The Duchy Of Cornwall - Penzance Harbour Threatened By Cornwall Council Route Partnership Plan ?

Topical debate
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 4724
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:47 pm

Post by TeamKernow » Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:19 pm

Friends Of Penzance Harbour
'Cornwall County Council as part of the Route Partnership’s Isles of Scilly Link project wants to build a passenger terminal, freight depot and lorry park on this Penzance beach.
At a public consultation in September 2008 more than 85% of the 267 respondents rejected the plans, and for very good reasons:
• They will destroy a beautiful and valued natural asset in the heart of the town. • They will destroy views of the bay and spoil the setting of the historic harbour, war memorial, Jubilee Pool and promenade as well as other listed buildings.
• Council Taxes may have to rise to cover the £20 million cost of the new boat.
• They bring no special economic or other advantages to the town of Penzance. • The sea link to the Isles of Scilly is NOT under threat.
• There are better cheaper alternatives that respect and enhance the historic harbour and promenade area and bring economic and other benefits to Penzance.
The Friends of Penzance Harbour need your help to stop these unnecessary & destructive proposals.'
Friends Of Penzance Harbour contact:

Posts: 614
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:49 pm

Post by Kerrow » Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:52 pm

Ariel brilliantly set out the real danger of this proposal to Penzance:

My question - how many of these 'suits' are operating on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, one of the 'partners' in this - and one with vested interests in seeing these destructive proposals carried out.

The Suits have a-come to Pen sans ~

An Army of Suits!
They are such smooth operators, the Suits!
Their sinister Carnival
Aint no Golowan!
A-barth an pla, a giant mechanical beast
Of devious rhetoric, corrupt machinations,
Will inexorably steamroll our Harbour,
Destroy the harmony between people land and sea.
Adding insult to injury,the Suits
Have set up camp right under St Antony's nose.
Wreckers of attrition,slayers of History: Ke dhe-ves!

Suits are no endangered species:
But they are a motley crew:
They come in all size and shapes-
But with a strict pecking order:
Your Junior Suit- Penn pyst !-
Sponsors polyester Hugo Boss Blue,
His Boss graduates to nonchalant beige,
The ladies- Suits do what they can
To look like Suits in apparel.
There is your decadent jovial Suit,
Schmoozing and oozing Meregyon,
Deadringer for Ricky Gervaise.
The King’s Envoy has that aristocratic
“ Je ne sais quoi”, emblazoned with an Eaton tie.
Re Vyghal ! Don’t be fooled
When they ply you with free cuppas!

I am frightened of the Suits-
Would rather fight Pirates any day!
They all have a Degree in Bending the Truth
From the University of Big Money.
Following a well rehearsed script
Straight from the Penn Jowl,
They are dismissing my beach
As: But a small amount of foreshore..
When they kill Sandy Cove by numbers,
They shall label that: Reclaiming !
“It don’t matter they concrete over it”,
I heard some old fool say: “No one uses it any more,
What purpose does it serve anyway?”
Penn kalgh! Must Lady Nature and Tradition
Earn a living, pay for their meal ticket?

Their weapons? Statistics and computations,
Blueprints, figures on laptops
And “specialists panels assessments”,
Official badges, sleek visiting cards,
And that grand word: Mitigation –
Which veils a multitude of sins!
“We shall destroy your Heritage?
Here! Have some mitigation!”
Sea-Grass shall be mitigated,
Concrete masqueraded as granite,
And their 40-tonns lorries shall
Alleviate traffic congestion!
Our Economy shall blossom
When their New Boat be too big
To be serviced in our Dry Docks!
Armed with tacky silver-blue pens,
Let the Suits dispel your confusion.

For these Suits, it seems, are tricksters:
The conservation officer destroys,
The Environment Expert kills,
Natural Agencies… denature?
Engineers would bury the old stone pier
Under an Armour of Rocks
Twenty Six whole Meters long!
Kakk a mana !
Seals? There are no Seals:
A figment of your imagination!
No matter the bird-watchers website says
That Jubilee Pool hosts wintering flocks
Of Purple Sandpiper and Turnstone
In the rocks under the sea wall.
Sorry, swans, sea ducks and the odd grebe:
A-barth an pla: Be mitigated!
What Suits call: A loss of footprint?
Bramm an gath! Gas dha flows!

