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.
Saturday, 1 May 2010
Letter to ‘The Cornishman’ published 29th April.
From comments in the press and those circulated, for example, by Penzance Chamber of Commerce, it now seems clear that British International Helicopters will be flying from Land’s End Aerodrome when they leave their present site. The aerodrome lies within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and abuts a designated Heritage Coast. Presently there are 10 Cornish choughs being monitored by the RSPB between Pendeen and Gwennap Head. Thousands of visitors enjoy a variety of recreational activities in this beautiful part of Cornwall. We are told that BIH are compelled to realise the capital on their Eastern Green site, but at what cost to this region?
The regular drone of aircraft from Land’s End Aerodrome is a common sound along the coastal plain between Bartinney Downs and Whitesand Bay. If BIH also fly from the airport, they could be approximately three times as loud as the fixed wing, taking off and landing about every twenty minutes during high season. Such an imposition, of the same noise and noxious emissions that the people of Eastern Green and Gulval currently endure, added to the existing aircraft noise experienced at Land’s End, needs urgent formal appraisal.
This is not something new. In February 2009 the Land Use Planning Adviser for the National Trust asked Penwith District Council if they would be calling for an Environmental Impact Assessment concerning Westward Airways application for runway lighting, as the aerodrome was in a ‘sensitive area’ due to its AONB designation. In July 1997 the Government Office for the South West, ruled that Land’s End Aerodrome needed an EIA concerning their application to extend runways and install lighting. If BIH operate from Land’s End Aerodrome the environmental consequences are likely to be more severe than either of those developments.
Do the Parish Councils of Sennen and St Buryan, St Just Town Council, Cornwall Council, our MP, and the Duke of Cornwall have evidence of the culmination of noise levels and emissions that the BIH move could cause? If not, will they acknowledge their responsibility to the people they serve by calling on BIH to provide an EIA? The significant encroachment on the environment, roads, businesses, residents and tourism that the relocation might cause, deserves nothing less than the rigorous scrutiny an EIA offers.
Caroline Passingham, Kelynack
The regular drone of aircraft from Land’s End Aerodrome is a common sound along the coastal plain between Bartinney Downs and Whitesand Bay. If BIH also fly from the airport, they could be approximately three times as loud as the fixed wing, taking off and landing about every twenty minutes during high season. Such an imposition, of the same noise and noxious emissions that the people of Eastern Green and Gulval currently endure, added to the existing aircraft noise experienced at Land’s End, needs urgent formal appraisal.
This is not something new. In February 2009 the Land Use Planning Adviser for the National Trust asked Penwith District Council if they would be calling for an Environmental Impact Assessment concerning Westward Airways application for runway lighting, as the aerodrome was in a ‘sensitive area’ due to its AONB designation. In July 1997 the Government Office for the South West, ruled that Land’s End Aerodrome needed an EIA concerning their application to extend runways and install lighting. If BIH operate from Land’s End Aerodrome the environmental consequences are likely to be more severe than either of those developments.
Do the Parish Councils of Sennen and St Buryan, St Just Town Council, Cornwall Council, our MP, and the Duke of Cornwall have evidence of the culmination of noise levels and emissions that the BIH move could cause? If not, will they acknowledge their responsibility to the people they serve by calling on BIH to provide an EIA? The significant encroachment on the environment, roads, businesses, residents and tourism that the relocation might cause, deserves nothing less than the rigorous scrutiny an EIA offers.
Caroline Passingham, Kelynack
Thursday, 22 April 2010
Letter to the Cornishman Newspaper
Thursday April 22, 2010
Today’s letter to the Cornishman from Chairman Tony White
Tony Jones, as a highly professional business man, is to be congratulated. It takes real skill to present a disaster as a triumph but he’s tried to pull it off.
We’ve not commented before as some of the proposals details were a little obscure but from the comments now in circulation it would appear BIH plan to relocate their operating and service base to Newquay and run their Scilly Isles service from Lands End Aerodrome. The site they pulled out of in 1964 after four months of summer operation in which they suffered over 14% weather related flight cancellations and which has been out of service for weeks over the past two winters.
