Harbour Developments 2010

[treeve]

You are absolutely right; but it has to be said that RP are 'committed' to a single ship (irrationally, as you say). They say the ship has been designed, it has been priced, the builder has been selected, and it is out to tender or at least within a matter of a month. There is an almighty rush to ensure funding, for works to commence in the harbour area within a month or so. Option A is being forced on Penzance, as otherwise they will 'move to Falmouth'. Yet they are spending 300,000 on the feasibility (which will take time and have to be vetted for legal and HSE matters, let alone maritime issues of crewing and routing), which would alter the parameters of the vessel, and probably have to be a re-design, thereby altering costs. A longer voyage in a flat bottomed vessel, stabilisers, etc. What effect will that have on limited draught work in the Isle of Scilly channels, I wonder. The other point to be considered is the access to the ship via road or rail. What cost is involved, how does National Rail fit into this removal of trade from them .... It appears that time is not as limited. Or costs. Then there are other matters. But it all appears that it is fixed and set as to what is to happen. To be honest, I would like to see the paperwork which actaually shows that that 5 million has been spent unfunded and non-recoverably. I have heard different stories. As you say there are logistical problems if the ship needs works. Just where will this be done? Not in Penzance it won't. As you say, what happens in the meantime. But, they are committed to the single ship and Option A, not prepared to discuss anything else. Entrenched.

 

[Bilge Rat]

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.

As far as I know it is! The RP claim they can build anything because of it - this is why the plan changes like the wind.

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?

The grapevine has it that the tender has been won by a Spanish company. This is from within the ship building industry.

 

[treeve]

Thank you ... that is my understanding. There are many things that I have heard on various fronts, but cannot state them for various reasons. If the answer comes from elsewhere and it agrees with what I have heard from a responsible source, then it, as they say, fits.
So if the ship has been successfully tendered, bearing in mind marine factors, what is all this about voyaging to Falmouth. It may even be feasible from the point of view of the fuel, ship, crew even but a passenger would have to think twice, I would have thought, much more sensible by air, I would have thought, or an opening for a rival vessel from Penzance? Just thinking aloud and asking for opinions?

 

[rrrrrrichie]

Same Planning Application

Time to Object Again!

Download the following .pdf to see how to object:

http://www.friendsofpzharbour.org/pdfs/HowToHelpEdition7_1.pdf

Deadline March 4th 2010

 

[treeve]

Thankyou rrrrrrichie.
Copied into the Chat Box.

To destroy or obscure this living part of history is nothing less that official vandalism; it also opens many other avenues for future situations, placing at risk all other sites of historic interest, in the face of what happens to the South Pier, it will affect all future works, many will be performed without due couse of approval, quoting this as a reason not to protect. By setting a Precedent on an official level is highly presumptive, abusive and disrespectful. It also makes a bold official statement of disregard for local opinion, paving the way for future disregard for local response, in disregarding locals at all. I would hope for an authority that took a more constuctive and caring policy. From 1914 and 1939 our people marched and fought that mentality from another source.

I am not a member of ANY group or alignment. This is my personal feeling, and does not come from any connection with Picture Penzance; My family died for Freedom as this. to have a Personal Opinion, without restriction or manipulation, I have the Right to Think by myself.

I repeat (for me) that this is not in connection with the provision of the Ferry Link; that is vital; it is not in connection with being anti-Scillonians, that would be fighting myself. I have fought most of my life against blind bureaucracy. It was never about making friends. It was always about the right to think of all possibilities, acting for the benefit of ALL isses in hand. Balance, listening. Careful consideration, honesty of intent and action.

--------------------
This is the year of the Heritage Protection Bill (drafted 2008); it now comprises Historic Assets. It is Government Policy to List a building that was built before 1700 and almost all from 1700 - 1840. A Listed Building may not be demolished, extended or altered without prior Permission. To add the Pier on a II* list, it would have to be shown that it is of National Importance, rather than just Local. That could be on the level of construction type, or connection with a national historic figure, or part of a historical event. This means that RP's OWN advisors consider it worthy of that nomenclature.

 

[treeve]

Remember, the contact lists can be used to offer opinion for and against any Option, or aspect of the present application or any opinion as to the emplacement of Grading II*, etc,

 

[treeve]

Option PZ, is declared by Andrew George MP to become announced in the next two weeks.

He states ....
It is to be less expensive than Option A.
It does not require another Harbour Revision Order.
It will at least achieve if not exceed all of the objectives of Option A.
It will enable Penzance and the project to work constructively with English Heritage.
It offers a range of additional facilities and opportunities to develop the marine economy of Penzance.
It will reduce the amount of freight handling.
It will enhance and speed up the service.
It will improve health and safety standards (presumably of the proposed operating company).

