Ferry decision 'needs more local input'
PROTESTERS fighting plans to develop Penzance harbour have cried foul over a decision to put a crucial planning bid into the hands of a committee with few local members.
Cornwall Council has announced that the application for works to build a new passenger and freight terminal at Penzance will be deliberated by a strategic planning committee. It had previously been thought that the controversial mainland enhancement to the Isles of Scilly sea link would be decided by the local west area planning committee.
The authority has robustly defended the decision, saying there was a bigger picture at stake, as such a large development has implications for the whole county. Moreover, it said Penzance councillors had the right to attend and speak at any planning committee meeting.
John Maggs, of the campaign group Friends of Penzance Harbour, said Cornwall Council's decision was unprecedented and called for a rethink.
"The effect of the move is to disenfranchise the council members representing those most directly affected by the scheme, and sidestep massive public opposition to the plans," he said.
Mr Maggs said planning applications were normally referred to the strategic committee by area planning groups. Members local to the Penzance area make up half the 12 members on the west area planning committee. However, only two Penzance area councillors are on the 21-member strategic planning committee.
Friends of Penzance Harbour believe that, if it gets the green light, the current planning application will destroy the historic Battery Rocks area. The group is promoting an alternative which would see disused buildings near the current berth for the Isles of Scilly ferry converted into a passenger terminal. Freight would be handled at an out-of-town depot.
There are also fears that Government funding for the scheme will dry up if it does not move forward. The planning application for improved facilities at the other end of the link on the Scilly Isles has already been approved.
The planning application at the Penzance end will be heard by Cornwall Council's strategic planning committee, in line with the constitution. Phil Mason, head of planning and regeneration at the authority, said the decision to refer the case to this committee was taken because the development had implications for a huge area. He said the work at Penzance harbour was irrevocably linked to a bigger overall scheme, which would also include the new facilities at Scilly.
"The impact on the overall scheme and the consequential impact upon Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly must be taken into account," he said.
Factors which influenced the decision included that fact that the boat link was an economic and cultural lifeline to Scillonians. It was also a strategic transport connection in relation to the trunk road and main rail line network of Cornwall, he said, which meant it was important to the whole of the South West region.
A spokesman for Cornwall Council said the authority's constitution recognised the need for local member input into decisions made at a strategic level and that all members had the right to speak at any planning committee meeting.
14 Comments
View all
by John Maggs (FoPzH), Penzance
Friday, November 20 2009, 9:59PM
“This is just the most recent in a series of initiatives by Cornwall Council to circumvent normal planning procedures and controls and to remove elected local representatives and their constituents from the decision making process. First the consultation process ignored the clearly stated wishes of local people, then the Council decided that it didn¿t need to apply for planning permission for most of the works, and now it has decided that the planning consents that are required will not be scrutinised by local members. On top of this the Council says that the final decision about whether to build on Battery Rocks beach or go for alternatives will be taken by the Cabinet of the Council, where Penzance, one of the largest towns in the County, and its surrounding area has no representation!”
by Purple Sand Piper, Penzance Harbour
Friday, November 20 2009, 8:34PM
“A couple of quotes from the Battery Rocks survey written by Stella Turk founder of the Cornwall Wildlife Trust.
"At Battery Rocks some counts have been made: one holdfast measuring 3" x 3"
contained over 100 specimens representing 14 different species: in some parts of north-east England only four species are found per holdfast!
.ACTIVITY: fishing; food collecting, (winkles); field studies; recreation, picnics, sun-bathing
NUMBERS SPECIES: Plants: high; animals; high".
Battery Rocks lies in the south-east facing corner of Mount's Bay which is well known to marine biologists for its prolific and interesting fauna and flora.
