“and as for putting my name to post : well we run a shop in pz and have done so for anumber of yrs and when you get some idiot trying to get everyone to boycott any business thats supports option A then you realsie why i don't put my name.
i belive that everyon has there right to there opinion but to try and cause problems for already struggling bussines just because they did not support option c was disgraceful . we deal with local people everyday and just because some may like option c i would never not let them in my shop”

“Let's get something straight, optio Cis not viablefinancially. These buildings are not owned by participants of the scheme, they would have to be paid for at the going commercial rate. Nobody is going to give them free of charge. Delivery vans would still have to deliver to customers in town as part of their existing routes, so it doesn't get significant amounts of traffic of the roads.
Finally, a well respected ferry operator has already stated that an out of town warehouse would make them offer 300k less per year to run the operation. Thats 300k that the local taxpayer would be losing. People are being misled by the statements given out by the friends, at this late stage there are no other options. If you want the link to be secured for Penzance then it has to be optionA.”

“So now it seems to be working again, this was it:- "If the well considered observations of "a local shop owner, pz" and "silent and stealth, Leedstown" are representative of the so-called "Silent Majority", we have reason to be concerned. The so-called "silent majority" supporting Option A has indeed been silent, which actually speaks volumes. The quality of the above contributor's argument is very weak. How could utilizing existing buildings - without hugely costly excavation, infill, new sea walls and new warehouse and passenger buildings -possibly be more expensive? The alternative buildings are even already owned by participants of the scheme. They offer further advantage of preserving valuable buildings in their own right which would enhance the customer experience and put dereliction to work. They would afford easier access and convenience, whilst reducing a large proportion of heavy vehicles to the town. The fact that the Cornwall Council has been able to make "Option C" more expensive and excluded it from today's Planning Meeting, wreaks of gerrymandering of the worst sort. Does the Cornwall Council really want to bog itself down in legal challenge and on-going public protest, over a deeply un-popular, damaging, unnecessary and flawed proposal? Elected members on the "Strategic Planning Committee" are clearly under considerable pressure to approve Option A. Let's hope they have sufficient common sense and independence to at least delay a decision until they have had the chance to assess a reliable and unbiased report on Option C.”

“Just get it built for goodness sake! im sick of hearing from the protestors and im sick of the biased reporting from the Cornishman.......its time to move on into the 21st century,”

“Given the interest in this subject, it seems rather strange no responses to these views have been posted (including my own incidentally) Has there been a breakdown in communication?”

“Wouldn't it be nice if the above two posters actually and their like actually realised that, far from the protestors wanting to lose the ferry link, they actually want to retain it but in the manner that best suits the town. NONE of them are saying that they don't want the ferry link. They are saying they don't want tons of concrete poured over their seafront. As if such a plan would even be suggested in Falmouth (since "Silent and Stealth" is so keen on the Falmouth conmparison. Cn you imagine some plan being determinedlyn pursued by the Council which involved the building over of Gyllyngvase Beach? As if the good folk of Falmouth would let something like that happen! As for the assertion that Penzance has nothing to offer tourists then why do people come on holiday here year after year? I work in the tourist industry and many many people who are regular visitors to Penzance have never even been to the Isles of Scilly. They come here because it's Penzance and West Penwithy they want to visit, and large numbers of them would not return (as has been confirmed by recent letters in the Cornishman) if there were two years of noise, dust and disruption to create something that would mainly benefit the islanders and some of the hoteliers in Penzance. What about the people that actually live here?”

“If the well considered observations of "a local shop owner, pz" and "silent and stealth, Leedstown" are representative of the so-called "Silent Majority", God help us all! Ample opportunity has been afforded those who consider this a well considered, sensible proposal and the silence has indeed been deafening. The quality of the above contributions only confirm the paucity of their case. How could utilizing existing buildings - without hugely costly excavation, infill, new sea walls and new warehouse and passenger buildings -possibly be more expensive? The alternative buildings are even already owned by participants of the scheme. They offer further advantage of preserving valuable buildings in their own right which would enhance the customer experience and put dereliction to work. They would afford easier access and convenience, whilst reducing a large proportion of heavy vehicles to the town. The fact that the Cornwall Council has been able to make "Option C" more expensive and manoeuvred its consideration conveniently after the "Option A" planning decision, wreaks of gerrymandering of the worst sort. Does the Cornwall Council really want to bog itself down in legal challenge and on-going public protest, over a deeply un-popular, damaging, unnecessary and flawed proposal? Elected members on the "Strategic Planning Committee" are clearly under considerable pressure to approve Option A. Let's hope they have sufficient common sense and independence to at least delay a decision until they have had the chance to assess a reliable and unbiased report on Option C.”

