Climate change

There are serious and far-reaching implications for the safety of residents of the proposed holiday complex at Carlyon Bay.

The storm in October 2004 washed away part of the steel shuttering
and moved some of the rock armour

At the 2006 Public Inquiry the arguments regarding climate change, rising sea levels, weather warnings, storm conditions, lives at risk were visibly and cogently discussed by all parties. As were the numerous breaches of local, regional and national planning policies, intrinsic to the development plans.

Cornwall County Council's preferred position was stated in the minutes of their Planning (Development Control) Committee of 26 July 2007. The meeting discussed the result of the decision by the Secretary of State to refuse the application for the revised sea wall and beach recharge.

"... The rejection of this application provides encouragement to the County Council's approach for a more sustainable comprehensive scheme to be brought forward to utilise the previously developed part of the site."

However, the developer is not only returning with a planning application for both Crinnis and Shorthorn beaches, but is also applying for outline permission for "who knows what" on the third beach, Polgaver, which has never had any planning approval attached to it.

VISITORS PREFER 'NATURAL ENVIRONMENT'

National Policy on Coastal Development is well documented. There is currently a draft Shoreline Management Plan for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly (see at ciscag.org).

In general for this part of south Cornwall it says "inappropriate new development on the cliffs and beaches should be actively discouraged". It goes on to say : "Information derived from visitor surveys shows that visitors to south Restormel place a greater emphasis on the natural environment in its widest sense and the tranquillity that this brings. This directly influences decision making for coastal defences and shoreline management, as the construction of hard defences and their aesthetic impact would largely be counter-productive to the economic well-being of this south coast region".

Again, in general the draft Shoreline Management Plan says the preferred strategy for St Austell Bay is to "do nothing", although there are areas such as parts of Charlestown and Porthpean where a "hold the line" strategy would be adopted. At present at Carlyon Bay, Shorthorn beach would be "do nothing" because there is nothing to defend. At Crinnis (where the Coliseum building stands) it would be do nothing in the short term with monitoring to establish any need for long term intervention.

It refers to the extant permission for Carlyon Bay: "A suitable position for any permanent defensive line (which would need to be established to protect any development) would be critical to the long term overall sustainability of the foreshore. Ensuring that any structures are set far enough back from the predicted mean high water position in 2105 would be critical."

Who could possibly predict the mean high water position for 2105?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Fourth Assessment Report, indicates a sea level rise from 75 to 190cms for the period 1990-2100.

The July 1st 2009 issue of New Scientist magazine claims that most glaciologists who study Greenland and Antarctica expect a rise in sea levels of at least one metre by the end of the century. (Read the New Scientist article). In an accompanying editorial, the magazine states: "... planning for new coastal developments is to fly in the face of reality. If we want to build a lasting legacy for our descendants, we should do so on the plentiful land that is in no danger from the sea."

It is clear there is international uncertainty in the predicted behaviour of weather and sea levels over the next 100 years.

If residential accommodation is built at sea level on a beach backed by a sheer cliff, it will be inundated with sea level rises and storm conditions. Indeed storm warning and evacuation procedures are anticipated by the developer to be essential for their proposals. This is simply not a sustainable option. (One expert warns against residential units on this beach)

The draft Shoreline Management Plan highlights the danger: "Given that it is anticipated that a condition of the planning permission would be that the site owners and managers remain responsible for any defences for the life of the development, the 'no active intervention' policy therefore also reflects the position of the coast protection and flood defence authorities, in that they would not become default maintainers of the defences at Crinnis Beach in the future. Importantly this avoids any future risk or obligation to be placed on the public purse."

This seems to indicate that the authors do indeed anticipate a need for intervention for the long-term protection of the site. It is further proof that the development is unsustainable and flies in the face of government policy. We cannot rely on the existence of the company and its obligations over the lifetime of the development because any company may go into voluntary liquidation.

The previous Revised Sea Wall and Beach Replenishment application was called in because the proposals may have confllicted with national policies on important issues. The same principles apply in the latest proposals. Even more so as they are proposing to put people in residential housing on this site and to build on land which hitherto had no planning permission.

This beach location and proposed development is unique and if given permision would "drive a coach and horses" through government and international policy on coastal management.

(Find Carlyon Bay on Google Maps)