Via http://planning.cornwall.gov.uk:8181/rpp/showimage.asp?j=PA14/02920&inde... [please note an OCR has been used so please check original]

amethystplanning
Your ref:
Our ref: MAS/Hayle
Direct tel: 07818553499 3
E-mail: mark.scoot@amethystltd.co.uk

9th December 2014
By Email and Post

Mr J. Content
Senior Development Officer
Planning Housing and Regeneration
Cornwall Council
Dolcoath Avenue
Camborne
TR14 88X

Dear Jeremy

HAYLE RFC SITE, MEMORIAL PARK, HAYLE
PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE PA14Io2920
HAYLE COMMUNITY RUGBY FACILITIES LTD (HCRFL)

I write further to our brief conversation yesterday and confirm below why we are
strongly of the opinion that our application should be approved as considered under
the following areas:

1. Retail Considerations;
2. Highways and Transportation;
3. Public Involvement;
4. Scheme Benefits.

1.Retail Considerations
The application retail assessment is based on the development of a department store
with a net sales area of 4,057 sq.m. and other comparison units totalling 6,154 sq.m.
net sales area (over ground and upper floor levels) in up to 9 units.

The Cranford application assumes an identical overall quantum of development
including a Debenhams department store with a net sales area of 4,057 sq.m. and
6,154 sq.m. net sales in a further 7 units.

Impact
As there is no certainty over future occupiers for the non pre-let units in the Cranford
scheme or up to 9 non pre let units in the HCRFL scheme, both retail assessments
assume that the additional 6,154 sq.m. will have a turnover of £5,000 per sq.m.

Therefore, it is clear that there is no difference between the two applications in terms
of the total quantum of retail floorspace proposed, the split between department store

/ other retail units and the turnover figures applied to the comparison turnover of the
non pre let units. We are not aware of a formal proposal by Cranford to restrict the
use of the floorspace beyond A1 comparison and there is no such reference in the
GVA consultation response on their scheme despite various references to the focus
being on fashion (for example paragraph 2.5 of the GVA Grimley appraisal confirms
that the scheme is appraised as being Class A1 retail floorspace).

As discussed, HCRFL envisage that given the nature of occupiers on the adjoining
West Cornwall Retail Park and current demand that future occupiers will be restricted
to the clothing and footwear and personal and luxury goods categories and the retail
assessment was written on that assumption. The applicant anticipates that the use of
the units will be restricted by planning condition to the above categories and is also
prepared to accept a clause within the planning obligation to provide added certainty.

In order to provide certainty over the size of units proposed, the applicant will accept
conditions / obligations that restrict the outline units to provide:

• An anchor store of no less than 3,500 sq.m. net;
• No A1 retail units to be less than 500 sq.m. net.

The retail consultation response prepared by GVA Grimley assumes that the entire
scheme would be brought forward for unrestricted comparison sales and that further
advice will be required if this is not correct in any way. As set out above, this is not
the case and the application should be assessed on the basis of the categories
above. We agree with the comments at page 5 of the GVA Grimley response stating
that:
“One scenario may be that this proposal proves to be of a similar style and form of
development as the adjacent proposal by Cranford. If this is the case, then the
financial and wider town centre impact levels outlined in our advice on the Cranford
proposal could apply. This would indicate that the broad distribution of trade diversion
within the Amethyst Retail Assessment is correct with Truro receiving the highest
level of diversion..."

Given that planning conditions (and an obligation if needed) can secure the goods
sold and the number I size of units then the application can be considered on the
basis of the above paragraph and the impacts of development considered to be
identical to those of the Cranford application.

Sequential Approach
Based on our telephone discussion i understand that you have concluded that the
application satisfies the sequential approach and that this is no longer a matter of
concern. I note that the GVA Grimley response is dated 1.12.14 and makes no
reference to the additional information submitted in support of the application and
assume therefore that the information was not provided to them for their
consideration.

ING objection
The GVA Grimley consultation response confirms our opinion that neither North
Quay or South Quay are within a defined centre and therefore the concerns raised by
ING are not of relevance in terms of paragraph 26 of the NPPF is not relevant to the
determination of the application.

