Cornish Guardian Letters Page, Thursday June 26,2003
Argument against Carlyon Bay plans fell on deaf ears
AN item in the Western Morning News dubbed the proposed Crinnis Beach development as being "Costa del Carlyon", but the process of the planning committee with Restormel Borough Council begs answers to an awful lot of questions
These processes have been the subject of a serious inquiry recently and, this notwithstanding, yet another highly questionable approval is voted through. Why is it that the members almost unanimously ignored the strong recommendations of both the Environment Agency, the county council and indeed their own chairman not to proceed until serious questions had been answered?
Why is it that despite recent and probably very expensive controversy about the Roche development, these dear souls, elected to protect the interests of the residents of the borough, seemed slavishly to follow the line taken by the developer and the planning officer alone, utterly deaf to the two hours of argument for deferral or refusal?
Only a few weeks ago a decision for refusal of a very substantial conference centre (The Asterisk plan) sited near the A30 was upheld by a planning appeal. What were the main grounds for refusal? Traffic. Yet, Costa del Carlyon will increase traffic on an admittedly already saturated A390 by at least 25%.
Your readers may care to think about the questions posed to the committee which derived from the following facts, and they may then feel entitled to ask their elected representatives just how yet another planning nightmare has been foisted onto a hard pressed borough:
1. Nearly everybody wants something done about the beach but this proposal will approximately double the population of Carlyon Bay.
2. Whatever we lose as a result of this proposal will be lost forever yet tourism depends upon the natural beauty of Cornwall.
3. The county council refused permission 1973, then on traffic grounds.
4. Restormel Local Plan 1982 stated access to Crinnis Beach "does cause concern".
5. Since Restormel granted permission in 1989, other major developments have happened (e.g. Crinnis Wood, Par Market).
6. Since 1988 car usage has increased by 29% and no account has been taken of forecast increases (50% extra traffic by 2020).
7. Proposed development is a "major departure from the County Development Plan".
8. Proposed development is "in conflict within the County Structure Plan".
9. The terms for retention of (and the route of) public access to beach are not yet established.
10. The traffic consultants for the developer admit A390 traffic is saturated, and have not contested estimates of 5,500 extra traffic movements daily.
11. The geological site conditions and the vital sea wall questions are presently unanswered.
12. Beach Road, Cypress Avenue and Church Road must bear the brunt of the massively increased traffic.
13. Hoddon, Chatsworth and Fairway will become "rat runs,' and residents' access to their homes, even in cul-de-sacs such as Crinnis Wood, must be restricted by the weight of traffic movement and further "traffic calming measures".
14. No special provisions have been proposed in respect of safe access to either the school or the cemetery despite the traffic increase.
Members of the borough, please tell us why did you listen with such deaf ears to some very logical reasoning put by such highly important authorities?
Peter Browning
St Austell