Penzance Harbour Development - a balanced view.
- Thread starter AnotherWeeksy
- Start date
treeve
New Member
The Secretary of State
Here is the reply to a matter of some great concern to those with a sense of values from someone with an apparent lack of knowledge of values ....
View attachment 167
View attachment 168
Click on the attachments; then on the viewed image, to open in enlaged format' then click to enlarge image in the same browser
Here is the reply to a matter of some great concern to those with a sense of values from someone with an apparent lack of knowledge of values ....
View attachment 167
View attachment 168
Click on the attachments; then on the viewed image, to open in enlaged format' then click to enlarge image in the same browser
Last edited:
I received this email from John Maggs (friends of Pennzance harbour) so I thought I would share it with you all.
[FONT="]Dear Friends,[/FONT]
[FONT="]The fight to protect the South Pier, seafront and Battery Rock beach goes on and it’s time, I’m afraid, for a bit more letter writing.[/FONT]
[FONT="]When the Secretary of State (SoS) gave Cornwall Council listed building consent (LBC) for the harbour works as they affect the South Pier, he also gave them permission to grant themselves planning for the only other aspect of the scheme that requires planning consent, namely the new seawall above the level of reclaimed land. The original planning application for this (No. 09-1118-P) was submitted and first considered by the strategic planning committee (SPC) at the same March 8th meeting as the LBC application - but consent for final approval was required from the SoS. [/FONT]
[FONT="]However, because of developments since the sea wall application was first considered, Cornwall Council has decided that before granting themselves planning permission they will send the application back to the SPC. The most important change of course has been the upgrading of the listed status of the South Pier to Grade II*. The decision to send the application back to the SPC follows advice from the Council’s legal department and is designed to head off any future challenge on the grounds that they have not followed the right procedures. It is NOT an indication that they are having second thoughts, and SPC members are being recommended to approve the application.[/FONT]
[FONT="]If you wrote objecting to the sea wall application the first time then you should have had a letter (copy attached) from Cornwall Council explaining what is going on and telling you that you can make a further written representation but not speak at the meeting (unless you spoke previously). If you only objected to the LBC application then you will probably not have got this letter but you can still object now.[/FONT]
[FONT="]In the letter from the Council it explains that any further objections must relate to the following changes of circumstances:[/FONT]
[FONT="]Please try and find time over the weekend to write a new letter of objection[/FONT][FONT="]. Include your own observations on the above but you could also usefully mention the following points:[/FONT]
[FONT="]Please use your own words.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The deadline for objections to be with Cornwall Council is 12:00 noon on 12th October (that's this coming Tuesday!). Given the shortage of time your letter of objection should be sent by email to: dave.slatter@cornwall.gov.uk Please also copy your email to members of the strategic planning committee (their email addresses are in a document attached to this email).[/FONT]
[FONT="]The SPC will meet in the Council Chamber at County Hall in Truro on the 14th October (10am start) to consider the application. A crowd outside to greet councillors would be good; please try and be there and let me know if you are coming. Placards will be available![/FONT]
[FONT="]It seems unlikely that the SPC will reverse their original decision but it is nonetheless very important that they continue to see that the public in Penzance firmly object to the sea wall application and to the whole Option A harbour scheme. It may be that the planning process surrounding the harbour scheme is subject to challenge in the future and it will strengthen our case if opposition has remained visibly strong and consistent.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Best wishes and thanks again for all your efforts.[/FONT]
[FONT="]John Maggs[/FONT]
[FONT="]Friends of Penzance Harbour[/FONT]
[FONT="]www.friendsofpzharbour.org[/FONT]
Here are the list of email address you'll need.
baustin@cornwall.gov.uk
cbrewer@cornwall.gov.uk
gbrown@cornwall.gov.uk
jbull@cornwall.gov.uk
mclayton@cornwall.gov.uk
ricole@cornwall.gov.uk
jmduffin@cornwall.gov.uk
jflashman@cornwall.gov.uk
neilhatton@constantinecornwall.co.uk
rlewarne@cornwall.gov.uk
ajlong@cornwall.gov.uk
smann@cornwall.gov.uk
rnolan@cornwall.gov.uk
chpascoe@cornwall.gov.uk
nigelpearce33@hotmail.com
rpugh2@cornwall.gov.uk
srushworth@cornwall.gov.uk
jstoneman@cornwall.gov.uk
mvarney@cornwall.gov.uk
awallis@cornwall.gov.uk
johnwood@cornwall.gov.uk
dbiggs@cornwall.gov.uk
[FONT="]jfitter@cornwall.gov.uk
And for those of you who haven't received a copy of your letter here is a copy.
