1. Traffic Chaos

(click here for the extended version)

The extra traffic generated by 1000 new residents, workers and visitors to Port Penlee would bring chaos to Newlyn, already approaching gridlock on a regular basis. It would also add further stress to the road network through Mousehole and Paul.

Added to this would be a very large volume of traffic attempting to travel through Newlyn from the proposed extensive development at Sandy Cove.

There would also be a constant flow of traffic between Newlyn Harbour and the proposed new fish processing industrial estate at Newlyn Coombe. We are told there would be a ‘fleet of small vans’ continuously going to and fro. We suspect that this would actually be a fleet of large vans and lorries.

We therefore strongly oppose the Port Penlee, the Sandy Cove and the Newlyn Coombe Industrial Estate schemes for this single reason alone. Our roads are unsuited for such ambitious developments, and there are no practical solutions to alleviate the problems.

Furthermore: The developers insist there will not be any major traffic problems but they will not release their reports and figures to back this up. We therefore challenge them to provide these documents for scrutiny. We submit that the reason we are not privy to them is because the findings in these reports substantiate our case, not theirs!

N.B. By the developers' own admission, the traffic problems are their weakest link and are therefore our strongest case for contesting any planning applications.

2. Newlyn to Mousehole Road Lifting Bridge

(click here for the extended version)

As the quarry is currently cut off from the sea, a linking channel would need to be formed to access the proposed marina. Unfortunately, this access channel would have to cut directly across the main Newlyn to Mousehole coast road! The road would then need a lifting bridge installed to enable both water and road traffic to pass. The frequent delays caused by this lifting bridge would create both inconvenience and potential catastrophe with a possibility of emergency services being held up. Drivers may attempt a tortuous detour through the small village of Paul to escape the delays.

3. Unaffordable Housing

An argument often put forward by the developers is that Port Penlee will provide much needed housing for Penwith. Our contention is simple: virtually all the housing within Port Penlee would be bought by cash buyers coming from outside the county - 95% of it according to Jim McKenna, Chief Exectutive of Penwith District Council. Much of it would be used for second homes or buy-to-let holiday homes. Much of it would be bought up for investments (such as the ill-fated and contentious SIPPS retirement scheme). The prices of these houses would be well out of reach of our average local first time buyer anyway; they are expected to be in the £350k to £750k price range – quite possibly more.

As part of the deal struck with Penwith District Council, we are told that 25% of the total number of Port Penlee properties would be designated as ‘affordable housing’ – probably about 40 or 50 units and probably little more than shoe boxes. What they don’t say is where these ‘affordable homes’ would be located. It has been stated by both the Council and the developers that they could be located anywhere in Penwith. From that statement, we can be confident that they wouldn't be sited anywhere near the marina complex.

Quite how ‘affordable’ these homes will be is also another matter. As rented properties, they could, and almost certainly would, be eventually purchased by the occupiers under the 'six-year rule' whereby they would then be permitted to enter the burgeoning housing market - whereupon their prices would rise putting them permanently out of reach of those who need them most.

4. Jobs - what jobs?

(click here for the extended version)

A central plank in the reasoning behind the massive redevelopment of Newlyn and the creation of the Port Penlee marina, is that all these schemes will create jobs. We believe this has been grossly overstated. The amount of jobs created would be relatively small, mainly low-paid, and seasonal. This is almost certainly the reason why the developers will not release any supporting data.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, what they also don’t tell you is that all the newly arrived residents that will occupy the extensive number of newly built homes at Port Penlee, and the hundreds of newly-converted flats in Newlyn, will be coming in from outside Cornwall. Many of these newcomers and their relatives will then be competing in our jobs market. The developers will be giving with one hand , and taking with the other.

And if that wasn’t bad enough... Because the development would be so extensive, the natural and historic beauty that has been the magnetic attraction of so many of our tourists over the years, would be destroyed. That would then lead to a loss in tourism revenues which would, in turn, lead to job losses.