Outside Coinagehall street, the sea
Rages a swell in tempestuous Protest
As the Suits plot to dreg and churn
A cauldron of murky sediments.
Snowflakes flutters onto the old gardens,
This gentle maze of tranquillity;
On benches, ghosts mingle with pensioners,
Whispering in bewilderment.
The ancient granite walls, still, endure.
Centuries of remembrance and honour
Unfold, with poignant dignity,
Like a living history book
Sprawling from Eternity:
Telling tales of commerce and valiance,
Resilience and gunpowder,
Stories of seafaring, markets,
And Mayday’s merry dances,
Where once a Medieval town
Bustled round the Barbican,
And our Kernow musketeers,
In defence of the Battery,
Bravely fought Juam de Arnica
And the spaniard arquebusiers.

Suits, it seems, are blind:
Stakhanovism, like the Medusa,
Has turned their hearts to stone.
Their steel eyes do not see what I see:
They have never run to the Promenade
At Spring Tides on a Winter Evening
When missiles of glistening kelp
Reach as far as the Navy Inn,
To be awed by the power of waves;
Never stood there,drenched, laughing,
Windswept, with salt upon their lips
And sparkles in their eyes.
They have never browsed the Stalls,
Watched the displays on Lifeboat Day.
Where chamfered granite arches, chapels,
Ancient crosses, old fish cellars used to stand,
And proud frigates once sheltered
From the lashing westerly winds
In the mellow curve of the Quay,
They see but a Car Park?

Shooing the Shades of yesteryear,
Of fishermen, lovers, lonely hearts
And boys in short trousers
Brandishing green shrimping nets
Atop glorious rock pools,
The Suits would desecrate the Cenotaph
Till they wake up the Dead,
And Battery Rocks shall vibrate
Shaken by their industrial reefers!
The Shags on South Pier are outraged.
The mer-maids tremble and weep.
Ken dhe oela hwi a's bydh !
I wish Pen Glas, clanking Her Jaw,
Would gob them Suits, munch, crunch,
Swallow them all under Her skirt,
To the tune of a great Serpent dance!
Light the Beacon ‘pon Lescudjack Hill fort!
Tie a Rag to the old Prayer Trees!
Rise, Ancient Land of Lyonesse,
Mighty Serpentine Lizard,roar!

Anthony, Gabriel, Raphael stand up!
Holy Michael, raise Thy Mighty Sword,
Slay the myths that Suits present as facts,
And their facts, which are not true.
I call you, Apollo, Magdelene!
Ro, a Dhew, dha Wyth,
Hayl Varia leun a ras !
Koel orthyn warnas ow kria,
O Blessed Mother of God,
Cauldron of inspiration,
Kerrid of Lilies and bees,
Whom Cornish forefathers honoured
Through rain and wind and dark,
Save our Holy Headland!
Set your foot upon the Serpent
Till this new peril be long past:
The Suits which have come to Pen Sans!

© ~ Ariel ~ January 2009

User avatar
Posts: 4724
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:47 pm

Post by TeamKernow » Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:45 pm

A potent,powerful and pointed poem for the protection of Pen Sans.
Perhaps Jonathan 'The Suit' Coode

