Penzance Harbour Development - a balanced view.

[palm123]

Treeve
Treeve
Go check
http://www.consolsoils.co.uk/blog/?p=1596

2nd paragraph in a letter to Andrew George.

''You ought to bear in mind that part of me originates from the same gene pool as the Bennetts Shipping dynasty, the welare of Penzance and its Harbour is instinctive to me.''

I have to agree with treeve....there is a lot of myth on the net.

 

[treeve]

Thankyou, I have no reason to doubt his 'tree'; however, a strong part of my 'tree' is that they were shipbuilders, others that they were seamen. Neither of which makes me capable in building a ship or taking it to South America, as much as I have intense interest in history and in ships. With all respect, the knowledge of being a fisherman (as much as I have utmost respect for their stamina and fortitude - I also have fisherman's blood in my veins) does nothing to encourage me to believe that the gentleman knows how to run a ferry or set up a harbour. At least I do suspect that he would be more open than the team of vaudeville magicians that have beset us over recent years.
I regret that the history of RP has been one fraught with such actions and words that I cannot in all faith trust a single word they now offer.
That is what they have achieved.

 

[palm123]

So Treeve your attitude is to ignore the professionals and use the ''liar liar pants on fire '' defence.You've just confirmed another of my facts. Thankyou.

I only mentioned Consol oilks as he had been painted as an otsider from st day in an earlier post on this site. He does not claim to be an expert but is definetley a worthy contributor.

 

[treeve]

I may have still retained my childlike view of the wonder of this world, but unlike RP and a number of other protagonists, I have left the school playground behind. I really do not have any axe to grind over Mr Bennetts. However I do with some members of the RP that have produced 'facts and figures' that do not tally with common sense, nor with previous facts, or with independent data. I have listed a great deal of my doubts here on thread. I have been involved in many high profile decisions, and I know what goes on. This is the first time that I have observed such questionable actions in order to achieve what to me appears to be an ill considered scheme, and in the face of what is clearly a predictable confrontational situation. What would be the reaction to some consortium saying that they are planning a cement handling wharf outside the Tower of London. You do not have to be a planning expert to know what would be the furore that ensued. What would be the reaction to any form of irregularity in the procedures?
And then to achieve their ends, to wrap the Tower in a wall of tinted concrete, in order to protect the historical merits of the construction of that ancient building? To ignore planning procedure, and to basically make a complete hash of it all? ... No I am no schoolboy.

 

[palm123]

Your not engaging with any of the facts ,Treeve, do you have anything more than your ''feelings '' to offer the people of the Isles of Scilly, whose lively hood will be seriously affected

I was hoping, as a lot of the town were, that option c would have provided a solution.
Now that it has prooved financially unviable i expected the FoPH to react responsibly and allow the improved Option A to proceed.

To carry on the Foph campaign with ''surely there is another way'' attitude is frankly amazing.

vote here
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/cor...-sea-link/article-1708456-detail/article.html

 

[treeve]

I find that offensive.

I have spent over 40 years engaging in intense and wide based data, and sifting fact from fiction, long before the confusion of the internet. It is not my responsibility to provide a workable solution to the mess that has been generated by poor management, poor design and a group that is clearly misdirected and itself confrontational. One of the serious defects in commercial argument is that any alternative is being considered merely in terms of Option A, instead of relating it to the present Status Quo. I have a maxim, Whoever started it Finishes it, and properly.

I have not begun to stress my feelings and opinions here. ::6:

 

[Halfhidden]

Your not engaging with any of the facts ,Treeve, do you have anything more than your ''feelings '' to offer the people of the Isles of Scilly, whose lively hood will be seriously affected

I was hoping, as a lot of the town were, that option c would have provided a solution.
Now that it has prooved financially unviable i expected the FoPH to react responsibly and allow the improved Option A to proceed.

To carry on the Foph campaign with ''surely there is another way'' attitude is frankly amazing.

vote here
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/cor...-sea-link/article-1708456-detail/article.html

Palm123... we cannot speak for FOPZH. if it's a reaction you want from them may I suggest that you ask them directly.

You'll note that a lot of people are against option "A" for many reasons. Simply because it has now been improved just goes to show that Route Partnership has only done so because they have had their hand forced by the recent rejection for the strategic planning committee.
Route Partnership by design kept out people in Penzance out of the discussions. Nobody on the board represents Penzance, Why?

People in Penzance feel that this harbour scheme has been imposed on them with little or no consultation.

