“A reassessment of the application by the SPC, following the publication of the NPPF, would appear to be unwarranted and inconsistent with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development which the application is clearly able to deliver. The decision by the NPCU not to call in the application would appear to be consistent with its view.”
“The proposal constitutes sustainable development which fulfils economic, social and environmental roles, contributing to a strong, competitive economy, safeguarding the viability of the city centre, delivering sustainable transport, making a small but significant housing contribution, including 34 local needs affordable housing units, is of a good standard of design, safe, accessible and which both improves integration and addresses flood risk. Whilst having what is considered to be negative landscape impacts and involves loss of agricultural land (not of the most versatile and highest quality grade), mitigation measures seek to limit impacts and address biodiversity concerns; the proposal seeks to address food production issues and delivers sustainable transport infrastructure in accordance with advice in the National planning Policy Framework such that the benefits sufficiently the identified negative impacts.”
“In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations.”
“By virtue of section 18 A the development plan is no longer simply one of the material considerations. Its provisions, provided that they are relevant to the particular application, are to govern the decision unless there are material considerations which indicate that in the particular case the provisions of the plan should not be followed. If it is thought useful to talk of presumptions in this field it can be said that there is now a presumption that the Development Plan is to govern the decision on an application for planning permission. It is distinct from what has been referred to in some of the planning guidance, such as for example in paragraph 15 of PPG1 of 1988, as a presumption but what is truly an indication of a policy to be taken into account in decision-making. By virtue of section 18A if the application accords with the development plan and there are no material considerations indicating that it should be refused, permission should be granted. If the application does not accord with the development plan it will be refused unless there are material considerations indicating that it should be granted. One example of such a case may be where a particular policy in the plan can be seen to be outdated and superseded by more recent guidance. Thus the priority given to the Development Plan is not a mere mechanical preference for it. There remains a valuable element of flexibility. If there are material considerations indicating that it should not be followed then a decision contrary to its provisions can properly be given. “In the practical application of section 18A it will obviously be necessary for the decision-maker to consider the Development Plan, identify any provisions in it which are relevant to the question before him and make a proper interpretation of them. His decision will be open to challenge if he falis to have regard to a policy in the development plan which is relevant to the application or fails properly to interpret it.. He will also have to consider whether the development proposed in the application before him does or does not accord with the Development Plan. There may be some points in the plan which support the proposal but there may be some considerations pointing in the opposite direction. He will require to assess all of these and then decide whether in light of he whole plan the proposals does or does not accord with it.. He will also have to identify all the other material considerations which are relevant to the application and to which he should have regard. He will then have to note which of them support the application and which of them do not, and he will have to assess the weight to be given to all of these considerations. He will have to decide whether they are considerations of such weight as to indicate that the development plan should not be accorded the priority which statute has given to it. And having weighed these considerations and determined these matters he will require to form his opinion on the disposal of the application. If he fails to take account of some material consideration or takes account of some consideration which is irrelevant to the application his decision will be open to challenge. But the assessment of the considerations can only be challenged on the ground that it is irrational or perverse.”
“It is not in doubt that the purpose of the amendment introduced by section 18A was to enhance the status, in this exercise of judgment, of the Development Plan. It requires to be emphasised, however, that the matter is nevertheless still one of judgment, and that this judgment is to be exercised by the decision taker. The Development Plan does not, even with the benefit of section 18A, have absolute authority. The planning authority is not obliged to adopt Lord Guest’s words in Simpson v Edinburgh Corporation, 1960 S.C. 313, 318, “ slavishly to adhere to” it. It is at liberty to depart from the development plan if material considerations indicate otherwise. No doubt the enhanced status of the development plan will ensure that in most cases decisions about the control of development will be taken in accordance with what has been laid down. But some of its provisions may become outdated as national policies change, or circumstances may have occurred which show that they are no longer relevant. In such a case the decision where the balance lies between its provisions on the one hand and other material considerations on the other which favour the development, or which may provide more up to date guidance as to the tests which must be satisfied, will continue, as before, to be a matter for the planning authority……. The function of the court is to see that the decision taker had regard to the presumption, not to assess whether he gave enough weight to it where there were other material considerations indicating that the determination should not be made in accordance with the Development Plan.”
