Harbour Developments 2010

[treeve]

Despite paranoia running high in the area, the issue of the harbour scheme may not be as clear cut or defined.

Besides further dialogue with Cornwall Council's Cabinet, it is reported that English Heritage have written to CC stating that they have not changed their minds and WILL object to the building work at 'Battery Rocks'.

At this juncture, I will add that the term 'Battery Rocks' is evasive, obfuscating and not one of fact. It is proposed to be built on as a small part of the entire mountain. What is at stake here is the ancient harbour pier itself.

This now takes it out of the hands of CC and firmly places it in the hands of the Secretary of State.

There is the matter of the Harbour Revision Order to be handled by the DfT, which in its current form is unsuitable for wayward revisions to the proposals, yet refer to English Heritage letter to Simon Thorpe of Cornwall Council 21st April 2009 from Simon Ramsden [Historic Buildings and area Advisor].

There is the matter of Finance for the whole project, said by many with the enthusiasm of Marvin the Paranoid Android to be a fearful dead end and work must be tendered, accepted and instigated immediately because after the elections, the funding MAY be withdrawn.

It is all maybes, hopes, smoke and mirrors.

 

[CHILLYWILLY]

Without appearing as wanting to score brownie points with another administrator, this is precisely the type of statement the people of Penzance need to have placed before them, from all interested parties. Clear, concise and to the point. Not shrouded in speculation of what might be or may be. I invite all those viewing this thread with actual facts to forward them poste haste.

 

[Bilge Rat]

A brief history of Option A

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.

The Route Partnerships consultant Hyders (UK) rejected this option in 2004 as did the public at the exhibition that year. It was then rejected a further three times by the residents of Penzance, at the two planning exhibitions in 2008 and 2009 and in the overwhelming number of letters of objection to the planning application that was subsequently withdrawn.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. The Town Council have revoked the HRO as they did not realise the implications in 2005 as the final plans were first seen in September 2008.

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 it is politically un-deliverable. He was going to hold a public meeting but put this on the back boiler because the Route Partnership will not attend any meetings.

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?” SAVE Britain’s Heritage has learnt of proposals to build a passenger terminal and freight facility on reclaimed land in front of the harbour walls in Penzance. We write to express concern over these proposals.

SAVE Britain’s Heritage stated “We write to express concern over these proposals.
SAVE concurs with the views of English Heritage expressed in a letter to the Department for Transport on 21 November 2008. We feel that the current proposals (as outlined in previous applications) are harmful to the historic environment (in particular the harbour walls and adjacent listed buildings) and will have a negative impact on the local character and distinctiveness of Penzance. SAVE also agrees that there are other more suitable locations for this new terminal.”

At an open meeting organised by Andrew George MP at St Johns Hall Option A was rejected by 600-3. An amendment for development to the east of Albert Pier was approved by all including the Chair of Penzance Chamber of Commerce.

In December 2009 the decision was taken from the Local Area Planning Committee and given the Strategic Planning Committee who refused planning for listed building consent – the rest of the application was once again withdrawn. Almost 700 letters of objection were received and 8 in favour.

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.

The operator will have to cover the costs of the building of the new vessel (say £27million) plus interest over 25 years and enough on top to purchase a new vessel. That is a lot of money to run a service that probably only has a profit of £300000 per annum . Anyone like to calculate the figures?

Any losses will fall to the Cornish rate payer - who else?

 

[treeve]

Thank you very much for that.

Two questions...

1 - Much is being made by one person in a high position, together with other claims, that the Harbour Revision Order is still in Place and to change it will require considerable effort and expense, as well as Time which is 'short'. The 'fact' is that it cannot be done, or funds will be lost. Is the HRO in place, changing or transfixed.

2 - It has been reported that the Vessel has been priced, the design complete, and is currently out for specific Tenders under Tendering Procedures. Do you know any different?

 

[palm123]

In just two saturday afternoons a petition at The Wharfside shopping centre collected 1700+ signatures. This tally is being increased week by week and clearly demonstrates the will of Penzance people.
The cornishman poll was about 50/50 until the fopzh sent out thier message on e-mail to get people to vote and the result ended roughly 60/40 to the protestors. Bilge Rat mentions three thousand people as if they all voted in fopzh favour.
All these surveys prove is that fopzh much longer running campaign has been over successfull as we can see the True friends campaign will eclipse fopzh massively if we had started at the same time.

A fact about the hstoric value of the barbican high sea wall is that it is relatively young. It was built in 1834 and the Battery road is part of that reclamation of the seashore in an atempt to stop sea spray hitting the Dolphin Inn. The only really old/ancient parts of the wall are only viewable by boat or crossing the rocks. These older stones are generally at the base of pier structure. The only parts of wall to be removed under option a are relatively small sections, approx 30 metres of the entire 300 metres and the vast majority of ancient original harbour is already buried under what now stands.