and his owner will pay attention and wisely navigate a different course.  Jonathan Coode – Solicitor (retd?) – RCAA Chairman – Submitter of Fraudulent Planning Applications – Evidence HERE.
Kerrow: 'It’s useful at this time to see a photo of Jonathan Coode, the man specifically named by the Duchy of Cornwall Prince’s Council as the Representative of the people of Cornwall. The following Minutes of the Committee of Public Accounts show how Bertie Ross, Secretary and Keeper of the Records makes this information public:
"Q133 Mr Jenkins: I wonder whether on this list the local community's interests are being looked after and taken on board?
Mr Ross: The area where we are recognised as having the most high profile, if you like, which does not make any difference to the management of the rest of the estate, is Cornwall, and we have a representative who sits on the Prince's Council to take into account the interests of the people of Cornwall.
Q134 Mr Jenkins: Is that a representative of the people of Cornwall? Is there a name for that person?
Mr Ross: He lives in Cornwall, he is a professional, he is a solicitor, he has land himself. He is Mr Coode."
Jonathan Coode, as the person charged by the Duke with taking into account the interests of the people of Cornwall and of representing the people of Cornwall is responsible for the Cornish in the matters in which the Duchy is involved. These involve constitutional and human rights issues, they involve economic, property and development issues and they involve issues of governance and law. The buck doesn’t stop with Jonathan Coode but he has been personally charged with representing the people of the Duchy in its governing body. The effectiveness of Jonathan Coode’s performance needs to be evaluated and scrutinised.
For our part Jonathan Coode needs much more information, he needs to be given opportunity to engage fully with those he represents and he needs a full range of informed questions in order for him to fulfil his position as Representative in a way that is correct and transparent.'
TeamKernow: 'To assist Jonathan with his duty of 'representation' it may be helpful to post his contact details here as they seem to be rather hard to come by otherwise for those citizens of Cornwall who may be in need of 'representation'.
Postal Address:
Jonathan Coode
Trebyan House
Lanhydrock Estate
Kernow PL30 5AD
Telephone: 01208 72906 '

User avatar
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:46 am

Post by Marhak » Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:29 pm

So Mr Coode, going by his address, is also tied up with the National Trust? There's fascinating.

User avatar
Posts: 4724
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:47 pm

Post by TeamKernow » Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:51 pm

There is much about Mr Coode that is fascinating,marhak.
Forelock tugger supreme!
'Charles,let me be your Duchy Puppy…'

User avatar
Posts: 4724
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:47 pm