So what will this move achieve?
- a further decline in Penzance’s independent retail trade
- drop in the day trip traffic to the Isles of Scilly, with Tresco, in particular, likely to suffer.
- an increased flood risk in the Eastern Green flood plain as around 13 acres of absorbent grassland is covered by supermarket roofs and asphalt car parking
- huge environmental noise, fume and visual pollution from Lands End to St Just over hotels, B&B’s, holiday homes and camping sites in West Penwith’s premier tourism location; an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty on the Heritage coast; an area whose beaches have been chosen by their visitors because of their beauty and tranquillity, beaches soon to be blighted by these ancient helicopters. The immediate loss of business and employment is inevitable.
- the transfer of a successful business [BIH] with no real competition to its unique selling points, which are almost entirely a result of its current location, to the base of its major competitor; a competitor whose flight operating costs, we are informed by our own experts, are about 70% lower per passenger mile and whose return ticket price undercuts BIH’s slower, smellier, noisier service by £35 per ticket
- dangerous and damaging road congestion, particularly during the summer months on the A30 and B3306, amongst others.
- huge increase in the County’s carbon footprint as a result of the tens of thousands of unnecessary extra vehicle journeys from Penzance to Land’s End Aerodrome.
We are told there is nowhere in the world where helicopters and fixed wing aircraft operate over the same route where the helicopter service survives. They are destroyed by their cost disadvantages, so in a relatively short time we will lose all BIH current employment and the peripheral business and employment it brings to accommodation providers, restaurants etc.
If Cornwall County Council are serious about the retention of a helicopter link to the Isles of Scilly they should purchase the site themselves and lease it back to BIH. The only reason for BIH’s decision to sell the site must be to release capital in the site, because any move from Eastern Green makes no commercial sense. If CCC take it over they could use part of the site for the harbour lorry park. Then they might even save some money, and paying the same price as Sainsburys would give them a marketable asset which they could sell on if and when BIH finally closes.
And if CCC aren’t prepared to make this investment perhaps they should urgently reconsider their harbour policy and bring in the fast twin hulled service, or within four years the Scillys are going to find themselves without a fast service link.
Meanwhile all we can say is: “Nice one Tony. What a well presented mirage. Your PR team must feel very pleased with themselves”
Tony White .Chairman Lands End Aerodrome Action Group
Today’s letter to the Cornishman from Chairman Tony White
Tony Jones, as a highly professional business man, is to be congratulated. It takes real skill to present a disaster as a triumph but he’s tried to pull it off.
We’ve not commented before as some of the proposals details were a little obscure but from the comments now in circulation it would appear BIH plan to relocate their operating and service base to Newquay and run their Scilly Isles service from Lands End Aerodrome. The site they pulled out of in 1964 after four months of summer operation in which they suffered over 14% weather related flight cancellations and which has been out of service for weeks over the past two winters.
So what will this move achieve?
- a further decline in Penzance’s independent retail trade
- drop in the day trip traffic to the Isles of Scilly, with Tresco, in particular, likely to suffer.
- an increased flood risk in the Eastern Green flood plain as around 13 acres of absorbent grassland is covered by supermarket roofs and asphalt car parking
- huge environmental noise, fume and visual pollution from Lands End to St Just over hotels, B&B’s, holiday homes and camping sites in West Penwith’s premier tourism location; an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty on the Heritage coast; an area whose beaches have been chosen by their visitors because of their beauty and tranquillity, beaches soon to be blighted by these ancient helicopters. The immediate loss of business and employment is inevitable.
- the transfer of a successful business [BIH] with no real competition to its unique selling points, which are almost entirely a result of its current location, to the base of its major competitor; a competitor whose flight operating costs, we are informed by our own experts, are about 70% lower per passenger mile and whose return ticket price undercuts BIH’s slower, smellier, noisier service by £35 per ticket
- dangerous and damaging road congestion, particularly during the summer months on the A30 and B3306, amongst others.