“From this analysis it is clear that although section 38(6) requires a local planning authority to recognize the priority to be given to the Development Plan, it leaves the assessment of the facts and the weighing of all material considerations with the decision-maker. It is for the decision-maker to assess the relative weight to be given to all material considerations, including the policies of the Development Plan.”
“1.5 The site is located in the rural area and is outside but adjacent to the developed area of Truro. The land is not allocated in the Development Plan and the proposal has been advertised as and would constitute a departure from Saved policies in the Development Plan. 1.6 Like many centres, Truro suffers from the effects of traffic congestion. A key factor are the major traffic arteries the A39 and A390 which converge on the city from the East and West, merging in what becomes a bottle-neck at peak periods between Union Hill in the East and Arch Hill in the West. The Western Park & Ride (P&R) at Langarth has helped ease congestion and was conceived as a multi-stop strategy. This proposal to site an Eastern P&R at the Eastern confluence of the A39 and A390 seeks to build upon this success and ease traffic congestion especially at peak periods, reduce journey times, improve convenience and free up town centre parking for short stay visits . The proposed development, while allowing linked trips to the various uses, generates an additional demand which to some extent has the potential to negate the benefits arising out of P&R. The assessment of the overall transportation benefits to Truro therefore to a significant extent holds the key to whether this scheme should be encouraged or resisted, having regard to the other pros, cons and material considerations implicit in such a complex proposal, including any conflict with aspects of the Development Plan. 1.7 Given the age of the Development Plan, the status and time frame for the Core Strategy (estimate 2014), the absence of any interim policy guidance likely to hold substantial weight emerging in the interim and the present transportation situation, it is necessary to consider the issue of prematurity. In short, do the strategic nature of the proposals give rise to issues which should only rightly be resolved through the Plan process ? My considered view is that there is sufficient evidence of need to support the location of a P&R, moreover that this location is optimum and transportation benefits of the proposal are evident. The Development Plan is outdated and the need for infrastructure to serve the City’s transportation and waste needs is well known and has been the subject of much discussion and consideration. In the absence of up to date policy guidance this opportunity for much-needed infrastructure to ease congestion and improve opportunities for Truro, while a Departure, is not premature and should not be set aside lightly. 1.8 The extent of housing proposed, 98 units, is not significant in strategic housing supply terms. As such I consider that the recent planning appeal decision at Winchester involving Cala Homes which was dismissed as being of a strategic nature and premature in advance of the Core Strategy process-which itself was well advanced-are not comparable.”
“Policy 7A Retail developments within Falmouth, Penryn and Truro will be consolidated within or adjoining the central shopping area identified on the Proposals map. Proposals for significant development outside of these areas will be required to show that the needs of the area cannot be adequately provided for within or adjoining the Central Shopping Area having regard for the need for flexibility in respect of the format, design and scale of development (including the amount of parking) and it would have no significant adverse impact upon the long term viability and vitality of the centre as a whole. Policy 7G Proposals for supermarket and superstores located outside of the town centres of Falmouth, Penryn and Truro will only be permitted where the needs of the area cannot be accommodated within or adjoining the central shopping areas identified in Policy 7A and where all of the following criteria are met:- i) There is no significant conflict with policies for the environment and built environment; ii) The development would have no significant adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of the centre as a whole when considered on its own or together with any other recent and committed large scale developments in the locality; iii) Adequate parking can be provided in accordance with approved standards as set out in Policy 5EA; iv) The development would not involve the loss of industrial land or buildings; v) A safe means of access exists or can be provided and the roads leading to the site are capable of catering for the volume of traffic likely to be generated; vi) The site should allow for satisfactory landscaping particularly in respect of large car parking areas; vii) The scale and design being compatible with surrounding land uses; viii) There are no problems in the provision of essential services including water supply, surface water and sewage disposal; ix) The development is accessible to public transport, cyclists and pedestrians. Where any future changes to the retail character of such developments would threaten the vitality and viability of a town centre shopping area, the district planning authority will seek an obligation undersection 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to limit the range of goods sold and to restrict future sub-divisions.”