In the long run, instead of being better off, we’ll be worse off. These schemes will not save the fishing industry and they’ll damage our tourist trade. Only an elite few will profit, the rest of us will suffer.

5. Connections - joining the dots

The developers want to portray Port Penlee and the other regeneration schemes are separate. And then on the other hand they tell us they need each other. They can’t have it both ways!

The plain fact of the matter is: Port Penlee needs all the schemes that use stone. The reason for this is that an enormous quantity of stone (about a million tons) needs to be removed from the section between the quarry basin and the sea to create the entrance into the marina. About another million tons needs to be removed within the quarry to widen the ‘ledges and benches’ on which the 200 new homes, access roads and gardens are to be sited. This stone has to go somewhere. You can't just bury it. You can't dump it out at sea, and it's not the sort of stuff you can sweep under the carpet.

This is the crux of the matter: Either a use has to be found for it. Or, failing that, a use has to be created for it. By a remarkable coincidence, about two million tons will be needed for the regeneration schemes - a miracle!

You’ll have to wade through the long version to get the whole sorry story, – it makes for very unpleasant reading. Read it and weep.

The developers tell us that if we don’t get a marina, we’ll get a working quarry again.

This is untrue. Penlee will never operate as a commercial working quarry again. It is, for all intents and purposes – ‘worked out’. The remaining stone within the quarry has a massive ‘overburden’ which is uneconomic, and dangerous to remove. That’s why it was left dormant for nearly fifteen years.

• For most of its working life Penlee has supplied aggregate (crushed stone) but when it closed in 1989, the crushing and loading facilities were dismantled. This infrastructure would now cost many £millions to replace. If it was replaced, the aggregate would have to leave by road and Newlyn is hopelessly unsuited to the very large lorries that would be required – there would also be an instant public backlash if this were ever attempted.

• The aggregate market is now much better served from other sources with better facilities, some of these are local such as Dean Quarry on The Lizard. Many of these suppliers have sea loading facilities also, Penlee doesn’t.

• The other material that Penlee is capable of supplying is ‘armourstone’(single large chunks of stone weighing many tons). There are many cheaper sources of armourstone from abroad. Penlee does not have the required sea loading facilities to make this market economically viable.

The only way Penlee could become a working quarry again is to supply artificially created markets; markets such as the various regeneration schemes for Newlyn and Penzance. The developers intend to sell the stone for these schemes at full market rates and pocket the profit. Stone that they would otherwise be only too glad to get rid of. If they couldn't dispose of this stone, they couldn't create a marina and they couldn't fill it with houses!

Penlee Quarry would need a very large sum of money spent on it to bring it up to the requisite health and safety standards that are needed to permit  the stone to be legally quarried, loaded, and removed again. Oddly enough, the developers have been doing this remedial work for the last three years at a cost of about £2m. If you think that is a risky capital outlay, the budget for just the infrastructure for the Sandy Cove scheme alone is £8.42 million (for 'infrastructure' read: 'stone infill and rock armour'!). There will be more than enough capital for the developers to get all their money back and a handsome profit on top – all out of the public purse!

So the bottom line is: we WILL get a working quarry again if the Newlyn, Penzance and Port Penlee schemes are allowed to go ahead. We won’t otherwise – ever!

7. The Impact on our local Infrastructure, Business & Commerce

(click here for the extended version)

Infrastructure:
The population of Newlyn is around 4000 living in over 2000 households. This 2:1 ratio of two people per household is below the average occupancy rate of the UK (2.4:1) due to our high proportion of second homes. The proposed Port Penlee development is expected to add another 200 houses, up to 300 'holiday' apartments and an 80-room hotel. To this we may also add shops and offices, pubs and restaurants and all the service personnel that go with them. Whether these newcomers are temporary or permanent, commercial or residential it is fairly safe to assume that the year-on-year average increase in our population would increase by about one thousand people – about 25% greater than exists at the moment.

1. New customers are put off by the direct effects of the construction e.g. heavy lorries and contractors' vehicles going to and fro, mud on the road and verges, noise, dust, and visual intrusion such as scaffolding and hoarding.

