This statement from the Isles of Scilly Steamship Co. was received 26th October from BBC Radio Cornwall.
- MEDIA RELEASE -
Board reaches final decision on British International
The Isles of Scilly Steamship Company can confirm that it has concluded its discussions with British International Helicopters about a move to Land’s End Airport from its current base in Penzance.
The Company, which operates lifeline passenger and freight services to the Isles of Scilly by air and sea, has made the announcement to its shareholders today (Tuesday 26 October).
Andrew May, Chairman of the Isles of Scilly Steamship Company, said: “After much consideration of British International’s request to move to Land’s End Airport, following its decision to sell Penzance Heliport, a final decision has been reached by our Board.
“Following the original discussions with British International about a move to Land’s End two years ago, the environment and economic landscape in which our Company is operating is fundamentally different now. We carefully considered all the risks and uncertainties facing the Company in the current economic climate - the additional commercial, environmental and reputation risks to our business, should we have agreed to British International’s proposals, are not acceptable.
“For a variety of reasons, including the need to fund the very considerable investment that, as preferred bidder, will be required if the Isles of Scilly Link project leads to the successful introduction of a new ship to replace both the Gry Maritha and the Scillonian III, we have decided not to continue negotiations with British International.
”Uncertainties about the outcome of Cornwall Council’s bid to the Department for Transport funding required by the Link Project and should the introduction of a new vessel be delayed beyond April 2013 for any reason, we believe that significant investment may be required in our existing vessels so they can continue to service the route.
“Whilst it has been decided to continue with enhancing passenger facilities at Land’s End, we would not wish to embark on a further significant programme of capital expenditure which would be required for helicopters to operate a regular scheduled service from the airport – the return from which would be uncertain for our shareholders,” he said.
The Isles of Scilly Steamship Company has been serving route to the islands for 90 years and has close to 1,000 shareholders, around half of whom live in the Scillies.
Mr May added, “By making our position clear at this early stage, it gives the best opportunity for all interested parties to formulate alternative plans. The provision of a sustainable lifeline service remains at the core of our business. We are fully committed to all islanders and the combined, robust air and sea services that our Company provides will continue to have the long-term interests of the community, our shareholders and businesses at heart.”
Ends
26, October 2010
Friday 13 August 2010
Joint letter to Secretary of State for Transport.,
Dear Mr Hammond,
Mismanagement could result in massive waste of taxpayer’s money
We are two distinct organisations in the far west of Cornwall with a common interest in a misguided Cornwall Council project that is seeking millions of pounds of DfT funding.
Cornwall Council has applied for funding for a “Route Partnership” scheme to improve
the sea link between Penzance and the Isles of Scilly. The Route Partnership (made up
of Cornwall Council, the Council of the Isles of Scilly and the Duchy of Cornwall) was set up to secure “lifeline” transport links between the Isles of Scilly and Penzance and ended up concentrating solely on the sea link.
Our concerns arise from the following:
• The sea link scheme is hugely controversial and the proposed “improvements” to
Penzance harbour (which will cost c.£25m) involve land reclamation, development
in an extremely sensitive location and the burying under infill and concrete of the
historically most important parts of the town’s precious Grade II* listed pier.
• The scheme also involves replacing a private-sector ferry operation with a Cornwall
Council owned ship (which will cost c.£25m) despite the private-sector operator of
the service for the last 90 years stating that their ships (freight and passenger) had years of life left in them and that they would continue their privately operated
service regardless of whether public funding was available or not. The current
anticipated total cost of the scheme is in excess of £65million.
• In contrast to the situation with the ferry service, the operator of the helicopter
service (which is the preferred transport option for Islanders and carries 47% of all
passengers) has made it clear that unless they are allowed to move their operation
from Penzance into an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty nearer to the Islands and
sell their Penzance heliport land to a supermarket chain they will have to close the
service.
• Amongst the various proposed alternatives to the Route Partnership scheme for the
sea link is a fast passenger ferry and separate freight ship operation. This option
has not been properly assessed by the Route Partnership despite it holding the
possibility of providing a fast passenger service to replace the failing helicopter and requiring a lighter touch to developments in Penzance Harbour.
Cornwall Council and others set up the Route Partnership to secure the lifeline links to the Isles of Scilly. They are on the verge of spending millions of pounds “improving” one lifeline service that has survived perfectly well in private hands for the last 90 years, while another vitally important lifeline link to the Islands is about to fail with no plan in place for an alternative service.