“Within the Local Plan proposals map the application site lies outside of the defined Central Shopping Area in Truro city centre and, given the distance to this defined area, can be classified as an out of centre location. On the basis of this definition, Policy 7G of the Local Plan, Policy EC6 of RPG10 and Policy 14 of the Structure Plan will apply to this proposal. In addition, the proposed development should also be considered against policies EC14-17 of PPS4. There is not a Development Plan policy to support the application site becoming a defined district centre in the local retail hierarchy and therefore it should be treated as an out-of-centre development proposal. No material weight can be afforded to the draft AA in advance of the process to pursue the Council’s Core Strategy through to adoption. This reinforces the need to define the application site as an out-of-centre location.”
“Policy EC17.1 of PPS4 indicates that planning applications for main town centres uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up to date development pan should be refused where the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the sequential approach or there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts in terms of any one of the tests at policies EC16.1 or EC10.2 of PPS4 In this instance, the compliance of the proposed development with the sequential approach is heavily influenced by the ability to disaggregate the Waitrose and Cornish Food Hall retail floor space elements. The applicants’ case is reliant on the financial link between these elements and there is some missing information/analysis from what otherwise is a prima facie justification that the Cornish Food Hall requires the financial support of the proposed Waitrose. If weight is afforded to the benefits of the Cornish Food Hall use to the local economy and accepting the applicant’s case that the proposed development is the only way of providing this use in a financially viable format, then a conclusion can be made that disaggregation of these retails elements is not a realistic option. On this basis, alternative sites should be assessed on the basis of their ability to accommodate the entire retail element of the proposed development and analysis has found that there are unlikely to be any suitable, available, and viable alternative locations either within or on the edge of Truro city centre. With regard to the impact of the proposed development, a decision will need to judge whether any of the negative aspects of the scheme outlined about constitute a significant adverse impact. If it is considered that there are one or more significant adverse impacts, PPS4 suggests that the application should be refused under Policy EC17.1 (although this does not side-step need to take account of the Development Plan and other material planning considerations). None of the impacts associated with the proposed development could be likely to be classified as significantly adverse in their own right. As such this proposal falls to be considered under EC17.2 of PPS4 which notes that planning application should be determined by taking account of the positive and negative impacts of the proposal in terms of policies EC10.2 and EC16.1 and any other material considerations.”
“2.21 Policy EC17.1 of PPS4 indicates that planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up to date Development Plan should be refused where the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the sequential approach or there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts in terms of any one of the tests at policies EC16.1 or EC10.2 of PPS4.”
“2.25 As such, officers remain of the opinion that whilst the proposal will have a negative impact on Truro city centre it is not large enough on its own to suggest a significant adverse impact or fundamentally affect the overall health of the city centre. On this basis, and accepting that the sequential test has been met, the application cannot be resisted under EC17.1 of PPS4 and should be determined based upon the relative merits of the case. 2.26 It remains the position that the Council needs to control the future use of the proposed ToC unit to ensure that it is occupied by a ToC-style operation and that it cannot become part of an expanded Waitrose store in the future. 2.27 The sequential report demonstrates that there are no suitable sites to accommodate the two retail units if disaggregated. There is no doubt a prima facie case regarding financial viability can be made, given that this is a new and untested retail format in Cornwall. In accepting the assertion that the ToC unit must be located adjacent to the proposed Waitrose store and receive financial support from Waitrose, then we accept the case against disaggregation is proven as far as it can reasonably be expected with a new and innovative venture such as the one proposed.”