- huge increase in the County’s carbon footprint as a result of the tens of thousands of unnecessary extra vehicle journeys from Penzance to Land’s End Aerodrome.
We are told there is nowhere in the world where helicopters and fixed wing aircraft operate over the same route where the helicopter service survives. They are destroyed by their cost disadvantages, so in a relatively short time we will lose all BIH current employment and the peripheral business and employment it brings to accommodation providers, restaurants etc.
If Cornwall County Council are serious about the retention of a helicopter link to the Isles of Scilly they should purchase the site themselves and lease it back to BIH. The only reason for BIH’s decision to sell the site must be to release capital in the site, because any move from Eastern Green makes no commercial sense. If CCC take it over they could use part of the site for the harbour lorry park. Then they might even save some money, and paying the same price as Sainsburys would give them a marketable asset which they could sell on if and when BIH finally closes.
And if CCC aren’t prepared to make this investment perhaps they should urgently reconsider their harbour policy and bring in the fast twin hulled service, or within four years the Scillys are going to find themselves without a fast service link.
Meanwhile all we can say is: “Nice one Tony. What a well presented mirage. Your PR team must feel very pleased with themselves”
Tony White .Chairman Lands End Aerodrome Action Group
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Letter to Cornwall County Council
23 June 2009
Dear Mr. Mosely,
Re - Land’s End Aerodrome
We understand that you have replaced Mr. Edgecombe as Group Leader and we wish you every success in your new job.
Over the last three months LEAAG has liaised with five different Council personnel, whilst attempting to secure consultee status for our group in the event of any planning applications being submitted concerning Land's End Aerodrome. To avoid any confusion, and also in reply to Mr. Edgecombe's letter of 15/06/09, we feel it appropriate to confirm our understandings so far. These are -
Dear Mr. Mosely,
We understand that you have replaced Mr. Edgecombe as Group Leader and we wish you every success in your new job.
Over the last three months LEAAG has liaised with five different Council personnel, whilst attempting to secure consultee status for our group in the event of any planning applications being submitted concerning Land's End Aerodrome. To avoid any confusion, and also in reply to Mr. Edgecombe's letter of 15/06/09, we feel it appropriate to confirm our understandings so far. These are -
- that Cornwall Council will give LEAAG the opportunity to comment on any planning application that is submitted for development on the aerodrome
- that LEAAG will be consulted before the officer writes his report/recommendation
- that LEAAG's interest in any development on the site has been recorded on the history file for the site
- that Cornwall Council advise any developer to consult with LEAAG at the pre-application stage
- that under the Freedom of Information Act, LEAAG be given information of any meetings and discussions relating to the aerodrome, and all associated correspondence that is not confidential.
Thursday, 18 June 2009
Status of LEAAG
Non-Statutory Consultee status for LEAAG
In response to our letter of application to Cornwall Council for LEAAG to become non-statutory consultees pertaining to any planning matters relating to Land's End Aerodrome, we received the following reply.
LEAAG has continued to seek clear advice from the council concerning LEAAG’s status as non-statutory consultees and has just received the following letter from Paul Edgecombe, Interim Group Leader, Planning and Regeneration, Cornwall Council to C.Passingham LEAAG 15/6/09
In response to our letter of application to Cornwall Council for LEAAG to become non-statutory consultees pertaining to any planning matters relating to Land's End Aerodrome, we received the following reply.
"I am pleased to confirm that should we receive an application with regard to Land's End Aerodrome we will seek the comments of LEAAG before the officer writes his report/recommendation."Although we welcomed this statement, we sought confirmation that this was the same as non-statutory consultee status, which would involve LEAAG in pre-application discussions, if invited. The government recommends that local planning authorities should encourage and facilitate pre-application consultation between relevant parties. The letter above only prescribes notification after the planning application has been submitted.
LEAAG has continued to seek clear advice from the council concerning LEAAG’s status as non-statutory consultees and has just received the following letter from Paul Edgecombe, Interim Group Leader, Planning and Regeneration, Cornwall Council to C.Passingham LEAAG 15/6/09
"Land's End AerodromeWe will update members on any future developments concerning this issue.
