Comment Date: Mon 22 Jun 2020

Thank you for consulting the Cornish Mining World Heritage Site Office. We have reviewed the submitted information and do not have an in principle objection to a development in this location.

The WHS Office does however have the following concerns;

1. The proposal is stated as being temporary, however the application form does not state a time frame for how long the use and development would be in situ and when it is proposed to be removed from site. It is noted that the accompanying design and access statement sets out that this would occur under the following circumstances;

It is also contextually important to note that the application Site lies within the red line boundary of the Hayle Harbour mixed-use regeneration scheme that has outline planning permission under reference PA13/01370, in which the Site is identified as the location for a hotel and water sports complex. A Reserved Matters Application providing the necessary details of this end use is expected to be submitted this year which, when approved and built out, will invoke the removal of the proposed café/restaurant; hence why the planning permission sought herein is only temporary. (paragraph 2.6 Design and Access Statement.)

The WHS Office would note that any planning consent granted for the current application would not be able to be conditioned for removal on the above basis, as it relies on the submission and enactment of a separate planning permission, which cannot form the basis of a planning condition.

The WHS Office also notes that the Heritage Statement as submitted assesses the proposal's impacts on the basis that development would be in place for a temporary period, despite there being no precise period specified within the submission or ability to control such beyond a planning condition, which has not been proposed at this stage.

The WHS Office therefore has to consider that should circumstances dictate that the outline permission granted under PA13/01370 and any reserved matters application is not enacted or indeed approved, then the current application is not temporary given that no precise time frame has been given that would indicate when the development as proposed would be removed from site. Equally, in the absence of a condition obligating the landowner to such a time limitation, then the application as currently proposed would result in the ability to operate the café on a permanent basis with no time limitation as to when that use is to end and for the building to be removed from site.

In the absence of a clear end date for the use and no controls for such indicated, the WHS Office has therefore considered the application on the basis that it is not for a temporary period. Equally even if the LPA were to seek to tie the development to a temporary period via planning condition this could be varied or removed at a later date through a s.73 application for variance or removal of a planning condition.

2. Having established that the current application is not for a temporary development as currently submitted, then the WHS Office has to consider that the proposed building could be extant on site for a considerable period of time. The WHS Office has concerns that the current building lacks sufficient quality to enhance the WHS. The design is utilitarian and will be in a visually prominent location that warrants a better quality of design to respond to its context. If this were to be a temporary development with a clear period set out for it to be removed and if there were no potential for such to be extended beyond that temporary period then the WHS Office would note that the impacts of a lower quality development would not be lasting and could therefore perhaps be accepted given the location and lack of impingement upon an attribute that expresses the OUV of the WHS.

But, as has been noted by the WHS Office, the current application does not set out how the development would be temporary beyond reliance upon the extant outline planning consent and the submission and enactment of a reserved matters application at some point in the future. The containers could therefore be located in this prominent position for some considerable time and therefore the appropriateness of this development as currently shown should extend beyond justifying the current low-quality design on the basis that it is only for a temporary period of time, when the time frame remains unknown and uncontrolled.

The WHS Office would note that recent development proposals at North Quay have been the subject of intense scrutiny by UNESCO and that their advisors ICOMOS made a number of comments with regards to aspects of design. Whilst this scheme is for a lower scale of building the WHS Office is concerned that the current design is of low quality and that it has the potential to be on site permanently. Given the lack of a specified temporary time period or controls over such time frame, then a higher quality design should be sought. This would then ensure that if no future development proposals are forthcoming or capable of being enacted on this site, then the current proposals should be of a suitable quality to reflect their context.

While no further comment is deemed necessary in this instance, it should be noted that World Heritage Sites are designated by the United Nations, Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as places of significance to the whole of humanity. This puts the Cornish Mining World Heritage Site on a par with international treasures such as the Taj Mahal, the Pyramids, Stonehenge, and the Great Wall of China. Harm to any attributes of Outstanding Universal Value (international significance) within the World Heritage Site risks the loss of this status for the entire designated property across Cornwall and west Devon.

 

Comment Date: Fri 19 Jun 2020

Fully support this application but Hayle Town Council feel strongly that toilets must be included and that the reinstatement of the surrounding area is carried out in a suitable manner.