Time to talk about alternatives
15/4/09The Friends of Penzance Harbour have welcomed an initiative from Andrew George MP to start talks between objectors and the Route Partnership, but insist that discussions must be about finding the best alternative to the unpopular Route Partnership plans.
In a letter dated April 8th Andrew George calls for a “seminar” where representatives of the two sides can “cross examine” each other’s plans for Penzance Harbour, suggesting that the public will again be presented with the Route Partnership’s scheme to build on Battery Rocks beach.
The Friends of Penzance Harbour welcome the opportunity to talk with the Route Partnership, but the discussions must focus on the alternatives to building on Battery Rocks beach. The public’s response to the two Route Partnership pre-planning consultation exhibitions and the hundreds of objections made to the subsequent planning application make any further discussion about the proposal to build on Battery Rocks beach inappropriate. This will never be an approach that is acceptable to the Friends of Penzance Harbour or the thousands of local residents that have expressed an opinion in recent months, and we should not waste time discussing it further.
So that discussions can take place in an open and equitable way the Friends of Penzance Harbour believe that the Route Partnership should also first withdraw their planning application to build on Battery Rocks beach.
Tim Wood, Route Partnership Project Director, appears to have rejected such talks, and in the Cornishman is reported as saying "if an alternative proposal was now considered worthy of development it would require approval from Cornwall Council to fund another design and consultation process, modify Harbour Revision Orders, resubmit the business case to the Department for Transport for approval and resubmit for planning approval [and] that alternative scheme could cost £1m to £1.5m to develop.”
The Route Partnership have recklessly poured funds into a project without proper public consultation and when it turns out no-one wants it they say they can’t consider alternatives because it would cost too much. This in itself is outrageous, but their cheek is compounded by the fact that they know perfectly well that the alternatives being proposed are all likely to be cheaper than their scheme to build on a beach. Indeed, the main alternative being proposed (the out of town freight forwarding depot) would not require a Harbour Revision Order or planning permission, and who would object to an approach that removes over 250 cars, vans and lorries from the congested harbour area for every freight sailing.
Cornishman article