The operator of the helicopter service claims that they can deal with their financial
problems by selling off the land they inhabit at Penzance, but all the evidence points to this being only a temporary solution. Rising fuel and spare parts costs for their ageing helicopters will almost certainly result in the service closing for good in a relatively short time. And in the meantime an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty on the Heritage Coast and the many businesses that rely on it and trade between Lands End and the Lands End aerodrome will suffer, perhaps permanently.
At best Cornwall Council and the Route Partnership are guilty of taking their eye off the ball. But the circumstances surrounding other aspects of the scheme, and in particular their choice of location for new passenger and freight handling facilities in Penzance, suggest that the body is not fit for purpose.
If the above involved only Cornwall, its council and residents it would be a local
tragedy, but large sums of EU and DfT money are at stake and for this reason we ask
you to intervene and ensure that a full and comprehensive review of the transport
issues facing the Isles of Scilly is undertaken urgently. Only in this way we believe can a local tragedy be averted and scarce government funds be spent wisely.
John Maggs
Friends of Penzance Harbour
Tony White
Land’s End Aerodrome Action Group
cc. Andrew George MP
EU Petitions Committee
District Auditor
Mismanagement could result in massive waste of taxpayer’s money
We are two distinct organisations in the far west of Cornwall with a common interest in a misguided Cornwall Council project that is seeking millions of pounds of DfT funding.
Cornwall Council has applied for funding for a “Route Partnership” scheme to improve
the sea link between Penzance and the Isles of Scilly. The Route Partnership (made up
of Cornwall Council, the Council of the Isles of Scilly and the Duchy of Cornwall) was set up to secure “lifeline” transport links between the Isles of Scilly and Penzance and ended up concentrating solely on the sea link.
Our concerns arise from the following:
• The sea link scheme is hugely controversial and the proposed “improvements” to
Penzance harbour (which will cost c.£25m) involve land reclamation, development
in an extremely sensitive location and the burying under infill and concrete of the
historically most important parts of the town’s precious Grade II* listed pier.
• The scheme also involves replacing a private-sector ferry operation with a Cornwall
Council owned ship (which will cost c.£25m) despite the private-sector operator of
the service for the last 90 years stating that their ships (freight and passenger) had years of life left in them and that they would continue their privately operated
service regardless of whether public funding was available or not. The current
anticipated total cost of the scheme is in excess of £65million.
• In contrast to the situation with the ferry service, the operator of the helicopter
service (which is the preferred transport option for Islanders and carries 47% of all
passengers) has made it clear that unless they are allowed to move their operation
from Penzance into an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty nearer to the Islands and
sell their Penzance heliport land to a supermarket chain they will have to close the
service.
• Amongst the various proposed alternatives to the Route Partnership scheme for the
sea link is a fast passenger ferry and separate freight ship operation. This option
has not been properly assessed by the Route Partnership despite it holding the
possibility of providing a fast passenger service to replace the failing helicopter and requiring a lighter touch to developments in Penzance Harbour.
Cornwall Council and others set up the Route Partnership to secure the lifeline links to the Isles of Scilly. They are on the verge of spending millions of pounds “improving” one lifeline service that has survived perfectly well in private hands for the last 90 years, while another vitally important lifeline link to the Islands is about to fail with no plan in place for an alternative service.
The operator of the helicopter service claims that they can deal with their financial
problems by selling off the land they inhabit at Penzance, but all the evidence points to this being only a temporary solution. Rising fuel and spare parts costs for their ageing helicopters will almost certainly result in the service closing for good in a relatively short time. And in the meantime an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty on the Heritage Coast and the many businesses that rely on it and trade between Lands End and the Lands End aerodrome will suffer, perhaps permanently.
At best Cornwall Council and the Route Partnership are guilty of taking their eye off the ball. But the circumstances surrounding other aspects of the scheme, and in particular their choice of location for new passenger and freight handling facilities in Penzance, suggest that the body is not fit for purpose.
If the above involved only Cornwall, its council and residents it would be a local
tragedy, but large sums of EU and DfT money are at stake and for this reason we ask
you to intervene and ensure that a full and comprehensive review of the transport
issues facing the Isles of Scilly is undertaken urgently. Only in this way we believe can a local tragedy be averted and scarce government funds be spent wisely.
John Maggs
Friends of Penzance Harbour
Tony White
Land’s End Aerodrome Action Group
cc. Andrew George MP
EU Petitions Committee
District Auditor
Monday 21 June 2010
Letter to Cornishman, published 17th June.