On a related point, given that the goods to be sold will be restricted by condition and
the works to Carvvin Rise / Loggans Moor will be implemented prior to any units being
occupied, the issues raised by ING are fully addressed and their concerns have been
fully addressed. This is considered further below in Section 2.

2. Highways and Transportation

As set out in the application package, if consent is approved, the applicant will deliver
the improvements to Loggans Moor and Carwin Rise prior to any retail units being
occupied. This a significant benefit of the application both in terms of the sub regional
highways network and in comparison to the Cranford scheme. We understand that
the Cranford scheme will deliver the Loggans Moor proposals and fund 10% of the
costs of works at Can/Vin Rise. These highways works are an advantage of the
HCRFL scheme from the perspective of ING given their comments on both
applications. The application will also remove the weekend car boot sales from the
network which is a significant advantage in terms of overall traffic movements.

Discussions are ongoing with the Highways Agency and the Approval in Principle
procedure is being followed to demonstrate that the application proposals are
satisfactory in all respects. It is anticipated that this process will be completed and
agreed in the next couple of months.

Whilst there is a requirement to look at each scheme in isolation (rather than being
able to apply a common sense approach of accepting that once one scheme satisfies
the approvals process then clearly the application scheme will as well), the Highways
Agency has confirmed that the proposed works are almost identical to the agreed
approach put forward by Cranford and therefore we are entirely confident that the
scheme will be signed off in due course.

Given that any determination by committee will be subject to a planning obligation,
we are confident that resolving the matters with the Highways Agency will also be
concluded within that period.

3. Public Involvement

Both proposals have been subject to extensive and detailed consultation with the
local community and the community has demonstrated clear and overwhelming
support for this application when considered against the Cranford scheme. This
should be fully considered in reaching a determination on both schemes.

For example, the schemes were considered by Hayle Town Council on 3.12.14. The
HCRFL application and was Strongly Supported by the members (10 for with none
against and 2 abstentions) as compared to the Cranford proposal which was
Supported by the members (7 for with 5 against). The voting clearly demonstrated
that the Rugby Club proposal is the preferred development of the two competing
schemes.

The overwhelming support for our proposals was also demonstrated at the SPC
public meeting on 27.11.14 and is further highlighted by public comments made on
the two applications on the Cornwall Council website:

There can be no doubt that the overwhelming public support lies with the subject
application rather than the Cranford scheme.

4.Scheme Benefits

Both applications will deliver very similar benefits in terms of new retail development
(such as job creation, expenditure retention, reduced private car journeys and
enhancing retail choice) but only the HRFCL scheme can deliver the key additional
benefits for the community, including:

• Ensuring that the consented club relocation can be delivered, thereby
  providing:
• A new 150 seat covered stand, two new playing and training pitches
  (including a 4G artificial surface);
• A community facility for more than 1,500 people that use the facility
  outside of the rugby club on a regular basis;
• A long term funding stream to maintain the facilities.

It is clear that this application delivers an incomparable range of benefits when
appraised against the Cranford proposal and we therefore do not see how a decision
can be made to essentially condemn the club and its wide range of users to a near
derelict facility that does not meet their needs and will not ever be improved unless
this application is approved.

There can also be no doubt that retailers will be attracted to whichever scheme is
granted consent and indeed that the location immediately adjoining the existing West
Cornwall Retail Park would be preferable to being separated by Marsh Lane.

On this basis, whilst it may take a few months longer to secure detailed consent,
there can be no doubt that this scheme is entirely deliverable and the benefits only
achievable if it is approved.

Given the urgency of addressing these matters we would appreciate the opportunity
to meet as soon as possible to review matters.

Yours sincerely

For and on Behalf of
Amethyst Planning Ltd
Maypool House, Maypool. Devon. TQ5 OET
Tel 07818553499 mark.scoot@amethystltd.co.uk
Company Registered in England no. 5917178- Registered Address Ryebrook Studios, Woodcote Side, Epsom,
Surrey KT18 7HD.