Hayle, Seven Hours and a Decision
Yesterdays Strategic Planning Committee was a mammoth session ofover seven hours. On this agenda put simply, is the future of Hayle. TwoSupermarkets and a Bank were all desperate for their application to be passed.As I have said before the ‘expert’s advice is Hayle could only support oneadditional supermarket. It was high stakes for all applicants.
All the applicants were able to present their cases, supportersand objectors to the three plans had their say too, as did other experts. Theorder of play was ING, Morrisons and then ASDA. To be honest all three planshad benefits to Hayle. Because all three did have good points itmeant there was no overall preferred option by the people of Hayle.
|South Quay: Home to the new ING development
The debate on the three applications was in parts passionate, tothe point and emotive. Occasionally, there were points that bordered on theridiculous and I did wonder if they were talking about thesame applications. But this is part of the rich tapestry of planning. Noone could argue that these three applications were not given a full and fairhearing. As few might say the running order of the applications was biased, butsomeone had to go first.
At the end of the day a vote had to be taken. And those votes wereduly taken. Before it came to the vote, things got a little heated with theadditional conditions that needed to be placed on one application if it was tobe passed. Originally the ING proposal for their as yet unconfirmed supermarkethad a 65/35 split on food and non-food. This, I did not like; due to the factthe non-food goods generally have a far more negative impact on the highstreet. This was even highlighted in the GVA ‘independent’ report.
I felt, as did many of my colleagues that an 80/20 splitwas better. This point resulted in a little bit of a stand off, but I ampleased to say the 80/20 split prevailed. Another issue rose during the debate of the concern time limited of free car parking at thenew as yet unnamed ING supermarket.
As many will know supermarkets generallyonly give you free two hours parking. After that they can, and do, fine you. I feltif secondary shopping to the town centre shops was to be encouraged, then thisperiod of free parking needed to be longer. Again, I proposed an extracondition that a minimum of three hours of free car parking should be providedat this site.
Once these extra conditions were added and vote had to be taken.This vote was taken and the ING proposal was passed by 13 votes for, 6 against.This was only for minded for approval, as this decision needs to be referred tothe Sec of State to see if he is happy with the decision.
Next it was onto the vote for Morrisons. The vote for refusal was 14 for, against 3 and two abstentions. This vote was taken after a votefor approval was lost. It was now onto the ASDA application.The vote for the ASDA site was always going to be the difficult becausemany in the town wanted it, partly due to the fact that a new rugby groundwould have been provided from the sale of the site. Again, a vote was taken.This vote was for refusal, and this vote was carried by 12 for 5 againstand 2 abstentions.
So there you have it, ING with its yet unconfirmedsupermarket (Sainsbury’s subject to contract) won the day. I am not sure whatthe other supermarket applications will do, but they may appeal against thedecisions.
For me, this was one of the hardest and most emotive planningdecisions I have had to make. It was not an easy task having to vote on any of the applications as they all had good points. For the record I voted for the ING and the ASDA
applications, but against the Morrisons plan.
Hopefully now ING will honour its promises and help make Hayle a better place and not fail it like so many have in the past.
Lastly, the application for the new rugby ground was passed too.