This looks to be promising.

However the misinformed are still slagging it out on other websites, not heading in any conclusive direction.

Whatever Andrew George MP has unearthed will take some time to formalise, with certain matters of legality and feasibility to explore.

Flexibility of thought is vital to create a scheme of deliverabilty.
Entrenched schemes are flawed by being forced through hoops to make work. This is not about cosmic string theory; this is a real situation, which HAS to be right at inception and creation. Livelihoods are at stake.

 

[rrrrrrichie]

Help with your Objection

IT’S IMPORTANT THAT OPTION A IS TURNED DOWN SO LESS DESTRUCTIVE ALTERNATIVES CAN BE PROGRESSED AND PENZANCE’S FUTURE PROTECTED.

Please send a letter of objection to the Council before March 4th at the latest and preferably sooner. Do it now so you don’t forget.

There’s a draft objection letter below that you can use. It’s good to add your own stuff and personalise it a bit, but the points made below are important.

You can object on-line at: www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=14945; just cut and paste the letter below into the “Comments” box. The on-line form asks you for an “application site address”: just put “Penzance Harbour”.

Alternatively you can e-mail your objection to planning.west1@cornwall.gov.uk or post it to:

Phil Mason, Planning & Regeneration
Cornwall Council, St Clare, Penzance, TR18 3QW

The objection letter must be accompanied by your name and address and the planning ref number which is 10-0095-LBC.

[draft letter of objection]

Phil Mason
Planning & Regeneration
Cornwall Council
St Clare, Penzance, TR18 3QW

Dear Mr Mason,

I am writing to register my objection to Cornwall Council’s application for Listed Building Consent in respect of the South Pier in Penzance (09-1119-LBC). The grounds of objecting are:

1. The works will seriously damage the setting and fabric of the listed building and will irreversibly bury substantial parts of what is the largest, longest 18th century pier in Cornwall, fundamentally changing its character from a free-standing and iconic part of the town’s historic landscape into little more than an underground and inaccessible archaeological relic.
2. The outcome of the work, should the application be granted, would be the loss of a hugely important part of the town’s heritage and a persisting blight on the area, which would damage the prosperity of the town and hinder its economic regeneration. Carrying out the work would also do lasting damage.
3. Less harmful alternatives exist so it cannot be argued that the proposed works carry any special wider “benefits for the community”.
4. The application was previously rejected by Cornwall’s Strategic Planning Committee and there has been no material change since the previous application that justifies resubmitting it. In particular, the objection from English Heritage still stands.
5. Although we have been told repeatedly that approving the application for Listed Building Consent is necessary in order for the sea link between Penzance and St Mary’s to continue, this is not correct.

For the reasons stated above I strongly urge Cornwall Council to again refuse planning consent in this case.

Yours sincerely,

[sign and print your name]

 

[bear]

OK so what is this option PZ? From what I've read it is Option A with upgrades, i.e. using the the Battery beach site, but including a passenger terminal.

 

[treeve]

In a nutshell, forget what you have read, the man said it will be published in a week or so. Let's wait until it is tabled, before judging it on the playground tittle tattle that you have heard from the biased misinformed.

 

[Halfhidden]

It saddens me to report that Friends of Penzance harbour have declined our offer to participate in a comparison site of all the options together. We have been working hard to get the major players on board and to get some sort of understanding of what is going on. We expected businesses as well as residential to ask questions and get honest answers and be able to browse each proposal and come to an informed decision based on facts.
Out of the three groups we approached only one has declined the other two have pledged to fully support our scheme based on helping people understand what is proposed.
The three main groups are:
Route Partnership, Charlie Cartwright and friends of Penzance harbour.
I will discuss the situation with the remaining two parties and see what they decide.
HH
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[rrrrrrichie]

That's a little shocking and sends out the wrong message completely. Will Andrew George be able to take their place with the new scheme I wonder??::2:

 

[treeve]

Shock and Dismay; this is looking bad, and displays all the wrong signals. When this is all recounted in years to come, as a part of the History of Penzance, I would hope that it includes a solid, defined reason for this sudden pull out of rational discussion.

 

[Halfhidden]

I have already approached MP Andrew George. He stated that his scheme has nothing to do with Charlie Cartwright or Friends of Penzance harbour. He has offered to get involved to a level, but wasn't sure what level that would be as he isn't the person running the scheme.
He has pledged a copy of the plan and other things to get us up and running.
As soon as I have these we can get this project working.

 

[rrrrrrichie]

Option Pz

Option Pz unveiled:

From the Cornishman website:
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/cornishman/penzance/Harbour-firms-prepared-make-way-Option-PZ/article-1862561-detail/article.html

And from Andrew George's website:

Andrew George MP has called a Public Meeting to discuss the future of Penzance Harbour and the Scilly Ferry Link.