“7.4 The issues continue to hinge upon whether the significant transportation benefits of Park & Ride including improved capacity and improvements to non car modes, (notwithstanding that the mixed use element will negate some of those benefits), together with the wider waste, housing and potential benefits to the Cornish food industry, (notwithstanding the limited adverse retail impacts) are such that they sufficiently outweigh the negative landscape and other identified impacts.”
“2.1 The NPPF is also material in that it scrapped the PPGs and PPSs and replaced them with a requirement for development that is sustainable to go ahead, without delay and it provides a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The framework sets out clearly what could make a development unsustainable and provides 12 principles to support sustainable development. The reports considered by SPC referred to the draft NPPF but its introduction post dated the March SPC. The sequential test for retail development remains and is enhanced by an impact test in the NPPF. Although the NPPF is not specifically addressed in the Officers report the assessment by officers and consultants engaged to give detailed advice on these matters is sufficiently close to the principles of the NPPF so as not to be materially deficient or undermined by the publication of the NPPF. The objectives of the development to achieve improvement to the economy, transport, waste and housing needs of people in Truro and beyond in a sustainable way is evident throughout the application and reports.”
“18. Although not specifically raised by either counsel, it seems to me that there was a failure here to include a summary of the relevant policies. It is in my judgment insufficient simply to identify a policy without indicating what it concerns. What is required is a summary of the relevant policies, not merely a list of policies which are considered to be relevant. The summary need be no more than a few words identifying the relevant aspect of any policy but that in my view at least must be given. Accordingly, the decision failed to comply with that part of article 22(1)(b)(i). However, as I say, that point was not taken by Mr. Kolinsky and he concentrated on what he submitted was a defect in the reason, as it was stated. He submitted that that could not on any view be regarded as a sufficient reason for granting the permission in the circumstances of this case. 20. Sullivan J helpfully sets out what led to the decision of Parliament to include article 22(1) in its present form and Sullivan J's experience in planning is of course second to none. In paragraph 53 he said this, on page 588: "53. Over the years the public was first enabled and then encouraged to participate in the decision-making process. The fact that, having participated, the public was not entitled to be told what the local planning authority's reasons were, if planning permission was granted, was increasingly perceived as a justifiable source of grievance, which undermined confidence in the planning system. Thus the requirement to give summary reasons for a grant of planning permission should be seen as a further recognition of the right of the public to be involved in the planning process. While the requirement to give 'full reasons' for a refusal of planning permission, or for the imposition of conditions, will principally be for the benefit of the applicant for planning permission, who will be better able to assess the prospects of an appeal to the Secretary of State, the requirement to give summary reasons for the grant of planning permission will principally be for the benefit of interested members of the public. The successful applicant for planning permission will not usually be unduly concerned to know the reasons why the local planning authority decided to grant him planning permission. 54. Parliament decided that this extension of the public's rights under the Planning Code was necessary even though in many cases it could reasonably be inferred that the members would have granted planning permission because they agreed with the planning officer's report. Parliament could have, but did not, limit the obligation to give summary reasons to those cases where the councillors did not accept their officers' recommendation." Pausing there, clearly, interested members of the public will be those for whom the reasons to grant will be of the greatest concern but it must be remembered that an objector may well want to know whether there is a prospect of a claim for judicial review of the decision and therefore the summary reasons will be material so that he can indeed consider whether the Council has on the face of it properly had regard to all to which it ought to have had regard. Equally, the applicant may also have an interest to know and to be satisfied that there is no legal problem in the grant because obviously if there were he would know that it might be dangerous for him to go ahead immediately in reliance upon that permission, particularly if there had been vociferous and detailed objection by interested parties to it. Accordingly, as it seems to me, the need to give reasons is based upon the same considerations as the need to give full reasons for the refusal of a planning permission but of course, as Sullivan J pointed out, so far as the applicant is concerned, if there is a refusal, it is wider than whether there was an error of law because he has to consider whether there is a chance that, were he to appeal, that appeal might meet with success.” "53. Over the years the public was first enabled and then