Route Partnership tried blackmail, intimidation and even insulting the residents and a lot more unpleasant things to push through plan "A" If it was such a good plan why couldn't it stand on it's own merits.

Your suggesting that plan "A" is the best solution when it has already been rejected four times already... how much more can this horse be flogged before they realise it is already dead?

 

[palm123]

halfhidden
back to facts
RP revised thier option A design before the strategic planning committe decision.Not after that decision.
ANOTHER FACT rp have been consulting Penznce from the earliest stages....arguably they have mis read the strength of feeling in Pz however they have ,in my view , given thier honest appraisal of what is achievable within budget and deliverable with minimum consequences re enviroment, asthetic, etc.

''Why dose'nt the plan stand on its own merits?''.........im my view it does...it will be a credit to this town and an example of how to protect heritage and secure the future of Pz and IOS.
It seems to me that people are having a knee jerk reaction to the project without considering the importance of this vital link.

To add a further wrinkle to the argument..i am of the belief that IOS SSCO employees who mostly reside here are swaying the balance of opinion in this town as they know that thier employer is going to have to compete to win the tender to run the link.......is thier opinion in the best interest of Pz......or are Foph just using this support base?

 

[palm123]

Treeve
no it's not your responsibility
Thankyou again for confirming my fears that you are not responsible.

I will take responsibility for what happens to this ferry service and this town...i will fight to keep it healthy and viable.

Again...many thanks for revealing your absence of responsibility you saved me a job there.

 

[treeve]

This Forum has standards, it does not allow personal offensive remarks or innuendo such as contained in your messages. Your comments are highly offensive and inflammatory. This is NOT the way to win friends.

 

[treeve]

Once again it is placed on the table that Penzance people have no consideration for Scillonian people, nor do they, apparently have any concerns over the future of the ferry. Complete and utter nonsense, based on nothing more than aggressive bias. If the protagonists resort to school playground tactics they will achieve nothing. Like Gordon Bilsborough writing an infantile song with no basis in historical fact, clearly disruptive and confrontational. The matter of the rocks and or beach, though themselves important are not the issue. Neither is it the issue that 'the council put the shingle there' - also a complete nonsense. It is the historical integrity of the pier itself, the fact of the destruction of an amenity, with considerable import to wildlife, combined with the massive conversion of a harbour with great continuous history into a pile of rocks and a mountain of tinted concrete, for no apparent logical reason. It is also in the provision of a centre that has not been properly considered in relation to a number of aspects of Penzance Harbour and the area in general of Battery. Especially it is the process in which it was decreed that Option A was not approved, and it was followed by the immediate regrouping to 'overthrow' the decision, with secret meetings. This is schoolboy stuff. It would make an excellent plot for Richmal Crompton. We are currently in the process of attempting a 'Round Table' presentation for open adult discussion. It is NOT about standing in the way of a Ferry, new or otherwise, or the provision of facilities to commit that ferry, it is about the method by which that is to proposed to be delivered.

 

[Halfhidden]

@palm123 Treeve is right, this furum has rules and your tone is just a little on the aggressive side. Please keep the discussion sensible and wherever possible factual.
If you have a point to make this is not the way to do it. We are quite prepared to listen to your augments and engage in to a discussion, but not in this fashion.

Remember that a lot of people read this forum and will judge what's being said. I think the latest figures for this particular thread is 10,000

 

[Zoom zimmer]

I agree. I would like to hear a decent discussion rather than personal digs.
I haven't made my mind up either way yet and hope that I can get some stuff from here about it.

 

[Halfhidden]

We have some plans in place to centralise all of the proposals.
I have started to contact the following: John Maggs, Route Partnership and Charlie Cartwright.
I hope that they see sense and allow us to post all of the plans and proposals here for everyone to see. That way people can judge for themselves.
Keep an eye out for the new forums any day soon!

 

[Halfhidden]

Since my last post I have been in contact with John Maggs who is willing to participate.
I have contacted Graeme Hick via his secretary and also by his personal email address.
I have contacted Charlie Cartwright via email as well.
I am waiting for a response from Route Partnership and Charlie Cartwright.
All of the administrators on this site has agreed that a transparent comparison and discussion is needed. Clearly people are getting frustrated and the point is lost.
If we are able to get all three onto this forum they can each get their points across and the public can ask questions and get answers.
I've been on may other websites and all I see is the inevitable nick picking... and in some cases the facts aren't facts.

