Port Penlee Marina.

Long before any of the Penzance and Newlyn regeneration schemes had even been considered, the plans for a major marina and housing project in Penlee quarry were being drawn up.

The idea for a marina development can be traced back to 1988. However, even from its earliest inception, there had always been a fundamental need to remove and relocate a very large quantity of stone for a marina scheme to be viable. This is primarily to create the waterway channel linking the quarry basin to the sea. This is, of course, absolutely vital to allow boats to enter but it presents a huge logistical hurdle to overcome.

The second most important aspect in a similar vein is the need to remove large quantities of stone to create the ‘ledges and benches’ required to site the internal access roads and also to provide space for the various houses, gardens and parking spaces etc. The current depth of the existing ledges would mean a precarious drop too close to the properties and would not permit car access either; they need to be extended to at least twice the current depth, possibly three times, terminating on both edges in a gentle incline.

Other areas within the quarry are unstable and much stone needs to be removed and relocated for safety reasons. This work is progressing at the moment.

Therefore, when considering the following, bear in mind the primary need for the marina developers to identify and promote as many off-site uses for stone as possible:

A new harbour arm and breakwater is to be constructed from the entrance channel to the marina out into the bay. This will be constructed using a large quantity of stone. The developers had originally hoped to have a longer breakwater arm – up to 200 metres, and a second, slightly shorter breakwater in paralel on the opposite side (hence utilising even more stone) but this has since been substantially reduced to one breakwater approximately 60 metres long, probably because the alternative would hamper the planning process as it would have been hazardous to boats!

There is potential to ‘lose’ a certain amount of stone by filling in the pool in the centre of the quarry thereby reducing the depth of water from 80ft to about 30ft deep. However, this quantity only represents about 10% of the total amount of stone needing to be ‘disposed’ of. Some of the loose stone currently on the quarry site could be used towards this purpose. It is mostly low-grade and unsuited for most other purposes.

Massive quantities of surplus and unwanted stone cannot simply be hidden; neither can they be dumped at sea. There is currently no viable outside commercial market for Penlee stone, whether as armourstone or aggregate, and in any event, the quarrying, crushing and loading facilities have long-since been removed. Any stone that is removed on a normal commercial basis would need to travel by road though Newlyn using very large lorries. The only way to remove stone that will not result in a public backlash due to the increased traffic, dust and disruption in Newlyn, is to remove the stone by sea, but this presents additional difficulties with the lack of sea access and loading facilities.

It has therefore been imperative from the very start, possibly as early as 1988 when the idea became the ‘brainchild’ of Tony Jarman, to discover a use for, or a market found, or even a dumping ground located and agreed, for about two million tons of stone! However, if a market could be found for the stone as near to the quarry as possible, and an acceptable and cost-effective means of extraction and transportation identified, the marina scheme could potentially become both feasible and viable, and indeed lucrative.

Please also refer to the sections entitled ‘Atlantic Consultants’, ‘DeFacto Project Management’ and ‘Hanson PLC’ - located at The Players and Regeneration pages

Another important aspect of the feasibility of Port Penlee Marina is the need to acquire large quantities of top soil. This has been mooted by the developers to be available from ‘The Tump’ at Paul but a one-time chief engineer of Penlee Quarry has told us that this mainly comprises of quarry tailings and 'overburden' which has long-since grown over. In response, MDL have told us that the top soil could be ‘generated organically’ using compostable waste. If this were so, it would take huge quantities, entail a great many lorry movements and also take a very long time – probably 3-4 years or more. It is more likely that the top soil was intended to be sourced locally, possibly the 16 acres of green field site that is earmarked for the proposed seafood park at Newlyn Coombe. This has actually been verbally acknowledged by Tony Jarman, the Managing Director and principle shareholder of Port Penlee Ltd.

The origins of the various ideas are difficult to trace but the ideas for revitalising the harbour area started to receive serious attention in the mid-90’s. A number of different and separate schemes were being considered and it was from a long wish-list of options from a wide range of sources that a number of projects were 'cherry picked' and integrated into the W.S. Atkins report of 2001 and the Atlantic Consultant’s Report of 2002. The various reasons for this overall selection was stated to be: the decline of the fishing industry and job losses, the lack of affordable housing, damage from storms and rising sea levels resulting from global warming, and of course, the feasibilty of obtaining Objective One and other European grant funding. However, there may well have been other considerations?

The Original North Pier Proposals.

The original proposals involved a massive scheme that would have created a super-long new harbour arm projecting from the Tolcarne area, eclipsing the entire harbour and existing piers and involving much infill and reclamation. It had been quoted by the developers that it will “increase the size of the harbour basin by 100% so that space can be made for diversification into leisure pursuits”. This formed the central plank of the original Newlyn Harbour proposals but, thankfully, it has since been mothballed due to the high level of public opposition and an inability to secure grant funding. The fact that this scheme had no hope of reaching fruition must have caused the developers a great deal of consternation and other uses for the stone presumably needed to be found as a matter of urgency? Perhaps the original North Pier might need protection? What about Sandy Cove?