So, we all look on as the clash of the Titans begins and Sainsbury's, Tesco and British International Helicopters square up to each other in an exercise to either protect their assets (Tesco,) expand their assets (Sainsbury's) or strip their assets (BIH.) This month’s minutes from Penzance Chamber of Commerce states that Tesco have purchased Ponsandane field and are submitting a planning application by August 10 to extend the store to double its size, prior to Sainsbury submitting their plans, by September 10.
Sadly, I have seen no evidence from any of them, that they have considered the consequences their actions will have on Penwith’s greatest asset, its natural beauty. When considering the Sainsbury planning application, will the authorities recognise the tragic knock on effect that a relocation of the heliport to Land’s End might have, if they allow it? If BIH fly from Land’s End Aerodrome, our designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (including Whitesand Bay, its coastal path and surrounding countryside,) will be severely challenged by an 100 percent increase in air traffic, and the subsequent noise and emissions from low flying helicopters landing and taking off. Road traffic will reach dangerous levels. Perhaps, planning objections featuring this environmental trauma will fail to fit into the neatly defined criteria required by the authorities. If this is so, who will champion our AONB in the face of such a strong line up?
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 Part 1V - section 85 states that ’relevant authorities’ will have a regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB: areas that have been designated the highest status of protection in relation to their landscape and scenic beauty. Under the Act, parish councils, town councils and county councils are ‘relevant authorities.’
BIH are currently negotiating their relocation and Tesco and Sainsbury's preparing their planning applications. I hope and expect that our councils will uphold their statutory duties, by entering negotiations on behalf of the AONB. These should include, at the very least, the process of ‘scoping,’ to determine the content and extent of matters that should be submitted to the authorities for projects which are subject to an environmental impact assessment.
If not, then poor guardianship could be responsible for despoliation of one of OUR most precious assets.
Caroline Passingham
Sadly, I have seen no evidence from any of them, that they have considered the consequences their actions will have on Penwith’s greatest asset, its natural beauty. When considering the Sainsbury planning application, will the authorities recognise the tragic knock on effect that a relocation of the heliport to Land’s End might have, if they allow it? If BIH fly from Land’s End Aerodrome, our designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (including Whitesand Bay, its coastal path and surrounding countryside,) will be severely challenged by an 100 percent increase in air traffic, and the subsequent noise and emissions from low flying helicopters landing and taking off. Road traffic will reach dangerous levels. Perhaps, planning objections featuring this environmental trauma will fail to fit into the neatly defined criteria required by the authorities. If this is so, who will champion our AONB in the face of such a strong line up?
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 Part 1V - section 85 states that ’relevant authorities’ will have a regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB: areas that have been designated the highest status of protection in relation to their landscape and scenic beauty. Under the Act, parish councils, town councils and county councils are ‘relevant authorities.’
BIH are currently negotiating their relocation and Tesco and Sainsbury's preparing their planning applications. I hope and expect that our councils will uphold their statutory duties, by entering negotiations on behalf of the AONB. These should include, at the very least, the process of ‘scoping,’ to determine the content and extent of matters that should be submitted to the authorities for projects which are subject to an environmental impact assessment.
If not, then poor guardianship could be responsible for despoliation of one of OUR most precious assets.
Caroline Passingham
Saturday 12 June 2010
LETTER TO CORNISHMAN 4TH JUNE
This week Cornwall County Council announced the loss of over 60 jobs in Waste Management Services; the first of many casualties to come.
According to the Television News Cornwall County Council has got to save over £100 million during the next five years, so here's a free gift to help them on their way.
The Route Partnership plan for the Isles of Scilly service is going to cost about £68 million [has anyone ever seen one of these projects come in on budget?] plus financing. I don't know what interest rates Cornwall County Council pay but an average of 5% seems a reasonable guess. At that, the interest will add about £3.4 million a year for the life of the project [20 years?] but over the first five years alone about £17 million. That seems a lot of money to provide inadequate support for half a percent of Cornwall's population.
The reason, apparently, for spending this huge sum, which on its own will increase the County debt by over 10%, is to obtain an EU grant of £20 million. So the cost over the full five years will be around £65million, after they've got the £20million back.
Now here's a thing. If CCC had adopted the Trythall Shipping proposal, over the same five years it would have cost £16million-£18million plus , say £850k per year in interest. That is £4.5 million over five years. So the Trythall five year cost would seem to be around £22 million.
For that we'd get a faster, smoother service, giving a Penzance to Scillys crossing time that would be only fifteen minutes longer than the time it will take to fly from Lands End Aerodrome by Skybus or BIH when the summer road journey's added in. And, at the end of the period, we'd own a ship that would have a marketable value rather than a seasick making white elephant that is apparently only suitable for the Scillys service so will have no residual value other than as scrap.