[/FONT] [FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]Your ref:[/FONT]
[FONT="]My ref:[/FONT]
[FONT="]09-1118-P/DWS[/FONT]
[FONT="]Date:[/FONT]
[FONT="]29 September 2010[/FONT]
[FONT="]Dear ,[/FONT]
[FONT="]Application Number: 09-1118-P [/FONT]
[FONT="]Proposal: New sea wall (above reclaimed level)[/FONT]
[FONT="]Location: South Pier, Penzance Harbour, Penzance[/FONT]
[FONT="]Applicant: Cornwall Council[/FONT]
[FONT="]This application has previously been considered by the Council’s Planning Committee, who resolved that Application No. 09-1118-P (South Pier, Penzance Harbour, Penzance) be referred to the Secretary of State with the recommendation that the Council as local planning authority is minded to grant planning permission subject to the conditions reported to the meeting that considered the application.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The Secretary of State has considered the relevant planning issues and in his letter to the Council of 19th August 2010 concluded that “The proposal does not, in the Secretary of State’s view, raise issues of such wider significance requiring determination by him.” Consequently the decision as to whether to grant planning permission for this application therefore remains with Cornwall Council. [/FONT]
[FONT="]However since the Committee last considered the application in March of this year there have been several changes in circumstance of which the Council is aware, namely: [/FONT]
[FONT="]Copies of the above together with details of the planning application can be viewed via the “What’s new in planning” web page on the Council’s website at Cornwall Council - Penzance harbour [/FONT]
[FONT="]This change in circumstances will be reported to the Strategic Planning Committee at its meeting on the 14th October 2010. The meeting will be held in the [/FONT][FONT="]Council Chamber, Cornwall Council, County Hall, Truro, TR1 3AY and [/FONT][FONT="]commence at 10:00am.[/FONT]
[FONT="]You can see my report on the application from 7 days before the date of the meeting either by visiting the Council offices, by contacting us for a copy to be sent to you or on the Council’s web-site at Cornwall Council [/FONT]
[FONT="]You can attend or listen to the debate and the Committee’s decision, however, as this application has been reported previously to the Strategic Planning Committee you will not be able to speak thereon, unless you registered to speak at the March 2010 Committee, in accordance with the Council’s Procedure for Public Speaking.[/FONT]
[FONT="]If you did not register to speak at the March 2010 meeting you will still be able to make written representations even though you will not be permitted to speak at the meeting. Any further representations should relate directly to the material changes listed above. Your representations, should you wish to make any, should be made in writing to me at the address below no later than noon on the 12th October 2010.[/FONT]
[FONT="]If you registered to speak at the March 2010 meeting you will be permitted to speak at the meeting on 14 October to make representations but only in relation to the material changes listed above and nothing more. If you intend to speak at the forthcoming meeting can you please liaise with Senior Democratic Services Officer, who will be contacting you shortly, so that we can add your name to list of persons intending to speak to help us manage the meeting. If you do not contact me to confirm that you intend to speak we will assume that you have no further representations to make to the meeting. You will be allowed up to three minutes to speak. In addition to this additional opportunity to speak you will also be able to make written representations as above.[/FONT]
[FONT="]I trust this information is helpful.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Yours Faithfully[/FONT]
[FONT="]David Slatter[/FONT]
[FONT="]Major Projects Manager[/FONT]
[FONT="]Planning and Regeneration Service[/FONT]
[FONT="]Cornwall Council[/FONT]
[FONT="]Camborne One Stop Shop[/FONT]
[FONT="]Dolcoath Road[/FONT]
[FONT="]Camborne[/FONT]
[FONT="]TR14 8SX[/FONT]
[FONT="]Tel: 01209 614250[/FONT]
[FONT="]e-mail: dave.slatter@cornwall.go.uk[/FONT]
[FONT="]Dear Friends,[/FONT]
[FONT="]The fight to protect the South Pier, seafront and Battery Rock beach goes on and it’s time, I’m afraid, for a bit more letter writing.[/FONT]
[FONT="]When the Secretary of State (SoS) gave Cornwall Council listed building consent (LBC) for the harbour works as they affect the South Pier, he also gave them permission to grant themselves planning for the only other aspect of the scheme that requires planning consent, namely the new seawall above the level of reclaimed land. The original planning application for this (No. 09-1118-P) was submitted and first considered by the strategic planning committee (SPC) at the same March 8th meeting as the LBC application - but consent for final approval was required from the SoS. [/FONT]
[FONT="]However, because of developments since the sea wall application was first considered, Cornwall Council has decided that before granting themselves planning permission they will send the application back to the SPC. The most important change of course has been the upgrading of the listed status of the South Pier to Grade II*. The decision to send the application back to the SPC follows advice from the Council’s legal department and is designed to head off any future challenge on the grounds that they have not followed the right procedures. It is NOT an indication that they are having second thoughts, and SPC members are being recommended to approve the application.[/FONT]
[FONT="]If you wrote objecting to the sea wall application the first time then you should have had a letter (copy attached) from Cornwall Council explaining what is going on and telling you that you can make a further written representation but not speak at the meeting (unless you spoke previously). If you only objected to the LBC application then you will probably not have got this letter but you can still object now.[/FONT]
[FONT="]In the letter from the Council it explains that any further objections must relate to the following changes of circumstances:[/FONT]
- [FONT="]the granting of Listed Building Consent with conditions by the Secretary of State for the works described in application reference number 10-0095-LBC;[/FONT]
- [FONT="]the replacement of national planning policy documents PPG15 and PPG 16 with the new national policy document PPS5 Planning and the Historic Environment; [/FONT]
- [FONT="]the upgrading in Listed Building status of South Pier from Grade II to Grade II*; and[/FONT]
- [FONT="]the granting of grade II listed Building status to the Battery and War Memorial.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Please try and find time over the weekend to write a new letter of objection[/FONT][FONT="]. Include your own observations on the above but you could also usefully mention the following points:[/FONT]
- [FONT="]English Heritage still object to the scheme and believe that alternatives should be investigated.[/FONT]