Newlyn Harbour Development, Phase One, (Option ‘B-revised’).

It has recently been announced that ‘Option ‘B’ will be the ‘preferred’ option that will form the basis of the planning application. Phase One, Option B will focus on the area encompassing the Harbour Commissioner’s Offices and existing fish market, ice works and car park. There will be no harbour infill and will, therefore, not need an extensive ‘harbour revision order – a lengthy process. This scheme can be said to be the only truly stand-alone scheme that will not require any of the other schemes to proceed.

Newlyn Harbour Development, Phase Two.

Phase Two will involve converting many of the old stone buildings around the harbour into ‘accommodation units’ (e.g. luxury flats). The shed-based buildings currently hosting fishing-related businesses along The Strand will be demolished and shops with luxury flats above will be built. It is expected that most, if not all, of the existing fish and seafood businesses will relocate to the proposed Seafood Park outside of Newlyn. The chandlery businesses will relocate to the new Sandy Cove development.

Newlyn Harbour Development, Phase Three.

Phase Three involves developing a section of the inner harbour from the existing inshore RNLI building to Church Street. The existing slipway will therefore be lost. This section, which would be filled in and raised, is intended for ‘commercial and retail’ use. It is uncertain what type of businesses will be based here and therefore it is not possible to assess any interdependency with any of the other schemes at present.

Newlyn North Pier Breakwater.

This scheme appeared when it became clear that the original New North Pier proposals would not be publicly acceptable. However, little is known of the details of this scheme at present other than that an outline has been promoted and publicised by the developers as part of the ‘consultation’ process. We can safely assume that large quantities of stone are intended to be used, presumably under the guise of ‘storm protection’. The height of the existing wall will also to be raised. This begs the question why the North Pier needs protection on such a scale. It is on the leeward side of the harbour, has no history of storm damage, and would have extra protection from the newly extended South Pier anyway.

Newlyn South Pier Extension and breakwater/rock armour protection.

The existing pier will be extended by 30% and reinforced. A large quantity of Penlee Quarry stone is required to enable this project to be cost-effective. Again, the stone could be found from other sources but it may be more expensive, perhaps not? It is anticipated that this would be carried out concurrently with the Sandy Cove sheme, with stone being delivered by lorry.

Sandy Cove Development.

The full details of this scheme only surfaced after the extensive New North Pier development was rejected. Most of the attractions and facilities (Water Sports centre, Visitor Centre, Lobster Hatchery etc) that are proposed for Sandy Cove were originally intended for The Tolcarne concourse and New North Pier. Much of the Sandy Cove schemes are therefore of a ‘Plan B’ nature and will now create their own unique problems such as a further increase in traffic through Newlyn.

An enormous quantity of stone will be required to extend the beach area seawards and to raise the surface to a sufficient height to provide tidal and surge protection. There will also be a raised (stone) breakwater at the edge of the development. The stone for this could be found from various sources but may be more expensive to the point of making the project unviable. Amazingly, there happens to be a quarry right next door which is only too pleased to sell stone – a miracle!

MDL have confirmed to us that the stone for this scheme will be transported from Penlee by lorry. The existing entrance to the quarry is to be changed to intersect the road at a right angle allowing greater visibility. The current cycle path would also be altered to accomodate heavy construction traffic. Stone lorries would then cross the road and would travel up and down along the cycleway. We estimate that about 15'000 very large lorry loads would be required. MDL have said that 'it would take about a year' - that's about 40 a day, 24hrs a day, each day and every day.

Penzance Breakwaters.

Two long breakwaters are to be constructed off-shore and parallel to Penzance Promenade. These will be massive: each about ten times the ground area of the Queens Hotel, at least 60ft wide at the base and visible about four feet above sea level at high tide and nearly completely visible (about 20ft high) at low tide. They are supposedly to protect the 150-year old Penzance promenade from storm damage. The cost of the scheme, without using cut-price unwanted stone sourced from Penlee, would be vastly more than the cost of any anticipated repairs to the promenade, even accounting for the very worst anticipated effects of global warming. It would be a good scheme to 'mop up' any excess stone though.

Penzance Harbour/Scillonian Terminal.

This scheme involves a large area of infill that will reclaim land to the south of the Jubilee Pool and will encompass the whole area opposite The Barbican and beyond. There will be a 500 metre granite wall built on the Battery Rocks some 100ft in front of the existing south pier/harbour wall, the space behind it will be in-filled with stone. This will create a concourse for the arrivals and departures for the Scillonian. There will be an ‘all-weather terminal’, covered walkway, toilets, shop and baggage and cargo loading facilities. The south harbour arm will also be extended by about 30% (using stone) and a new breakwater reinforcement built (using stone) for added protection. This is supposedly to accommodate the new Scillonian IV. (This mythical vessel does not appear to have even been designed, costed, sourced or tendered although we have recently learned that advertisements have been placed seeking 'expressions of interest' from naval architects). The current lighthouse will be demolished and a new one built. An enormous quantity of stone will be required for the various aspects of this project. It is inconceivable that this would be financially viable were it not for stone to be readily available from Penlee Quarry.