That, as far I can see, will save us; the Cornwall County Council taxpayers, a minimum of £44million, protect Penzance harbour, and secure a fast crossing to the Scillys on 99% of the sailing days against about 86% flying days from Lands End aerodrome; a guaranteed more reliable service, and no major harbour works in Penzance.
So there you are. Nearly half the required £100 million savings we have to find and a better technical solution. If CCC don't want to save it all they could use some {£10 million?] to purchase the heliport and lease it back to BIH. That way BIH will survive a little longer and at the end of the day the County may have purchased an appreciating asset to sell on if BIH close.
Good answers don't have to be complicated. They just have to make sense.
Isn't it about time Cornwall County Council's representatives and senior management started taking up their responsibilities to its tax payers, electorate and employees and not worry about saving face by having to change their minds. Savings of this order could save hundreds of jobs, help protect vital services and protect the Scillys link if and when BIH closes.
Please note that I have no interest in Trythall shipping other than appreciating the logic of their proposals which I have seen confirmed by the apparently very accurate quotations and costings that Mr Cartwright has been able to assemble. I am, however, happy to declare an interest in how CCC spend or waste my Council tax and protect our environment and vital services.
Tony White
Chairman . Lands End Aerodrome Action Group.
According to the Television News Cornwall County Council has got to save over £100 million during the next five years, so here's a free gift to help them on their way.
The Route Partnership plan for the Isles of Scilly service is going to cost about £68 million [has anyone ever seen one of these projects come in on budget?] plus financing. I don't know what interest rates Cornwall County Council pay but an average of 5% seems a reasonable guess. At that, the interest will add about £3.4 million a year for the life of the project [20 years?] but over the first five years alone about £17 million. That seems a lot of money to provide inadequate support for half a percent of Cornwall's population.
The reason, apparently, for spending this huge sum, which on its own will increase the County debt by over 10%, is to obtain an EU grant of £20 million. So the cost over the full five years will be around £65million, after they've got the £20million back.
Now here's a thing. If CCC had adopted the Trythall Shipping proposal, over the same five years it would have cost £16million-£18million plus , say £850k per year in interest. That is £4.5 million over five years. So the Trythall five year cost would seem to be around £22 million.
For that we'd get a faster, smoother service, giving a Penzance to Scillys crossing time that would be only fifteen minutes longer than the time it will take to fly from Lands End Aerodrome by Skybus or BIH when the summer road journey's added in. And, at the end of the period, we'd own a ship that would have a marketable value rather than a seasick making white elephant that is apparently only suitable for the Scillys service so will have no residual value other than as scrap.
That, as far I can see, will save us; the Cornwall County Council taxpayers, a minimum of £44million, protect Penzance harbour, and secure a fast crossing to the Scillys on 99% of the sailing days against about 86% flying days from Lands End aerodrome; a guaranteed more reliable service, and no major harbour works in Penzance.
So there you are. Nearly half the required £100 million savings we have to find and a better technical solution. If CCC don't want to save it all they could use some {£10 million?] to purchase the heliport and lease it back to BIH. That way BIH will survive a little longer and at the end of the day the County may have purchased an appreciating asset to sell on if BIH close.
Good answers don't have to be complicated. They just have to make sense.
Isn't it about time Cornwall County Council's representatives and senior management started taking up their responsibilities to its tax payers, electorate and employees and not worry about saving face by having to change their minds. Savings of this order could save hundreds of jobs, help protect vital services and protect the Scillys link if and when BIH closes.
Please note that I have no interest in Trythall shipping other than appreciating the logic of their proposals which I have seen confirmed by the apparently very accurate quotations and costings that Mr Cartwright has been able to assemble. I am, however, happy to declare an interest in how CCC spend or waste my Council tax and protect our environment and vital services.
Tony White
Chairman . Lands End Aerodrome Action Group.
Thursday 27 May 2010
JOIN LEAAG’S POSTER CAMPAIGN
POSTER CAMPAIGN
YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE
BIH have announced that they are currently exploring the best sites to relocate to. DISPLAY A POSTER AND CAR STICKER to demonstrate the opposition there is to helicopters flying from Land’s End Aerodrome.
To obtain your poster/car stickers e-mail leaag.group@gmail.com
YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE
BIH have announced that they are currently exploring the best sites to relocate to. DISPLAY A POSTER AND CAR STICKER to demonstrate the opposition there is to helicopters flying from Land’s End Aerodrome.