- [FONT="]The officer’s report to the committee accepts that the scheme will cause serious harm to the heritage (and environmental) assets of the town but justifies this by claiming that – in his opinion - the scheme will bring economic benefits that outweigh the harm. However, better, cheaper, less destructive alternatives exist, although they were not considered by the SoS (as being outside his remit) and are being ignored by Cornwall Council. The existence of alternatives entirely undermines the rationale for Option A and the logic of the officer’s recommendation of approval for the sea wall application. [/FONT]
- [FONT="]The scheme of which the new sea wall is a part is clearly in conflict with the recommendations of the recent AECOM study into the economic regeneration of Penzance. The harbour area is highlighted as a focus for regeneration with plans to stop through traffic and create shared pedestrian and vehicle space along Wharf Road. Clearly this cannot be compatible with locating a freight depot and associated heavy goods traffic in the area.[/FONT]
- [FONT="]And please mention again that an overwhelming majority of people in Penzance are against the scheme. The other side are quoting dodgy petition and Facebook figures but the last independent poll (in the Cornishman) showed that 70% were against the Council’s plans.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Please use your own words.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The deadline for objections to be with Cornwall Council is 12:00 noon on 12th October (that's this coming Tuesday!). Given the shortage of time your letter of objection should be sent by email to: dave.slatter@cornwall.gov.uk Please also copy your email to members of the strategic planning committee (their email addresses are in a document attached to this email).[/FONT]
[FONT="]The SPC will meet in the Council Chamber at County Hall in Truro on the 14th October (10am start) to consider the application. A crowd outside to greet councillors would be good; please try and be there and let me know if you are coming. Placards will be available![/FONT]
[FONT="]It seems unlikely that the SPC will reverse their original decision but it is nonetheless very important that they continue to see that the public in Penzance firmly object to the sea wall application and to the whole Option A harbour scheme. It may be that the planning process surrounding the harbour scheme is subject to challenge in the future and it will strengthen our case if opposition has remained visibly strong and consistent.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Best wishes and thanks again for all your efforts.[/FONT]
[FONT="]John Maggs[/FONT]
[FONT="]Friends of Penzance Harbour[/FONT]
[FONT="]www.friendsofpzharbour.org[/FONT]
Here are the list of email address you'll need.
baustin@cornwall.gov.uk
cbrewer@cornwall.gov.uk
gbrown@cornwall.gov.uk
jbull@cornwall.gov.uk
mclayton@cornwall.gov.uk
ricole@cornwall.gov.uk
jmduffin@cornwall.gov.uk
jflashman@cornwall.gov.uk
neilhatton@constantinecornwall.co.uk
rlewarne@cornwall.gov.uk
ajlong@cornwall.gov.uk
smann@cornwall.gov.uk
rnolan@cornwall.gov.uk
chpascoe@cornwall.gov.uk
nigelpearce33@hotmail.com
rpugh2@cornwall.gov.uk
srushworth@cornwall.gov.uk
jstoneman@cornwall.gov.uk
mvarney@cornwall.gov.uk
awallis@cornwall.gov.uk
johnwood@cornwall.gov.uk
dbiggs@cornwall.gov.uk
[FONT="]jfitter@cornwall.gov.uk
And for those of you who haven't received a copy of your letter here is a copy.
[/FONT] [FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]Your ref:[/FONT]
[FONT="]My ref:[/FONT]
[FONT="]09-1118-P/DWS[/FONT]
[FONT="]Date:[/FONT]
[FONT="]29 September 2010[/FONT]
[FONT="]Dear ,[/FONT]
[FONT="]Application Number: 09-1118-P [/FONT]
[FONT="]Proposal: New sea wall (above reclaimed level)[/FONT]
[FONT="]Location: South Pier, Penzance Harbour, Penzance[/FONT]
[FONT="]Applicant: Cornwall Council[/FONT]
[FONT="]This application has previously been considered by the Council’s Planning Committee, who resolved that Application No. 09-1118-P (South Pier, Penzance Harbour, Penzance) be referred to the Secretary of State with the recommendation that the Council as local planning authority is minded to grant planning permission subject to the conditions reported to the meeting that considered the application.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The Secretary of State has considered the relevant planning issues and in his letter to the Council of 19th August 2010 concluded that “The proposal does not, in the Secretary of State’s view, raise issues of such wider significance requiring determination by him.” Consequently the decision as to whether to grant planning permission for this application therefore remains with Cornwall Council. [/FONT]
[FONT="]However since the Committee last considered the application in March of this year there have been several changes in circumstance of which the Council is aware, namely: [/FONT]
- [FONT="]the granting of Listed Building Consent with conditions by the Secretary of State for the works described in application reference number 10-0095-LBC;[/FONT]
- [FONT="]the replacement of national planning policy documents PPG15 and PPG 16 with the new national policy document PPS5 Planning and the Historic Environment; [/FONT]
- [FONT="]the upgrading in Listed Building status of South Pier from Grade II to Grade II*; and[/FONT]
- [FONT="]the granting of grade II listed Building status to the Battery and War Memorial.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Copies of the above together with details of the planning application can be viewed via the “What’s new in planning” web page on the Council’s website at Cornwall Council - Penzance harbour [/FONT]
[FONT="]This change in circumstances will be reported to the Strategic Planning Committee at its meeting on the 14th October 2010. The meeting will be held in the [/FONT][FONT="]Council Chamber, Cornwall Council, County Hall, Truro, TR1 3AY and [/FONT][FONT="]commence at 10:00am.[/FONT]
[FONT="]You can see my report on the application from 7 days before the date of the meeting either by visiting the Council offices, by contacting us for a copy to be sent to you or on the Council’s web-site at Cornwall Council [/FONT]
[FONT="]You can attend or listen to the debate and the Committee’s decision, however, as this application has been reported previously to the Strategic Planning Committee you will not be able to speak thereon, unless you registered to speak at the March 2010 Committee, in accordance with the Council’s Procedure for Public Speaking.[/FONT]
[FONT="]If you did not register to speak at the March 2010 meeting you will still be able to make written representations even though you will not be permitted to speak at the meeting. Any further representations should relate directly to the material changes listed above. Your representations, should you wish to make any, should be made in writing to me at the address below no later than noon on the 12th October 2010.[/FONT]