I refer to previous correspondence and telephone conversations which concerns the above. I also refer to the message that you left on my voice mail today.
I write to place on record the response to your telephone call and so there is no misunderstanding. In the voice mail messages that you have left you reiterated your contention that your organisation, LEAAG should be considered non-statutory consultees and asked that this council will confirm such a status, which in your opinion will give you a greater chance of being involved in any pre-application discussions that concerns the aerodrome.
Before writing this letter I have referred to the document that you identified in your telephone call, the DCLG Statutory and Non Statutory Consultation Report, which was a 2001 consultation document. I have also referred to Circular 9/95 General Development Order Consolidation 1995 which identifies that non statutory consultees as those specified organisations that the government advises in ' various circulars and other guidance' should be consulted on development proposals. I have also discussed your contention with fellow planners and have received advice from one of the Council's Planning Solicitors, who confirms that you cannot be considered a non-stutory consultee, but can be informed of any application that is submitted on the site. She also confirms that there is no right for non-statutory ( or statutory) consultees to
be involved in pre-application discussions, but that, where appropriate, they could be invited to pre application discussions, as could any other party or individual.
From all that I have read and have been advised, I cannot confirm that your organisation is a 'non-statutory consultee.' However I would re-iterate that you will be given the opportunity to comment on any planning application that is submitted for development on the aerodrome and your interest in any development that is proposed on the site has been recorded on the history file for the site. Your wish to be involved in any pre-application discussions has also been noted."
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Rotor and Wing magazine
Rotor and Wing, an international magazine for those interested in aircraft, conducted a telephone interview with Jon Passingham in March after failing to obtain any information from British International Helicopters concerning their relocation. Add your voice in the comments slot at the end of the article. (We have informed them that Land's End is not in Wales!)
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
Latest News
Meeting with Westward
Tony White, Jon Passingham and Caroline Passingham met with Jeff Marston and colleagues, to discuss Westward's part in the BIH move. Mr Marston explained that Westward had plans to improve the airport's buildings but that any works would be within their current footprints, and subject to planning approval. LEAAG intend to monitor applications to check they maintain this position.
We were told that the landing lights were needed to improve flight safety for Skybus, not the helicopters. As they have been flying without them for 23 years, we would have to ask 'why?' They seem to think that as the lights are not necessarily permanent fixtures they won’t need planning permission. They will, however, be making a new Planning Application for them.
We outlined the reasons for LEAAG's opposition to the re location, discussing noise and fume pollution, floodlit car park installations, through to large scale building development. Jeff Marston confirmed that if the helicopter service closed, Skybus would be able to handle all BIH passengers with their current aircraft and without an huge increase in daily flights. They conceded that the car park issue would present them with problems.
We confirmed we are not intrinsically opposed to the airport, but would closely look at any development proposals.
LEAAG Presentation to Penzance Chamber of Commerce 7th April
Tony White and Jon Passingham attended the Chamber's meeting and Tony White presented LEAAG's concerns to them. As a result they have joined us as an organisation, with many members also wanting to join on an individual basis. This, on its own, increases our membership by over 120 people and businesses.
Membership
LEAAG has been targetting surfers and holiday makers at Sennen and Gwynver during the Easter holiday with nearly a hundred new members recruited over last week end alone.
Tony White, Jon Passingham and Caroline Passingham met with Jeff Marston and colleagues, to discuss Westward's part in the BIH move. Mr Marston explained that Westward had plans to improve the airport's buildings but that any works would be within their current footprints, and subject to planning approval. LEAAG intend to monitor applications to check they maintain this position.
We were told that the landing lights were needed to improve flight safety for Skybus, not the helicopters. As they have been flying without them for 23 years, we would have to ask 'why?' They seem to think that as the lights are not necessarily permanent fixtures they won’t need planning permission. They will, however, be making a new Planning Application for them.