I have contacted the press who are interested in helping.
Lets all pull together no matter what plan we support and get a level playing field for all to see.

As soon as I've heard back from Graeme Hicks and Charlie cartwright I can get the forum structure in place.
This thread will be closed down and a whole new set will be put up and monitored to keep it sensible. I am prepared to allow limited moderation to each party so that they can see there is fair play.

 

[Halfhidden]

Since my last post I have been in contact with John Maggs who is willing to participate.
I have contacted Graeme Hicks via his secretary and also by his personal email address.
I have contacted Charlie Cartwright via email as well.
I am waiting for a response from Route Partnership and Charlie Cartwright.
All of the administrators on this site has agreed that a transparent comparison and discussion is needed. Clearly people are getting frustrated and the point is lost.
If we are able to get all three onto this forum they can each get their points across and the public can ask questions and get answers.
I've been on may other websites and all I see is the inevitable nick picking... and in some cases the facts aren't facts.

I have contacted the press who are interested in helping.
Lets all pull together no matter what plan we support and get a level playing field for all to see.

As soon as I've heard back from Graeme Hicks and Charlie Cartwright I can get the forum structure in place.
This thread will be closed down and a whole new set will be put up and monitored to keep it sensible. I am prepared to allow limited moderation to each party so that they can see there is fair play.

 

[palm123]

Half hidden
i applaud your optimism however i fear this will lead to the same stalemate with each party now entrenched .
Apparently some local people did an ad hoc vox pop over the weekend in town and are claiming impressive results.......as i understand it people were shown revised option A photomontages and almost unanimously supported option A.
With the greatest of respect 'picture penzance' is hardly unbiased .. The majority of messages, by a long shot, are from site admin who openly declare a bias.

If we go back to the beginning of time in 2004 RP appraised 14 options . At this stage one assumes that all options had fair review and would be judged on merit.
find it here http://www.ioslinkharbours.co.uk/downloads/Project Reports/Penzance Harbour Option Study.pdf

The scheme most closely reflecting todays option A {Benkine Rankin Partnership full scheme option A} was costed as , at that time, 16 .3 million pounds. It was not the cheapest or the most exspensive.

The scheme featuring Albert pier , which in light of the collapse of the recent option C, seems to attract much public support was costed at 22.6 million {see improved scillonian berth option b, as it was called then}
So purely on costs the Albert pier option was 50 % more exspensive. In todays money that would mean 30 + million for Pz harbour alone out of an overall budget of 44 million for the whole scheme.
The argument from Foph seems to be that all options have'nt been given a fair hearing. I think this document proves that every concievable option has been looked at and reviewed by specialists who will certainly know more than the average pZ resident.

Even if RP do a u turn and hurridly prepare an Albert Pier alternative, ignoring the gigantic cost implication, Do you really think there would be no objections.
Albert pier is far more overlooked than the present option A. There is still the one boat scenario.
In a nutshell by getting this whole processed re-examined online will get us nowhere.
People like me have been apathetic and hoped the various councils and professionals would deliver a sensible solution. In my view FoPH are bankrupt of ideas, and as is increasingly becoming obvious, are being exposed as a very successful minority.
Just out of interest , Halfhidden, can and the other site admin /moderators/ whatever claim to have no connection with those Scillonian staff and dry dock workers who would appear to be most disadvantaged by RP's plans?

 

[BayOfPlenty]

Just out of interest , Halfhidden, can and the other site admin /moderators/ whatever claim to have no connection with those Scillonian staff and dry dock workers who would appear to be most disadvantaged by RP's plans?

I, for one, most certainly can.

 

[Halfhidden]

@Palm123 I don't deny that we have and do support option "C", what I said and suggest is that the debate should be drawn out into the open. My administrators are willing to put their feelings to one site and allow, for the good of the town, a complete set of proposals and a sensible debate.
You initial post suggested that the facts of plan "A" were not known. I have now given a platform to Route Partnership and the others so that the facts can be read and understood by anyone who wishes. I have gone one further and offered some administrative privileges to each party to ensure fair play.
It's up to Route Partnership and Charlie Cartwright to accept this project.

I don't have any connections with anything at all to do with The IoS or Steam ship company. You'll have to ask other admins if they do.
Although I cannot see that anybody should be dismissed if they are related to a dock worker.

 

[sparky]

@Palm123 I can say that I have NO connections with the Isles of Scilly residents or the dry dock workers....