2. Established customers change their buying pattern (e.g. they shop or do business elsewhere) which they permanently adopt after the development has been completed.

3. Employee morale drops due to the incessant disruption and disturbance; this has a knock-on effect on the performance and efficiency of the business.

Tourism is now by far Penwith's most important industry. In 2004 it generated £230m, over six times that of the fishing industry. In a picturesque area such as ours, visitors are attracted by the natural and architectural heritage and any impact on this, on either a temporary or permanent basis, would have a profound effect on current and future revenues generated.

Everyone has heard of the awful 'holiday in the costa-del-somewhere-or-other' where the poor unfortunates end up in a hotel next to a building site. This would be what it would be like in Newlyn for up to four years, quite possibly longer. Our reputation as a quiet quiet seaside village would be destroyed for ever. To our knowledge, no other area has ever had to put up with such a large number of massive development programmes all occurring in and around it at the same time. It is madness to even consider that we might not suffer from the onslaught.

The following businesses will be the worst hit:

Hotels and B&B's, Self-catering holiday homes, restaurants, pubs and cafes, tourist attractions, petrol stations, coach services other and travel-related businesses.

There will then be secondary impacts on the following:

Tourist-oriented shops such as: galleries, 'knick-knacks' and ephemera, surf and beach items, food shops, antiques and curios, entertainment-related businesses such and clubs, cinemas and theatres. Specialist shops catering for visiting hikers, photographers, cyclists etc. There are many more examples outside the scope of this essay.

We must also consider the separate case of how the developments would affect Mousehole. Mousehole is virtually 100% dependant on tourism and it would suffer in even worse ways than Newlyn for this reason. Although Mousehole would be saved from the physical effects of all the construction work, the effects on Mousehole’s businesses would be beyond compare: Firstly, whether local resident, or seasoned or casual visitor, Mousehole has a special place in our hearts because of its unique historic character. This character would be irrevocably damaged due to the proximity of a new modern village and an ugly metal lifting bridge; the village would be defiled and this in itself would put many visitors off. Secondly, potential visitors to Mousehole would also be discouraged by the delays caused by the lifting bridge and may simply elect to go elsewhere. This would certainly be the case with the impromptu day tripper. A similar effect would deter people from having their holiday accommodation within Mousehole due to the feeling of them being ‘marooned’ there. Thirdly, those of us who reside in the area would be discouraged from visiting the village for a quiet drink or a meal for the same reasons explained above. Mousehole’s businesses would die.

In summary: people won't be put off going on holiday to Cornwall,  or even to West Penwith, but they will avoid our area and take their money with them. If they have the misfortune to inadvertantly come to Newlyn or Mousehole when all the building work is going on, they are unlikely to return – ever, and who could blame them?

8. The Impact on our Environment, Culture & Heritage

(click here for the extended version)

Environment: 
West Cornwall has been described as a ‘palimpsest’ – a manuscript on which two or more texts have been written, each one erased to make room for the next’.  Of course many of these ‘texts’ – whether of landscape, social or industrial archaeology, have not been fully erased, and the place we know and love is a mixture of past and present, some parts more attractive than others, that has evolved slowly and gradually.

Like the landscape, people evolve gradually; we do not take well to sudden changes. A sudden change in our environment can cause feelings of distress, disconnection, alienation; but until the damage is done, we do not realise what we have lost.

Moreover, if the change involves the introduction of something radically different from what went before, the sense of alienation is increased. The Port Penlee development, and the other simultaneous proposed developments in the immediate area, add up to a loss of the loved and familiar that could be psychologically acute.

This isn’t just a ‘fear of change’ Luddite argument. There is an inherent value in place or landscape which we overlook at our peril.  When people talk about ‘Mickey Mouse’ developments they don’t just mean vulgarity, tackiness, inappropriateness. They are also referring to what is lost in order to create it. People who have seen marinas built in other places refer to their ‘soullessness’. We believe that the Port Penlee development would be somewhere between a pity and a sacrilege, depending on how highly you rate landscape as a resource.

