PLANNING HISTORY

Crinnis Beach, Shorthorn Beach and Polgaver Beach together make up what is known as Carlyon Bay, a popular seaside resort since well before the second World War. During the nineteen-fifties, the complex presently known as The Cornwall Coliseum was built, and was then gradually extended with a Wimpy Bar and a nightclub.

Francis Frith collection of photographs of Carlyon Bay in the 1930's

In 1973, the Cornwall County Council rejected an application for re-development for residential use on the grounds of traffic, amenity and the local environment.

Cornwall County Council home page

In 1989, the Borough of Restormel granted consent for 511 Apartments to be used only as Holiday homes, subject to conditions about the improvement of local roads, a sea wall etc. At that time the intending developer said that it was the only way that he could preserve jobs on the site. However, almost as soon as permission was granted, the site was sold to someone else.

In 1995, the same Borough granted a Certificate of Commencement (necessary to preserve the 1989 Planning Approval) even though only a few white lines had been painted on the roadway and a few wooden stakes had been knocked into the sand.

In 2002, the present owners, Ampersand, made two applications to the Borough regarding the site, the first being to lift the conditions of the original consent about restriction for Holiday lettings, and the second being to radically change the design in order to add an hotel, a leisure centre, 30,000 square feet of retail space etc.

The Borough, at a meeting in June 2003 of its Planning Control Committee, gave its conditional approval to these two applications notwithstanding the fact that the Environment Agency made it very clear nothing should proceed until a Flood Risk Assessment had been approved, and the further fact that Cornwall County Council had made clear its opposition, not only because of traffic considerations but also because the development was contrary to the County Structure Plan and was in conflict with the County Development Plan.

In July 2003, CarlyonBayWatch delivered a petition of 929 signatures to the Government Office of the South West at Plymouth, calling for the matter to be referred to a full Public Enquiry. We anxiously await the outcome…

Here is the statement which was read out at the planning meeting on 22nd April 2003.

Objection to Application Number 02/02279; Applicant: Ampersand Ltd.

Statement to be Delivered by Simon Rogers of Sea Road Frontagers Ltd at RBC Development Control Committee on 22 April 2003

When this project was announced we residents of the area recognised that it would have a major impact on our neighbourhood. My colleague, Mark Frazer, wrote to Johnny Sandelson of Ampersand in November 2002 asking for informal discussion with representatives of residents. Indeed he had offered to do so in a Cornish Guardian headline that month. Johnny Sandelson wrote back agreeing to this, however as nothing happened we began meeting on our own. Two meetings were held consisting of representatives of Sea Road Frontages Ltd.(i.e. the Sea Road residents association), Charlestown Residents Association, Appletree Social Group, other key local residents and the two District Councillors [ex officio]. We used these meeting to iron out our views.

Each residents group have canvassed their residents opinions, notes have been put through doors and S.R.F also circulated a newsletter. Additionally, this statement has been distributed to those representatives in draft form for comment, alteration and approval. Consequently, this statement can confidently be presented to you as to representing the collective views of the majority of residents in the Carlyon Bay, Charlestown area.

We wish to make five points:

1. We recognise that something needs to be done about the sorry state of Carlyon Bay Beach and the Coliseum Complex. We are heartily sick of the night club and its associated disruption and vandalism.

2. However, we are alarmed at the size of the proposed project. It is equivalent to putting a small village, say the size of Mevagissey, on to Carlyon Bay Beach. We do not believe the infrastructure of the area is able to cope with a project of this size on two particular grounds:

1. Road Transport. Growth of traffic, the Eden effect, and Par Market have meant that much of the wider St. Austell Area has become gridlocked much of the year. Whilst we applaud some of Ampersand's transport policy we believe that the effect of their project will take the St. Austell/Par/Bugle/Stenalees area beyond the "tipping point" and ensure gridlock for most of the area for all of the year. This will make the lives of most residents of South Restormel much more difficult and may even detract from the professed economic benefits of this project. (Have you considered what Charlestown Road, Charlestown Church Road and Beach Road will turn into and the effect of the two schools on these roads?) This project needs a dedicated road access and the need is greater than the Beach Road/Cypress Avenue debate; it stretches to Par Moor and beyond. The highways Agency believe that the traffic generated may a significant impact on volumes as far back as Innes Downs. The Beach project will probably demand major Regional Development Agency investment in completely new roads.
2. Should the Ampersand project be allowed to have permanent habitation this will have other knock on effects for the whole area, leaving us all with major infrastructural deficiencies and a very serious detrimental effect upon the lives of people living in the immediate and wider area. What about the capacity of our schools, medical facilities, amenities, quality of life, etc? Are there plans to improve these?

Consequently we object to the application on the grounds that it is too big for the area to sustain. It would be an irresponsible decision to approve it leaving us all with major infrastructural deficiencies.

3. We are concerned by the incremental nature of the planning application. Today we are being asked to consider just one aspect of the project. At a later date we will be looking at another, then at a later date another. We believe that this is a process of attrition, just wearing us down through a series of applications. We would suggest that the reasonable and responsible thing to do would be to look at the project which was launched with such wide publicity as a whole. For this reason we would ask you to at least postpone a decision today until a consolidated proposal is on the table.

4. At the public meeting in February 2003, Mark Frazer, Chair of Sea Road Frontagers, challenged Mr. Sandelson about his promise to involve local residents and it was at this point that he agreed to attend monthly Focus Group Meetings. So far we have held one meeting, the next meeting is scheduled for 7th May. Whilst the Focus Group is encouraging, it is far too early to say anything other than "we have started to meet". There are no outcomes to report. We residents have concerns and want more than reassurances, after all it is quite possible that we are being patronised and should you approve the application today our concerns could easy be ignored. For this reason, we would plead with you today, if you are minded to approve this application do not do so. Postpone it. It is only fair to give us more time to meet some more and iron out issues such as Transport, rights of access etc. Once we have resolved these matters we can put such proposals into the Section 106 agreement.

5. Another issue which concern residents is the Sea Wall; no information has been yet provided about it and just how effective and safe it will be for the next 100 years - and as to who will give the final o.k. to its construction on a shoreline with major geological problems. We have no indication as to the Environment Agency's view.

In Summary

Undoubtedly something needs to be done, however given all the issues listed here we feel confident that the planning department will consider the LONG TERM impact of this development on the local infrastructure and act in the best interest of its' residents, by having the foresight and wisdom to turn down this application.; however we are concerned that a project of this size is not sustainable by the overall infrastructure of the area. The road network is hugely concerning and we recommend if the project is to go ahead it must have dedicated access.

We think it wrong that you should be asked to make decisions on one aspect of the project today. This is such a huge and significant development, the like of which has not been seen in this area before. It will continue to affect the environment and infrastructure of this part of the Cornish coast long after Ampersand have moved on. We suggest that it requires full and meaningful debate; at the very least decisions should be postponed and the proposals looked at holistically.

Following from the above, this gives our residents and representatives more time to work in the Focus Group on resolving key issues which we would then ask to be enshrined in the Section 106 Agreement.

Drafted by Mark Frazer, Chair Sea Road Frontagers Limited 16 4 03
Presented by Simon Rogers, Treasurer SRF
Attending Jan Powell, Appletree Social Group.