Post by TeamKernow » Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:02 pm

Mr Angarrack's Findings
'All the provisions of the said Act of the ninth year of King George the third now applicable to Her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, shall be extended and be applicable to the Duke of Cornwall, in like manner as if the same were re-enacted and the Duke of Cornwall were throughout mentioned or referred to where the “Kings Majesty” or “His Majesty” is in the said Act mentioned. Section I, Duchy of Cornwall Act 1860 [23 July]
Even the Duchy of Cornwall itself admitted that the Duke of Cornwall is effectively the King of Cornwall and his duchy constitutes the government of Cornwall: So far as Royal Seignory is concerned, it will scarcely be contended but that the Duke of Cornwall was placed precisely in the position of King. He had all the Crown lands within Cornwall, was entitled to all those feudal services and incidents which attached to those lands, and to all prerogative rights and emoluments, as wardships, marriages, prima seizen, reliefs, escheats &c which belonged to the Crown as the ultimate and supreme lord of the Soil.(4) It is, moreover, submitted that the three duchy charters are sufficient in themselves to vest in the dukes of Cornwall not only the government of Cornwall, but the entire territorial dominion.(5)
The Sheriffs of the counties of Britain must swear an oath of allegiance to the sovereign. However, the Oath of Allegiance used for the ceremony in Cornwall differs to that used elsewhere in that it instructs the incoming Sheriff to swear an oath of Allegiance to the Duke of Cornwall as Sovereign of Cornwall.(6)
During the course of the 1855-58 foreshore dispute the Attorney General to the Duchy of Cornwall made the following statement: The presumed object of the officers of the Crown is to show that the Duchy possessions consisted merely of the particular manors and estates which are mentioned by name in the Duchy Charter, and did not comprise a territory such as Terra de Cornubia [the territory of Cornwall]. I intend to show how little ground there is for such a conclusion.(7)
This duchy statement totally contradicts the latest web-based ducal claim that his duchy is merely a ‘private estate’ based on a collection of manors and other holdings as referenced in the duchy charters.
Will Cornwall’s Head of State now come forward to explain why he adopts a position contrary to (a) available evidence and (b) the duchy’s own previously articulated position?
Ducal claim No.3. The duke’s website asks itself a question: Does the Duke of Cornwall pay tax on the income from the Duchy? The ducal response: Yes. Like everyone else, the duke pays income tax. This is untrue. Until 1993 [that is, for the first 650 years of the duchy] the duke never paid income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax or any other tax simply because the Duchy of Cornwall is a Crown dependency lying outside the jurisdiction, and hence taxation laws, of England and Wales.
After the duke’s lavish lifestyle drew media attention in the late 1980’s, the papers started asking why the Duchy of Cornwall never paid any taxes. To ward off prying eyes the duke began making a voluntary contribution to the English taxman. At first, the duke described his payment as a voluntary contribution. Now with the passage of time, that truth has been mutated into an untruth.
As the Duchy of Cornwall is not in England or Wales, it does not fall within the jurisdiction of the English Summons of Exchequer(8) and as a result is not required to pay Income Tax, Corporation Tax, Capital Gains Tax or any other tax. The duke’s advisors devise all manner of tortuous reasons why he is not required to pay these taxes, none of which would be accepted by the taxman if submitted by you or I. In the final analysis, a non-resident making a voluntary contribution to the taxman as part of an elaborate hoax is not the same as a resident being compelled to pay tax.
Ducal claim No.4. On that same Duchy of Cornwall website the duke asks of himself: Does the Duchy own all of Cornwall? The answer: No. The Duchy own only 2 per cent of the County.
Here is a question for the duke’s website: Why do Treasury Solicitors say: “The County of Cornwall is the Duchy of Cornwall”?(9) Answer: Because the Duke of Cornwall in right of the Duchy of Cornwall is the presumptive, absolute and ultimate owner of the soil and territorial possession of Cornwall. This is why the lands, property and other assets of any person dying intestate in Cornwall revert to the duke. East of the Tamar these sovereign rights go to the ‘Queen in right of her Crown’ [UK government]. It should be remembered that UK land law operates on the basis that people who purchase land on a freehold basis do not actually own the land. They only purchase the right to occupy that land. In Cornwall, the Duke of Cornwall is the owner of all land and people in Cornwall merely hold, or occupy, his land. Should they die without heirs, the land reverts back to its presumptive, ultimate and absolute owner.(10)
Ducal claim No.5. The ducal website asks: Why isn’t the Duchy of Cornwall audited by the National Audit Office? The Duke then answers: Because it is a private estate rather than a publicly owned entity. In UK legal parlance, he is really saying that the Duchy of Cornwall is not a ‘public authority’. Strange then, that the UK definition of the term ‘public authority’ is a body or organisation that performs any function of a public nature, and was either (a) created by Parliament or (b) by the Royal Prerogative. As we know, the Duchy of Cornwall meets that definition on all counts. During the 1828 Rowe v Brenton Trial at Bar, the presiding judge, Lord Tenderten, Lord Chief Justice Kings Bench, affirmed that: the public has an interest in everything that is done in the duchy.(11) Even in 1828, case law could identify that the duchy was a public body and therefore legally anything but a ‘private estate’. When in 2005 the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee began investigating why the Duchy of Cornwall never submitted accounts to the Audit Office, the government of the Duchy of Cornwall trotted out the same old ‘private estate’ yarn. Edward Leigh MP, the Committee’s mystified chairman, said: I cannot understand why these accounts are not subject to the same disclosure requirements as other accounts presented to parliament.(12)
On hearing of the investigation, and seeing the Chairman’s reported comments, I wrote to the Committee pointing out exactly why the Head of State of this Crown dependency was not required to present accounts to his Committee. Shortly afterwards, the Committee halted its investigation.
Of course, the duchy is not subject to the laws which empower the National Audit Office because the Duchy of Cornwall is extra-territorial to England.
Ducal claim No.6 Quote: The duke is not entitled to have, or spend, any of the Duchy’s capital income. He is only entitled to its annual income. In the real business world, there is a trade off between capital and revenue. Every pound the duke takes from the duchy’s income damages the potential for capital growth. If the duke wanted to see maximum capital growth, he would not take out several millions of pounds per year to fund his ultra-lavish lifestyle. In reality, as happened in the past when pressed to meet personal financial commitments, the duke can raise or lower his income at will to befit his circumstances.
Ducal claim No.7. The dukes website asks itself: Who manages the Duchy? The response: The Prince’s Council. This is the same Prince’s Council that, under the leadership of the Black Prince in the fourteenth century, said Cornwall was not in England and that the inhabitants of Cornwall were his subjects.(13) Would the duke, or even his ‘Prince’s Council’, care to advise what happened between then and now?
Duchy claim No.8. This claim was made not on the duke’s website, but by Bertie Ross, the duchy’s Secretary and Keeper of the Records during the 2005 Parliamentary enquiry into why the duchy does not disclose its accounts to the National Audit Office. When asked by the Select Committee if anyone on the Prince’s Council looked after the interest of the local community, the Secretary and Keeper of the Records replied: We have a representative who sits on the Prince's Council to take into account of the interests of the people of Cornwall. The duke’s representative was than asked: Is that a representative of the people of Cornwall? Is there a name for that person? The response was: He lives in Cornwall, he is a professional, he is a solicitor, he has land himself. He is Mr Coode.(14) Apparently, St Austell based solicitor Jonathan Coode sits on the Prince’s Council to ‘take account of the interests of the people of Cornwall’. We think Mr Coode has a lot of questions to answer.
1. March 2000 Sunday Times ‘Richest by Century’ List
2. For a list of many of these laws, see Our Future is History p.302.
3. For the full story, see Scat t’Larrups p.22-26. 4. Foreshore dispute. Preliminary Statement by the Duchy of Cornwall. May 1856 p.10.
5. Foreshore dispute. Preliminary Statement by the Duchy of Cornwall. May 1856 p.9. 6. See Oath of Allegiance and analysis on p.17-20 of Scat t’Larrups?.
7. Foreshore dispute. Observations of behalf of HRH the Duke of Cornwall on the further documents brought forward by the Officers of the Crown. Part 1, p.16. April 1857.
8. As per the 2nd and 3rd duchy charters.
9. Treasury Solicitors form BV C1 Version 2. Section 11: Jurisdiction (Part v).
10. See Land Registration Act 2002. Explanatory Note 4: “The Crown is the only absolute owner of land in England and Wales”.
12. Guardian newspaper, July 28 2005
13. Acts of the Council of the Black Prince. 16th July 1351, 18th August 1354.
14. Select Committee on Public Accounts. Examination of Witnesses. 7th February 2005′

