“Looks like we are nearly there: -

http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/Content/Detail.aspx?ClientId=202&NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=416188&SubjectId=36.

"6.The department will consider the following three schemes with conditional approval for full approval and will set out specific requirements with each promoter bilaterally:

- Walton Bridge (Surrey)
- Reading Station Highway Works
- Isles of Scilly Link

The department will look carefully at the costs and scope of each scheme and explore possibilities to reduce costs and increase local contributions. We hope to agree a way forward on funding by January 2011 but this will be dependent on progress on these issues."”

“The results of this Poll are exactly what I would expect now that people are better informed of the true size, form and importance of Option A.

Four or Five Hundred people do not constitute a majority in a town of 20,000 people.

Were the council right to rubber stamp it ?
The answer is YES because we are all sick of being passed by and of the possible loss of investment into PZ.
The overwhelming opinion from people (and I have talked to a lot of people) is Get on with it.”

“Biasfighter, The Cornishmans coverage of the Harbour redevelopment has been totally one sided in favour of FoPZH.
Check out Old Mikes weekly ravings, (he is a member of FoPZH and was centrestage on Friday).”

“Again the local press hub seems to be showing it's true-blue colours with it's ridiculously misleading poll. Looks like numbers in support of option A can only be obtained with deception. Also, it's a bit rich describing John Maggs as outspoken when his name is next to the infamously outspoken councillor Graeme Hicks!”

“if opt a is lost foph will evaporate . thier sole reason d'etre is to stop development on south pier. They have no economic imperative to challenge for the ferry service. They state over and over again that the service is ok as is.”

“Tim, Once again supporters of FoPZH prove how little they really know and how little they care about Penzance.

Complaining about the cost of feasibility studies is a joke considering the costs which were incurred because FoPZH insisted that an alternative scheme involving an out of town freight depot were investigated which was clearly a non starter.

You say ¿Once the principle of double handling is accepted, it matters little whether you do it at South Pier, the Railway Station or Long rock for that matter¿.

So are You seriously suggesting that transporting freight from Long Rock to the boat would be without additional expense ? Time, Fuel, and labour costs all would add up not to mention the cost of either purchase or lease of the building.

Regarding Health and Safety matters, I don¿t believe the Mayor was talking about a choice between the Albert pier or the South pier, I was merely pointing out that wherever the boat sails from there will be H&S issues which need to be addressed for the safety of passengers and Crew the status quo is not acceptable.
And Yes I am concerned about the H&S implications, it¿s a Miracle there have been no serious injuries due to the congestion and poor condition of the surface of the South Quay.
If You have any experience in H&S then You must be amazed that passenger and mixed freight operations have been allowed to continue for so long on the South Quay.
If a serious accident occurred the H&S executive would have to close it down.

¿Scillonians as indicated in a recent poll want a swift comfortable crossing¿
Of course they do but would they want it at increased cost per passenger, if it increased their freight costs and led to a greater incidence of cancelled sailings???

Have another look at the Ariel view of the pumping station and tell me if You think there¿s enough room for a new warehouse and for lorries to turn and don¿t forget that area is not only an entrance and exit from the car park used by the Bus station and crosses the cycle path but the access to the Slipway. Also how would this be in any way protected from the sea during storms??
Incidently has anyone thought to ask SW Water for permission to use this piece of land or worked out a costing to build there ?

¿If additional passenger facilities are required (far from obvious)¿
What do You mean by ¿If additional and ¿far from obvious¿ there are NO facilities at present do You consider this a satisfactory situation for a town which relies on the tourist industry as One of its main sources of revenue ??”

“It takes a very brave,(or very foolish), person, to begin a sentence with;

"I think it was Joseph Goebbels who said".

I think TimV has shown which of the two he is with his ".parting shot"

"There are none so blind as those for reasons of arrogance, will not see"”

“CORRECTION: "The current Scillonian SELDOM sails at more than 50% capacity and when you factor in this, it becomes a much narrower margin of efficiency."”

“I think it was Joseph Goebbels who said "If you repeat a lie often enough, everyone will believe it. And the bigger the lie the easier it is to fool them". So much misinformation has been presented by the Route Partnership and its misguided supporters, it is difficult to know where to begin. Of course the scare mongering of moving the operation to Falmouth, that the Cornwall Council voted to spend £50,000 on, just for a "feasibility study", is perhaps a prime example.

Similarly the old chestnut of "double handling" and its cost, which even at this late stage Mrs Bennetts raised again at the latest meeting is wholly fallacious. A warehouse on Battery Rocks is an integral part of Option A which must of necessity involve "double handling". Once the principle of double handling is accepted, it matters little whether you do it at South Pier, the Railway Station or Long rock for that matter. The increased handling charges was another blatant lie to influence public opinion on the IoS.

As Dick Cliffe helpfully pointed out the majority of cargo is loaded direct on to the ship prior to sailing. If "Richard Emslie, Pz" is genuinely concerned about health, safety and security (and I am not without some experience in this area) the Albert Pier is clearly preferable to the South Pier with all its pedestrian traffic, sailing boat moorings and dangerous and arterial road layout.

As to the decision on design of a bigger replacement boat and operating just one, it currently seldom sails more than at half capacity. The Steamship Company went for a two-boat option for good commercial reasons and is making a healthy profit doing so. Passengers and Scillonians as indicated in a recent poll want a swift comfortable crossing wholly, ignored by the proposal. Freight operates to different parameters, is cheaper and obviates the need to carry dangerous cargo (such as fuel) on a passenger ferry. It is more flexible as it is not tied to the strict passenger timetable and can operate to the demands of the trade and tides. It also removes the dangerous complications of mixing freight and passenger handling in a confined space. A faster passenger ferry may be relatively heavy on fuel but this does not necessarily equate to either greater CO2 emissions or per capita consumption, which are determined by engine efficiency and capacity rates. The current Scillonian sails at more than 50% capacity and when you factor in this, it becomes a much narrower margin of efficiency.

And finally, the siting of the warehouse next to the pumping station would not require additional land reclamation. It is blatantly a better location from all points of view - transport and aesthetics - and offers plenty of space for lorries to park up and manoeuvre without obstructing the main through route on a dangerous corner. If additional passenger facilities are required (far from obvious) an ideal property is on the market that would give it a useful and attractive function. Alternatively a combined bus and ferry passenger building next to the train station cries out for consideration.

There are none so blind as those for reasons of arrogance, will not see. For the rest of us these better options are so obvious as to be self evident.”

“foph {fools on paradise heaven} have to create these foney alternative options otherwise they just look like nimby wreckers. To gain any support they masquarade as having better solutions.

As Dick says they refuse to engage with the real issues...the commercial well being of the sea link ...and the need to protect the harbour from rising sea levels.
Always they suggest thier shemes solve the problem of saving the historic integrity of a functional structure, the barbican wall.
Having been brought up in this town i know that this supposed historical significance is a minority view and should be secondary, always, to the well being of the income streams which will ultimately pay for that structures maintenance.
Lamorna and Mullion harbours are now falling down and where are these archietectural saviours to be found....unbelievably they unite evry so often to try and scotch the commercial viability of a harbour that still has a use.”