Isles Council continues its bully-boy tactics

16/10/09

In response to the recent public meeting in Penzance, the Council of the Isles of Scilly has passed a motion of no confidence in Andrew George and voted to spend £3500 on a study to look at using Falmouth as an alternative to Penzance.

Andrew George has supported the Route Partnership and the Isles of Scilly Link project in every respect except how the Penzance harbour improvements are undertaken. In that respect he thinks, quite rightly, that the residents of Penzance should have a say. That the Council of the Isles of Scilly should take exception to this is beyond comprehension.

The Council of the Isles of Scilly has every right to decide how things are organised down at it own harbour, but no right at all to bully and intimidate Penzance residents (and their MP) into accepting something that will undermine their economy and natural and built environment for generations.

And Falmouth is not and has never been a viable alternative to Penzance. As Andrew George made clear at the recent public meeting the grant funding for the scheme is not available for Falmouth, and the Scilly Link improvements are not possible without grant funding.

But even if this wasn’t the case any attempt to operate from Falmouth would suffer a crippling double-whammy, with costs escalating and revenues falling.

Day trippers are an important source of revenue for the operator but the additional distance would increase the journey time and make day tripping to the islands almost impossible. The increased distance would also increase fuel consumption and wear and tear on the ship dramatically increasing operating costs. Income down and costs up would spell disaster for the operator who could only survive by pushing up its charges for sending freight to the Scillies.

The decision by the Council of the Isles of Scilly to spend £3500 on an appraisal of this option is ridiculous and clearly just another attempt to intimidate the residents of Penzance, who all value the Link, into accepting the destruction of the seafront. The amount being spent is further evidence of this; it might seem a lot but it is just 0.1% of what has already been spent on the original scheme, and is entirely inadequate for assessing the complexities of a move to Falmouth.

Response from Andrew George