User avatar
Posts: 4724
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:47 pm

Post by TeamKernow » Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:25 pm

Of course Jonathan Coode and his firm Coodes Solicitors are no strangers to outrageous coastal overdevelopment proposals involving the Duchy Of Cornwall. Go HERE and scroll down to these words: 'Board of the Prince’s Trust Business Division in the Trust’s recent extraordinary and unusual intervention(p8), in support of the regressive BIG footprint Ampersand plan for Carlyon Bay(Interestingly, the Duchy of Cornwall has foreshore business dealings with Ampersand-needed to come up with the beach ‘recharging’ idiocy on which the ill-conceived sea defences depend.).' and click on the links.
A little kernown aspect of the Ampersand proposal To Turn Crinnis Beach Into A Concrete Slab is that, in cahoots with a marketing campaign involving Selfridge's shop window in London and other locations, gullible prospective 'luxury flat' purchasers were persuaded to part with deposits which were then held by…Coodes Solicitors.

Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:59 pm

Post by Rogerlowry » Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:13 pm

Tim Woods CCC Director of Structures and Design and John Maggs of Friends of Penzance Harbour will be discussing the Route Partnership proposal for Penzance seafront on the Laurence Reed Lunchtime phone in programme today at 1.30pm.
All join in!This is an ill-concieved, un-necessary and unwanted new development!

