“Fundamental question: What is the point of any "investment" if its end result is damaging historically, architecturally, culturally, economically, environmentally, commercially, to transport infrastructure, to town planning, to future indebtedness, to social cohesion, to future attractiveness and tourism receipts AND prevents a better scheme to provide more appropriate regeneration? I should have thought it was a "no-brainer". This scheme has more holes in than a Leerdammer and is about as cheesy! Councillors have succumbed to the twin mirages of fools' gold and the vacuous threats of impending disaster. If they had had the courage to stick to their guns, a much better scheme would have been forthcoming. Penzance, the Scillies and Cornwall as a whole, would have been the better for it. Lets hope against hope that, even at this late stage, wiser Ministerial counsels will prevail.”

“I spent the entire day yesterday with over a 100 interested people from Penzance, with yet another group of consultants discussing what could be done to regenerate Penzance; speaking with some Cornwall Council officers at this meeting it became obvious from comments made to me that senior officers at Cornwall Council have little or no interest in Penzance, falling outside of its favoured areas of Truro, Redruth/Camborne, Falmouth. That any funding for projects was unlikely to make it this far west and that we are pretty much on our own.”

“PS - The Fate of our Harbour & destruction of our Heritage assets has been determined on ...Facebook- This must be what is meant by " Bringing PZ into the 21st Century."

To the Tim Dwellys of this world , who hope that the FofPZH and other objecting Community stakeholders shall 'bow graciously' to the outcome of the 'Democratic Process of Planning' ,be 'good loosers' & simply 'go away' - and shall, doubtlessly accuse us of being anti progress, anti regeneration and of endangering the future of the Sea Link in PZ when we demand that the legetimacy of this second vote be scrupulously scrutinised at the highest level - I pledge:

We shall bow every bit as graciously as Cornwall Council did to the outcome of the truly democratic first Vote in December- Sadly, unlike the Executive, we do not have the Mojo to simply cancel said Vote when we disapprove of its outcome - Be assured, though, that unlike some, we shall never use 'Black Shirts'tactics, nor warped rethoric, nor brandish unsubstantiated facts, nor lend a deaf ear, nor diffame the good reputation of those who do not share our views-

Neither, I regret to say, shall we ever condone the manners of theTransport Portfolio Holder in fullfilling his duties of Community Involvement- Instead, we await with interest the outcome of the enquiry into his comments to the Cornishman evoking the spirit of Goebbels on Holocaust Memorial Day-”

“Supporters of Option RP, BE informed: consider the words of Andrew George: " ...if the decision taken yesterday was soundly based and can therefore withstand the further scrutiny it will inevitably face...The Planning Committee will no doubt have understood the... caution that they were reconsidering a planning application which had altered little (if at all) since it was rejected by the same Planning Committee less than three months ago. The Committee will no doubt be able to explain why it changed its mind even though English Heritage maintained its objection. Providing it is able to show that the Council and its Committee has discharged its duties in a proper manner ..." in conjunction with the representation by CPRE Cornwall: " ... the proposed works are described... on the application form as one of demolition (in total or partial) of a listed building. The application description plays down the demolition but it is this part which is the most important element of the proposal and which requires the most thorough and comprehensive assessment to see if it is justified....
The Government advice on managing listed buildings is set out in Planning Policy PPG15. This includes advice on the demolition (in part or in total) of a listed building which is set out in paragraphs 3.16 to 3.19. The criteria in paragraph 3.19 against which demolition proposals have to be tested against are of paramount importance. The overriding presumption is that listed buildings will not be demolished.

From what CPRE Cornwall can see the applicant does not appear to have addressed the specific requirements of ...PPG15 in the application and statement. This is a fundamental and serious omission and one which would in most cases have made the application invalid for registration in most if not all other Councils or LPAs. In my professional view it renders the application incapable at present of determination, unless it is refused, as essential information has not been submitted by the applicant. If the application was to be approved without (these)... requirements having been addressed in full, then any permission will, in my professional view, be open to a potential successful Judicial Review of the LPA¿s decision....

