SOUTH Hams Council’s development management committee have approved the redevelopment of the Tides Reach Hotel in South Sands.

Strong feelings were expressed in support and objection for the refurbishment and extension of the existing hotel. But after years of twists and turns for the derelict hotel, the Harbour Hotels Group’s second Salcombe project looks set to become a reality.

The plans include the building of a new bedroom wing to form a 44 bedroom, four star hotel along with the creation of ten apartments and associated car parking.

The Harbour Hotels Group bought the Tides Reach Hotel last year when Eden Hotels pulled out of the project due to ‘public opposition’ to their plans, despite receiving planning permission from South Hams Council. The group also own the recently developed Harbour Hotel on Cliff Road.

The application received many comments in support and objection to the plans, with 116 objections and 166 supporting comments submitted to South Hams Council.

With the planning officer recommending approval, members of the committee focused on the lack staff parking in the plans, what they felt to be misleading CGI images and the predicted impact on Salcombe’s sewage system.

Cllr Julian Brazil took particular exception with one CGI image, saying that it gave the impression of a large gap between the proposed hotel and the historic lifeboat station.

While Cllr Judy Pearce explained that the AONB has ‘the highest level of protection, and greater weight must be afforded to protecting the area.’

‘We are not under the cosh of sustainable development in the AONB,’ Cllr Pearce added.

A spokeswoman for Keep South Sands Beautiful, a campaign group of unaffiliated objectors, drew attention to the opposition of the National Trust, Natural England and the South Devon AONB as ‘an indication of the group’s concerns.’

She reiterated that the plans were ‘an overdevelopment, and will dominate the beach head - with an unbroken line of buildings across the valley.’

She called on the committee to ‘accord great weight to the conservation of the area’ and asked ‘are there less impactful ways of meeting the socio-economic needs?’

‘The ten luxury apartments would otherwise be unacceptable in this location,’ the spokeswoman added.

David Jobbins, agent for the developer, described the application as ‘a well-designed, viable scheme, that struck a balance between sensitivity and regeneration.’

Mr Jobbins emphasised that Salcombe Town Council, Kingsbridge and Salcombe Chamber of Commerce and Malborough Parish Council all raising no objections to the plans.

‘The building sits respectfully in its context, and the impact in the AONB is weighted against significant benefits,’ Mr Jobbins added.

Cllr Brazil questioned Mr Jobbins on the CGI image that downplays the gap between the hotel and the lifeboat station.

Mr Jobbins explained ‘CGIs aren’t 100 per cent accurate, although the image has been verified by the architect.’ And the image was ‘only an indication of one particular point of view.’

Cllr Brazil later described the photomontages as an ‘excellent example of deliberate incompetent misinterpretation.’

Cllr Jacqi Hodgson questioned Mr Jobbins on the benefits ‘in terms of renewable energy and conservation.’ To which Mr Jobbins explained that the scheme would ‘try and recycle water’ and explained why it wasn’t practical to include solar panels on the roof due to the size of the building.

Cllr Simon Wright, ward member for Salcombe and Thurlestone called on the committee to consider ‘the impact on the AONB, whether it sits comfortably in the valley, whether there will be adequate parking, and the impact of it sitting so close to the main sewage pumping station.’

While Cllr Pearce, speaking as a ward member emphasised ‘the need for developing the site, and the benefits to the local economy’ and said ‘the redevelopment will be welcome.’

However, she took issue with the proposed apartments, saying ‘they wouldn’t be for local people’ and explained how the developers initially said their would be no Section 106 money for affordable housing, before later conceding they could contribute £400,000.

Cllr Pearce called out the developer’s ‘greed for apartments’ and lamented how the Harbour Hotels’ other block of flats had resulted in the harbour views from the historic Cliff House gardens being lost.

‘These wretched apartments are presented as necessary for the viability of the development. This seems to be part of the Harbour Hotels Group model, and they seem to manage to bluff their way through it,’ Cllr Pearce added.

Cllr Pearce drew attention to South Devon AONB’s forceful objection to the plans, and also claimed that ‘parking will be a real problem, with no staff parking included in the plans.’

Cllr Pearce also warned that South Sands will effectively become a private beach, with the loss of existing public parking, and the South Sands ferry being the only way of getting to the beach.

She also mentioned the recent sewage problems in the town, and how huge tankers had to work day and night to pump the sewage out of the station, causing guests to leave the South Sands hotel.

Cllr Pearce concluded: ‘As usual in Salcombe, developers are pushing the envelope. But are they pushing it too far?’

Cllr Hodgson voted to refuse the application, calling it ‘too big’ and supporting the AONB’s concerns, adding that the developers weren’t doing enough to mitigate climate change.

But Cllr Ian Bramble said ‘to leave the current building derelict isn’t managing the AONB,’ explaining he is ‘sympathetic of the need for redevelopment.’ But he questioned whether the hotel would be would be ‘enough trade to sustain the number of staff to run and maintain it.’

‘If in the long-term it is unprofitable, will South Sands be left with a larger derelict structure?’ Cllr Bramble asked.

In response to councillor’s concerns of a lack of staff parking, Cllr Rosemary Rowe called on staff who live in Salcombe to ‘get on their bike,’ adding that the reasons for refusal just weren’t good enough.

Cllr Tom Holway insisted that the Section 106 contribution for affordable homes should not be reduced from the £400,000 agreed - but the planning officer explained this couldn’t be guaranteed, as ‘applications can be made to review Section 106 agreements.’

Cllr Brazil claimed the developers were ‘deliberately trying to not pay their dues,’ citing the initial viability report where it was claimed that no Section 106 money would be available, before the £400,000 figure was accepted.

Cllr Brazil did concede that the application had ‘slightly more merit than last time.’

But opposed the application, saying it was ‘too big, too over-developed and doesn’t sit well in the valley.’

But ultimately these concerns weren’t felt to be enough to outweigh the proposed benefits of the redevelopment. And following a tense couple of hours for all concerned, the committee voted in favour of the application, by six votes to five.

After the application was approved Cllr Pearce, who raised several strong objections to the application both as a member of the committee and as ward member for Salcombe, said ‘my heart said no, but my head said yes.’