User avatar
Posts: 4724
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:47 pm

Post by TeamKernow » Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:48 pm

You'd better get on that phone again,roger. Reed appears to have gone for the BBClone in-house navel-gazing Thatcher Robertson's Jam Logo networked franchise 'all of you do this today' 'talking point' option. He can turn coy when it comes to DUCHY Of Cornwall issues…

User avatar
Posts: 4724
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:47 pm

Post by TeamKernow » Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:55 pm

Two minutes after that post Reed turns his attention to Penzance Harbour. Cornwall24 is an oft monitored major research tool over there at Phoenix Wharf. Makes life easy for lazy unprofessional relentlessly Anglo-Imperialist BBClone Presenters like Reed.

User avatar
Posts: 4724
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:47 pm

Post by TeamKernow » Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:29 pm

circa 3 minutes in total on the Penzance calumny! Reed barely scratches the surface – yet again. Back on Robertson Jam Logo/Downsizing/Shmokin'… We could be anywhere… Clearly his heart's not in it… Needs an on-topic call or three…tangential preambles to ease into on-air position can help!

Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:59 pm

Post by Rogerlowry » Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:53 pm

I feel it ought to be made clear to your readers that in order to access funds from the dept for Transport to destroy the historic seafront of Penzance, the Route Partnership using ratepayers money must provide a new vessel that will go into direct competition with the existing service provider.
The IoSSteamship Company has run this service for 90 years. Bankrupting them is not securing jobs in Penzance.

Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:30 am

Post by Karma » Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:58 pm

You noted something earlier in this thread, TK, about Coodes linkages with inappropriate and questionable developments.

Interestingly, for some long time, Coodes used to act for Shameless Heaney as well, prior that is, to his involvement with just about every other civil and criminal brief in Cornwall.....

Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:32 pm

Post by Ariel » Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:17 am

Battle rages... Have been so busy writing fightin' letters objecting specifically to their Proposal goin to the Planners, I missed this thread ~ Thanks for J.Coode's address ~ on me list ~ Thanks also for appreciation of me 'Suits' Poem~ A Prayer for Pen sans indeed ~ written in one sitting during the *Exhibition* ~

Please write to T. Wood & A. eore asking that the proposal does not o to the Planners until the matter of ethics at the Public Consultation is resolved?

here is my letter:

Re: Route Partnership Harbour “Improvement” Proposals ~2009 Exhibition~ Penzance’s Holy Headland. An Open Letter -

Dear Mr. George,

Following my objection to a display at the recent Route Partnership Exhibition, and formal request to Mr. Tim Wood that it be removed, I have received a letter by email from Mr. Nicholas Johnson, Historic Environment Manager, CCC.(Copy enclosed).
“In order to resolve this issue, the panel details will be removed from the website. A re worded page will have the following text on it (see below), which we hope will be of interest to visitors to the website.”
I regret to say this does not, as far as I am concerned, resolve the issue.
I enclose for you consideration my letter to Mr. Tim Wood and the Route Partnership:
The fact remains that this panel was presented to the public as a fact for the five days of the exhibition.

Such blatant misinformation may well have led many people who would have opposed the RP scheme to support it in their feedback.

With the location of the proposal being such a sensitive issue, any misrepresentation of facts to the public in this respect seems to me very grave indeed.

When compounded with the prejudiced manner in which other in formations were presented, as well as the biased format of the feedback questionnaire, -(Please refer to my feedback letter to the exhibition)- Then I think the Route Partnership has a case to answer.

Frankly, looking at some of the displays, I have at times asked myself whether officers working for the councils, (including those within Historic Environment, Conservation, also amongst the Wild Life and Nature organisations were really doing the job they are appointed to do, for their reports seemed so tailor-made to accommodate the RP’s preferred solution.

I understand that the Friends of Penzance Harbour have filed a formal complaint with CCC about the manner in which the Exhibition was conducted.

As to their objection to the questionnaire, Mr. Wood was quoted in the Cornishman yesterday as saying: “ Only a few people commented on the format of the form.”

In such a grave matter, with a formal complaint already addressed to CCC by a public association, I say:It is a few too many.

