Penzance Harbour Development - a balanced view.

[treeve]

Quite ... I have been reliably informed by someone in a position of trust and authority that it has always been the intention of the RP to ride roughshod over any objections, it has also come to my intention that apparently HRH is not kept in the loop and that protests and letters are diverted, I have been reliably informed that the concept of an additional ship is accepted to be extra to requirements. I have been reliably informed that this was one direct outcome of a unified and distant authority, in that observance of local needs is not appreciated or acted upon. The giant bureaucratic machine drives its caterpillar tracks over the protestors.

 

[Halfhidden]

Sparky and I will be attending the Truro hearing and supporting our friends who have worked so hard for and on behalf of the residents and businesses in Penzance against this unworkable idea.
See you on Wednesday

 

[Bilge Rat]

Letter to Cornwall Council Cabinet members

Dear Councillor

The Route Partnerships proposal for the South Pier/Battery Rocks was rejected in February 2004 by Penzance harbour users who were not included in the consultation process. They invited Hyders representative to give a presentation of the options.

Hyders the consultants rejected this option in July 2004 and it was subsequently rejected three times by the residents of Penzance, at the two planning exhibitions and in the overwhelming number of letters of objection to the planning application that was subsequently withdrawn.

The Town Council and the Civic Trust have rejected it.

In a recent poll conducted by The Cornishman in which over 3000 people voted it was overwhelmingly rejected yet again.

Our MP Andrew George has stated that is politically un-deliverable.

English Heritage stated in 2009 that “consideration be given to locating the passenger and freight terminal in an alternative location, less harmful to the historic environment”.

The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, (CABE), South West Design Panel stated in June 2009 “We would have liked to have understood why an option outside the sea wall was chosen…. Can this really be the most practical and environmental site for the terminal and ferry berth?”

Serious doubts have been raised about the economics of a single larger ship. Cornwall ratepayers are being made to pay for the new vessel. Cornish ratepayers will also carry all the risk, a point noted by David Whalley, Leader of Cornwall County Council and other County Councillors.

Everyone is in favour of maintaining the Isles of Scilly link but not with the current Route Partnership proposal for Penzance Harbour. There are other workable alternatives that I believe would be less costly economically and environmentally. The Route Partnerships own consultants have recently told them this.

There is no need to resubmit the planning application as only the sensible alternatives to the plan that will not destroy the historic seafront of Penzance are acceptable to the people living in the town.

The Route Partnership should be directed to deliver these.

Yours sincerely

Email addresses follow if anyone else would like comment
arobertson@cornwall.gov.uk
sbain@cornwall.gov.uk
nburden@cornwall.gov.uk
jcurrie@cornwall.gov.uk
jgerman@cornwall.gov.uk
mkaczmarek@cornwall.gov.uk
lkennedy@cornwall.gov.uk
carorule@cornwall.gov.uk
atoms@cornwall.gov.uk

 

[P_Trembath]

Letter to Cornwall Council Cabinet members

Dear Councillor
.....
...
Everyone is in favour of maintaining the Isles of Scilly link but not with the current Route Partnership proposal for Penzance Harbour. There are other workable alternatives that I believe would be less costly economically and environmentally. The Route Partnerships own consultants have recently told them this.

What is so wrong with the current arrangements, the ones that have been working for years, that require this level of investment and work, in order for this link between the Islands and the mainland to be "maintained"?

Why does anything have to be done at all?

I see people arguing over which option, which plan, should be adopted, but I, and I believe a good many others, still do not know, have not been informed, why there has to be any such options in the first place?

What is wrong with the option that says "leave everything as it is"?

 

[breizh]

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but one of the players in the Route Partnership is the Duchy of Cornwall, which as everyone knows is actively managed by HRH. If you look at their website sustainability and the environment are the most frequently used words. Rather ironic that they appear not to have been questioned? Maybe a word about a monstrous carbuncle on the backside (front side even) of the town would be the appropraite phrase?
The other worrying element I have noted is "plans must be agreed by next February or the project runs the risk of losing £23m funding" Somewhere along the line, there appears to be a very serious misunderstanding of what public funds are for or where they come from. It is not money that has dropped out of the sky. It is from taxes. Surely this 'the money is there-we must use it' approach is simply typical of the short term management by banks and financial experts, as well as individuals, companies, businesses and public officials over the past few years.

 

[treeve]

Quite, on two accounts, I had commenced a letter to HRH, but it was made very clear to me that it would not be read by its intended recipient. It appears that things are not run like they were in the days of the Lord Protector. I understand that Scillonians are already subsidised as far as fares are concerned. I have heard it said that the Scillonians will starve ('they will all die') if the Battery beach is not built on and the ancient harbour destroyed and wild life suffers, let alone the construction of the ugly shed and mountain of rock cladding. This mad idea has been played with for over eight years and still no common sense prevails, still no intelligent cohesive scheme, merely the ravings of rushed and ill-considered destruction and the provision of a ship concept that beggars more questions than it answers, leaving the inhabitants of Penzance reeling under the loss and the cost.