What is most alarming in this case is that the Council is the applicant. It should set the very highest standards when submitting applications of this nature. It is quite inexcusable in CPRE Cornwall¿s view that as the applicant, Cornwall Council has not thought it had to comply with (these) requirements. There is a real danger in this case that the Council and LPA will been seen externally as determined to secure approval of this project at any cost and regardless of planning and listed building rules, guidance and requirements..."

But then, the Mob probably doesn't care about the legalities: only Hippies & Dolphin Huggers care about Democracy in Kernow! -”

“I am shocked by some of the WMN coverage: " after the proposal was thrown into disarray by an outright rejection, Cornwall councillors performed " a U-turn ..." ?
Our town was thrown into disarray long ago, when for over 2 years Councils and the RP repetitevely distorted facts, lied and treated the people of PZ with uttermost contempt,
relentlessly and stubornly steamrolling the public, ignoring the results of Poll after poll after poll, while ploughing on with an Option that in the first instance had been wisely rejected by their own consutlants, Hyder, in 2004- refusing to give a genuine chance to the many alternative options with same if not greater benefits for the Service yet respecting our Historic Assets and affording genuine prospects for the regenration of PZ- So let us rewrite the copy: " Common sense prevailed at the 2 historic public meetings organised by AG & the SPC- The perfectly legitimate & democratic Vote rejecting these monstruous proposals opened the door to the possibility of putting 'Option RP' to rest and focus on an alternative that would genuinely bring regeneration to PZ- No one needed loose face- Instead the Powers that be chose to mount a slander campaign against those who had done nothing but exercise their right and duty of community involvmenent in defending our historic assets- They did a grand job of it: " The silent majority" now evoked -( and how silent they have been for the last 2 years!) - seems more like Mob mentality to me- Not pretty- in fact, vicious, as reflected by some of the slandering comments here: Nope, we aint hippies, and some of us care more about the Future of PZ than we do about whales; we do not believe that the Jubilee Poll will be concreted over: We KNOW that the vibrations from construction are likely to damage its Structure & cause air pollution - We considered the Policies 'saved by the the n Secretary of State specific to these proposals put in place to ensurre the modernisation of the Link preserved our Heritage, the land and sea views from the Bay, etc- We NOTICED that, in summer, tourists DO flock to Battery Rocks at low tide and may not fancy doing so when the beach has become a mini industrial estate with 12 or more giant refrigerating reefers humming day & night and a consttant outpouring of fraight traffic- It is a fact that the capacity for visited accomodation on the Scillies being limited, the sacrifice of our Town's prime beauty spot will NOT bring the promised outpouring of overnighting visitors- Instead, the planned runabout right on the Promenade to accomodate them lorries, shan't in our opinion, benefit the local B&Bs- People, the FofPZH, John Maggs, The PZ Civic Society, Our Town Counciil, the PZ Harbour Users Association , English Heritage ,all of whom objected and object still to 'Option RP' ARE better informed that you shall ever be- Until you face the consequences - They have spent endless hours studying all aspects of the proposals - People who ran the Service for years, currently work on the freight side, have fairly and squarely examined the facts and figures- Andrew George had the courage to challenged the impartiality of the appraisals, which were biaised & misleading- No one listened - Instead, the 'silent majority' which is no majority bought into superficial and unsubstantiated scaremongering rumours, vicious attacks on persons & empty slogans -Someone wrote here in support of this massacre: " This is much better than building freight facilities in the middle of our town" ( or such) - He-llo , People!!! Unless this second Vote IS subjected to the scrutiny it deserves, we ARE about to build industrial facilities at the heart of Historic PZ- Wizzard of OZ stule, it shall be a case of " Do not look behind the Wall..."Since December, in an admirably ( and no doubt expensively ) orchestrated PR campaign, the RP and the Executive have tapped into and aggravated the ugliest aspect of 'group mind': Objecto”

“We must overturn this ''do as you are told'' logic of the unitary authority, clearly disinterested in local democracy and fragmented local politics. It's shown contempt for localism/pluralism, and a contempt for democracy. This should be of increasing concern to people across Cornwall.