To obtain your poster/car stickers e-mail leaag.group@gmail.com
Thursday 13 May 2010
CHAIRMAN'S LETTER PUBLISHED IN CORNISHMAN 13/04/2010
I find myself in something of a quandary with Kevin Patterson. No sane person can argue with his description of our coastline, whose rugged beauty 'compares with anything on the planet'. His eulogy to ' the granite cliffs, the rocky coves, the spectacular clear waters teeming with life.' The fine old market town of Penzance and all that it represents.
Presuming he is the same Kevin that has previously written in support of Sainsbury's arrival I'm confused by this follow up. How Penzance will be improved by adding the concrete and asphalt of a fifteen acre supermarket site on an area that at least has the merit of bringing a splash of grass to the main approach into the town I can't understand. And why this town with a population of 20,000 and six existing supermarkets needs a seventh, or eighth if Morrison's plans are realised, is beyond me
Further if, by providing the new Sainsbury's store, the result is the move of the Noisy Smelly 'flying all day' helicopters to Lands End Aerodrome in the heart of the spectacular scenery he rightly loves so much, it looks like a double whammy.
Speaking to the environment agency, it appears that the whole of the heliport site was once a refuse dump in which some rather unpleasant materials were tipped. If correct it will take considerable work to seal or remove them. I don't know it the local bush telegraph has the story right but it says that when the heliport was first built in 1964 they had to excavate down to 18 feet and back fill before they could start building. If the same still applied, St Sainsbury would need to move about a quarter of a million cubic metres of material, transport it out of Cornwall, because it seems there would be no where to tip it here, and then bring in the same amount of back fill. Months of heavy transport possibly carrying unhealthy materials past every site bordering the A30
And then, as a final blow, they'd cover the water absorbent grass of the heliport with tarmac and roofs on a site at least half of which is high risk flood plain...
I can totally sympathise with his desire to move the disturbance of the helicopters away but the truth is that the only reason they have such a successful operation [although barely profitable if Tony Jones is to be believed] is because they operate from the Penzance transport hub.
Plus any move away from there would directly and indirectly contravene over fifty of the local plan planning guidelines and cause environmental havoc to a huge tract of West Penwith's most beautiful countryside, and the businesses that rely on its tranquillity to bring in their tourists. And I'm sure he wouldn't want that either.
Tony White. St Buryan
Presuming he is the same Kevin that has previously written in support of Sainsbury's arrival I'm confused by this follow up. How Penzance will be improved by adding the concrete and asphalt of a fifteen acre supermarket site on an area that at least has the merit of bringing a splash of grass to the main approach into the town I can't understand. And why this town with a population of 20,000 and six existing supermarkets needs a seventh, or eighth if Morrison's plans are realised, is beyond me
Further if, by providing the new Sainsbury's store, the result is the move of the Noisy Smelly 'flying all day' helicopters to Lands End Aerodrome in the heart of the spectacular scenery he rightly loves so much, it looks like a double whammy.
Speaking to the environment agency, it appears that the whole of the heliport site was once a refuse dump in which some rather unpleasant materials were tipped. If correct it will take considerable work to seal or remove them. I don't know it the local bush telegraph has the story right but it says that when the heliport was first built in 1964 they had to excavate down to 18 feet and back fill before they could start building. If the same still applied, St Sainsbury would need to move about a quarter of a million cubic metres of material, transport it out of Cornwall, because it seems there would be no where to tip it here, and then bring in the same amount of back fill. Months of heavy transport possibly carrying unhealthy materials past every site bordering the A30
And then, as a final blow, they'd cover the water absorbent grass of the heliport with tarmac and roofs on a site at least half of which is high risk flood plain...
I can totally sympathise with his desire to move the disturbance of the helicopters away but the truth is that the only reason they have such a successful operation [although barely profitable if Tony Jones is to be believed] is because they operate from the Penzance transport hub.
Plus any move away from there would directly and indirectly contravene over fifty of the local plan planning guidelines and cause environmental havoc to a huge tract of West Penwith's most beautiful countryside, and the businesses that rely on its tranquillity to bring in their tourists. And I'm sure he wouldn't want that either.
Tony White. St Buryan
Monday 10 May 2010
IMPORTANT NOTICE
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
Sunday May 23, 3.00pm. St Just Methodist Church, Chapel St. St. Just
This is a time for action and consolidation.
Bring along as many people as you can.
Sunday May 23, 3.00pm. St Just Methodist Church, Chapel St. St. Just
This is a time for action and consolidation.
Bring along as many people as you can.