We outlined the reasons for LEAAG's opposition to the re location, discussing noise and fume pollution, floodlit car park installations, through to large scale building development. Jeff Marston confirmed that if the helicopter service closed, Skybus would be able to handle all BIH passengers with their current aircraft and without an huge increase in daily flights. They conceded that the car park issue would present them with problems.
We confirmed we are not intrinsically opposed to the airport, but would closely look at any development proposals.
LEAAG Presentation to Penzance Chamber of Commerce 7th April
Tony White and Jon Passingham attended the Chamber's meeting and Tony White presented LEAAG's concerns to them. As a result they have joined us as an organisation, with many members also wanting to join on an individual basis. This, on its own, increases our membership by over 120 people and businesses.
Membership
LEAAG has been targetting surfers and holiday makers at Sennen and Gwynver during the Easter holiday with nearly a hundred new members recruited over last week end alone.
Thursday, 19 March 2009
Response from 'Old Mike'
"Following our response to Old Mike's article in the Cornishman in which he seemed to give some support to the heliport move he has published a generous review of his position in last weeks issue. He and the 'Cornishman' have kindly given us permission to republish it on our blog. You will note that his comments regarding the noise disturbance reinforce our own statements and concerns.
Old Mike column. Cornishman 10 March 2009
'Hats off to A.C. White who chairs the Lands End Aerodrome Action Group opposed to the move of the heliport from Penzance to St Just. With forensic skill he picked apart my column on the subject and put in a wealth of facts I didn't know and a very sound case for it not to happen.
However I must take exception to a few points. The ghastly noise and pollution is not 'lost over Mounts Bay'. Would that it were. I used to live in Kerris, where the peace of a summer’s afternoon was substituted several times an hour for the awful clatter which resounded from the hills, making conversation impossible below a shout. When I moved from there I fancied living in Paul, but this seemed to be ground zero for all flights which, having avoided denser areas of population by crossing Mounts Bay came overland to spread their miserable footprint all the way to Lands End.
I also stand by my points on the pollution and danger posed by its present site. But just because I wouldn't miss it doesn't mean I wish it on someone else. I can see that operating companies need to find economies of scale and I understand how crucial transport links are to the future of Scilly, but like Mr/Ms White I resent the impact local people have to suffer for something they can rarely afford to enjoy for themselves. We all need to fight our corner. I’m sorry if the tone of my last article was unsympathetic.'
Old Mike column. Cornishman 10 March 2009
'Hats off to A.C. White who chairs the Lands End Aerodrome Action Group opposed to the move of the heliport from Penzance to St Just. With forensic skill he picked apart my column on the subject and put in a wealth of facts I didn't know and a very sound case for it not to happen.
However I must take exception to a few points. The ghastly noise and pollution is not 'lost over Mounts Bay'. Would that it were. I used to live in Kerris, where the peace of a summer’s afternoon was substituted several times an hour for the awful clatter which resounded from the hills, making conversation impossible below a shout. When I moved from there I fancied living in Paul, but this seemed to be ground zero for all flights which, having avoided denser areas of population by crossing Mounts Bay came overland to spread their miserable footprint all the way to Lands End.
I also stand by my points on the pollution and danger posed by its present site. But just because I wouldn't miss it doesn't mean I wish it on someone else. I can see that operating companies need to find economies of scale and I understand how crucial transport links are to the future of Scilly, but like Mr/Ms White I resent the impact local people have to suffer for something they can rarely afford to enjoy for themselves. We all need to fight our corner. I’m sorry if the tone of my last article was unsympathetic.'
Thursday, 12 March 2009
Planning Decision
LEAAG were today informed by Penwith District Council Planning Department that Lands End Airport is not a relevant airport and therefore has no Permitted Development Rights. This confirms the position LEAAG told them existed some weeks ago, following our own legal advice and confirmation we had obtained directly from the CAA.
The planning decision reverses the information they gave to us in January.
The significance of this statement cannot be underestimated. As a result Westward and BIH will now, as reported by ThisIsCornwall, have to make formal Planning Applications for all the works they will have to undertake if they wish to relocate the Heliport from Penzance. Because of the location of the Airport in the heart of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty the planning process should demand an Environmental Impact Study which will have to consider the consequences of every aspect of the relocation. This is both time consuming and expensive. They may also be compelled to reveal their intentions for the future.
