Hawkins Site Update
Hawkins Site Update |
|
|
Because of
concerns over the proposals to develop the Hawkins Motors Site,
Councillors Robb Lello and Duncan Cook (both members of the planning
Committee), met the planners to ask a number of questions, to try and
find a resolution to the issues which have been discussed at length on
Hayle Eye and which have led to a referendum being called (twice). They
found that the reason for the high number of units which was proposed
was because theoretically (ie without getting out of their chairs and
looking at the actual site Ed.), that the area could accept the number
of units proposed. However. the 'real site' does not allow for this number of units so the decision was made to build up rather than out, increasing the height of the building to three storeys. There was an 'imperative' within this to maximise the number of 'affordable units'. The Environment Agency have stipulated the need for a wave-breaking wall at the rear of the site and that any new building must be raised by at least 1m to mitigate the dangers of flooding, thereby adding a further 1m to the overall height of the structure. Penwith Conservation Officer, Steve Edwards, made design suggestions as to how to bend in with the harbour side/warehouse designs already around the pool. (So the present plans tin roof and clapperboard emerged as Mr Edwards didn't bother to get out of his chair either! Ed.). This is the third set of plans which have been put forward yet they remain clearly unacceptable. Councillors Cook and Lello have requested a realistic valuation of the site, because if there was ever to be a chance of a community development, the starting point would have to be a realistic valuation rather than the spurious and often quoted value of £600,000. Concerns of local people who have objected because of the sites importance both as an historic site and as open space have been reiterated by English Heritage who have recently formally objected to the current plan. Cllrs Lello and Cook have suggested that the developer withdraws the current plan and come back to a conference at Penwith District Council to discuss realistic options for the site and are insisting that a Community Purchase is one of the options that needs to be considered. However, it must be pointed out that the officers at Penwith are taking the legally correct position that a building development can take place on a site which has previously been built on. Cllrs Lello and Cook maintain that if houses are to be put on the site, it is preferable that the piece of land that has not been built on, should not be built on, and should be retained as open space in accordance with the local plan, for the benefit of the whole community. Hayle people continue to put pressure on the authorities and another referendum has been called following the highly dubious rejection by Penwith Council of the result of the first public meeting. At the time Hayle Eye speculated that this may be a delaying tactic to ensure that the planning decision was made before any referendum could be held. This was was rejected by Penwith who then announced the postponement of the planning meeting to 4th October and offered to 'provide every assistance' in calling another meeting to demand the referendum. Subsequently Penwiths legal officer, Simon Mansel offered to attend the public meeting. Hayle Eye can now reveal that Mr Mansel as announced that he will NOT be attending the meeting as promised and despite the postponement of the planning meeting he has sated that '... we do not believe that you have time to hold the poll before the application relating to the Hawkins site is heard on 4th October 2005.' Penwith has a legal obligation to hold the poll 14-25 days after the public meeting. So as the meeting has now been called for September 14th Penwith will have to hold the poll between September 28th and October 9th. Obviously if forced into a potentially embarrassing referendum they are planning to hold the poll towards the upper limit of what is allowed and after the planning meeting has decided the issue. Transparent, open and accountable Local Government? |