A Cornwall Council planning meeting heard from people both for and against a major development which will change the face of Penzance seafront on May 28, before committee members made a decision.

The local authority’s west area planning committee was again discussing the contentious plans to redevelop the Coinagehall Street area of Penzance following a site meeting earlier this month.

Treveth – the development arm of Cornwall Council – proposed to demolish the PZ Gallery and other buildings on the seafront to create a development of 36 homes, including 11 affordable properties, and seven businesses alongside the redevelopment of St Anthony Gardens.

The site, described as “sensitive” by case officer Peter Bainbridge is based near Jubilee Pool and the town’s harbour. He said: “There’s a significant level of opposition but also significant support.” Main concerns in terms of objections related to the loss of PZ Gallery, alterations to St Anthony Gardens and the visual impact of the scheme’s Block D, which contains both housing and retail units.

Dr Julian Holder, senior associate tutor in architectural history at Oxford University and a former historic buildings inspector with Historic England, said he was asked to speak by some of the 200-plus objectors.

“This application is an attack on the character of the Penzance Conservation Area,” he said, adding that many of the existing buildings, including the PZ Gallery, have architectural significance. “In my professional opinion, I’d say it’s the best of its kind in the country and represents Penzance nationally and internationally.”

Gerry Penrose, representing Penzance Civic Society, said he represented “hundreds of objections made by concerned residents on the planning website, at three town hall meetings and those made by the town council in its submission”.

“It is understandable that we get to the stage of saying ‘something is better than nothing’ but what will be built now will be with us for the next 100 years.”

Next to speak was Dick Cliffe, former mayor of Penzance and current member of the Penzance Town Deal Board which agreed an allocation of £3.6-million towards the project. That government funding would be lost if a decision was not made by September.

“I and others consider this site an enduring major eyesore and therefore a priority for development. Attempts to redevelop this site by private sector developers over 20 years have been thwarted – the site is complex and the economics marginal. This proposal is the fourth attempt and addresses the neglected public realm of the area and is the first to address local housing need by providing rental homes, two-thirds of which are for local people.”

Current mayor Stephen Reynolds’ personal opinion – as read out by Mr Cliffe – was that a revised design of St Anthony Gardens was a vast improvement on what was initially proposed and “goes a very long way to addressing my concerns and those of the local community”.

Treveth’s Dominic O’Neill said the company’s aim was to deliver homes and business opportunities for local people. He said Historic England did not object to the loss of view from Battery Road to St Mary’s Church, which was one of the objectors’ major bugbears. He argued that although prominent, the development would not compete with other important buildings or compromise the setting of the adjacent listed Jubilee Pool and church.

Local member Cllr Jim McKenna said approximately 92 per cent of the “well over 200 people” who had objected were concerned about the scale and massing, particularly of Block D. He said the scheme was still in need of improvement.

“Time is clearly of the essence to the developers, and I assume to the council, to make a decision because of the public funding of £3.6-million funding from Future High Streets, which is required to be spent fairly quickly, but this should not override the need to provide a development which befits an iconic location. Penzance deserves better than what is being proposed,” added Cllr McKenna.

Councillors, such as Loveday Jenkin and John Thomas, mentioned that on visiting the site they felt opening up the gardens could ruin their contemplative nature and heritage aspect. Cllr Jenkin added that a number of concerns aired at the site meeting, including the size and design of Block D, hadn’t been addressed by the developer.

Cllr Thomas proposed refusal on the grounds of the “unsympathetic” design and massing of Block D, the loss of the view to the Grade II listed St Mary’s Church plus the loss of character of St Anthony Gardens and the setting within the conservation area. The refusal was rejected following a vote.

Cllr John Keeling proposed to give planning officers delegated powers to approve after various concerns were resolved with Treveth. However, this was withdrawn following concerns raised by other councillors.

A final vote to approve the development was won by five in favour, four against and one abstention.