Penzance Heliport: The debate continues.
It was a useful and
balanced discussion, with what appeared to be a large contingent from
the Scillies and I wondered how they got there? Presumably by air? I
am not convinced by their arguments of desperate need or the
assurances that the helicopter can operate without adverse
environmental impact. At the earlier briefing to Councillors by the
applicant and his noise experts, it was stated that the helicopter
would only add 0.5 dBA to Gulval School. This is quite clearly
ridiculous. It is an example of the misleading use and interpretation
of noise readings by the non independent and partial noise experts
'WYG'. John Moreland commended the design brief but this cannot
conceal the fact that yet again a green field site is to be turned
into concrete, tarmac and cars, and importantly NORTH of Jelbert Way
breaking an invisible barrier to development. Given the failure -
with the assistance of Cornwall Planners - of the previous BIH
operation, it is difficult to see how this proposal can be
financially viable, given the availability of a virtually identical
and much cheaper service at Lands End. In all the circumstances, in
my opinion, the proposal, cannot be justified.
Francine Clark Unfortunately that is the argument the opposition fail to understand. If you lived here and had to get a child to medical appointment or wanted to fly abroad it just doesn’t work. It’s not a reliable service and at £250 a go unaffordable. Interestingly the speakers from scilly all got stuck at landsend this morning due to, yep youve guess it...FOG
Tim Veater Francine Clark I take you point Francine but perhaps unconsciously your transport problems work AGAINST the Penzance project. If the cost of travel is unaffordable from Lands End, it must be even more the case when huge investment costs and a distance a third more, will have to be accommodated. If the link is to be commercially viable it must provide benefits over and above the cost differential. If the BIH service was non-viable, how is the new one to be with an under-cutting competitor? Indeed the much higher cost of a ticket from Penzance has already been confirmed by the proposers of the scheme. So although wealthy holiday makers MAY be prepared to pay the premium, if cost is currently the hindrance, I cannot see how the proposed new service can possibly help.
Video of:
https://www.facebook.com/alexander.rodger.9/videos/10156367206220281/?hc_ref=ARTP9o02C39h8kLjvdi-xKZT05xOue-G3CVycX7vaCqpJ3SEp9ChOUbhqK25_gTpky8
Penzance Heliport: Thanks for your comment Tim which we are happy to leave here for discussion. However, perhaps if you are going to post this on our Facebook page, Stop the Chop will stop removing our comments with our response to their claims from their Facebook page. Thanks
Tim Veater Penzance Heliport I pleased to point out I have no editorial control over, and no intimate connection, with 'Stop the Chop', although I think it has done the public a great service in raising the profile of the issue, that prior to it, appeared to be proceeding virtually undiscussed.
Jon Symons I don't know where you live Tim but I'm certain that it was a greenfield site once. Most forms of human activity have an impact on the land. It is the case with all roads, railways, harbours etc. Why would this proposed facility and link be any less justified than the others?
Surely there are benefits to both Penzance and IOS communities to having a quick and effective all year round link directly between two communities.
Tim Veater Jon Symons I agree with you, in part at least, Jon, and that unfortunately is the problem. Humans have, and always have had, an impact on the physical environment - and vice versa! Unfortunately technilogical and economic advance, linked to actual numbers and behaviours, place a pressure on the ecosystem as never before. Humans cannot continue on this path, indifferent to the consequences of their action and if this is to mean anything it must impinge on specific detailed proposals. Pandering to the human desire to travel without delay or inconvenience is no longer sufficient reason to ignore the damage we are doing to our world. If alternative routes and methods of travel to the Isles of Scilly were not available, I might be persuaded this scheme was necessary, even desirable. However this is not the case and consequently I am not so persuaded. The advantages do not outweigh both the short and long term damage being planned.
Tim Veater On a local level, it was a wonderful day for me when the BIH operation stopped, although it was of course none of my doing. I even used it occasionally! It stopped because BIH said it was uneconomic, assisted by the Cornwall Council that facilitated a change of use, that provided BIH a huge windfall it is said in the region of £12 million. What was the result? The Scilly Isles were deprived of any helicopter service and locally another greenfield site changed to supermarket building and carpark. This in turn further similar developments 'next door'. In turn this has been yet another nail in the decline of Penzance town itself - a national phenomenom. Nearly sixty years ago there were dire warning that if a heliport in Penzance were frustrated the town would 'die'. In fact the reverse is the case. Planning and economic decisions have precipitated the current decline. To view film from the sixties is to witness a vibrant market town. To a certain extent the same might be said of the Scilly Isles itself where policies have reduced its charm and distinctiveness. Could it be that falling visitor numbers are not just to do with difficulty of travel, but its cost and desirability as place to escape the very things that are being promoted as 'progress'?
Tim Veater Lisa Emgee It is a genuine and significant issue for anyone owning affected property. The subject has been studied academically and a clear relationship proved. The greater the background noise the greater the impact on value. "Studies have shown that aircraft noise does decrease the value of residential property
located around airports. Although there are many socio-economical factors which must
be considered because they may negatively affect property values themselves, all
research conducted in this area found negative effects from aviation noise, with effects
ranging from a 0.6 to 2.3 percent decrease in property value per decibel increase ofcumulative noise exposure. " See: http://socnw.org/.../Effects%20of%20noise%20on%20property...
Tim Veater As I have explained elsewhere, it is one thing to agree a planning application on reliable information, quite another if the information is misleading in some way. My beef with the 'WYG' report is that despite its assurances it is clearly not impartial. "He who pays the piper calls the tune." And clearly the tune here is to minimise the noise impact. It does this first of all by choosing essentially noisy sites close to roads to set the background level against which any additional noise will be determined. In the 15 sites chosen this elevates the background noise by up to 20 dBA to start with. Then a unit of measurement, the Leq is chosen, which is an average over time, which is consistently well above the L90 figure, usually used to represent background noise as in BS 4142. All academic studies suggest that helicopter noise is intrinsically more annoying and this should be allowed for by a weighting of upwards of 6 dBA, but this is not done. Then we must distinguish the Leq (average) noise level with the actual peak or linear noise level produced by the aircraft. Of course WYG make no reference to peak values which are necessarily much higher than Leqs althought it is the peak values that actually cause the nuisance during landing, idling and take-off up to 17 times per day. In this way WYG was able to proclaim that no one would be adversely affected which is demonstrably untrue.
Mark Gilmour Last night was about Noise and Air pollutiuon from the helicpoter and not PTSD casueing suicides in young men who have fought for their counrty ffs...get a grip!!
Mark Gilmour I used that as an example that all is not rosy in the area of mental health in the armed services. The causes of physical and psychological illness are far too complex to be dismissed with a wave of the arm or anything else. Mark Russell has highlighted reputable studies which show a discernable effect of noise on both physical and mental health. Noise nuisance is a separate but related phenomenom. In my own experience I have met many who have complained about various noises from people and machines because it is affecting their mental, social and even physical wellbing. Indeed the effects of short term noise was demonstrated in the hall with the defective PA system. What if the audience was made to submit to it for 12 hours every day of the week. Is it not reasonable to think it might have consequences for their health? I have a feeling (though of course I may be very wrong) that you would be the last person to put up with noisy music or a barking dog or noisy extractor fan outside your house. Would it help at all if on complaining the person responsible merely told you to 'get a grip' and carried on as before?
Mark Gilmour Tim Veater....the suryey that Mark Russell used as an example was cherry picekd from a mucm larger sudy around International Airports around the wolrdand Heathrow being one of them...you know Heathrow Airport??...busiest airport in the world? ....a far far cry from a single modern helicopeter running out of Pz. The service ran for 48 years for Pz so why shouldnt it run so again...and i susspect that you and your friends are the trype or people complain about anything regarless of whether or not it had an real effect on your wellbeing or not...again...NIMBY at its finest
See: https://www.facebook.com/pzheliport/posts/2067849703534840?comment_id=2069277030058774¬if_id=1532474774340894¬if_t=comment_mention
Also: https://www.facebook.com/StopTheChop/
And previous June articles on this Blog.
It was a useful and balanced discussion, with what appeared to be a large contingent from the Scillies and I wondered how they got there? Presumably by air? I am not convinced by their arguments of desperate need or the assurances that the helicopter can operate without adverse environmental impact. At the earlier briefing to Councillors by the applicant and his noise experts, it was stated that the helicopter would only add 0.5 dBA to Gulval School. This is quite clearly ridiculous. It is an example of the misleading use and interpretation of noise readings by the non independent and partial noise experts 'WYG'. John Moreland commended the design brief but this cannot conceal the fact that yet again a green field site is to be turned into concrete, tarmac and cars, and importantly NORTH of Jelbert Way breaking an invisible barrier to development. Given the failure - with the assistance of Cornwall Planners - of the previous BIH operation, it is difficult to see how this proposal can be financially viable, given the availability of a virtually identical and much cheaper service at Lands End. In all the circumstances, in my opinion, the proposal, cannot be justified.Francine Clark Unfortunately that is the argument the opposition fail to understand. If you lived here and had to get a child to medical appointment or wanted to fly abroad it just doesn’t work. It’s not a reliable service and at £250 a go unaffordable. Interestingly the speakers from scilly all got stuck at landsend this morning due to, yep youve guess it...FOG
Tim Veater Francine Clark I take you point Francine but perhaps unconsciously your transport problems work AGAINST the Penzance project. If the cost of travel is unaffordable from Lands End, it must be even more the case when huge investment costs and a distance a third more, will have to be accommodated. If the link is to be commercially viable it must provide benefits over and above the cost differential. If the BIH service was non-viable, how is the new one to be with an under-cutting competitor? Indeed the much higher cost of a ticket from Penzance has already been confirmed by the proposers of the scheme. So although wealthy holiday makers MAY be prepared to pay the premium, if cost is currently the hindrance, I cannot see how the proposed new service can possibly help.
Video of:
https://www.facebook.com/alexander.rodger.9/videos/10156367206220281/?hc_ref=ARTP9o02C39h8kLjvdi-xKZT05xOue-G3CVycX7vaCqpJ3SEp9ChOUbhqK25_gTpky8
Penzance Heliport: Thanks for your comment Tim which we are happy to leave here for discussion. However, perhaps if you are going to post this on our Facebook page, Stop the Chop will stop removing our comments with our response to their claims from their Facebook page. Thanks
Tim Veater Penzance Heliport I pleased to point out I have no editorial control over, and no intimate connection, with 'Stop the Chop', although I think it has done the public a great service in raising the profile of the issue, that prior to it, appeared to be proceeding virtually undiscussed.
Jon Symons I don't know where you live Tim but I'm certain that it was a greenfield site once. Most forms of human activity have an impact on the land. It is the case with all roads, railways, harbours etc. Why would this proposed facility and link be any less justified than the others?
Surely there are benefits to both Penzance and IOS communities to having a quick and effective all year round link directly between two communities.
Tim Veater Jon Symons I agree with you, in part at least, Jon, and that unfortunately is the problem. Humans have, and always have had, an impact on the physical environment - and vice versa! Unfortunately technilogical and economic advance, linked to actual numbers and behaviours, place a pressure on the ecosystem as never before. Humans cannot continue on this path, indifferent to the consequences of their action and if this is to mean anything it must impinge on specific detailed proposals. Pandering to the human desire to travel without delay or inconvenience is no longer sufficient reason to ignore the damage we are doing to our world. If alternative routes and methods of travel to the Isles of Scilly were not available, I might be persuaded this scheme was necessary, even desirable. However this is not the case and consequently I am not so persuaded. The advantages do not outweigh both the short and long term damage being planned.
Tim Veater On a local level, it was a wonderful day for me when the BIH operation stopped, although it was of course none of my doing. I even used it occasionally! It stopped because BIH said it was uneconomic, assisted by the Cornwall Council that facilitated a change of use, that provided BIH a huge windfall it is said in the region of £12 million. What was the result? The Scilly Isles were deprived of any helicopter service and locally another greenfield site changed to supermarket building and carpark. This in turn further similar developments 'next door'. In turn this has been yet another nail in the decline of Penzance town itself - a national phenomenom. Nearly sixty years ago there were dire warning that if a heliport in Penzance were frustrated the town would 'die'. In fact the reverse is the case. Planning and economic decisions have precipitated the current decline. To view film from the sixties is to witness a vibrant market town. To a certain extent the same might be said of the Scilly Isles itself where policies have reduced its charm and distinctiveness. Could it be that falling visitor numbers are not just to do with difficulty of travel, but its cost and desirability as place to escape the very things that are being promoted as 'progress'?
