Header image  


  [ HOME

Hayle Harbour

Responses from Statutory Consultees

and Other Interested Parties

17 March 2009
Cornwall County Council Highways - Position on Outline Planning Application
Hayle OPA final 17 March ufm3
Cornwall County Council Highways - Position on Detailed Planning Application
Hayle DPA final 17 march ufm4
17 March 2009
ICOMOS report regarding the effects of the harbour development on the World Heritage Status

View of the Head of the County Council Historic Environment Service on the ICOMOS Report.

In viewing the ICOMOS UK report, there are five areas of disagreement with their conclusions:

  1. Lack of Information. The report notes that there is a lack of archaeological/historical information for North and South Quays. This is not correct. Both the County Council Historic Environment Service ( Published surveys in 1999, 2000 and 2005) and ING’s consultants (Inventory of sites- Steve Little Research. Sept 2008, Conservation Management Plan -Catherine Sather & Associates. 2008) have carried out a very significant amount of research here.
  2. Setting. We do not believe that housing within the setting of the World Heritage Site (on the sand dunes and Riviere Fields) will seriously damage the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site. When CCC developed the World Heritage Site bid we were clear that the important historical attributes of Hayle were the twin industrial towns, the harbour and sluices, and associated engineering complexes, and the physical connection of the harbour to the sea. We assumed that Hayle would gradually evolve beyond its historical boundaries, but that other considerations (other than the World Heritage Site) would largely determine the location and character of that development.
  3. Development within the World Heritage Site. It is acknowledged that the development on the quays will clearly change the character and legibility of the World Heritage Site and Conservation Area. We believe however that if agreement can be reached on the heights and design of new buildings, and on the timing and quality of conservation work to historic quays, structures and historic buildings then the ‘heritage gain’ outweighs the consequent loss of historic character.
  4. The list of ‘positive impact’ outlined on p 4 of the ICOMOS report omits the substantial heritage gains resulting from the removal of dumping and subsequent re exposure of Harvey’s shipbuilding yard and Carnsew Quay and also the significant public benefit of giving permanent public access along all of the quays.
  5. Climate change. Whilst we all regret the necessity of building up the quays to prevent flooding, it is difficult to see how this can be avoided. This is an issue that will confront all development on coastal towns and cities across the UK. Ironically the quays will have to be raised, if they are to be preserved, even if no development takes place on them. The alternative is that we shall have to accept that the quays will probably be ruinous within the next 50 to 100 years. This development is offering a more positive future.

Nicholas Johnson
Historic Environment Manager

The Historic Environment Service is registered as an Organisation with the Institute for Archaeologists

01 December 2008
RSPB Response Dec 08 final

The RSPB OBJECTS to the application because it would in our view cause unacceptable environmental damage to the SSSI and to the RSPB’s nature reserve. Specifically, we consider that it would result in:

  • Loss of ecologically valuable habitats and species.
  • Significant increased disturbance to the species that depend on the SSSI and nature reserve as a sanctuary.
  • No clear monitoring and contingency plan.
  • No clear plan for mitigation and compensation.
  • Indirect effects

We consider these issues in detail in the attached appendix.
The RSPB has been involved in discussions with the applicants and their consultants regarding measures to offset the risks the proposal presents to the SSSI and nature reserve, to overcome any significant harmful effects it may have. We would be minded to remove our objection on the basis of legally binding conditions on any consent to secure the avoidance or minimisation of these risks to acceptable levels.

28 October 2008
Design Review, Hayle Harbour Redevelopment by Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
We welcome the regeneration possibilities and the commitment to restoring and reactivating Hayle Harbour that this proposal offers.
The financial imperative behind the timing of the development proposals for North Quay is understood and accepted. For this reason we have concentrated the majority of our comments on this area of the masterplan. Although we have a number of reservations about the detailed design, we support the general strategy for development of North Quay and do not oppose any of the principles that underpin the upcoming detailed application for the Wave Hub infrastructure.
We have much more fundamental concerns about the proposals for Riviere Fields and we do not support the proposals for the South and East Quays. For this reason we do not support the current planning application and we recommend that North Quay, is separated from the application for Rivere Fields and South and East Quays, to enable it to progress more quickly. We also think that more detailed masterplans for North Quay and Riviere Fields should be prepared before any full or reserved matters applications for individual sites are brought forward. We are pleased that the applicants have been working with the local planning authority in the preparation of the Area Action Plan for the town, but believe that the proposals for Riviere Fields, and South and East Quays are premature in coming forward before the AAP process has been completed.
The application is for outline consent with all matters reserved, however, there is a lack of clarity as to what constitutes the application parameters and what is purely illustrative. We understand that Penwith District Council is considering every aspect of the full set of documents as application material and intends to tie, with conditions and Section 106 obligations, all the material submitted (including that which is purely illustrative), to any outline consent. Although we have concerns as to the validity of this approach, it is on this basis that the application has been reviewed by CABE.
We are disappointed to see that the design proposals, although now illustrated in three dimensions, have not substantially developed over the course of the year since we commented on them in preapplication form.
30 June 2008
Environmental Impact Assessment prepared for Hayle Harbour Development in relation to Grey Seals, Cornwall Seal Group


Printed and Promoted by

John Bennett of 18 Riviere Towans, Hayle, TR27 5AF  

© Copyright 2009, John Bennett