encouraged to participate in the decision-making process. The fact that, having participated, the public was not entitled to be told what the local planning authority's reasons were, if planning permission was granted, was increasingly perceived as a justifiable source of grievance, which undermined confidence in the planning system. Thus the requirement to give summary reasons for a grant of planning permission should be seen as a further recognition of the right of the public to be involved in the planning process. While the requirement to give 'full reasons' for a refusal of planning permission, or for the imposition of conditions, will principally be for the benefit of the applicant for planning permission, who will be better able to assess the prospects of an appeal to the Secretary of State, the requirement to give summary reasons for the grant of planning permission will principally be for the benefit of interested members of the public. The successful applicant for planning permission will not usually be unduly concerned to know the reasons why the local planning authority decided to grant him planning permission. 54. Parliament decided that this extension of the public's rights under the Planning Code was necessary even though in many cases it could reasonably be inferred that the members would have granted planning permission because they agreed with the planning officer's report. Parliament could have, but did not, limit the obligation to give summary reasons to those cases where the councillors did not accept their officers' recommendation." Pausing there, clearly, interested members of the public will be those for whom the reasons to grant will be of the greatest concern but it must be remembered that an objector may well want to know whether there is a prospect of a claim for judicial review of the decision and therefore the summary reasons will be material so that he can indeed consider whether the Council has on the face of it properly had regard to all to which it ought to have had regard. Equally, the applicant may also have an interest to know and to be satisfied that there is no legal problem in the grant because obviously if there were he would know that it might be dangerous for him to go ahead immediately in reliance upon that permission, particularly if there had been vociferous and detailed objection by interested parties to it. Accordingly, as it seems to me, the need to give reasons is based upon the same considerations as the need to give full reasons for the refusal of a planning permission but of course, as Sullivan J pointed out, so far as the applicant is concerned, if there is a refusal, it is wider than whether there was an error of law because he has to consider whether there is a chance that, were he to appeal, that appeal might meet with success.”
“14. A local planning authority's obligation to give summary reasons when granting planning permission is not to be equated with the Secretary of State's obligation to give reasons in a decision letter when allowing or dismissing a planning appeal. I mention this because, although Mr Roe in his oral submissions before us recognised that there was indeed such a distinction between summary reasons and the reasons to be expected in a decision letter, the appellant's skeleton argument relied on the speech of Lord Brown in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2)[2004] UKHL 33 ;[2004] 1 WLR 1953 at paragraph 36. It is important to remember that that case was concerned with the adequacy of reasons in a Secretary of State's decision letter. Although a decision letter should not be interpreted in a vacuum, without regard for example to the arguments that were advanced before the inspector, a decision letter is intended to be a "stand-alone" document which contains a full explanation of the Secretary of State's reasons for allowing or dismissing an appeal. By their very nature a local planning authority's summary reasons for granting planning permission do not present a full account of the local planning authority's decision-making process. 15. When considering the adequacy of summary reasons for a grant of planning permission, it is necessary to have regard to the surrounding circumstances. Precisely because the reasons are an attempt to summarise the outcome of what has been a more extensive decision-making process. For example, a fuller summary of the reasons for granting planning permission may well be necessary where the members have granted planning permission contrary to an officer's recommendation. In those circumstances, a member of the public with an interest in challenging the lawfulness of planning permission will not necessarily be able to ascertain from the officer's report whether, in granting planning permission, the members correctly interpreted the local policies and took all relevant matters into account and disregarded irrelevant matters. 16. Where on the other hand the members have followed their officers' recommendation, and there is no indication that they have disagreed with the reasoning in the report which lead to that recommendation, then a relatively brief summary of reasons for the grant of planning permission may well be adequate. Mr Roe referred us to the observations of Collins J in paragraph 28 of his judgment in R (on the application of Midcounties Co-operative Ltd) v Forest of Dean DC[2007] EWHC 1714 (Admin) . For my part, I would respectfully endorse the observations of Sir Michael Harrison in paragraphs 47 to 50 of R(Ling)( Bridlington) Limited v East Riding of Yorkshire County Council[2006] EWHC 1604 (Admin) .”
