Agenda item

Demolition of existing building and construction of retail foodstore, formation of car parking, pedestrian links and vehicular access from Carnsew Road to service the car park, service yard area, and works to and within the listed building

CASE OFFICER: Jeremy Content on 01736 336785 or email jeremy.content@cornwall.gov.uk

Please follow the link below for the background papers to this report which included the GVA Retail Advice:

Background Papers

The Assistant Head of Planning and Regeneration (Central) outlined the application and the addenda which had previously been circulated to Members and were tabled at the meeting.  The addenda referred to 218 representations that had been received; details of the Section 106 Obligation; additional information from the agent regarding the proposed access; and the response from the Highways Agency.  He recommended that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

In response to questions on the officer’s presentation, Members were advised the following:

(i)  There was not a great deal of difference in the distances from the town centre between the ING and Morrison’s applications, however, the issue was one of connectivity.

(ii)  The implications on traffic of the application had to take into account the existing permission for a development on South Quay and it was considered that the road could not cope with a supermarket at Jewson’s in addition to a development on South Quay.

(iii)  The Jewson’s site currently contained very modern unsightly buildings and the proposal for a quality design building would be considered an improvement to what was already in existence.

(iv)  The site already had an economic use for employment and facilities that benefitted the town, and although there was some benefit in redeveloping the Jewson’s site, the potential impact on the development of South Quay was an important consideration, as it would raise questions as to how attractive South Quay may be to other developers and would leave South Quay without the option for a supermarket and therefore at the mercy of the market.

Councillor Jayne Ninnes, Hayle Town Council, attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, and spoke against the application.  She answered a question from a Member for clarification.

Geraint John, agent for the applicant, attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, and spoke in support of the application.  He answered a number of questions from Members for clarification.

Bob Mims, supporter, attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, and spoke in support of the application.

Councillor John Coombe, Local Member, attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, and made the following comments:

(i)  The site would fit well into its surroundings.

(ii)  The concerns regarding a pedestrian link to the town centre were weak and it would not be viable for the applicant to deliver an alternative access.

(iii)  The applicant had not shown that the proposed traffic flow would work in practice.

(iv)  The applicant would not be in a position to repair the harbour walls.

Councillor John Pollard, Local Member, attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, and made the following comments:

(i)  He supported refusal of the application and, although an advantage of the building was that it was industrial and would fit well into the site, it could not be fully integrated into Foundry Square, as there was a psychological barrier that people would not cross.

(ii)  Negotiations with ING regarding the provision of pedestrian access to the site had failed.

A full and detailed debate ensued, the main points of which were noted as follows:

(i)  It was suggested that the application should be deferred to allow time for the preferred option to be considered as there were concerns that ING may not be able to overcome the issues raised earlier in the meeting.  It was further suggested that the application should be refused on the grounds of the highways concerns.  Members were advised that if the application was deferred, the highways issues would need to be resolved, but if it was felt that this could not be overcome, then the application should be refused.

(ii)  It was commented that the proposal was the smallest of all the applications, whilst still meeting the needs of the community, and would have the smallest impact on the existing retail trade.

(iii)  It was suggested that the pedestrian access could also be addressed if the application was deferred, and Members were advised that the option of a Compulsory Purchase Order to provide a pedestrian access would not be considered unless a significant community benefit could be demonstrated.  Any proposals to improve the highways or pedestrian access which came forward would need to safety audited and it was doubtful whether this would be achievable.

(iv)  It was questioned whether the South Quay site was viable as a supermarket location and whether the existing permission would ever be carried out and therefore whether a reason for refusal on the grounds of an alternative preferable site was valid.

Arising from consideration of the report and the debate, it was moved by Councillor Wallis, seconded by Councillor Biggs, and on a vote of 12-5, it was

RESOLVED that consideration of Application No. W1/10-0413-P be deferred for a period of no longer than five months in order to address concerns over traffic impact, access and pedestrian links to the Foundry centre.

[During consideration of the above item, Councillor Pearce gave apologies for an early departure and left the meeting.  He was therefore not present for the vote or the debate.]

Following the above item, the meeting was adjourned at 3.15 p.m. for a short comfort break.