Even if option A is turned down the area exactly behind the barbican high sea wall will have to have rock amour placed there any way according to the harbour master. You can see on the landward side of this wall a huge concrete reinforcement already in place. Under option A this concrete block could be removed and the unsightly tiolet block is also to be removed. The result would be an improvement on that area of the seafront not a destruction or eyesore.

I have been very much turned off by fozph's campaign by some of it's claims. For instance they pointed out that that area is visited by the Purple Sandpiper as if this was a valuable area for them. Google it.The Purple Sandpiper over winter in northern europe. They are not under threat as a aspecies and you can find them all over europe and the uk. Talk about smoke and mirrors.

Another fact is that one of the lead members of fozph has an office in the barbican building itself and this gentleman is a columist for the cornishman who has been ranting on against this development for months.

Bilge rat points to the finacial risks, but as usual like the whole of fopzh campaign offers Penzance and the Isles Of Scilly no ideas at all.Thier only knowledgable member, Mr Cartwright, has been trying to form his own service to the isles of Scilly for years and alledgedly was sacked as ceo of Stemship company.

 

[treeve]

Not bad for two days collection ... 0.08 percentile of the Population of Penzance. A solid demonstration of the Will of the People. Assuming they were domiciled in Penzance?

 

[palm123]

Treeve
1700+ collected in two afternoons, already more than the 6/700 meeting at St Johns hall and this after only a couple of weeks since starting a pro Option A campaign.
Obviously at the rate True friends are going we will gather a significant number.
Fopzh seem to rely on support through the internet from who knows where.
At least we can be sure that people who shop in Penzance are from within the local area.
Fopzh have also failed to inform its supporters of the significant changes to the original scheme , so it's keeping thier own voters in the dark. Go look at thier web page - the only mention of revised option A is asking them to vote again. No mention of the revised entrance design or the significant scaling down.

Smoke and mirrors you say?

 

[treeve]

I still say it is all smoke and mirrors. Militancy and Schoolboy Antics will not achieve the Proper end result. We are trying our best to present a firm information base here. In that way each will be seen on an equal basis. There are things going on 'here' that have little to do with 'what is best for Penzance Harbour and the Isles of Scilly Ferry'.

 

[palm123]

Treeve
this is classic Fopzh tactics. You suggest underhand forces, some alterior motive? Give me evidence. In your first post you mention paranoia twice your last post is riven with paranioa.

In my opinion fopzh act very much like a defence barrister without any real evidence they just attempt to create....'''reasonable doubt''

 

[treeve]

Paranoia is something I have fought for years. It is based on ignorance, gossip and bias. Next time I see the Purple Sandpipers, I will instruct them that they really ought to check on line, and there they will discover that they really should not be here.
[see my pictures in my albums]
Endangered or not, it is their lives at stake, it is that kind of dismissive thinking that generated the other purges of the world.
... When will people realise that not everything on the net or in newspapers is true?
Paranoia? Not Me.

 

[Halfhidden]

We have a cabinet meeting tomorrow (8th Feb 2010). This could help people in Penzance really understand what they are voting on.
We are setting out a system to get all three main groups working on one single objective... that being getting facts and information to the public through the use of Picture Penzance. So far two of the three groups has indicated their support for this, much needed system.
We have been hard at work putting together a system that promotes facts about each of the proposals whilst at the same time allowing interaction from the public. The objective is to get the public involved in the project in a positive way. At the moment there is a lot of misunderstandings surrounding all of the proposals, not least a lot of anger and rivalry.
Lets hope that tomorrows meeting is successful and the show can be put on the road.::1:

 

[Halfhidden]

Just to keep you all in the loop. Had a successful and constructive meeting with today between Picture Penzance and Route Partnership re the above idea.
Just as it was with Charlie Cartwright and Friends of Penzance harbour, Route Partnership have shown interest in the proposed scheme.
It's good to see all three making this positive step. This will mean direct information availability and hopefully put an end to the misinformation surround the entire dock area.
I am awaiting an official reply from each group and then we will move on to the next stage.

 

[rrrrrrichie]

Option PZ

Is anyone aware of this option?

Quote from Andrew George's website:

Option PZ would unite town and give Penzance a better future – says George

The MP for the West Cornwall and Isles of Scilly constituency of St Ives, Andrew George, believes local people are looking for a solution that will save Penzance from a damaging and disastrous Option A and save the Isles of Scilly from the catastrophe of depending on a ferry link with distant Falmouth.

Mr George has been holding a series of meetings to discuss the future of Penzance Harbour and Isles of Scilly ferry link with interested parties in Penzance this week. He announced today that they were optimistic that they could “unlock a difficult and challenging obstacle to progress.”

Mr George added: “A new option - called 'Option Pz', because it has come from the people of Penzance and has not been foisted on the town from outside - would provide a stepping stone to a much more ambitious future for Penzance, its harbour and its economy. It would secure the Isles of Scilly Ferry Link and give passengers a better service and travelling experience.”

