• Long Delays on the Newlyn to Mousehole Road

• Narrow Lanes through Paul used as a rat run

There are a number of specific reasons why a lifting bridge would be completely unacceptable:

2a. It would have to be in line with the current road level which is about 30 feet above (average) sea level. This would mean that even moderate sized yachts would need the bridge to be opened to allow access. The developers propose that the lifting bridge will have a number of scheduled openings each day to allow yachts to enter and exit. We are told there would be six openings each day but we suspect it could be substantially more. A full open and close cycle will take about 8-12 minutes. At the height of the summer tourist season, this would produce two separate queues of waiting traffic of up to 34 vehicles long in each direction (Hyder's figures based on actual traffic counts). When the bridge is then lowered, this ‘snake’ of cars would then each head towards Mousehole and Newlyn. It doesn’t take much to predict the consequences of this when the traffic volume in Newlyn is already close to gridlock – it would be total chaos! The approach to Mousehole isn’t much better. Imagine the frustration of the 20-plus drivers who have already had to wait an inordinate period of time, all trying to find parking spaces in the Mousehole car parks!

2b. There is only one primary route in and out of Mousehole and that is along the coast road. The secondary route is via the village of Paul. The tertiary route is to St Buryan via Raginnis Hill and to all intents and purposes has little usage.  It is reliably estimated, and by the developers' own admission, that 90% of the existing traffic entering and leaving Mousehole travels along the coast road. Therefore, the psychological effect of having a lifting bridge intersecting this main thoroughfare will be one of Mousehole being cut off from the outside world. The lifting bridge will, in effect, become a drawbridge. There will be two tangible results from this effect: ‘Don’t go there at all’ or ‘divert through Paul’. In other words: a substantial number of visitors will be put off from having to put up with the delays and will: either not travel to Mousehole at all, or will elect to travel via Paul. The back road from Paul into Mousehole is already almost impasssable at times due to increased traffic flows and this is compounded by the volume of parked cars. The material effects from this will be a reduction in tourism and visitor revenues within Mousehole and a reluctance of Mousehole residents to leave unless otherwise essential. The village will ostensibly be marooned, literally, psychologically and financially.

2c. A lifting bridge would present a challenge to emergency services who, we are told, in the event of an emergency, will have to ‘phone ahead’ to the 24-hour bridge watch to ensure the bridge is in the lower position so as to coincide with the approaching ambulance/fire engine/police etc - not to mention the lifeboat men resident in Mousehole trying to get to the lifeboat in Newlyn!  We leave it to you, the reader, to decide whether you would feel confident if your child needed to get to hospital urgently, or whether your house was on fire, or if your fishing boat were caught in a storm, that there would not be any delays; and furthermore, whether a potential queue of 34 cars in front of you would not present any extra difficulties! The question again presents itself: is it worth taking this risk for the sake of a few rich boat owners?

2d. There is also the moral question of whether a private company (MDL) has the right to impose a never-ending catalogue of inconvenience and cost to a vast number of local people for the sole benefit of what are, ostensibly, a small minority of rich boat owners. All, ultimately, to enable an incredibly rich family of marina owners to increase their corporate profits!

The lifting bridge at Poole Harbour

2e. The bridge would be sited at the narrowest point between the sea and the quarry. This happens to be at a delightfully quiet spot near Roskilly beach. The tranquillity of this unspoilt stretch of coast will be destroyed forever with an unsightly, noisy metal mechanical bridge, boats going to and fro, and the noise and fumes from up to sixty or more cars queuing nearby.

2f. The delays would not only affect motor vehicles. There will be no way of bypassing the bridge for anyone – pedestrians and cyclists would also be inconvenienced. The road is actually part of the South West Coastal Footpath. The potential to extend the existing section of National Cycleway from Sandy Cove with the path along the Roskilly foreshore to Penlee Point (to then reconnect with the Mousehole road) would be lost forever.

2g. Who pays for the upkeep and maintenance? And who pays the bridge operator’s wages? If we are to believe the developers and Penwith District Council they will be paid for by the new owners of houses within the Port Penlee marina complex through covenants attached to their property, and the marina’s berth holders. How can we be sure this will always be the case and that it won’t eventually end up being paid for out of our council tax? It wouldn’t be the first time this has occurred.

2h. The 200 residential properties that would be within Port Penlee would all be on the south (Mousehole side) of the development. There is to be no road access around the back of the quarry perimeter due to the unstable cliffs and the danger of rock falls (there would be a new access and junction created on the south side of the quarry). These new residents would (incidentally) also feel cut off by the lifting bridge and would also contribute on a daily basis adding to the ‘snake’ of cars entering Newlyn.