Culture:
Cornwall has historically been a place where people come and go. Our 'Cousin Jacks' have emigrated across the globe, some went off in search of fortune, and some went because they had no choice. Many returned invigorated and many returned disillusioned after months, or years away. At the same time an enormous cross-section of people have come from outside to make their home in Cornwall. Some stay a short while, while others settle and make their home and life here. This has occurred for the best part of the last one hundred and fifty years. This is the spirit of Cornwall: a slow, steady evolution with a hearty collection of indigenous residents and incomers who, in the main, live quite happily side by side. However, this is a delicate balance that should not be disturbed!

The problem with the Port Penlee and the extensive Newlyn redevelopment is that it will mean a sudden and massive influx of newcomers who are sure to upset the established equilibrium and this is guaranteed to have a number of knock-on effects that will affect our culture in very unpleasant ways. There is already a brooding resentment among many locals that incomers are driving up house prices which, in turn, is driving our young people out of the county to both find work, and to find a reasonably priced house. This resentment can only get worse unless the problem is addressed at source – reduce the availability of second homes for a start so the last thing we should be doing is allowing our elected representatives to pass planning applications to provide a heap of new ones. It is gratifying to know that Andrew George MP is most concerned about the second homes issue and we can only hope that he loudly proclaims his opposition to the development schemes for at least this reason alone when, and if, the planning applications are made.

Newlyn, Mousehole, Paul and Penzance have a rich tapestry of architecture with many original buildings and street plans going back into the 1700’s and even earlier. This is one of the main reasons why people love living here and why we  attract visitors in such large numbers. This architecture, and the history with which it is imbued, are highly cherished qualities that are simply beyond price. There is a solidity; a feeling of permanence and timelessness in these qualities. They are inexorably interwoven in the Cornish psyche. To place any modern  development adjacent or in the proximity to these historic settlements would be a defilement; an act of vandallism no less.

The esteemed architectural journalist and author Stephen Gardiner was alerted to the Port Penlee and other developments and was so appalled that he devoted two scathing articles about it for his regular column in The Times. We share the views of Mr Gardiner in that the incongruity of placing a complete ‘model village’ (of which to us Port Penlee resembles) next to the long-established historic communities of Newlyn, Mousehole and Paul, is a travesty! Anyone who does not see this is either a Philistine or an idiot. We would further suggest that anyone who puts profit before heritage should seriously examine their prioities. Anyway, even when viewed in such mercenary terms, the old arguments about the developments “bringing in new jobs” or “people can't eat history” fall flat: In 2004, The revenue generated in Penwith from tourism and related businesses was £230million; over six times that of the fishing industry, the next largest. We must not let these developments damage our heritage or kill the golden goose.

9. Construction - Six Years of Noise, Mess and Misery?

Coming soon.... meanwhile, see Impact on Business and  FAQs

10. Alternatives - What are they?

(click here for the extended version)

The owners of Penlee Quarry are prepared to consider only one alternative for its future use – that of a marina and housing development.  But although it is true that the quarry is privately owned, the effects of its future use will be far from private, and those of us who would like to see something other than the proposed development have the right to fight for what we want.

Any commercial development of the quarry would be problematic due to restricted access.  Members of Stop the Marina! have considered a range of options.  One of the most popular choices is that of some type of nature reserve, perhaps incorporating viewing platforms for bird enthusiasts.

If we want to see an alternative use of Penlee Quarry we must act now.  Whatever happens in the quarry will affect the whole of Mount’s Bay, perhaps the whole area.

Let’s make sure we get what we want.

Are there any alternatives sites where a marina would be better-suited? Well there's Penzance for a start - they actually want one there. They already have an established sailing club, there would be no traffic problems, and it wouldn't damage tourism revenues either. The trouble is, there is nowhere for them to build a stack of luxury waterside homes to sell off for a mint. That's the real reason there is no marina in Penzance.