[FONT="]If you registered to speak at the March 2010 meeting you will be permitted to speak at the meeting on 14 October to make representations but only in relation to the material changes listed above and nothing more. If you intend to speak at the forthcoming meeting can you please liaise with Senior Democratic Services Officer, who will be contacting you shortly, so that we can add your name to list of persons intending to speak to help us manage the meeting. If you do not contact me to confirm that you intend to speak we will assume that you have no further representations to make to the meeting. You will be allowed up to three minutes to speak. In addition to this additional opportunity to speak you will also be able to make written representations as above.[/FONT]
[FONT="]I trust this information is helpful.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Yours Faithfully[/FONT]
[FONT="]David Slatter[/FONT]
[FONT="]Major Projects Manager[/FONT]
[FONT="]Planning and Regeneration Service[/FONT]
[FONT="]Cornwall Council[/FONT]
[FONT="]Camborne One Stop Shop[/FONT]
[FONT="]Dolcoath Road[/FONT]
[FONT="]Camborne[/FONT]
[FONT="]TR14 8SX[/FONT]
[FONT="]Tel: 01209 614250[/FONT]
[FONT="]e-mail: dave.slatter@cornwall.go.uk[/FONT]
Last edited:
Yes as marknj has quite correctly pointed out you could also use the post above to send your support if that is what you wish to do.
Here is another email from John Maggs sent through to us this afternoon:
[FONT="]Dear Friends,[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]You will probably have heard the news that yesterday Cornwall Council's strategic planning committee gave approval for the building of the new sea wall associated with the Option A Penzance Harbour scheme. This is the last local authority consent required but not the end of the story: environment consents and funding for the project have not yet been secured.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]The bulk of the funding is coming from national government, who are reviewing the scheme, but Cornwall Council has to fund half of the cost of the new boat and the full amount of any cost overruns. It is highly likely that a complicated multi-million pound project involving the reclaiming of land from the sea and the construction of a new ship will result in multi-million pound cost overruns. This will have to be met by the Council and council tax payers at a time when all public bodies are dealing with an extremely difficult financial situation.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Cheaper options exist for the Isles of Scilly Link scheme that are better and present fewer risks for the Council and council taxpayers. The Penzance Business Network’s plan to locate the Penzance facilities on existing harbourside sites could save nearly £2m; if you stick with two boats instead of building a new larger vessel that requires a pier extension and expensive rock armouring the potential savings in Penzance rise to over £6m or 50% of the total. And Trythall Shipping estimates that their fast ferry scheme would be c. £40m cheaper than the Cornwall Council scheme.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Cornwall Council are currently consulting the public and looking for help with identifying areas where they can make cuts and reduce the Council deficit. Please go to their “Hard Choices” web page below and have your say.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=25332[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]In difficult financial times the Council’s Isles of Scilly Link scheme looks even less attractive than it did before (if that’s possible!). So please let them know you want them to save money and council taxes by scrapping their plans to build on Battery Rocks beach, encase our historic pier in concrete and build a “White Elephant” of a new ship.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]The existing operator of the link has said that they will operate the service from Penzance regardless of what happens to the Option A scheme so there is no need to worry about the link moving from Penzance to Falmouth – always a non-starter!
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Please forward this message to friends and family and anyone else you think will help.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Best wishes and thanks again for all your efforts.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]John Maggs[/FONT]
[FONT="]Friends of Penzance Harbour[/FONT]
[FONT="]Dear Friends,[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]You will probably have heard the news that yesterday Cornwall Council's strategic planning committee gave approval for the building of the new sea wall associated with the Option A Penzance Harbour scheme. This is the last local authority consent required but not the end of the story: environment consents and funding for the project have not yet been secured.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]The bulk of the funding is coming from national government, who are reviewing the scheme, but Cornwall Council has to fund half of the cost of the new boat and the full amount of any cost overruns. It is highly likely that a complicated multi-million pound project involving the reclaiming of land from the sea and the construction of a new ship will result in multi-million pound cost overruns. This will have to be met by the Council and council tax payers at a time when all public bodies are dealing with an extremely difficult financial situation.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Cheaper options exist for the Isles of Scilly Link scheme that are better and present fewer risks for the Council and council taxpayers. The Penzance Business Network’s plan to locate the Penzance facilities on existing harbourside sites could save nearly £2m; if you stick with two boats instead of building a new larger vessel that requires a pier extension and expensive rock armouring the potential savings in Penzance rise to over £6m or 50% of the total. And Trythall Shipping estimates that their fast ferry scheme would be c. £40m cheaper than the Cornwall Council scheme.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Cornwall Council are currently consulting the public and looking for help with identifying areas where they can make cuts and reduce the Council deficit. Please go to their “Hard Choices” web page below and have your say.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=25332[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]In difficult financial times the Council’s Isles of Scilly Link scheme looks even less attractive than it did before (if that’s possible!). So please let them know you want them to save money and council taxes by scrapping their plans to build on Battery Rocks beach, encase our historic pier in concrete and build a “White Elephant” of a new ship.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]The existing operator of the link has said that they will operate the service from Penzance regardless of what happens to the Option A scheme so there is no need to worry about the link moving from Penzance to Falmouth – always a non-starter!