 

[Bilge Rat]

Spotted this in the Falmouth Packet.
'An ambitious plan to transform Falmouth's waterfront and bring prosperity to the area has been unveiled by a local firm of architects ...

'The scheme could at last open up the waterfront to the public ...

'The idea of a waterfront scheme has already received the support in principle of the public and many businesses.

The vision features 'new shops, a waterside public piazza, 77 apartments, reorganised public car parking and a unique floating restaurant/bar.

'A waterfront boardwalk forms part of a new route leading people down from the High Street and re-connecting them with Falmouth's waterfront.'

* * * * *

Strangely, the designers of the Falmouth scheme have refrained from putting a freight depot with heavy lorries and forklift trucks in the middle of their waterfront. Perhaps it wouldn't go well with the waterside public piazza, new shops, waterfront boardwalk, floating restaurant/bar and the idea of connecting the High Street with the waterfront.

Seriously, it does seem to me that here is a well-founded suggestion for bringing prosperity to an area that we would do well to emulate in Penzance.

 

[Halfhidden]

You crack me up Bilge Rat! Seriously the scheme sounds in keeping with the area. We have been losing our way of late. We no longer have Tall Ships, The seafront is soon to become an industrial dock (if Rout partnership has their way) and little is done to encourage holiday makers to one of our many attractions (our harbour).
I also have a question. I noted that Route Partnership state that this new shinny ship will be 10m longer than the Scillonian III and 3m wider. Excuse me for my ignorance but that's not as big as I thought this ship would need to be to be able to replace both service ships right now. So if it's not much longer and not much wider is it fair to assume that it's going to be several stories high. If so how much of the harbour area will need to be dredged? How much under pinning? And will this dominate the skyline for B & B's close to the harbour. I'm not a boat guy... but surely the higher the boat the bigger the keel..... Isles of Scilly + big Keel = disaster!

 

[Bilge Rat]

Computer illiteracy

I tried to send a picture comparing the hull shapes and sizes but not capable of such huge technical feats - I was going to drop it here...
but no luck.

 

[Bilge Rat]

Notice from Head of Cornwall Planning...

We would like to notify you of a proposed member briefing on the anticipated Penzance Harbour planning applications, which is to be held on Monday 5th October, 10am-12pm at Committee Room 1, Cornwall Council St. Clare offices (Penzance).

The purpose of the briefing is to advise members of both the Area and Strategic Planning Committees on the nature of the recently granted Harbour Revision Order and its implications regarding the anticipated planning applications.

A briefing note is in the process of being prepared and the intention is that public copies will be available at the meeting.

Please be advised that although the briefing will be held in public it is not a formal planning committee meeting and the public are invited as observers only.

Also Andrew George MP has arranged for a public meeting regarding the RP proposal for Penzance seafront to be held at 7.30pm on Friday 9th October at St Johns Hall Penzance.

It is hoped to get a show of objectors at St Clare on Monday morning at 9.30am with posters and a massive turn out for the Friday evening meeting !

 

[Bilge Rat]

Councillor Hicks - would you trust this man?

A SENIOR Cornish councillor has accused an MP of acting like a puppet for a "vociferous minority" of "small-minded" people as a row over a new ferry terminal in Penzance dramatically escalated.
The broadside was dealt to St Ives MP Andrew George by Cornwall Council's Graeme Hicks over his role in a scheme to enhance the sea link between the mainland and the Scilly Isles.
Clearly at the end of his tether, the council's transport and planning supremo said the Liberal Democrat MP was guilty of "dithering".
The rebuke was delivered after Mr George convened a public meeting for next week – despite a warning from the Government that delays may cause vital funding to evaporate.
Firmly declining to attend the event, Coun Hicks' dismissed it as simply "hot air".
From Western Morning News.

 

[BayOfPlenty]

How very democratically-minded of Cllr Hicks...

 

[Halfhidden]

Hmm, a Redruth councillor who knows all about our port.... Am I one of those small mided people.

 

[Bilge Rat]

Press Release

This is what Andrew George MP says on the matter.

“This latest outburst will not help to reassure the local community that those who have to take this
decision are necessarily best equipped to do so,” said Mr George.​

….
and he is right!

 

[Halfhidden]

I was shocked and utterly dismayed to hear some of the proposals at the recent planning committee meeting held at York house today.
Route Partnership decided to re-submit its plans to build on Battery Rocks Penzance and the newly altered plans were on display.
My first reaction was utter shock at the sheer size of the development. This is mammoth!!! I mean absolutely HUGE and will dwarf all around it!