Would this not indeed be the case if the questionnaire had fulfilled the purpose of confusing the general public?

Yet again, Mr. Wood as spokesperson for the RP (or is it the Council?), is placing onto the public the onus of disproving a negative

I also agree with the Friends of Penzance Harbour Association that the manner in which the RP arrived to their “ preferred solution” was biased and unsatisfactory.

Since the outcome of this exhibition will play a part in informing subsequent decisions about a multi-million pound project affecting a whole community for many years to come, it was especially important that it be handled in a open, fair and transparent way.

Clearly, this has not been the case: Altogether, I believe that the manner this Exhibition was conducted was not compatible with a genuine spirit of democratic public consultation

This issue I think, needs be addressed, and something done about it.

Surely: With corporate power comes corporate responsibility?
Surely, such responsibilities are even greater for a consortium composed of both Public Bodies and Business Companies with direct financial interests vested in the final outcome?

Mr. George, will you please intervene, and request that the manner in which this whole process was conducted be properly investigated?

Also that, in the specific case of the information displayed concerning our Holy Headland, when, by their own words, the RP experts are admitting that
the information supplied for the public information board might have caused:
“Confusion and anxiety”, the damage caused in influencing the public’s response to the proposal be redressed in some way?

I find this especially unacceptable when the exhibition made such a case in its advertising of “dispelling public misconceptions and confusion”, and “presenting the facts behind what you are doing”.

This is but a case in point.

In this light, I am extremely concerned to hear that the RP’s Proposal is shortly to be submitted to Penwith Council’s panning committee for Planning Permission, - when thereafter the fate of Battery Rocks shall rest solely upon our Town Planners decision, and the criteria considered will be highly specialised.

I think this is premature.

A spokesperson from The Department of Transport was quoted yesterday in the Cornishman as saying: “ It was up to the County Council and West Penwith County Council to decide where the best place for this facility is, ”and that, “ any revisions would need their support.”
I believe the Councils’ decision should truly reflect the concerns of its constituents over those of the parties with commercial interest vested in the outcome.

Because of this, I am gravely concerned by such a major proposal concerning a multi-million pounds project going to Planning just before the time when, because of the shift to Unitary Council, in the intermediary period between at least April and October, we shall be represented by a Body whose members have not been fully elected.

Will you please consider intervening in requesting that this application be postponed until the matter of ethics at the consultation - and other matters, such as that of the Manner in which the Route partnership arrived at their “preferred solution - have been fully addressed and satisfactorily resolved?

Also that it be postponed until after the Council changeover period?

What is the rush, when The Department of Transport has confirmed that “ there is no funding timeline”?

You said so yourself:
“… Getting the Penzance Harbour arrangements right is clearly more important than getting the scheme done quickly…”

Like you, I fully support the Modernisation of the Sea Link to the Scilly’s –

But not at such a cost to Penzance.

Isn’t it time for the Route Partnership:
a) To take on board the fact that the extension of the South Pier onto the Battery Rocks is totally unacceptable to a majority of the people of Penzance, and that a new solution must be found?
b) To recognise that in the light of such strong public opposition to the proposal’s location, alternative schemes must be properly weighed up?
c) To acknowledge that other perfectly viable options exist, such as that of Trythall Shipping, involving much less costly construction works and disruption to our Town, that would not impinge on our local heritage and would be acceptable to those of us who object to your proposal on grounds of Location?
d) To act upon your very request that a way forward be found where: “Objectors’ reasonable concerns be fully addressed and where a genuine dialogue could lead to a positive outcome?”

You said in your Press release:

“It is not possible to achieve the kind of upgrade and improvements, which the ferry and cargo service need without causing some disruption and creating some contention somewhere.”

It may be so – But surely the public’s outrage is justified and need be taken into account when it aims to protect Battery Rocks and its surroundings, -
For this is such a crucial part of Penzance’s historic and natural heritage – an area of such recognised international and national importance as to nature conservation, archaeology and history – Least its local character be lost forever to future generations?


edited by: Ariel, Feb 06, 2009 - 11:39 PM

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests