Application goes in despite review order
THE CONTROVERSIAL plans to regenerate Penzance harbour have been submitted to Penwith District Council, despite the Department for Transport (DfT) ordering an independent review into the proposals.
A Freedom of Information Act request revealed that the DfT has requested that a marine consultant is appointed to provide an independent review of the Route Partnership's proposed new vessel and associated shore side infrastructure.
-
The Cornishman understands the Plymouth consultant has been given until the end of February to complete the work.
But despite the review uncompleted and the plans missing the deadline for the last Penwith District Council planning meeting taking place next month, the Route Partnership has filed three applications. They include a full planning application, listed building consent and conservation area consent for the construction and layout of new facilities and associated infrastructure at South Pier and Lighthouse Pier.
The proposal includes a new passenger and freight terminal handling facilities off the South Pier with an entrance off Battery Rocks, an extension to the existing Lighthouse Pier, the reclamation of an area of inter-tidal foreshore to create the freight handing area, rock armouring to enhance the level of protection from wave forces, the partial demolition of part of the sea wall and public conveniences, construction of new sea defence wall and creation of a coach / car drop-off point.
Although the proposed vessel's details do not form part of the formal application, a £22 million budget has been reserved for a combined freight and passenger boat.
In the light of the DfT ordering an independent review into the plans, the Friends of Penzance Harbour have expressed their deep disappointment at their decision to proceed. Spokesman John Maggs said: "The overwhelming majority of the public are against their plans, Penzance Town Council oppose them, the DfT is concerned enough to have ordered an independent review, and there is no rush since funding for the project is not in danger, yet the county council thinks it's appropriate to allow the Route Partnership to push ahead with a planning application.
"This is an insult to local people, a waste of taxpayers' money, and shows what a sham the consultation process has been. We will object to the plans and continue to promote less destructive alternatives that bring real benefits to Penzance."
The Route Partnership has defended its decision to file the applications and says, due to the public exhibition in January, February was the earliest they could submit them.
Tim Wood, Route Partnership contracts and special projects manager, explained: "After the September 2008 public exhibition the Route Partnership agreed with Andrew George MP that to address concerns, a week long exhibition would be held between January 19 and 23 . The soonest we could submit an application after that was February which means that while the application will be submitted to Penwith District Council it will probably be considered by the new West Area planning sub-committee.
"As declared by the Route Partnership previously the DfT has requested an independent marine verification to review the Route Partnership proposals and report on whether the vessel type and shore side facilities are sufficient and appropriate for the route."
6 Comments
View all
by Robin Smith, Penzance Harbour
Tuesday, June 23 2009, 12:17PM
“With all these so called friends of penzance harbour the calling for the use of existing harbour buildings beggars belief dont they understand that the buildings ie the meadery and penwith marine services are currently employing almost 40 people full and part time perhaps they think its better to save a star fish rather rather than looking after the jobs of local people.Robin Smith”
by John,, Penzance
Wednesday, March 11 2009, 2:13PM
“Still it rumbles on they said we said it'll ruin our only two feet of sand beach! And I can't wait to celebrate with all the so called Penzance loving protesters as we all watch the tumble weed blow across the Ross bridge and down to the now silent harbour with not even the sound of a helicopter passing overhead. And Tim Cartwright what are you getting so worked up for? wait until they start on Hayle Harbour with it's 1000 houses and all that goes with that plus you'll have that nice wave hub bobbing up and down to look at. Or are you setting up a new protest for these schemes too?”
by Nick Warren, Penzance
Saturday, February 28 2009, 10:08PM
“By the time a conclusion is reached there will be no money in the pot , the rate the government is giving it all away , (to failed bankers) to do anything that will result in maintaining this life line both for the IoS and for Penzance. I just wonder would the orginal sea wall and harbour been ever built if local opposition had resulted in public enquires way back then! Now we have to pay twice, firstly through the extra tax we have to pay to support Europe and now the cost of enquires and yet more consultants!!! and remember consultants have no responibilities, just offer advice.”
by roger lowry, PZ
Thursday, February 26 2009, 2:51PM
“To access the funding from the DfT for a development that will ruin the historic sea front of Penzance the Route Partnership with our ratepayers money have to buy a boat that will be going into direct competition with the existing service provider who has maintained the link profitably for the last 90 years.
I believe English Heritage have said it would be wrong to build adjacent to the South Pier and to extend the Lighthouse pier with inappropriate materials.
There is a formal complaint in about the January exhibition misleadiing the public and using loaded questions on the comment form and the DfT have ordered a review into the RP.
What will it take to make this insensitive allegiance see sense instead of pound signs (or should that be Euros).”
by Tim Cartwright, Hayle
Thursday, February 26 2009, 1:15PM
“"The Route Partnership has defended its decision to file the applications and says, due to the public exhibition in January, February was the earliest they could submit them." - How can this statement possibly be construed as a defence? Why are they submitting plans for a scheme that most of the people of Penzance clearly do not want? What part of:
"Wrong place. Wrong option. Pure expediency at the expensePenzance."
"Loathe it. Vandalism of Penzance, our amenities / environment and ugly. Makes no sense at all for citizens (even holidaymakers)..."
"Absolutely horrendous! It's in completely the wrong place
will ruin a lovely part of the town and do nothing to enhance it"
do they not understand. These quotes are just a handful of the comments from the September exhibition, and if one looks through these, it is not easy to find the commnts in favour.
Alternatives have been put forward, but as they do not fall into line with the Route Partnership's thinking they have been dismissed out of hand in the same way that public opinion has been dismissed.
How dare the Route Partnership assume that those making negative comments in July were 'confused'.
I am just so angry that we are having this scheme foisted on us and feel the only way to prevent it would be to lie down in front of the diggers when they come!!”