|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
YOUR EMAILS and LETTERS
You can email us on comment@carlyonbaywatch.com or submit your views directly on the Your Views page From Juliet Aylward (CBW)
"Dear Helen McComb, I'm glad you liked our part of the world and understand why we have fought so hard to try to reduce the size of this development so that it would be confined to the old leisure complex site. Unfortunately, as you have seen, money talks and it seems that those who make these decisions can't see beyond the short term with the developers' promises of jobs, "regeneration" etc.. In the mid to long term those of us who love our wonderful coastal scenery shudder to think what this part of it will look like once the developers have moved on and the shiny new buildings have been battered by our Cornish weather (maybe even threatened by rising sea levels) and it's no longer a "must have" place for people to want to spend their money on. In the meantime (and so far there are no detailed plans and no timetable for the development) CBW is still making a nuisance of itself trying to make sure they don't ride roughshod over the local community." --------------------------------------------------------------------------Friday 17th February 2012 "Hello, my partner and I visited the beach for the first time last September and were delighted with it, and intrigued to hear something of the history.. I have finally got around to checking this out on the internet and am hugely depressed by what I've learned. The plans to effectively annex the beach for the use of the wealthy who will buy the accommodation are appalling. The idea that long-established public access to the beach can be curtailed in the pursuit of money is outrageous. I wish you every success in resisting it despite all that has gone before.
Best wishes Helen McComb, Gloucester"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24th January 2012 "Dear Sirs, I live in Saltash and occasionally visit Charlestown, a fantastic, unspoiled village. Earlier this week I visited Carlyon Bay beach for only the 2nd time in my life to show a friend what a dreadful place it is. And I wasn't disappointed if that makes sense.
It strikes me that the real damage was done when the arena was built back in the 1960s, but the current situation is appalling. I know not who owns the site but they should be forced to demolish the existing buildings and clean the beach up. However, sadly I guess that is unlikely to happen.
My own view, which probably won't coincide with yours, is virtually anything would be better than what is currently there, and I say that without knowing what the developers are proposing. As a minimum though I would hope that access to the whole beach would remain open to us the public, as there seems something inherently wrong with private ownership of any stretch of beach, but as I said earlier virtually anything would be better than what is there now."
Stephen Jensen -------------------------------------------------------------------------- These emails are in response to the "yes" vote by the Cornwall Council Strategic Planning Committee on 30th June 2011. "Democracy Cornish-style. So once again the voice of the people has been taken into account by those who are elected to represent us. In many democracies that would mean that the will of the majority would prevail and decisions would be taken in line with those wishes. Sadly in Cornwall things are very different. Those elected 'representatives' seem to think that they have the right to ignore the views of the public. They 'hear what we say' and then dismiss it. After all they only need our vote once every few years. What makes them act as if they are superior beings with no responsibility to the electorate? The decision to approve the building of a town on a beach at Carlyon Bay flies in the face of every survey conducted among the existing residents, the vast majority of whom think these plans are just too big. Virtually everyone supports some development on the old Coliseum site but virtually no-one surveyed thinks the scale is right. The developers have seemingly held a gun to the heads of our supine or arrogant representatives by planting the thought that if these plans aren't passed then they will leave the site to rot for another couple of decades as they have left it to rot for the last 21 years. And it's not just Carlyon Bay which shows our blessed elected ones in their true colours. For a start just think 'St. Denis' or 'incinerator' then think of the other Cornish examples which fall into the same mould. It does make you wonder why we bother to vote or - if we do - who would show themselves honest and principled enough to deserve our vote. I am saddened to my very core by these people." R. Geary, Cornwall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No, nothing from Jane Austen, just a personal comment upon our County Council – where it has long been made plain by word and action, although never admitted, that by approving the permanent destruction of acres of natural habitat and open sea shore, the wide, long beaches of Carlyon Bay shall be lost to the community for ever, and all in the name of Tou, the great god of Tourism. The guile came in the many and often assurances that ‘localism’ would count, the assurances that local people were being heard, and in the public proclamations of ‘enough is enough’, for this was to be a step too far. The gullibility was the readiness, nay, eagerness, to swallow, hook, line and sinker, the deluge of propaganda and illusion that surrounded this planning process. It all started when the Planning Performance Agreement was signed in June 2009 behind closed doors during the interregnum twixt the Restormel Borough Council’s death and the birth of the Cornwall Council, and continued all the way to June 2011, when the sheep were herded into the pen at County Hall. But that’s simply not true ! The gullibility had started way, way earlier, when we locals were assembled on a cliff-top in 1989 to be promised jobs, lots of them. It was that same day when an elderly lady who sought to make her point was told “shut up, you old bag”. Those jobs ? They melted instantly into the sand, for now there was a profit to be made – the site was promptly sold, together with its gigantic planning consent. The guile came again when, in 1995, a couple of last-minute marker stakes hammered into the ground were held to be of sufficient evidence to warrant a Certificate of Lawful Commencement. And yet again when the £30 millions wasted on in infeasible plan having been written off, the insistence that the 1999 consent was still “viable” continued (for more than twenty years) notwithstanding the irrefutable evidence to the contrary. How irrefutable is this evidence ? Will a project that was in 2006 publicly declared in part to be “dangerous to life and property” be sufficiently irrefutable ? The guile that, in 2004, without a shred of planning consent and entirely unconsulted, created a truly massive structure built across nearly a mile of foreshore, a blight, nay, an environmental outrage, that has nonetheless enjoyed the enduring sympathy of the local authorities. Is it wrong to find that curious ? The guile that has kept this mighty but illegal and ugly structure in place for seven wasted years, despite a Guinness Book of Records three-year-long Enforcement Order, hard-fought for and won by local people. Why three years, and why still not completely obeyed, near four years later ? Is it wrong to find that curious ? You’ll need to ask your local authority about that, and the best of luck ! It will of course be said that this was Restormel Borough, and we are not Restormel, but the same people are still in charge, and Cornwall Council assumed at law the responsibilities of the now-dead Boroughs. The gullibility came in so many forms. From those many local business-people with an eye to personal profit, who choose to ignore the pikestaff-plain evidence that massive out-of-town spending opportunities are sucking the very life-blood from the town centres of the United Kingdom. And from those who believe that traffic congestion to the point of gridlock will help to foster their interests. From those who believe the idea that temporary seasonal part-time jobs with anti-social hours and a wage at the National minimum level is the ideal work sought by our young people for their lifelong careers. The idea that the forces of nature can be denied their natural and inevitable role. Perhaps worst of all, the guile that has denied, nay, treated with utter contempt, the wishes of those local people who will suffer the greatest impact. This despite the valiant efforts of our Parish Council. The evidence ? At least three separate surveys, conducted recently by three separate people, together more than six hundred opinions, almost all saying o.k., but please, please, please, not this big ! It would thus appear that this rare combination of guile and gullibility have served us all very badly, has signed the death warrant for localism, and has proven the strength of one of the oldest adages, that money talks. The problem is that it speaks here an extremely convoluted and destructive language." This letter was received by Carlyon Bay Watch on 23rd March 2011. "I have just completed (and posted) a survey AGAINST the Beach development to Steve Double, Cornwall Conservatives, Roche. My husband and I swam each morning on Carlyon Bay Beach for 1966-87, holidays, 1987 - residents. All year round 8-9am. There were at least 10 bathers at this early hour. Unfortunately, our morning swims were discontinued owing to illness. I can unfortunately no longer take part in the demonstrations and "beach walks", correspondence etc. But you have my earnest heartfelt support to try to preserve this, once perfect, beach for the benefit of the coming generations and commercial effect on St Austell town." Imelda Humphries Carlyon Bay The following letter to Cornwall Council planning department was copied to CBW. Dear Sirs, I would like to express our strong objection to any development of Carlyon, Crinnis and Shorthorn beaches. The proposed plan would totally destroy an area of beauty and greatly reduce the size of the beach currently available to the public. I believe that the only possible area for development is the site of the Coliseum and associated buildings, an eyesore for far too long. Carlyon Bay is a lovely area in which to live and I believe that the proposed development would totally destroy our environment. Beach Road would be unable to cope with the increased traffic and the infrastructure required for such a development will put an intolerable burden on local services. Yours faithfully, Maggie & Peter Farrow 21 March 2011 From Peter Browning (CBW) 08/03/2011 9.29am "Hullo again Mr Ralphs. If you have only heard one 'side of the argument', as you put it, how, we feel entitled to ask, are you able to arrive at a fully and properly informed judgment? The inescapable fact is that the Luddites were very fully aware of what was happening to their lives ... Fortunately (and thankfully) however, their eighteenth century starvation, persecution, violence and death have never reached Carlyon Bay. Just plain old common sense. Regards, Peter." From Antony Ralphs 08/03/2011 8.42am "I HAVE ONLY HEARD YOUR SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT, CORRECTED LUDDITES." From Peter Browning 07/03/2011 09.45am "Thank you kindly Mr Ralphs for your contribution to the debate. If you would wish to be rather better informed, you are very welcome indeed to make further contact. Regards, Peter. ps: We take it that you intended 'Luddites'". From Antony Ralphs 06/03/2011 3.05pm "Ludites" From Richard Nicholson 17/11/10 11.30pm Brentwood, Essex "I have been watching with interest on the outcome of this conflict. I remember coming to Carlyon Bay during the summer holidays during the 60s and 70s and can recall many happy times there, my dad used to park right on the beach. Oh happy days! I still visit my beloved Cornwall a few times a year and always pop down to Carlyon, each time hoping that I shall see the beach returned to its former glory. It's very disappointing to find it's still like a war zone down there. Why did the Council give Ampersand 2 years to get rid of the shuttering? If it were you or I building an illegal extension they would have made us do something a damn sight quicker. May I suggest that the Council fine Ampersand for every day that the monstrosity that is the shuttering is still there after 8th December. Let's say £10,000 per day. This could be put towards the revenue lost from all the local shops, car parks, amenities etc. that have lost valuable trade from people that would have used the beach over the past 6-7 years. Ampersand, Please, Up Sticks and GO! Best wishes for a speedy conclusion." From JRW 16/10/2010 5.42pm
"Why do you and others insist on calling Carlyon Bay beach 'man-made'? Before Ampersand tipped thousands of tons of rough builders sand there it was a golden yellow colour. China clay sand is white or pale grey, therefore the proportion of natural sand from cliff erosion etc. must have been greater in order for the beach to be yellow. The clay workings in the catchment area that feeds the beach river are few and would have been very small during the period the waste sand is said to have been deposited. Also, water is the primary tool in hydro-mining and to waste billions of gallons to wash sand to Carlyon Bay would have been foolhardy even if the spare water was available. Water was conserved and recycled. The workings in the catchment area also had the old conical sand tips so where did the millions of tons of sand at Crinnis come from? I realise that some fine sand and mica would have washed there from the refining process but to call it a man-made beach is ridiculous. Do the geologists maintain that Pentewan Beach is made from sand washed down the old 'white river' from a couple of pits in the Gover Valley and three or four near Carthew? I also doubt millions of tons were sent down the Fal from workings around St Dennis and Treviscoe. Please think again as calling it 'man-made' does your campaign no good. Good luck, JRW. " Reply from Alan Francis, a geologist who has spent most of his career in the China Clay industry.
"Old maps show no beach at Carlyon Bay before the diversion of the aptly-named "Sandy" river. It was called thus because of the large load of sand it carried from the workings, which was clogging the old river mouth at Par and thus silting the harbour. Indeed, special 'adits' or drains were later mined through the Carlyon cliffs to help relieve the silting problem in the harbour. The whole of Par Moor is underlain by a depth of more than 80 feet of sand eroded from the china clay granite. Sand (or stent, as it is known in the industry, a by-product of the workings), added to natural erosion, had been fed into the Sandy River since Elizabethan times. Environmental legislation is a relative newcomer. The White River is (again) so called because it was basically an industrial drain, carrying clay, mica and sand to the sea. It has an unnatural engineered straight course from the china clay area to the sea. This ensured that it was self-scouring. Good environmental and mining practice came about in the mid-1970s but until then this type of mining was relatively unregulated. In the 1970s, I inspected the length of the Fal River to record the damage that could be attributed to the china clay industry. Finally, I would say that if Carlyon Bay beaches were natural in origin and not 'man-made' they would match up to nearby Charlestown Beach, which is made up of large pebbles of the neighbouring killas rock." D.H of North Yorkshire 28/2/2010 |
 |
 |
|
| Site Map |