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Please forward this message to friends and family and anyone else you think will help.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Best wishes and thanks again for all your efforts.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]John Maggs[/FONT]
[FONT="]Friends of Penzance Harbour[/FONT]
@marknj I was under the impression that the reason for the dramatic upgrade of the harbour was to accommodate a new vessel... seems a bit of a odd thing. I seem to remember that there was no option open about the vessel.
[FONT="]Yet another email from John Maggs:
Hello again.
The Cornishman are conducting another poll on the Isles of Scilly Link project, asking if Cornwall Council’s strategic planning committee was right to give the go ahead to the Option A scheme. On Thursday it approved the application to build a new sea wall, the last local authority consent required for Option A to proceed.
There have been two previous polls organised by the Cornishman on this subject and on both occasions the result has been a resounding “NO” to the Option A development. In August 2009 66% were against and this rose to 70% against in the January 2010 poll.
It is essential that this third poll continues to accurately reflect public opinion on the issue. The fight to save the South Pier, Battery Rocks beach, the seafront, and the future of Penzance is NOT over and the politicians and officials at the Department for Transport that will make the final decision about whether Option A can go ahead will be watching this poll.
Please go to:
Plans to modernise the sea-link between the Scilly Isles and the Cornish mainland have finally been waved through.
and vote “No” to help ensure this story has a happy ending!
Please also pass this email on to friends and family and make sure that as many people as possible vote. This couldn’t be more important. The battle is not over and taking a few seconds to vote can help us stop the Option A madness.
Many thanks.
John Maggs
Friends of Penzance Harbour
www.friendsofpzharbour.org
[/FONT]
Hello again.
The Cornishman are conducting another poll on the Isles of Scilly Link project, asking if Cornwall Council’s strategic planning committee was right to give the go ahead to the Option A scheme. On Thursday it approved the application to build a new sea wall, the last local authority consent required for Option A to proceed.
There have been two previous polls organised by the Cornishman on this subject and on both occasions the result has been a resounding “NO” to the Option A development. In August 2009 66% were against and this rose to 70% against in the January 2010 poll.
It is essential that this third poll continues to accurately reflect public opinion on the issue. The fight to save the South Pier, Battery Rocks beach, the seafront, and the future of Penzance is NOT over and the politicians and officials at the Department for Transport that will make the final decision about whether Option A can go ahead will be watching this poll.
Please go to:
Plans to modernise the sea-link between the Scilly Isles and the Cornish mainland have finally been waved through.
and vote “No” to help ensure this story has a happy ending!
Please also pass this email on to friends and family and make sure that as many people as possible vote. This couldn’t be more important. The battle is not over and taking a few seconds to vote can help us stop the Option A madness.
Many thanks.
John Maggs
Friends of Penzance Harbour
www.friendsofpzharbour.org
[/FONT]
treeve
New Member
According to the official email received from Conwall County, I am informed that the scheme was approved, despite information, and professional advice, let alone common sense. Mind you it strictly speaking is very clever piece of construction, as it is only given approval above reclaimed level, presumably it floats in mid air ...
Isles of Scilly Link Project
PENZANCE DESERVES BETTER
PUBLIC MEETING
St John’s Hall, Penzance Friday October 22nd 7:30pm start
The Council’s “Option A” harbour scheme is out-of-date, expensive, wasteful, risky for council tax payers, and damaging to Penzance. There are less destructive alternatives that fit with the town’s aspirations for regeneration around the harbour and that provide a modern, high quality solution to the needs of the ferry service.
Cornwall Council now has planning permission for its Option A scheme but it is the Department for Transport that will decide in the next few weeks exactly what investment is made in the Isles of Scilly Link Scheme and what changes are made in Penzance Harbour.
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO INFLUENCE THIS PROCESS...
AND GET SOMETHING BETTER FOR PENZANCE AND FOR THE ISLES OF SCILLY FERRY LINK
Get informed of the latest developments, hear from your elected representatives, and help plan what happens next. Invited Speakers include: Jan Ruhrmund (Town Councillor and Mayor), Andrew George (MP for St Ives), and Ruth Lewarne (Penzance Cornwall Councillor).
This public meeting is being organised by the Friends of Penzance Harbour and supported by the Penzance Business Network, Penzance Civic Society, Friends of Jubilee Pool, Golowan, and the Penzance Harbour Users Association. For more information go to www.friendsofpzharbour.org or call 01736 332741.