"”
by Hannah, Penzance
Friday, November 20 2009, 12:04PM
“This whole thing absolutely stinks! The protestors are being labelled by those supporting the Route Partnership as backward-looking, small-minded, against progress etc etc etc. No one amongst these protestors has said they don't want the ferry link! All people are concerned about is the proposed plans, and to counter these, a perfectly workable, sensible and economic alternative is being supported. And yet apparently the Route Partnership aided and abetted by the Council refuse to countenance any idea but their own. Just whose back is being scratched here? Makes me sick.”
by Brigitte Ariel, Penzance
Thursday, November 19 2009, 10:23AM
“I, and the people of PZ, have been grossly mislead by the local government officers employed by Cornwall Council.
We were assured that the proposals for the modernisation of the Link would be subjected to the democratic process of Planning application.
Then' by 'virtue' of a Harbour Revision Order applied for years ago without proper public awareness or consultation, it was 'interpreted' that planning permission is needed for tiny portions of the Works only. We may just comment on the proposed alterations to the Historic Sea Wall and 'listed building consent' required to deface the South Pier, with the 1853 Light House switched off and left stranded half way up the new structure!
We are robbed of our entitlement to submit planning objections to the proposals as a whole. The reclaiming of our beach, the placing of industrial facilities in this historic location where none existed before, even the design of the facilities are considered ' outside of the Planners's remit '- and the watchful eye of such bodies as the CABE design Panel, whose function is to defend our interests.
This week, the public is further deprived of having even these fragmented aspects of the proposals considered at all by their elected representatives! When these Works shall have such a huge impact upon our town and Conservation Area, both during and after Construction, one can only be astounded that, though selective and biased 'interpretations' by Council , the applications may be both declared 'not to be a Major Development ' - thus many relevant planning policies need not apply- Yet sent to be determined by the Strategic Committte!
What a cunning slight of hand! One of many,in recent weeks, twisting the letter of the Law to accomodate steamrolling Penzance into a solution we never wanted and which offers no opportunities for the future regeneration of our town.
First, the return of a barely revised 'Option A' to Planning was neatly bundled up with vague promises of 'further explorations' of the more popular Option C, and Out of Town Freight Depot, into one single motion presented to Committee for vote. This effectively tying the hands of our elected representatives into voting 'yes' to both, if the Link was to be modernised at all!
Second, when a large majority of those elected Committee Members who actually bothered to attend this defining meeting made it clear it was unfair to push Option A back to Planning without giving Option C equal opportunity...Hey! They were steamrolled: This is exactly what is happening!
Third, while it is agreed by all that the maintenance of the Sea Link , vital to the Islands, IN PRINCIPLE shall bring substantial benefits to both Communities, to apply this principle in fact to the SPECIFICS of these proposals is misleading and erroneous rethoric. Nevertheless, this has been the position of the applicants from the start; their 'sutainabilty report' does not even mention the existance of another option. The re-submission of these application without Option C undergoing a simultaneous process is premature and unacceptable.
I share the " bitter disappointment" expressed by Mr. Roger Harding, Chairperson of our Local Community Network. This arbitrary decision by Mr. Mason was taken in contempt of the views expressed by the Chair and Vice Chair of our Planning Committee, both of whom had determined that these applications should be scrutinised locally. This decision to take matters out of the hands of local elected members who understand the concerns of the Community is not acceptable. This was rendered possible by a small, yet significant change hastily sneaked into the Council's Constitution, whereby un-elected Officials can now overrule elected Committe members on local issues. This is a step too far!!! - Hardly transparent or accountable!When the Law doe not suit the Council, then the Officers simply rewrite the Constitution!!! When the new Council was set up, against th”
by Desmond, Penzance
Thursday, November 19 2009, 9:19AM
“What an outrageous decision. That there should be a link to the Scillies from Penzance is the strategic component, and that is not in question. HOW Penzance implements that, and being allowed to choose to defend it's heritage whilst meeting all the objectives of a continued effective service, should clearly be up to local people and their elected representatives. Does our council have the faintest idea what the word "Democracy" means?”