 
Isles of Scilly Harbour Development.

We are aware of a development scheme to mirror that of the Penzance Harbour, Scillonian terminal, albeit on a smaller scale. The St. Mary’s harbour scheme is also to facilitate a replacement Scillonian and – surprise, surprise – deep keeled yachts. The current harbour is unsuited for these as it is tidal and shallow. We understand that the scheme will involve dredging; and raising, extending, and reinforcing, the harbour arm (with stone). To our knowledge, there is no suitable quarrying facility on the Isles of Scilly; the nearest suitable source of stone is....Penlee.

When the original scheme for a major new North Pier development at The Tolcarne became a planning nightmare and completely unacceptable to the public, ‘Plan B’ was put into operation. A new site was then needed to relocate the fish-related businesses away from Newlyn Harbour so as to allow the Harbour development to proceed. This would then free up the traditional old harbourside buildings for residential development; the shed-based and modern buildings along The Strand could then also be demolished allowing further residential and business development. This is detailed in the Penwith District Council Local Plan and elsewhere. The site for the seafood park needs to: be within a reasonable distance of the harbour and new fish market to cut journey times and cost; have good road access for the large lorries; not be near residential premises due to the noise and fumes; and have potential for expansion or re-use if (when?) the fishing industry collapses.

 
Who Pays??? -  Where will the money come from???.

We are assured that all the stone removed from Penlee Quarry will be “sold at market rates” (Edward Iliffe). This came as something of a surprise as we had naively assumed that the stone would be sold off ‘on the cheap’ – Not on your Nellie! Indeed, when reading the budget figures for the Sandy Cove development, we learn that the budget allocation for this scheme alone is £8.42m. We are told this money will come from ‘capital contributions from public agencies’, ‘grant or other public funding’ and ‘capital contribution from the private sector’. We can therefore conclude that the schemes will be funded (subsidised?) largely from the public purse to buy stone (for schemes that aren’t needed or wanted), at ‘market prices’ where there exists no other market, to pay for stone that Tony Jarman, MDL and Hanson would be only too glad to get rid of. Perhaps the invisible hand of DeFacto Project Management has been busy?

 It is now clear why MDL have spent £2m of their own money on bringing the quarry up to the required European standards – to allow them to remove the stone without contravening health and safety directives; the main reason why Hanson could not operate the quarry as a viable concern, even on a small scale – until now.

We will be keen to note whether the contracts for the supply of stone for the various regeneration schemes are put out to open tender. There are other coastal sources of armourstone in West Cornwall (and elsewhere), that have the requisite infrastructure (Quay loading etc) to facilitate much easier supply and off-loading (by sea). It will be interesting to note how competitive the market for such stone becomes? see Quarrying

1. The Port Penlee marina scheme needs all, if not most, of the Newlyn and Penzance schemes that use stone. It also needs the Newlyn Coombe seafood park fields' topsoil. Large quantities of cheap topsoil are becoming increasingly difficult to source due to the rarity of being able to free up protected green field sites for development. Agricultural-use topsoil is not otherwise permitted.

 2. The Newlyn Harbour scheme (phase one) could proceed without major obstacles apart from the pier extension and reinforcement which would require stone from Penlee. Phase two of the harbour scheme (property redevelopment) needs the Newlyn Coombe Seafood Park to host the relocated fish-related businesses (or an alternative site found). Phase three could feasibly proceed independently.

3. The Sandy Cove scheme needs vast amounts of Penlee stone - this could be delivered by lorry

 4. The Penzance Harbour/IOSSC Scheme needs Penlee stone.

 5. St Mary’s Harbour on the Isles of Scilly is also extending its harbour arm and breakwater (using stone) to accommodate the new Scillonian IV.

 6. The Penzance Breakwater/s Scheme needs Penlee stone.

 7. The Newlyn Coombe Seafood Park needs the fish-related businesses to relocate from Newlyn Harbour. The developers of the seafood park need to have a ready buyer for 16 acres of topsoil.

 
Conclusion:

The Port Penlee marina scheme needs most, if not all the other schemes that use stone.

The Newlyn Harbour scheme could proceed independently without the pier extension and reinforcement which would require Penlee Stone. It could not proceed without a ‘seafood park’ whether at Newlyn Coombe or otherwise.

The Seafood Park could not proceed without the Newlyn Harbour scheme.

The Sandy Cove scheme could not proceed without Penlee Quarry stone, nor without the Newlyn Harbour scheme and, consequently, the Seafood Park scheme.

The Penzance Breakwater, the Isles of Scilly Steamship Company scheme and the St Mary’s Harbour scheme could not realistically proceed without stone from Penlee, which in turn, couldn't viably be removed without a marina being constructed.

What the developers say:

“Although the projects are separate, a wider view of their interrelationships will be key to their success”

 
What we say:

“They’re all joined at the hip - and the wallet!”