PENZANCE DESERVES BETTER
PUBLIC MEETING
St John’s Hall, Penzance Friday October 22nd 7:30pm start
The Council’s “Option A” harbour scheme is out-of-date, expensive, wasteful, risky for council tax payers, and damaging to Penzance. There are less destructive alternatives that fit with the town’s aspirations for regeneration around the harbour and that provide a modern, high quality solution to the needs of the ferry service.
Cornwall Council now has planning permission for its Option A scheme but it is the Department for Transport that will decide in the next few weeks exactly what investment is made in the Isles of Scilly Link Scheme and what changes are made in Penzance Harbour.
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO INFLUENCE THIS PROCESS...
AND GET SOMETHING BETTER FOR PENZANCE AND FOR THE ISLES OF SCILLY FERRY LINK
Get informed of the latest developments, hear from your elected representatives, and help plan what happens next. Invited Speakers include: Jan Ruhrmund (Town Councillor and Mayor), Andrew George (MP for St Ives), and Ruth Lewarne (Penzance Cornwall Councillor).
This public meeting is being organised by the Friends of Penzance Harbour and supported by the Penzance Business Network, Penzance Civic Society, Friends of Jubilee Pool, Golowan, and the Penzance Harbour Users Association. For more information go to www.friendsofpzharbour.org or call 01736 332741.
View attachment 255
View attachment 256
Received via email this evening from John Maggs:
Dear Friends,
Apologies for the late notice but the Cabinet of Cornwall Council will this Wednesday (17th November) consider a report on the Isles of Scilly Link project and be asked by Council officers to push ahead with the scheme. The report from officers is attached. The agenda can be viewed at
Cornwall Council
This does not alter the funding situation or affect the review of the project that the main funder, the Department for Transport, are carrying out. The Council mentions this but fails to make any concessions to recent developments. It now seems unlikely that the DfT will provide the £41m (up from £36m) being asked for and any reduction in grant aid can only be compensated for by an increased contribution from the Council, which the officer's report acknowledges will undermine the project's business case. There is of course also the additional risk that the project costs will overrun and that the Council will be confronted with an un-budgeted multi-million pound bill. There is still no Penzance representation on the Cabinet but most of the Penzance area councillors will be present at Wednesday's meeting. If you want to get in touch with them before the meeting their contact details are attached.
It is ironic perhaps that the Cabinet will debate the hugely expensive and risky Isles of Scilly Link scheme on the same day that it considers major cuts to services across Cornwall including a proposal to end funding for Penzance's much loved and listed art deco Jubilee Pool. This could result in the pool's closure in 2011. The Friends of Jubilee Pool are doing sterling work in fighting the cuts. All the information you need to help them can be found on their Facebook page:
Friends of Jubilee Pool | Facebook
Best wishes,
John Maggs
Friends of Penzance Harbour
01736 332741, 07966 322379
www.friendsofpzharbour.org
View attachment 256
Received via email this evening from John Maggs:
Dear Friends,
Apologies for the late notice but the Cabinet of Cornwall Council will this Wednesday (17th November) consider a report on the Isles of Scilly Link project and be asked by Council officers to push ahead with the scheme. The report from officers is attached. The agenda can be viewed at
Cornwall Council
This does not alter the funding situation or affect the review of the project that the main funder, the Department for Transport, are carrying out. The Council mentions this but fails to make any concessions to recent developments. It now seems unlikely that the DfT will provide the £41m (up from £36m) being asked for and any reduction in grant aid can only be compensated for by an increased contribution from the Council, which the officer's report acknowledges will undermine the project's business case. There is of course also the additional risk that the project costs will overrun and that the Council will be confronted with an un-budgeted multi-million pound bill. There is still no Penzance representation on the Cabinet but most of the Penzance area councillors will be present at Wednesday's meeting. If you want to get in touch with them before the meeting their contact details are attached.
It is ironic perhaps that the Cabinet will debate the hugely expensive and risky Isles of Scilly Link scheme on the same day that it considers major cuts to services across Cornwall including a proposal to end funding for Penzance's much loved and listed art deco Jubilee Pool. This could result in the pool's closure in 2011. The Friends of Jubilee Pool are doing sterling work in fighting the cuts. All the information you need to help them can be found on their Facebook page:
Friends of Jubilee Pool | Facebook
Best wishes,
John Maggs
Friends of Penzance Harbour
01736 332741, 07966 322379
www.friendsofpzharbour.org
Isles of Scilly Link Project: rational decision making or macho posturing?
15/3/11
In an extraordinary show of political arrogance, and in the middle of making devastating cuts to public services, Cornwall Council is now proposing to rob funds from other regeneration projects and increase Council borrowing from £10m to £15m to rescue its £62m Isles of Scilly Link “vanity project”.
The Department for Transport (DfT), the majority funder of the project, is insisting on substantial cost savings from all transport projects. Cornwall Council’s response appeared in documents published yesterday and prepared for this Wednesday's meeting of its Cabinet. The Council claims cost savings are impossible and instead propose to divert £0.7m from other Isles of Scilly regeneration projects and increase Council borrowing by 50% in the hope that this will win over the DfT.
The plan to increase the Council’s borrowing to save the scheme comes just weeks after it agreed a budget that saw massive cuts to a whole raft of important local services. The "supporting people" budget, for example, was cut by 40%. If the charter fee income will not cover the loan repayments on the ship, the difference will have to be found by taking money from other Council services or by increasing council tax.
