2018 update 3- 29.01.2018 meeting report

2018 update 3: 29.01.2018 meeting report.

Dear supporters

Here’s a quick update on the meeting the Pink Hotel developers and Cornwall Council Planning Department held on Monday.

Firstly, warmest thanks to all of you who came. I’m not sure how many of you were there but the overall attendance was impressive. We think there were at least 150 in the audience.  I’ve never seen the Memorial Hall so full.  I don’t think the developers had any idea so many would attend, but it certainly made the point about local involvement and concern.  

Julian German, who was chairing the meeting, called for two votes at the end.  The first was 'Are people in favour of some development at the site?’  A dozen voices called out ‘Of a hotel!’ but he kept the vote to ’some development’.  I’d say at least 80% said yes.  The second vote was ‘Is anyone in favour of the scheme presented?’  Show of hands: 0.  This could not have been more emphatic.

The developers spent a considerable time describing the schemes that had been abandoned but not much on the actual proposal they were presenting.  They referred to the scheme as the Pendower Beach House resort, which didn’t go down well.  It’s quite clear that no-one wants a town-house development for second home-owners.

The agent tried to argue that a hotel on the site wasn’t economically viable. As several people pointed out, there are already a number of highly successful small hotels on the Roseland. There’s no reason to suppose a hotel in a prime position such as Pendower shouldn’t be equally successful, though of course it might well not make the current shareholders as much money as residential sales! As members of the audience pointed out, any application would need to prove the developer’s assertion that a hotel wasn’t viable.

The arguments people in the audience put forward to explain why the proposals were inappropriate were well presented and compelling. They covered fundamental aspects regarding the site’s special status and all the planning constraints which apply. Concern was raised about ecology and flooding, about which there had been little mention in the presentation. Perhaps most telling, there had been no mention of fundamental problems with access.  The developers had also suggested that visitors to the ‘resort’ could use the National Trust car park, but the NT South West manager stood up and said NT knew nothing about this.

To summarise, it’s very clear that people don’t want a residential 'resort’ and that a strong majority want a hotel. That of course won’t stop the developers putting in an application.  Watch this space.

For any of you who weren’t able to attend, we have a sound recording of the whole meeting (2 hours) which you can listen to. See link below. We also attach a time-line so you can locate which sections you want to listen to without having to play the whole recording.

For those who were there, it would be good if you could return the feedback and comment forms circulated at the meeting to the case Officer.

All the best

Yours Helen