“What complete and utter twaddle, and always anonymous (unlike the c. 700 objection letters that wouldn't have been counted it they didn't have a name and address on). So I get paid to attend do I? Well not only do I not get paid to do FoPzH work but I wasn't even at the meeting! This will give you a clue to the accuracy of the rest of shop owner's rant.”

“Why don't 'A Local Shop Owner' and 'Silent & Stealth' put their names here rather than use the weak cover of a pseudonym? (That's means a false name by the way chaps..) Is it because they don't have the strength of their own conviction, or is it simply because they are ill informed?

You guessed right, it's the latter.

The Scillonian will NOT be going to Falmouth, apart from the extra cost and time, the fact is that the funding package is ONLY available for Penzance, if they want to go to Falmouth they also need to go back and apply for the grants all over again, so let's stop worrying about that one, OK?

You might have noticed that mainline trains also serve Camborne and Pool, and of course Hayle, St Erth and happily on to St Ives. Given the amount of public investment in the first two and the importance put on public transport, any mention of PZ losing the train is premature at best and scaremongering at worst.

Given that only 4 people wrote in opposition compared to nearly 700 against this dreadful scheme, (I can only assume these two chaps with made up names must have forgotten to put stamps on theirs...) it seems it IS the majority of local people that believe it will do more damage than good for Penzance's future prosperity. Can you see St Ives allowing a freight depot being built in their harbour- the most prized heritage asset? That would certainly attract more tourists wouldn't it!

There were no coaches bringing people in from other areas, there is no extra cost to the people of Penzance in an out of town freight depot, and indeed there was no John Maggs Mr Local Shop Owner- he was in Copenhagen dealing with even bigger issues. What did happen is that the Acorn was packed with local people who care about this beautiful town (and its link with Scilly) and want Cornwall Council to come up with a scheme that we deserve- not one driven through by thoughtless council officers and overpaid consultants.

Penzance deserves better and the majority of locals want that.”

“In my opinion the plans that have been submitted are not the best option for the continued safe and efficient working of the freight and passenger service to the Scilly isles.
I actually deliver and collect frieight, luggage and even parts for the boats themselves so I am VERY familiar with how the harbour and the system works at present.
It is clear that something needs to be done.
The harbour area is old and has been adapted to its present format of use by an evolution over many many years, it was never fully designed or planned, bits were added over the years as the uses changed and demands altered, the present schemes are in the same vein, they are a work around of the old existing facilities and as such will never be completely suitable for all users, the harbour area will still be subject to heavy traffic for both the passenger side of the operations and the freight side, the traffic will still be centred around a confined space near a busy corner, the passengers will still need to cross the busy road after parking a considerable distance away and the main bus/rail head is also a fair walk.
The proposal for a single ship to operate both freight and passengers is incredibly short sighted, the two operations MUST be separate, the two will not work together, the mix of freight and passengers loading and unloading from the same boat has the potential to be a serious health and safety risk, the idea that the freight could be unloaded into a warehouse and then loaded onto the boat is also impossible in most cases, items such as fuel oil, livestock, long lengths of timber/steel, roof trusses, precast concrete sections, one-ton bags of aggregate, sheets of glass, pleasure craft, rowing gigs and even large machinery ALL need to be loaded from the lorry straight onto the boat. it is not possible to unload at the end of the quay and fork lift these items up the whole length of the quay.
Two boats are better than one, never put all your eggs in one basket, in cases of breakdown or annual inspections there will be a service maintained, the present system of two boats in summer works very well, the demand is not there for a passenger service in the winter, why run a single large ship with only freight onboard and no passengers ? its not sensible, run two cheaper, faster boats and only run to demand in winter.
The building of a new terminal over the beach area beside battery rocks is not ideal, It is a compromise, it will put the terminal building in the path of some heavy swells and poor weather for most of the winter, the dockers working the site will be wet and cold while going about their duties, the present location does at least give a little shelter even if it seems like it is not much !
The Police have closed the road around the promenade at least three times this winter already, the proposed development is right in the middle of the section that is affected by these closures, closures that happen during the day as well as the night.
I would like to see the mixing of the good ideas from all parties i have listened to, the route partnership is right, something needs to be done, we need to seize the money available, the friends of the pool are right, keep the development away from the pool and battery rocks, the battery rocks swimmers are right, its a shame to develop a beach that is not spoilt. the harbour campaigners are right, we dont need to have two years of development upheaval and then increased traffic to the new terminals. and Mr cartwright's idea that we should have a fast passenger boat is brilliant.
We should operate BOTH from a new site at the Albert Pier, the pier could be extended, a new passenger terminal built and a new freight handling area built, both boats could operate individually as they do now, passengers could park in the large harbour carpark, and would have easy access to the taxis, busses and trains operating already from this area. A BIG bonus is the fact the freight traffi”