He has invited the Penzance Business Network to present its vision for Penzance Harbour, 'Option PZ', to Penzance residents. He has also invited Cornwall Council to present progress on Option A at the public meeting.

The meeting will take place next Wednesday at 7.30pm at the Methodist Chapel in Chapel Street, Penzance.

Penzance Business Network will also present their Option PZ plan for Penzance Harbour to Penzance Town Council and Cornwall Council earlier in the day.

Initial thoughts?

 

[treeve]

Initial Thoughts?
Two major businesses demolished, the area marked down for pleasure craft is seriously underrated as the vessels include one of commercial venture, as well as berthing for larger vessels that require considerably more space to manoeuvre.
I presume the existing commercial engineering facility in the west quay is moved to the 'consolidated area'. More berthing space will be required to maintain the present level of ships being repaired and altered. This has not been considered sufficiently.
There is reduced available draft at that position, which also is the only night roost for starlings in this area - admittedly starlings are survivors (unlike purple sandpipers) and will find other places, but I can see objections arising from those residents that eventually become host to thousands of birds chattering and doing what birds do!
It also has to be said that there is no indication of a service dry dock facility for the new vessel, rather like the generalities of other schemes.
The Wet Dock (originally called a Floating Dock) was built to take in a number of cargo and passenger ships; does this still remain the case? Or is it to be allocated to use by one ship alone?
The absence of destruction to the ancient pier and Battery area is a distinct plus.
The extension will have minimal effect on the historical fabric, a wider shelf to the base of the pier of water break will be of less significance in the hiding of the pier in its backdrop of the town view from the sea. By that it will also have more effect in marine protection.
From a Navigational point of view, the lighthouse should be maintained in its present position, with another marker light pillar on the end of the extended pier.

 

[treeve]

Second Thoughts...
It has to be assumed that presently islanded containers (for transport by sea) on the area next the dock gates will remain in that place? Will the final ticket check and Boarding Pass issue office remain positioned where it is now? That position maintains a level of control and security that cannot be provided in any other position (that also is the case of conflict in other schemes). Is there an area designated for the safe yardage of gigs, a regular event. What is to happen with the old Spillers building, now occupied by the IoSSCo. The North Arm presently has allocated space for goods and machinery storage, that all presumably becomes vacated. Or could it be re-allocated as a restaurant? The Harbour Master's office is in the south end of that building, control will be required to oversee the gates and vessels entering or leaving the harbour (that also is a case with other schemes). This scheme is clearly more amenable for the port and town as well as heritage. However in the case of two businesses (or is it three), Buccaneer and cafe, as well as the Waterside Meadery and bar, other arrangements would have to be considered by the designers and the present owners. There is of course the emptied Trinity House building (previous contents still in a storage facility and not on exhibition) which is partially occupied by a maritime company. A little more thought and this could work.

 

[pendarves]

Penzance Harbour Developments

Oh dear! I've just had a leaflet pushed through the letter box entitled 'Put PZ First'. On the front is a photograph of the area of Battery Rocks presumably showing the area of foreshore some folk are trying to 'save'. What a miserable piece of real estate - a foreshore that nobody uses. What's all the fuss about. Doesn't the area need the jobs created during the construction period? Don't the livelihoods of those whose jobs will be lost should the facility move elsewhere mean anything? I get the feeling that if those objecting to the development had lived during the 19th Century the current harbour would not have been constructed. It's time folk stopped making a problem out of a solution.

 

[treeve]

Oh dear! Someone has fallen for the same misdirection of objections that has been the policy for some time, to discredit intentions. First it was the song now it is a picture. It appears that no one looks at the real issues here. 'miserable real estate' will apply to the whole of Penzance and Cornwall if this idiocy and schoolboy latrine contest is allowed to continue. I despair of these kids ever growing up. The point is NOT the rocks. Obfuscation persists. Watch your backs.

 

[treeve]

Incidentally, I have heard this chestnut crack in the fire before. Just WHERE is it written in stone that construction will be formed by Penwith contractors with Penwith employees? WHERE is it written in stone that materials supplied for the contract will be provided through local companies? WHERE is it written in stone that catering and fuel and all manner of other peripheral services will be handled by local businesses?
A contract of this size will go out to a selected number of contractors with a suitable workforce and management proportion; there is no guarantee whatsoever that this will go to anyone local. Consider the plant required and quantities involved.
In any event, do not be mislead by a short term golden egg. The contract has a limited term, once the egg is boiled and had for breakfast, that is that. To get breakfasts, omelettes and cakes, you need a supply of hens, and they need care and feeding.