All members of LEAAG and the public who share our concerns now need to stay alert for a planning application being presented after the 1st April when the new less transparent application system comes into force. Because of changes resulting from the new Unitary Authority procedures it is possible that the application may not be announced in the Cornishman.
We believe that the pressure applied by all those who contacted the planning department and local political representatives caused the Department to look at the facts of the application and gave them no option but to change their position. A huge vote of thanks is due for everyone’s sterling efforts. Without them it seems likely that the first stage of the BIH plan would have passed through by default. There seems little doubt, at the moment, that we will all be called on to act again in the near future but we have to be quietly pleased at our success in this first skirmish.
The planning decision reverses the information they gave to us in January.
The significance of this statement cannot be underestimated. As a result Westward and BIH will now, as reported by ThisIsCornwall, have to make formal Planning Applications for all the works they will have to undertake if they wish to relocate the Heliport from Penzance. Because of the location of the Airport in the heart of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty the planning process should demand an Environmental Impact Study which will have to consider the consequences of every aspect of the relocation. This is both time consuming and expensive. They may also be compelled to reveal their intentions for the future.
All members of LEAAG and the public who share our concerns now need to stay alert for a planning application being presented after the 1st April when the new less transparent application system comes into force. Because of changes resulting from the new Unitary Authority procedures it is possible that the application may not be announced in the Cornishman.
We believe that the pressure applied by all those who contacted the planning department and local political representatives caused the Department to look at the facts of the application and gave them no option but to change their position. A huge vote of thanks is due for everyone’s sterling efforts. Without them it seems likely that the first stage of the BIH plan would have passed through by default. There seems little doubt, at the moment, that we will all be called on to act again in the near future but we have to be quietly pleased at our success in this first skirmish.
Thursday, 5 March 2009
Response to 'Old Mike'
Don't often find myself disagreeing with Old Mike. I can be a bit of a grouch myself, but on the matter of the heliport he's plain wrong. Whilst I agree there are often more than two sides to an argument it is seldom that all, or even two, are right. The BIH position, and Mike's, don’t stand up.
Mike says the Scilly Islanders have to put up with the noise and do so without complaint. They have to. They need the air link to support their tourism. The tourist industry in the West Penwith coastal area that will be effected by the move is attractive to tourists precisely because of its beauty and tranquillity. Far from supporting our tourism a heliport move will be hugely damaging.
How he can't understand the environmental outrage is beyond me. To allow the move BIH want to install over 60 new landing lights which will be visible from St Just to Carn Brea. Presently there are , I believe, 4. They will have to convert about 3 acres of open countryside into fenced car parking, presumably with security lighting to blight the night skies. They will need to construct new larger hangers and garages in an AONB where every other type of building work is heavily controlled and restricted Their passengers will add over 1.5 million vehicle miles a year [with a fuel burn of at least 50,000 gallons] to the roads between Penzance and the airport, much at the time of greatest holiday traffic congestion, in the peak summer months.
The Airport will suffer four times the number of flights as at present, from aircraft that are three times as noisy as fixed wing; a noise pollution increase of approaching 1000%, during these same peak months. According to the lighting plans BIH have submitted their flights paths would appear to be the same as the Skybus, presumably for safety reasons.
If so their noise and vibration will pass straight over all the major camping sites, holiday accommodation, tourist business's and the coastal footpath and nesting sites from Lands End to St Just, as will their fuel fumes. None of this happens in their present site as the noise and majority of the disturbance is lost over Mounts Bay and the Channel. And every one of the above breaches the Local, County and National environmental guidelines laid down precisely to protect our environmental heritage.
That, Mike, is the reason for the environmental outrage.
Agree with you about PDC though. In recent years they've done a sterling job. They'll be a hard act to follow.