Local communities should be given more power and resources in creating and shaping their futures, and resolving complex local issues by working inpartnership
with local town council's, businesses, organisations, community groups
etc. Proper local networking with a harmonisation of interests. What people fail to realise, is that they
did not 'make the decision', rather, the decision was already made for
them.

No doubt some of the SPC were 'worked on' and given sweeties by the cabinet.”

“We must overturn this ''do as you are told'' logic of the unitary authority, clearly disinterested in local democracy and fragmented local politics. It's shown contempt for localism/pluralism, and a contempt for democracy. This should be of increasing concern to people across Cornwall.

Local communities should be given more power and resources in creating and shaping their futures, and resolving complex local issues by working inpartnership
with local town council's, businesses, organisations, community groups
etc. Proper local networking with a harmonisation of interests. What people fail to realise, is that they
did not 'make the decision', rather, the decision was already made for
them.

No doubt some of the SPC were 'worked on' and given sweeties by the cabinet.”

“In response to J Maggs. The tissue of misleading information eminated from FoPH ¿ even now we meet objectors who still think the new buildings are being built on Battery Rocks and that Jubilee Pool is being concreted over.

Far from looking foolish the Council and Councillors redeemed themselves. They had taken the first decision with incomplete information and with a grossly distorted view of public opinion. As our representatives they have to give weight to different aspects of the case for and against consent - they have to consider the publics view. FoPH harbour were effective in making the minority view appear to be the majority view . Anybody putting their head above the parapet in favour got stamped on. Business, the greatest threat to the claim of universal opposition, was threatened with a boycott.

FoPH succeeded in the first attempt to get its way but it created frustration and hostility amongst ordinary residents many of whom through the FoPH viewpoint extreme, short-sighted and narrow. As soon as supporters canvassed in favour from 16 Jan 10 they were inundated with support.

I do not think I have met anybody on either side of the argument who does not think that our heritage is important. Supporters felt that FoPH were just hiding behind 'heritage' as an excuse to say no to change. No change meant further decay of the harbour and eventual loss of the ferry and jobs (a point FoPH dispute) and jobs.

I would agree any examination of the whole project from inception would find failings in communication between the Councils involved and the public affected. Lessons can be learnt from this. It does not mean in our relatively conservative (small C) community there would not have been those who would prefer the status quo and particularly if their own livelihood was not at stake. Any examination of the whole project would hardly cast FoPH in an admirable light (although skilfully organized we all admit).

The fundamental weakness in the FoPH case was that it did not have a credible alternative and without that residents knew the ferry would be lost sooner or later. The more knowledgable also knew that South Pier was deteriorating with iron staples linking large blocks in the end of the Pier rusting through and hole large enough to hide your arm in showing the damaging effect of the sea over the years. Option Pz, which was an honest attempt to shoe-horn all the facilities onto the dockside, illustrated the problem of finding a solution without creation of additional space. A freight shed which would have been largely hidden been old and new sea walls under Option A was to go where the Waterside Meadery is today. There was not the remotest chance of the Town accepting that horrendous compromise to protect a shalely beach few rated as significant and which anyway would be buried in rock armour at some point.

In the end common sense prevailed. We just need to see it through and get on with other projects the Towns needs to maintain its sea front and regenerate the harbour area - a regeneration unimpedied by freight or passenger facilities right in the middle of it. Hopefully we can find more concensus in these projects and all work together for the benefit of Penzance.”

“The sad thing about all this is that the people who have made the decision are indifferent to Penzance. They live elsewhere, they represent other towns in Cornwall and they took the easy option - to accept what some upcountry consultants decided and sod the local community.”

“''I don't understand why it matters if Penzance people 'want' it or not''

What a lovely viewpoint. I take it planning laws will be relaxed on scilly.”