We've put the text from the Draft minutes below as not everyone can deal with PDFs - the original is at http://docs.planning.cornwall.gov.uk/rpp/showimage.asp?j=PA16/03519&index=13224388&DB=8&DT=4

CORNWALL COUNCIL

STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE

MINUTES of a Meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee held in the Council Chamber, Cornwall Council, County Hall, Truro TR1 3AY on Thursday 22 September 2016 commencing at Time Not Specified.

PA16-03519 - HAYLE RETAIL PARK AND MARSH LANE NATURE RESERVE MARSH LANE HAYLE CORNWALL CRANFORD (HAYLE) LLP (Agenda No. 5.1) SP/399

The Principal Development Officer, (PB), outlined the application, including the showing of plans and photographs to the Committee and summarised the key
issues. He referred to the Committee update, (previously circulated), which contained details of:-

1. Representations from the Hayle & District Chamber of Commerce in
support of the application, and retailers.

2. Two further letters of objection and officer comment.

3. A list of points set out in the report at paragraph 60 that should beregarded as not being made.

4. Consultation responses from the Cornwall Wildlife Trust and Council Ecologist.

5. Further clarification and information from the Applicant.

6. Assessment and amended Recommendation.

The Principal Development Officer confirmed that the Council’s Ecologist continued to object to the proposal. He further advised of key to the scheme since the previous refusal, detailed as follows:-

1. Reduction in floor space.

2. Change in retail goods to bulky goods.

3. Confirmation the proposal was sited outside a flood zone and no objections had been received from the Environment Agency.

4. The scheme had been significantly amended to address the previous refusal on cumulative impact.

The Principal Development Officer recommended that authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Enterprise to approve Application No PA16/03519
subject to referral to the National Planning Case Unit, the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and conditions as set out in the Committee update and report.

Mr Russell Clark attended the meeting, was permitted to speak and spoke against the application.

Ms Cheryl Marriott, (Cornwall Wildlife Trust), attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, spoke against the application and answered questions put by Members.

Councillor Nick Farrar, Mayor of Hayle Town Council, attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, spoke against the application and answered questions put by Members.

Ms April Osborne attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, spoke in support of the application and answered question put by Members

Mr Roger Birtles, on behalf of Cranford Developments, was permitted to speak, spoke in support of the application and answered question put by Members

Councillor Pollard, (Adjoining Electoral Division Member), made the following points in support of the application:

1. Vision for the future had always included the growth of Marsh Lane, the relationship with the town would be complemented by the development of the site.

2. The previous 2 proposals for the site had been supported by the Hayle Town Council.

3. The development would provide a clear division of growth between Hayle and Angarrack.

4. There were safeguarding elements that could be put in place to protect wildlife.

5. There would be no negative impact in respect of flooding if the site was developed.

Councillor Coombe, (Electoral Division Member), made the following points in support of the application:

1. The application had been previously refused for only one reason; retail impact, the applicants had addressed this point and amended the scheme.

2. The Environment Agency had accepted the Ecologist’s mitigation for long term management of the ecology of the site.

3. The benefits of the scheme included the tidying up of the lorry park, and the benefits to the strategic road network.

4. The creation of a ‘buffer zone’ for the development would provide assurance to the village of Angarrack.

5. The Development would bring economic benefits to the area and provide hundreds of jobs.

Following the presentations the officers responded to Members’ questions regarding:-

1. The nature of the units and floor space required.

2. The Local Plan was not accepted as a Development Plan until it had been adopted by the Council, the current status of the Hayle Neighbourhood Plan was behind schedule.

3. Confirmation the Cornwall Wildlife Trust had commented upon the previous application and considered by the Committee.

4. In regard to previous bat surveys, it was confirmed the reports were within the timeframe within British Standards.

5. The design detail would be managed through conditions.

6. The proposed S106 Agreement would secure the buffer zone in perpetuity. A full and detailed debate ensued, the main points of which were noted as follows:-,

1. Support for the proposal, GVA had confirmed the cumulative impact upon Hayle would be just 1%. The Chamber of Commerce had supported the scheme. The goods to be sold did not compete and the development would provide a buffer zone protecting the village of Angarrack. The economic benefits together with employment opportunities were welcomed in West Cornwall.

2. The recent development in the area had bought benefits to Hayle, which included the provision of pavements, street lighting and streetscapes had been improved.

3. The Electoral Division Member and adjoining Electoral Division Member were both in full support of the proposal.

4. Concern for the wildlife and ecology of the site should permission be granted. If permission was refused enforcement action should be taken to reinstate ditches and recent earth works undertaken.

5. Concern at the lack of detail in the ecology report, for example the results of a recent badger survey were not included. The proposed benefits of
the scheme did not outweigh the damage caused to the habitants of the natural wetlands.

6. There were a large number of objections registered on the application, if permission were to be granted concern that community cohesion would be affected.

7. Concern in regard to the management of surface water and request for a suitable assessment of the final design to ensure the water management of the land drainage did not have a disturbing effect.

Arising from consideration of the report and debate it was moved by Councillor Coombe, seconded by Councillor May and on a vote of 11 votes in favour, 7 against and 1 abstention, it was:-

RESOLVED that Authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Enterprise to approve Application Number PA16/03519 subject to:

A. Referral to the NPCU.

B. The completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure measures to secure town centre improvements and retail impact mitigation, linkages/connectivity and transportation improvements; flood mitigation and habitat mitigation and compensation, maintenance of the Green No Build Buffer to Angarrack in perpetuity and survey and traffic calming
if required in Angarrack. The Section 106 Planning Obligation to be completed within 3 months of the date of receiving confirmation from the National Planning Casework Unit
that the application was not being ‘called in’.

If the planning agreement is not completed by this date (or by a further extension of time to be agreed) the Head of Planning and Enterprise be given delegated authority to refuse planning permission on the grounds that the proposal has failed to secure the necessary safeguards to ensure the provision of the necessary mitigation and contributions within a time
period deemed sufficient;

C. The conditions as set out in the report or similar conditions, to be agreed with the Head of Governance and Information in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Strategic Planning Committee, to include a addition to condition no 5 to require suitable assessment of the final design to ensure the water management of the site was not adversely
impacted.

i The reasons given by the Proposer for wishing to approve the application were that:-

1. That the proposal did conflict with policy and advice that sought to protect and enhance existing town centres. However when combined with the material considerations associated with the proposal the benefit of the application outweighs the negative impacts. The extent of the harm associated with the development and highlighted within the body of the report could be controlled through the imposition of conditions and planning obligations which will secure mitigation..

2. In accordance with the procedure set out under Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the material considerations associated with this application clearly support approval.

At 11.45 am the meeting adjourned and reconvened at 11.55 am.