“Third, I can see nothing unreasonable in the view of the Secretary of State which is implicit, if not explicit, in paras 5 and 6 of his decision letter, that this development is of such a size and importance, covering, as I have said, 18 acres and generating eventually some 7000 jobs, that in the public interest its implications ought to be investigated and considered by the local plan process, and that in this case the risk of prejudice and error which could arise if a decision were made regarding this development without that process having been undertaken outweighed the prejudice resulting from Arlington’s having to wait for that process to unwind. This was so because of the major implications mentioned in para 5. It was also so because of the need to find the most suitable site in Crawley borough for such a major development as mentioned in para 6. I considered that it was open to the Secretary of State to form the view that in this way and having regard to the size and importance of the development and the significance of the implications arising from the creation of thousands of new jobs, to permit the development at this stage would in this case cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.”
“Prematurity as correctly understood and applied, is simply one relevant circumstance among others, and the weight to be given to it will depend crucially on the individual circumstances of each case. Prematurity no more than the completed operation of area action plans, is not a bar or practically insuperable hurdle to the grant of planning permission”
“5.3 For an application to be considered premature there is a burden of proof required that the proposal would prejudice due to scale or strategic direction, future options for growth that are at an advanced stage of community involvement. 5.4 If considered to be contrary to the emerging Core Strategy, there would need to be a specific designation in the strategy which would be compromised by the proposal. I can see no such conflict within the emerging Core Strategy upon which to base any argument for prematurity. Nor is the strategy particularly advanced, being by the most optimistic estimates still a year from adoption. In addition, due to its strategic nature the Core Strategy is unlikely to contain any site allocations fro Truro and Kenwym. 5.5 Similarly, with the Neighbourhood Plan, the Plan would need to be sufficiently advanced to demonstrate how the development would be in conflict with it. Notwithstanding that CC are supportive of the neighbourhood plan process the plan is not at a stage advanced enough and subject to substantive community involvement that the plan can be considered as expressing a definite community aspiration for or against any particular site. It is understood the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Panel has agreed a list of sites that they support. There is currently no information available in the public domain regarding the suitability, availability and deliverability of those sites. CC is unable to currently demonstrate a deliverable 5 years supply of housing needs in respect of the Truro area as required in both PPS3 and the emerging NPPF. As yet through the Neighbourhood Plan process there is no evidence of any engagement of the community, landowners, developers and infrastructure providers to assist in the development of a land supply that would be suitable, viable and deliverable. In the absence of such it would not be possible to demonstrate what aspects of the Neighbourhood Plan the proposal would be in conflict with and little material weight can be attributed to an emerging Neighbourhood Plan for which, despite having a suggested timetable for completion by the end of this year, there is nothing yet in the public domain for consideration.”
“ On the other hand, where the delegated officer who is about to sign the decision notice becomes aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) of a new material consideration, section 70(2) requires that the authority have regard to that consideration before finally determining the application. In such a situation, therefore, the authority of the delegated officer must be such as to require him to refer the matter back to committee for reconsideration in the light of the new consideration. If he fails to do so, the authority will be in breach of statutory duty.”
“ii) Land to the rear of Pydar Street & St. Austell Street This site, which includes the District Council Offices and many of the surrounding buildings offers potential for redevelopment for mixed uses including office/residential (the Council will seek 50 residential units as part of any mixed development) and retail. Any redevelopment of this site would be dependant upon the relocation of the Council Offices to an alternative site.”
