THE controversy surrounding the Carbis Bay Hotel unlawfully building meeting rooms and other structures when it hosted world leaders during the G7 Summit in 2021 continues three years on.

Many locals, including Cornwall Council leader Linda Taylor, are angry that the hotel owners are seeking to keep some of the elements, which were built without planning permission and have been the subject of enforcement notices by the council.

Councillors will get their chance to comment next week when the local authority’s west area planning committee discusses an application by the Carbis Bay Hotel, on Beach Road, for the retention of some unauthorised works adjacent to the hotel, including concrete foundations and a proposed scheme of habitat restoration/enhancement.

The proposal follows the unauthorised building, and subsequent removal, of three meeting rooms which hotel owner Stephen Baker said were needed for the G7 Summit in June 2021.

Despite the strength of feeling locally, the council’s planning department is recommending allowing the hotel to keep the structures.

Other elements the hotel wants to keep include a section of the post and wire fence on land to the west of the hotel and a tarmac service access track and stone terracing to the south with the erection of a gated access.

St Ives Town Council has sent its “strongest possible objection” to Cornwall Council and, as a result, local member Cllr Taylor called the matter to planning committee as she shares its concerns.

A report from the town council states: “The proposals are very similar to those considered by the committee in 2023 and withdrawn.

“The Coast Protection Authority retains a strong objection, as do the Ramblers and the council’s arboricultural officer.

“At the heart of the council’s position is a question as to why unlawful works have been allowed to remain and the extent to which the proposed scheme remediates the site and addresses the harm caused by the works which do not have the benefit of planning permission.

“It is noted that the viewing platform proposal is removed and that proposed planting is of species native to this environment.

”But the tree officer expresses concern that the application may be intended to circumvent the Planning Inspectorate’s requirements that the land profiles of the area are restored and vegetation comparable to the pre‐development habitat which was destroyed is re‐established.

“The council remains concerned about the message this communicates to the local people of St Ives and Carbis Bay, who continue to have very deep‐seated feelings about the unlawful nature of the development.

“There is also scepticism that elements of the scheme, which the applicant seeks to retain, are those which would support future development at the site; namely a tarmac access road and foundations.

“The benefit of the access road for emergency vehicles was not a justification for its original construction and it has not been argued to be essential for the operation of the site.

“The view of the town council remains unchanged, that the enforcement order should be complied with in full and calls upon the planning authority to refuse the application and carry out enforcement without delay.”

The Cornwall branch of the Ramblers Association says in its objections: “It seems as though the owner of the hotel is trying to save money on the cost of reinstatement and/or thinks that maybe in the not‐too‐distant future, he will be able to construct another building on the remaining terrace.

“Again, without permission?

“Although planning permission is not usually required to erect fencing and no proposal to plant trees to replace those felled, Ramblers object on the grounds that a full reinstatement of the site is required, including removal of the fencing, so as to restore the natural beauty of the location.”

Planning officer Adam Carlyon says in his report to the committee, which meets at New County Hall / Lys Kernow in Truro on Monday, April 29: “Whilst the concerns of the local community, St Ives Town Council and the electoral division member are certainly understood, it is considered that, following careful consideration of the various elements of the proposal under this and a previous withdrawn application, the proposed development is acceptable on balance and subject to strict conditions, even though this would not strictly follow the requirements of the outstanding enforcement notice.”