Mr George said they plan to unveil Option Pz in the coming weeks. It will have the following beneficial features and will:

• • be less expensive than Option A
  • not require another Harbour Revision Order
  • at least achieve if not exceed all of the objectives of Option A
  • enable Penzance and the project to work constructively with English Heritage
  • offer a range of additional facilities and opportunities to develop the marine economy of Penzance
  • reduce the amount of freight handling
  • enhance and speed up the service
  • improve health and safety standards

Further information cannot be provided at this stage, however, a further announcement will be made soon.

 

[treeve]

There is no option

It has to be reported that as far as RP are concerned,
there is NO option;
it is Option A or Nothing.

When asked as to why the Report prepared by Nick Cahill was ignored, after a stone cold silence, I was informed that it was a consideration which had to be consulted as one of the many, but they were under no obligation to be mindful of that under whatever professional response they had and financial constraints as well as other legal responsibilities.

I hope to extend present consultation with Cornwall Archaeological Unit, together with English Heritage, but I am not hopeful of a positive outcome.

 

[treeve]

I have just been informed the the meeting has been relocated.
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/hom...unty-Hall/article-1819921-detail/article.html
No date given as yet.
Of course there are objections to the fact of the change of venue that people are complaining about the journey to Truro, as well as voices of those with plenty of time and money on hand of course also objecting to complaints. Not everyone has physical or financial ability to divest one day, a meal and travel costs. Some people are prepared to dig their heels in and blinker their eyes shouting abuse about people that actually care, rather than thinking about how to line their pockets.

 

[rrrrrrichie]

Facebook

March 8th is the date given by the RFOPH facebook site.

Here is the link http://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Future-For-Penzance/292563337156?ref=nf

1880+ Fans of this page in only 24 hours of the site appearing and they are stating 42+ Penzance businesses supporting Option A.

 

[treeve]

On the basis of either Option A or Nothing; it is rather like asking a condemned man if he wants the Firing Squad to use blanks or real bullets.

 

[bear]

An interesting quote from this spokeswoman, or should I say spokesperson. The idea that moving away from the pressure of local opinion could make her case seem more acceptable to "The People" who make the decisions is a cowardly approach to the problem, and is designed to minimise the effect that a bulk response anti option A would have to any decision making. If these hotelliers, and "affected business persons were to be shown an alternative workable option to Option A, surely they would have to consider it. I believe that they are in fear of loss of business if this port loses the IOS link, and rightly so. Surely though they realise that it will not immediatly lessen their income, and if this new terminal is built, it will not happen overnight, so when and if whatever building process is taking part, this will also put people off coming to Penzance for the ferry. When that area is turned into a building site, I bet it will turn a lot of people off Penzance as a tourist venue. I would hazard a guess that during construction of their prefered option A some if not most will suffer from lack of interest in Penzance as a holiday resort, because lets face it not everybody who comes to Penzance wants to go to the IOS. Some (like myself) enjoy nothing more than enjoying the history of the town, and especially enjoy the breathtaking view of The Mount, and Mounts Bay from the spot exactly where the new development would obliterate it forever.

 

[Halfhidden]

I will be emailing all concerned parties with the view to an official answer to our suggestion of a comparison of proposals.
So far each group has shown interest in the project but non has yet given an official response.
A deadline of Monday 15th February 2009 @ 16:00 has be set for their response.

I will set a press release for Tuesday 16th February 2009

 

[bear]

Do you know, there are acouple of questions that i can't really find an answer to. OK the freight situation at The Gri in the harbour is far from good. I know as I have been involved as a lorry driver for many years. Queueing has been a real problem for some years, but it has worked. Sooner or later it all gets loaded, and off you go. The boys on the quay work hard, and I think a purpose built freight building with better access could and should be explored.
The Scillonian takes the passengers, and makes 2 trips in the summer, increasing the numbers of trippers who visit the Isles. I believe The Scillonian still takes some freight, and when either is laid up for whatever reason the other compensates for the shortfall to some degree. So my questions are these.
1 what good would come from having only one link to the IOS.
2 If there was only one vessel, carrying passengers and freight. (Considering that it takes nearly a day to load the Gri ) when this ship gets to the destination and has to be unloaded. How long will it take, and will it make the next tide to travel back. (considering that it has to be reloaded).
Now it may seem to some that I'm talking rubbish, and this may be true, but given the scenario of the new ship being laid up because of mechanical or other reasons, then surely there will be no sea link at all if we take out the Scillonian. I know that both vessels are showing signs of age, and need to be replaced, but there is still time to sort this.
I believe the main problem (excuse the pun) is that the freight/storage facility has to be improved, but not on the scale that is currently on the table.
Nobody wants to see the link torn away from Penzance. The thing is the situation now Works. We need to improve freight handling ok. Lets concentrate on that. The Scillonian is and has been a great ferry service, proven for many many years, so why kiss it goodbye?
Rank building ? ok. Out of date and probably H&S insecure. Access to the pier, inadequate. So, concentrate on correcting theses problems and keep both aspects open.
I believe it has already cost 5M to try to prove a point to us, what if that 5M had been channeled towards improving the facilities tha already exist, and have proved to work. We will never know, but don't let this wastage happen again.