This occurs on the same day that saw the publication of the detailed version of the Penzance Business Network’s community-driven comprehensive and fully costed alternative proposal. This addresses environment & heritage issues in Penzance, saves £25m, eliminates the need for Council borrowing, reduces the risk to the Council and to council-taxpayers, and kick-starts regeneration in the harbour area.
For more information including the Cornwall Council Cabinet report mentioned above go to: Friends of Penzance Harbour - Save Battery RocksFor a copy of the PzBN's alternative proposals go to: Friends of Penzance Harbour - Save Battery RocksA copy of the FoPzH press release is attached.
John Maggs
Friends of Penzance Harbour
01736 332741, 07966 322379
www.friendsofpzharbour.org
15/3/11
In an extraordinary show of political arrogance, and in the middle of making devastating cuts to public services, Cornwall Council is now proposing to rob funds from other regeneration projects and increase Council borrowing from £10m to £15m to rescue its £62m Isles of Scilly Link “vanity project”.
The Department for Transport (DfT), the majority funder of the project, is insisting on substantial cost savings from all transport projects. Cornwall Council’s response appeared in documents published yesterday and prepared for this Wednesday's meeting of its Cabinet. The Council claims cost savings are impossible and instead propose to divert £0.7m from other Isles of Scilly regeneration projects and increase Council borrowing by 50% in the hope that this will win over the DfT.
The plan to increase the Council’s borrowing to save the scheme comes just weeks after it agreed a budget that saw massive cuts to a whole raft of important local services. The "supporting people" budget, for example, was cut by 40%. If the charter fee income will not cover the loan repayments on the ship, the difference will have to be found by taking money from other Council services or by increasing council tax.
This occurs on the same day that saw the publication of the detailed version of the Penzance Business Network’s community-driven comprehensive and fully costed alternative proposal. This addresses environment & heritage issues in Penzance, saves £25m, eliminates the need for Council borrowing, reduces the risk to the Council and to council-taxpayers, and kick-starts regeneration in the harbour area.
For more information including the Cornwall Council Cabinet report mentioned above go to: Friends of Penzance Harbour - Save Battery RocksFor a copy of the PzBN's alternative proposals go to: Friends of Penzance Harbour - Save Battery RocksA copy of the FoPzH press release is attached.
John Maggs
Friends of Penzance Harbour
01736 332741, 07966 322379
www.friendsofpzharbour.org
tabtab13
New Member
Just how much more ludicrous and unbelievable can this get? As if local services were not under enough financial pressure anyway due to the current economic situation. No, I don't want to see other Council services reduced and no, I don't want to see my Council Tax increase purely to pay for this link.
I agree!
Personally I think there is a very influential person behind the big push. Someone who has a financial interest in the Islands. Someone who could influence all the local councils. Someone who is a master puppeteer and may have done this kind of thing all over the country.
I fear for my freedom so I wont name that certain person. I very much doubt I would enjoy my stay at the tower of London ::15:
Personally I think there is a very influential person behind the big push. Someone who has a financial interest in the Islands. Someone who could influence all the local councils. Someone who is a master puppeteer and may have done this kind of thing all over the country.
I fear for my freedom so I wont name that certain person. I very much doubt I would enjoy my stay at the tower of London ::15:
tabtab13
New Member
Been thinking about this and I think I must be selfish - I can see no personal benefit what so ever to myself if this project comes off.
What I can see is my rubbish going uncollected for weeks on end. The streets of Penzance strewn with litter. Morrab Gardens and Penlee Park left to overgrow. The Promenade not maintained and crumbling into the sea. Services for the elderly and the young disappearing. Pot holes in our roads left unfixed.
And the list goes on. All because there's not enough money left in the kitty to do these things because it's all slowly but surely being funnelled into the link project. The Council may argue that would never happen, it's just a case of the money coming going on other regeneration projects has just been put 'on hold' for the time being and the services I've mentioned above would not face any cuts. Question is - can you believe them?
I see myself as an just an ordinary, average 'man on the street' and it's these things I think are important because they affect me. But then as I said, I must be selfish ...
What I can see is my rubbish going uncollected for weeks on end. The streets of Penzance strewn with litter. Morrab Gardens and Penlee Park left to overgrow. The Promenade not maintained and crumbling into the sea. Services for the elderly and the young disappearing. Pot holes in our roads left unfixed.
And the list goes on. All because there's not enough money left in the kitty to do these things because it's all slowly but surely being funnelled into the link project. The Council may argue that would never happen, it's just a case of the money coming going on other regeneration projects has just been put 'on hold' for the time being and the services I've mentioned above would not face any cuts. Question is - can you believe them?
I see myself as an just an ordinary, average 'man on the street' and it's these things I think are important because they affect me. But then as I said, I must be selfish ...
CHILLYWILLY
New Member
“the difference will have to be found by taking money from other Council services or by increasing council tax"
This is interesting, current government guidelines are telling councils that increases to council tax may well be overturned. This is due to the fact that if services are being cut then you cannot expect the public to pay more for less.
Is this another case of those sitting in a room in Truro impersonating the ostrich with its head in the sand? Not listening to local views and communications from Westminster is just typical of how this whole debacle has continued from the start. ::14:
Friends of Penzance Harbour
Friends of Penzance Harbour - Save Battery Rocks
News Release
15th March 2011. For immediate release
Isles of Scilly Link Project:
rational decision making or macho posturing?