“11. On7 March 2012 , I received a letter from Stanhope’s agent, Mr. Seaton-Burridge. In that letter Mr Seaton-Burridge sets out the situation at that time (i.e. the day before the strategic planning committee meeting) in relation to his client’s land Mr Seaton-Burridge states: Our clients… are currently in the process of discussing the future of the site with Cornwall Council with a view to promoting an independent scheme or merging their interest with the council and undertaking a larger development. The site is currently occupied by a variety of individuals and companies on short leases, al of which contain a development break clause enabling vacant possession to be gained with no more than three months’ notice. The site is therefore not only earmarked for comprehensive development but is also being actively promoted by a major developer for a mixed commercial use. My client’s site extends to approximately 2.5 acres and could easily accommodate both a new Waitrose store… with ancillary car parking and indeed the local produce market, if required. My clients have in fact contacted Waitrose advising them of the site’s availability and have indicated that they would be keen for them to be accommodated within their development proposals. The conclusion of the sequential test relating to this site are completely inaccurate and I would therefore be obliged if you would relay the fact that the site is available to whomsoever you think appropriate. Whilst writing I also enclose a Planning policy Brief Note prepared by Montagu Evans, together with Cabinet Report and Minutes, from which it can clearly be seen that the site is ideally suited for food store use.”
“15. The strategic planning committee meeting was available on a webcast. During the meeting Jonathan Banham of Waitrose was asked if 2.5 acres in Truro was a big enough site, to which he replied that he “believed so”
“As you know, it is early days in our regeneration proposals but Stanhope is committed to taking forward an exciting and substantial regeneration project which we hope will include Council land at the rear of the site owned by LaSalle. By combining the two sites we believe we can deliver a project of real significance and quality. Our proposals are to bring forward a comprehensive retail led scheme providing predominantly comparison shops, to improve the fashion content and choice of shops in the city centre. We also hope we can engage a number of exciting new restaurant operators to open in the city on this site. At this point in time we have not had reason to engage with Waitrose and there have been no discussions progressed with them at any time in connection with this letter. I have asked Nick Seaton-Burridge to confirm that he wrote this letter unilaterally without any consultation with us or LaSalle.”
“We are very, very clearly being told that the Pydar Street site is currently not available, the council are in very early stages of discussion with the joint owners but there is no cabinet decision to dispose of that land, there’s not yet a decision taken as regards the office accommodation, substantial office accommodation is on the Council owned part of the site.”
“…there is still enough space on the remainder of the land to develop that site and there’s a willingness on behalf of the agent to do it. I’ll move on, the buffer zone, it’s a hedge and you’ve admitted it, its about as much use as Belgium’s buffer zones go and it offers no protection and it will stop development down the valley road and down the main Road and there is nothing we can do about that. Is that your position?”
“242. Nolan- Well I’ll ask that one again then. The Pydar Street site excluding the county council element is 2.5 acres with people on three month breaks in their lease can be available fairly quickly, is that big enough for you? 243. Banham- It is, but actually it will be contrary to the local plan policy 7.7.2 which actually states ‘any redevelopment of the Pydar Street site would be dependant upon the relocation of the Council offices to an alternative site’. 244. Nolan- so the only obstruction is Cornwall Council? 25. Banham- That’s potentially one. I mean the sites not viable for us.”
“254. I mean presumably were Pydar Street information to be different in say a year or two years, you’re saying that Waitrose would rule Truro out forever. 255. Banham- As I think I mentioned, we’ve been working on this for 10 years. Pydar Street was also in the local 1998 plan identified as redevelopment. This is the only available opportunity at this moment”
“POLICY: BHM4 IN THE RURAL VILLAGES (THOSE OUTSIDE THE URBAN AREAS OF TRURO, FALMOUTH AND PENRYN), ON SITES WITHIN DEFINED SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES OF 0.1 HECTARES OR WHERE TWO OR MORE DWELLINGS ARE BEING PROVIDED, THE COUNCIL WILL SEEK AN ELEMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.”