A.C.White
Chair LEAAG
Mike says the Scilly Islanders have to put up with the noise and do so without complaint. They have to. They need the air link to support their tourism. The tourist industry in the West Penwith coastal area that will be effected by the move is attractive to tourists precisely because of its beauty and tranquillity. Far from supporting our tourism a heliport move will be hugely damaging.
How he can't understand the environmental outrage is beyond me. To allow the move BIH want to install over 60 new landing lights which will be visible from St Just to Carn Brea. Presently there are , I believe, 4. They will have to convert about 3 acres of open countryside into fenced car parking, presumably with security lighting to blight the night skies. They will need to construct new larger hangers and garages in an AONB where every other type of building work is heavily controlled and restricted Their passengers will add over 1.5 million vehicle miles a year [with a fuel burn of at least 50,000 gallons] to the roads between Penzance and the airport, much at the time of greatest holiday traffic congestion, in the peak summer months.
The Airport will suffer four times the number of flights as at present, from aircraft that are three times as noisy as fixed wing; a noise pollution increase of approaching 1000%, during these same peak months. According to the lighting plans BIH have submitted their flights paths would appear to be the same as the Skybus, presumably for safety reasons.
If so their noise and vibration will pass straight over all the major camping sites, holiday accommodation, tourist business's and the coastal footpath and nesting sites from Lands End to St Just, as will their fuel fumes. None of this happens in their present site as the noise and majority of the disturbance is lost over Mounts Bay and the Channel. And every one of the above breaches the Local, County and National environmental guidelines laid down precisely to protect our environmental heritage.
That, Mike, is the reason for the environmental outrage.
Agree with you about PDC though. In recent years they've done a sterling job. They'll be a hard act to follow.
A.C.White
Chair LEAAG
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Penzance Town Council Meeting
On Monday 9th February, at a full meeting, Penzance Town Council discussed the relocation of BIH helicopters to Land's End. All but one, agreed to the proposition that they should object and oppose the move on environmental and commercial grounds. We are delighted to have their support. A full report of the Penzance Town Council meeting can be found at ThisIsCornwall
Friday, 13 February 2009
Letter to Andrew England
Letter to Andrew England, Sustainable Development and Design Manager, PDC
Mr A J England
Sustainable Development and Design Manager
Penwith District Council
St Clare
Penzance
TR18 3QW
12 February 2009
Dear Mr England
Re - Application for a Lawful Development Certificate for a Proposed use or development by Westward Airways for runway lighting.
The CAA has confirmed our legal advice, that Land's End Aerodrome is not a relevant airport under the Airport's Act 1986. If our understanding is correct, this means that the airport does not benefit from general permitted development rights.
Westward Airways state in their application that they wish to proceed with their installation under General Permitted Development Order 1995-part 18, class B. In the light of the information above, please advise us whether Penwith District Council intend to grant this application?
We appreciate your help.
Yours sincerely
Caroline Passingham, Liaison Officer
CC Andrew George MP, Kevin Lavery CCC, Jim McKenna PDC
Mr A J England
Sustainable Development and Design Manager
Penwith District Council
St Clare
Penzance
TR18 3QW
12 February 2009
Dear Mr England
Re - Application for a Lawful Development Certificate for a Proposed use or development by Westward Airways for runway lighting.
The CAA has confirmed our legal advice, that Land's End Aerodrome is not a relevant airport under the Airport's Act 1986. If our understanding is correct, this means that the airport does not benefit from general permitted development rights.
Westward Airways state in their application that they wish to proceed with their installation under General Permitted Development Order 1995-part 18, class B. In the light of the information above, please advise us whether Penwith District Council intend to grant this application?
We appreciate your help.
Yours sincerely
Caroline Passingham, Liaison Officer
CC Andrew George MP, Kevin Lavery CCC, Jim McKenna PDC
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Cornishman Letter from LEAAG
Letter from LEAAG to Cornishman, 11 February 2009
On Feb 4th Tony Jones from BIH and Geoff Marsden from the Isles of Scilly Steamship Co. were invited by Jim McKenna Chief Executive, to answer questions before Penwith District Councils' Social Economic and Environment Committee. This was conducted in closed session, (no-one from the public could attend.)