In an extraordinary show of political arrogance, and in the middle of making
devastating cuts to public services, Cornwall Council is now proposing to rob funds
from other regeneration projects and increase Council borrowing from £10m to £15m
to rescue its £62m Isles of Scilly Link “vanity project”.
The Department for Transport (DfT), the majority funder of the project, is insisting on
substantial cost savings from all transport projects. Cornwall Council’s response appeared in
documents published yesterday and prepared for this week’s meeting of its Cabinet. The
Council claims cost savings are impossible and instead propose to divert £0.7m from other
Isles of Scilly regeneration projects and increase Council borrowing by 50% in the hope that
this will win over the DfT.
This occurs on the same day that saw the publication of the detailed version of the Penzance
Business Network’s community-driven comprehensive and fully costed alternative proposal.
This addresses environment & heritage issues in Penzance, saves £25m, eliminates the need
for Council borrowing, reduces the risk to the Council and to council-taxpayers, and kickstarts
regeneration in the harbour area. Importantly it advocates the use of second-hand
replacement vessels, an approach favoured by the current operator, the IoS Steamship
Company, and described in the Cabinet papers.
The most contentious element of the Council’s scheme has been the very expensive and
destructive pier extension, reclamation and sea defence works at Penzance Harbour. These
are required mainly because the scheme also involves the Council commissioning and owning
a larger combined passenger and freight ferry at a cost of £26.5 million. This ship will be too
big to fit in the town’s Dry Dock, and with the proposed increase in council borrowing the
anticipated charter fee from the service operator may well be insufficient to meet the
payments on the loan, putting other Council services at risk.
The plan to increase the Council’s borrowing to save the scheme comes just weeks after it
agreed a budget that saw massive cuts to a whole raft of important local services. The
“supporting people” budget, for example, was cut by 40%. If the charter fee income won’t
cover the loan repayments on the ship, the difference will have to be found by taking money
from other Council services or by increasing council tax.
The Council acknowledges the risk it is exposing the Council and council-taxpayers to, but
evidently can’t follow the logic of this and opt instead for the cheaper community-driven
alternatives that are on the table. Its stubborn determination to persevere with its scheme
looks more and more like irrational macho posturing on the part of the councillors and officers
responsible for it. And it is quite bizarre that they want to take the ferry away from the
private sector and into public ownership at this time when government policy is to do the
exact opposite. Rank-and-file Cornwall councillors should act in the interests of their
constituents and insist on the prudent alternative.
For more information contact:
John Maggs (jmaggs@gn.apc.org, 07966 322379)
Friends of Penzance Harbour - Save Battery Rocks
News Release
15th March 2011. For immediate release
Isles of Scilly Link Project:
rational decision making or macho posturing?
In an extraordinary show of political arrogance, and in the middle of making
devastating cuts to public services, Cornwall Council is now proposing to rob funds
from other regeneration projects and increase Council borrowing from £10m to £15m
to rescue its £62m Isles of Scilly Link “vanity project”.
The Department for Transport (DfT), the majority funder of the project, is insisting on
substantial cost savings from all transport projects. Cornwall Council’s response appeared in
documents published yesterday and prepared for this week’s meeting of its Cabinet. The
Council claims cost savings are impossible and instead propose to divert £0.7m from other
Isles of Scilly regeneration projects and increase Council borrowing by 50% in the hope that
this will win over the DfT.
This occurs on the same day that saw the publication of the detailed version of the Penzance
Business Network’s community-driven comprehensive and fully costed alternative proposal.
This addresses environment & heritage issues in Penzance, saves £25m, eliminates the need
for Council borrowing, reduces the risk to the Council and to council-taxpayers, and kickstarts
regeneration in the harbour area. Importantly it advocates the use of second-hand
replacement vessels, an approach favoured by the current operator, the IoS Steamship
Company, and described in the Cabinet papers.
The most contentious element of the Council’s scheme has been the very expensive and
destructive pier extension, reclamation and sea defence works at Penzance Harbour. These
are required mainly because the scheme also involves the Council commissioning and owning
a larger combined passenger and freight ferry at a cost of £26.5 million. This ship will be too
big to fit in the town’s Dry Dock, and with the proposed increase in council borrowing the
anticipated charter fee from the service operator may well be insufficient to meet the
payments on the loan, putting other Council services at risk.
The plan to increase the Council’s borrowing to save the scheme comes just weeks after it
agreed a budget that saw massive cuts to a whole raft of important local services. The
“supporting people” budget, for example, was cut by 40%. If the charter fee income won’t
cover the loan repayments on the ship, the difference will have to be found by taking money
from other Council services or by increasing council tax.
The Council acknowledges the risk it is exposing the Council and council-taxpayers to, but
evidently can’t follow the logic of this and opt instead for the cheaper community-driven
alternatives that are on the table. Its stubborn determination to persevere with its scheme
looks more and more like irrational macho posturing on the part of the councillors and officers
responsible for it. And it is quite bizarre that they want to take the ferry away from the
private sector and into public ownership at this time when government policy is to do the
exact opposite. Rank-and-file Cornwall councillors should act in the interests of their
constituents and insist on the prudent alternative.
For more information contact:
John Maggs (jmaggs@gn.apc.org, 07966 322379)