said. A refusal of planning permission for the improved sea defence scheme will lead to the implementation of the extant scheme.”

The ‘called-in’ application was the culmination of over two years work, including detailed design and testing by coastal defence experts HR Wallingford and MLM Consulting Engineers and thorough discussions with the Environment Agency. The scope of the Environmental Statement was agreed with the main consultees – the Environment Agency, English Nature, Cornwall County Council and Restormel Borough Council.

He said that case law required a fall back scheme to be a ‘real possibility’ and not merely theoretical. In this case, the very high probability of the fall back proceeding greatly exceeded the ‘real possibility’ test and should therefore be given considerable weight in the decision making process.

“Given that the extant sea wall permission readily passes the ‘fall back’ test, the question is: which sea defence scheme is to be preferred – the old or the new?”

The Environment Agency had claimed that it would demonstrate other feasible options for development of the site but their subsequent report was not a feasibility study.

“None of the three options presented is a credible or feasible case for any other scheme and therefore, I do not address the options in any detail,” he said.

For Mr Thompson’s summary of evidence, click here.