It was suggested at the meeting that at least 2 years construction would be needed just for the sea wall!
The committee members showed their dislike to the plans but Route Partnership and Cornwall Council answered some questions put to them with either “no comment” or “we don’t need planning permission to do that because it is out of your jurisdiction”
A member of the public asked what was to happen with the ancient cross.... Route Partnership responded saying that they didn’t know but they would look in to this.
During questioning it was revealed that St Anthony car park was to be altered and used as a site office during the construction of the harbour development and that NO plans had been submitted to alter or control traffic. The main entrance to the new harbour will be opposite the Dolphin Tavern on that dangerous corner. It was also revealed that articulated lorries would drive along Wharf Road and turn into the new harbour development. A turning space was designated for this and after unloading they would drive down the promenade to exit the town. A councillor mentioned that from his studies of the plan shows that the designated turning circle wasn’t big enough for articulated lorries. He when on to mention that a minimum turning circle for an artic would be 26 meters... so it was concluded that the plans were wrong.
What was also revealed at the meeting was that part of the sea wall was under a preservation order. When asked how this was going to affect the scheme Route Partnership said that they propose knocking down the wall all the way along and leaving just the piece that is under the preservation order. Even if they did this they would still need planning permission to join the new wall to the existing wall.
Two alarming things that transpired from the questions from the public were:
The legal advisors for Route Partnership also advise Cornwall Council! Isn’t that a conflict of interest here!
The other alarming thing is that the new harbour will extend far past the existing pier and I mean by a long way. It was revealed that Route Partnership hasn’t considered and have no plans to move the lighthouse. From my understanding the existing lighthouse will continue in service but [FONT=&quot]considerably[/FONT] down the pier!

 

[Halfhidden]

We have just returned from the meeting at St Johns Hall in Penzance which was packed.
Standing room only and people queued outside!
The meeting was electrifying. Hosted by MP Andrew George, Friends of the Penzance Harbour, Cornwall Councillors, Civic Society, Town Mayor and the Chamber of Commerce.
Generally the feeling was that plan “A” (building on Battery Rocks) should be rejected and that a public consultation to be held. The advantages of plan “C” (building outside of the town) was presented and overwhelmingly accepted by the people of Penzance.
A show of hands quickly dispelled any illusion that that plan “A” was even to be considered.
The conclusion of the two and a half hour public meeting was that MP Andrew George, The friends of Penzance Harbour, The Civic Society, The mayor and the elected councillors of this town have all pledged to fight this to the end!
Chamber of Commerce was represented by Mike Waters who back plan “A” instead along with two other people!

 

[treeve]

I meant to post this in this thread ...
It continues to occupy thoughts as to bananas; Of just what does this remind you; bananas congregate as a tight bunch, straight and green; but how long does it take before they become yellow, bent and rotten? They also require keeping well away from other flavoured fruits as it only adds to the depreciation of anythng else in the basket.

The whole method of dealing with the scheme, the contract, the design, people of the area beggars belief, and has only served to emplace those 'in charge' in a dark light whereby they will never be entrusted again. The public have and are being kept well in the dark as to proposals and methods of achieving their undisclosed ends.
Now there are revelations concerning the vessel; it all places in question the validity of the scheme itself; let alone the continuance of the IOSSCo as a separate entity from the other scheme, the organisation and the necessity to manage passenger and freight.
Then there is the pathetic matter of poor maritime design and maritime safety that has not yet even been addressed. I have spent some time of recent years observing just how it should be done and is done in other regions ... by intelligent and concerned professionals, not the present bunch.

 

[Halfhidden]

Fellow member Bilge Rat has sent us a link of the public meeting with MP Andrew George. It’s a series of video taken by a likeminded Samaritan.
Enjoy
http://www.cornwall24.co.uk/forum/c...lic-meeting-route-parntership-videos/#p106749

 

[Bilge Rat]

Prior Planning Application

Objections need to go in by Wednesday 21st October to the prior planning applications that the undertaker Mr Tim Wood of the Route Partnership has stuck on a couple of lamp posts down by the harbour - amongst the ones he left there when he withdrew the last application.
The first is for the extension of the Lighthouse Pier in concrete with granite facing to the north side.
The second is for the infill of the beach and rock armouring of the pier.
English Heritage and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment stated the development should be accomodated within the existing harbour. There are other satisfactory alternatives available.
The affect on listed structures and buildings is a reason for objection.
The harbour I believe has Article 4 protection that as far as I know is stronger than listing.
Email your objections to..
Dave.Slatter@cornwall.gov.uk

 

[treeve]

With the latest vehement attacks on Andrew George (long may he fight on behalf of this constituency) I am minded of the very worst aspects of the Royal Household in the darkest part of British History, with its back stabbing and contrivance for self indulgence and for extension of politcal wealth and dominance; next report ... will that be that his family has been locked in a tower by members of the RP.
Nothing is sacred or of value in this country it appears. Make sure that any protests or objections are sent by recorded delivery.