Why couldn't any sensitive issues have been dealt with first and then the meeting opened up to all? In the public speaking section of the meeting The Land's End Aerodrome Action Group were allowed three minutes to speak, and the ruling was strictly adhered to. Is this a sparkling example of democracy at work?
Are surprise announcements and secret sessions part of BIH's strategy to forge ahead with their relocation? Surely they owe it to the community to offer their long term plans for debate and questioning by all the local people affected?
And while all this is happening a Certificate of Lawful Development for runway lighting, submitted by Westward Airways, is proceeding before the council. PDC have a duty to establish its lawfulness and whether Land's End aerodrome is classed as a relevant airport under the Airport Act 1986. If it is not, we understand that most rights for general permitted developments cannot be granted. Unlike normal planning applications, if legality is established, the certificate can proceed unopposed without going through the usual planning procedures.
We hope that our councillors will decide that this application, affecting one of Cornwall's most beautiful places, needs consideration at a full planning meeting. In 1997, the Government Office for the South West informed PDC that an environmental statement was required before planning for runway lighting could be allowed at Land's End Aerodrome. Will councillors adhere to the integrity of this former ruling?
We hope that the council consider this application within the context of BIH's and Westward Airways long term plans for Land's End Aerodrome. But do they know what they are?
We hope that this will not become an example of what some call, planning by 'gradual creep,' where these certificates can, when added together, culminate in very substantial airport expansion because councils have not stopped them.
Tony Jones has said that if BIH don’t relocate to Land's End they will deploy their helicopters elsewhere. Whatever they do, the citizens of Penwith deserve a long term thriving tourist industry that operates within sustainable development guidelines, not a short term solution, that damages a sensitive environment and turns potential visitors away from the area.
On Feb 4th Tony Jones from BIH and Geoff Marsden from the Isles of Scilly Steamship Co. were invited by Jim McKenna Chief Executive, to answer questions before Penwith District Councils' Social Economic and Environment Committee. This was conducted in closed session, (no-one from the public could attend.)
Why couldn't any sensitive issues have been dealt with first and then the meeting opened up to all? In the public speaking section of the meeting The Land's End Aerodrome Action Group were allowed three minutes to speak, and the ruling was strictly adhered to. Is this a sparkling example of democracy at work?
Are surprise announcements and secret sessions part of BIH's strategy to forge ahead with their relocation? Surely they owe it to the community to offer their long term plans for debate and questioning by all the local people affected?
And while all this is happening a Certificate of Lawful Development for runway lighting, submitted by Westward Airways, is proceeding before the council. PDC have a duty to establish its lawfulness and whether Land's End aerodrome is classed as a relevant airport under the Airport Act 1986. If it is not, we understand that most rights for general permitted developments cannot be granted. Unlike normal planning applications, if legality is established, the certificate can proceed unopposed without going through the usual planning procedures.
We hope that our councillors will decide that this application, affecting one of Cornwall's most beautiful places, needs consideration at a full planning meeting. In 1997, the Government Office for the South West informed PDC that an environmental statement was required before planning for runway lighting could be allowed at Land's End Aerodrome. Will councillors adhere to the integrity of this former ruling?
We hope that the council consider this application within the context of BIH's and Westward Airways long term plans for Land's End Aerodrome. But do they know what they are?
We hope that this will not become an example of what some call, planning by 'gradual creep,' where these certificates can, when added together, culminate in very substantial airport expansion because councils have not stopped them.
Tony Jones has said that if BIH don’t relocate to Land's End they will deploy their helicopters elsewhere. Whatever they do, the citizens of Penwith deserve a long term thriving tourist industry that operates within sustainable development guidelines, not a short term solution, that damages a sensitive environment and turns potential visitors away from the area.
Saturday, 7 February 2009
LEAAG Presentation to LEAP
LEAAG will be giving a presentation to Land's End Area Accommodation Providers (LEAP) at St.Just W.I. Hall on Thursday February 12th at 12.15 pm. We hope to see some of our supporters there.