Tim Veater Lisa Emgee It is a genuine and significant issue for anyone owning affected property. The subject has been studied academically and a clear relationship proved. The greater the background noise the greater the impact on value. "Studies have shown that aircraft noise does decrease the value of residential property
located around airports. Although there are many socio-economical factors which must
be considered because they may negatively affect property values themselves, all
research conducted in this area found negative effects from aviation noise, with effects
ranging from a 0.6 to 2.3 percent decrease in property value per decibel increase ofcumulative noise exposure. " See: http://socnw.org/.../Effects%20of%20noise%20on%20property...
Tim Veater As I have explained elsewhere, it is one thing to agree a planning application on reliable information, quite another if the information is misleading in some way. My beef with the 'WYG' report is that despite its assurances it is clearly not impartial. "He who pays the piper calls the tune." And clearly the tune here is to minimise the noise impact. It does this first of all by choosing essentially noisy sites close to roads to set the background level against which any additional noise will be determined. In the 15 sites chosen this elevates the background noise by up to 20 dBA to start with. Then a unit of measurement, the Leq is chosen, which is an average over time, which is consistently well above the L90 figure, usually used to represent background noise as in BS 4142. All academic studies suggest that helicopter noise is intrinsically more annoying and this should be allowed for by a weighting of upwards of 6 dBA, but this is not done. Then we must distinguish the Leq (average) noise level with the actual peak or linear noise level produced by the aircraft. Of course WYG make no reference to peak values which are necessarily much higher than Leqs althought it is the peak values that actually cause the nuisance during landing, idling and take-off up to 17 times per day. In this way WYG was able to proclaim that no one would be adversely affected which is demonstrably untrue.
Mark Gilmour Last night was about Noise and Air pollutiuon from the helicpoter and not PTSD casueing suicides in young men who have fought for their counrty ffs...get a grip!!
Mark Gilmour I used that as an example that all is not rosy in the area of mental health in the armed services. The causes of physical and psychological illness are far too complex to be dismissed with a wave of the arm or anything else. Mark Russell has highlighted reputable studies which show a discernable effect of noise on both physical and mental health. Noise nuisance is a separate but related phenomenom. In my own experience I have met many who have complained about various noises from people and machines because it is affecting their mental, social and even physical wellbing. Indeed the effects of short term noise was demonstrated in the hall with the defective PA system. What if the audience was made to submit to it for 12 hours every day of the week. Is it not reasonable to think it might have consequences for their health? I have a feeling (though of course I may be very wrong) that you would be the last person to put up with noisy music or a barking dog or noisy extractor fan outside your house. Would it help at all if on complaining the person responsible merely told you to 'get a grip' and carried on as before?
Mark Gilmour Tim Veater....the suryey that Mark Russell used as an example was cherry picekd from a mucm larger sudy around International Airports around the wolrdand Heathrow being one of them...you know Heathrow Airport??...busiest airport in the world? ....a far far cry from a single modern helicopeter running out of Pz. The service ran for 48 years for Pz so why shouldnt it run so again...and i susspect that you and your friends are the trype or people complain about anything regarless of whether or not it had an real effect on your wellbeing or not...again...NIMBY at its finest
See: https://www.facebook.com/pzheliport/posts/2067849703534840?comment_id=2069277030058774¬if_id=1532474774340894¬if_t=comment_mention
Also: https://www.facebook.com/StopTheChop/
And previous June articles on this Blog.
It was a useful and balanced discussion, with what appeared to be a large contingent from the Scillies and I wondered how they got there? Presumably by air? I am not convinced by their arguments of desperate need or the assurances that the helicopter can operate without adverse environmental impact. At the earlier briefing to Councillors by the applicant and his noise experts, it was stated that the helicopter would only add 0.5 dBA to Gulval School. This is quite clearly ridiculous. It is an example of the misleading use and interpretation of noise readings by the non independent and partial noise experts 'WYG'. John Moreland commended the design brief but this cannot conceal the fact that yet again a green field site is to be turned into concrete, tarmac and cars, and importantly NORTH of Jelbert Way breaking an invisible barrier to development. Given the failure - with the assistance of Cornwall Planners - of the previous BIH operation, it is difficult to see how this proposal can be financially viable, given the availability of a virtually identical and much cheaper service at Lands End. In all the circumstances, in my opinion, the proposal, cannot be justified.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.