Tuesday 21st November

Michael Robins of the Environment Agency, said he had headed up the team that had dealt with the Ampersand application since 2003.

“At the end of the day, we are not the decision maker on whether the developers’ scheme should go ahead,” he said.

He admitted that Natural England had concluded that there was no harm from the development.

Between 2003 and 2005 the Environment Agency had been in frequent discussions with the developers and HR Wallingford. It was the Environment Agency’s role to advise and support both the pre-planning and planning stages.

“I don’t deny that we worked with them. It’s our duty to do so,” he said.

He agreed under cross examination by Bill Hicks, QC for Ampersand, that the objective of these discussions was to achieve a 1:200 year protection.

He admitted that he had not informed Ampersand that the Environment Agency was going to object saying “we were looking to achieve a suitable, appropriate flood defence scheme”.

Mr Bill Hicks asked: “If there is a fall back, is the new scheme proposed better than the old one?” Mr Robins replied: “Yes”.

He said that the Environment Agency did not challenge the technical expertise of HR Wallingford – “We accept that they are a well recognised consultancy,” he said.

When asked if he had considered if the three alternatives proposed by the Environment Agency were ‘remotely realistic’ he replied: “I’m not a developer – I don’t have that expertise.”

He also agreed that there were other schemes that the Environment Agency had been involved with that had “considerably less defences than we would like to see”.

He accepted that the proposed sea wall had advantages because:

It reduced the risk of flooding; it met the appropriate standards of defence; it provided an enhanced amenity and landscape value; it provided an Ecological Plan; it provided a Construction Management Plan; it secured public access; it supported RIGS demands.

He admitted that the Environment Agency had not carried out a comparison exercise looking at the pros and cons of both the extant permission and the proposed sea defences.

Asked if the new sea defences proposal was clearly and advantage for tourism, the economy and amenities, he replied: “Yes”.

He also admitted that the Environment Agency had initially suggested to Ampersand that they used china clay materials as replacement material as an option for use in the proposed sea defences scheme.

Concerns about the impact on eel grass and maerl beds had been addressed by the ecology consultant Andrew Baker, he said.

He denied that the Environment Agency’s aim was to cause as much trouble and delay as possible for the development to progress.

“We want to ensure that the wall is built in the best possible way,” he said. “We accept that if the secretary of state concludes that there is a fall back situation (with the extant planning permission) then the proposed defences are better,” he said.

Cross examined by Harry Spurr, barrister for Restormel Borough Council, Mr Robins said: “All things being equal, we would prefer the proposed sea wall because that provides a better standard of protection.”

Asked if the Environment Agency’s strategy was high risk because they were relying on Ampersand ‘bluffing’, he agreed.