This letter has gone out today to all members of the SPC and its quite clear that this is the last chance for the planning committee to approve the Inox enabling application to fund the stadium.
Letter to the Strategic Planning Committee
From PLC Planning Ltd
Dear Councillor,
SPC MEETING 30/07/2015 – STADIUM FOR CORNWALL ENABLING APPLICATION (PA14/08092) – AGENDA ITEM 5.1
I would be grateful if you would read this short letter which outlines key issues relevant to making a decision on the Stadium for Cornwall enabling application on 30/07/15.
At the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) meeting on 12/03/2015 the committee resolved that:
“Consideration of Application No. PA14/08092 be deferred for a period of 3 months pending the receipt of the following:-
Details of the ecology impact and the carrying out of surveys.
Information to enable Highways modelling to take place.
Finalisation of a S106 Agreement to secure necessary contributions
and deliverability of the Stadium.
The carrying out of an archaeological survey”
We have responded to all of these points well within the defined three month period and understand that all of these points are now agreed as acceptable by your officers.
As the minutes of the 12th March meeting record (and the attached transcript shows), [
stadium4cornwall.blogspot.co.uk] the committee was satisfied with the retail impact of our proposal.
Following a debate by members, consideration (or re-consideration) of retail impact was specifically excluded from the resolution. This is what one of your officers said when asked to confirm the reasons for deferral by SPC chairman Cllr Rob Nolan on 12th March:
“For the ecology, for the archaeological, highway modelling reports to be submitted and the Section 106 agreement to be discussed, negotiated and finalised and brought back following that completion, but not any report on the retail impact.”
Our proposal has not altered since that meeting, nor therefore has our retail impact, nor our scheme viability.
We are mystified therefore why officers appear determined to re-open these matters in relation to our proposal. To do so ignores the expressed wishes of the committee. We would also remind members that our proposal has the support of the Truro Chamber of Commerce, the only application before the committee that has support from the body that represents city centre retailers.
In relation to the second reason for refusal there is simply no evidence to support your officers’ assertions.
It is poor planning practice to interpret strictly some elements the Threemilestone Brief (which is guidance, not policy), but in the same breath throw away a key objective of that brief, namely the consented Stadium for Cornwall.
Your officers’ concerns are misguided, unjustified and would not stand up to third party scrutiny.
Having said that, our clients will not appeal a refusal, so the Stadium for Cornwall lies at your mercy on 30/07/2015.
I hope that as a member of the Strategic Planning Committee you will agree that a strategic decision is required which recognises the positive impact of the Stadium project for the whole of Cornwall, rather than see it fall victim to localised concerns.
Please remember that there are no substantive alternatives for a ‘Stadium for Cornwall’ and despite talk of Indian Queens this is of no interest to either the Cornish Pirates or Truro & Penwith College, and nor is Silverbow.
Without these key anchor tenants a stadium is not viable in the short term and not sustainable in the long term.
I would also add that the Stadium partners have extended a formal invitation to Truro City Football Club (see enclosed) and have met with Helical Bar. It is disappointing that they have chosen to pursue their own scheme. We would reiterate that the door is always open to TCFC to become a partner in our project.
I hope that you will recognise that our clients have done all they can in response to the concerns that you have raised. But as the record so clearly shows, your officers have simply shifted the goalposts (again) in order to stoutly defend those elements of the Threemilestone brief that they deem important.
It is quite apparent that whatever our clients do it will never be enough to satisfy your officers.
You can clearly contrast the contradictory positions taken by your officers in relation to the Silverbow/Helical Retail proposals, which have plainly not been subjected to anything like the same level of scrutiny as our clients’ proposals, nor treated in a similar manner.
For example, we are required to have a S106 and bond in place whereas their proposals are treated in a different, much less stringent way.
Why is that?
It is a shame for all aspiring sportspeople across Cornwall, not to mention the education, business, community and leisure interests throughout the county that would benefit from a Stadium at Threemilestone, that your officers have not respected the clearly stated views of the committee, nor embraced the Council’s adopted (and consented) vision of the Stadium for Cornwall.
I would stress that the enabling application allows for replacement pitches of the 'blue land', an upgrade in the form of a 3G pitch (in addition to the stadium artificial pitch), new community hub building and crucially a Stadium to be built on the 'blue land' site.
Please don’t let this opportunity pass Cornwall by. Please don’t be influenced by the incorrect concerns that have been raised about retail delivery without a stadium (the S106 and bond ensure that cannot happen), nor the deliverability of the proposal (our clients remain confident about this).
Only one thing is certain – if our clients never have a permission to put to the market we will never actually know whether any of the viability/deliverability concerns raised by your officers are real or not (and we strongly refute them).
You have everything to gain and nothing to lose by granting permission.
If the scheme is not viable then nothing will happen. If it is viable then retail development cannot be occupied until a 6,000 capacity Stadium is built. There is no risk.
Please give the Stadium for Cornwall your support.
Thank you for considering our concerns.
Kind regards,
David Seaton, BA (Hons) MRTPI
For PCL Planning Ltd