|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Question 1 | Do you support the Tintagel Regeneration Project scheme? | ||||||
| Yes | No | Don't know | Total | ||||
| Numbers Responding | 499 | 108 | 7 | 614 | |||
| Percentage | 81 | 18 | 1 | 100 | |||
| Question 2 | Improvements to the street scene of part of Bossiney Road, Fore Street and part of Atlantic Road is one part of a comprehensive and integrated scheme also involving improvements to the access to the castle. What is your overall opinion on the proposals to improve the street scene and as described in the accompanying information? | ||||||
| Strongly Approve | Approve | Disapprove | Strongly Disapprove | ||||
| Numbers Responding | 236 | 260 | 33 | 42 | 571 | ||
| Percentage | 41 | 46 | 6 | 7 | 100 | ||
| Combined % | 87 | 13 | 100 | ||||
| Question 3 | Provision of alternatives to the current on-street parking will need to be a key feature of the scheme if it is to proceed. Would you support the provision of free parking for residents of Tintagel Parish in selected car parks as an alternative to the current situation and as described in the accompanying information? | ||||||
| Numbers Responding | 235 | 225 | 43 | 63 | 566 | ||
| Percentage | 42 | 40 | 8 | 11 | 100 | ||
| Combined % | 81 | 19 | 100 | ||||
| Question 4 | Control of traffic speed will also be important if pedestrians are to feel more comfortable using the newly refurbished street scene. Would you support a proposal which would seek to have a new 20mph speed limit between Foster's Lane and the Tintagel Country Club. | ||||||
| Support Speed Limit | Not Support Speed Limit | ||||||
| Numbers Responding | 546 | 34 | 580 | ||||
| Percentage | 94 | 6 | 100 | ||||
| Question 5 | Delivery of goods to shops will need to be managed to avoid traffic congestion. Would you support a proposal that would seek to avoid any deliveries to the village between 10.30am and 3.00pm? | ||||||
| Approve delivery time limit | Don't approve delivery time limit | ||||||
| Numbers Responding | 354 | 182 | 536 | ||||
| Percentage | 66 | 34 | 100 | ||||
| Question 6 | Improvements to the access to Tintagel Castle is the other part of a comprehensive and integrated scheme also involving improvements to the street scene of part of Bossiney Road, Fore Street and part of Atlantic Road. What is your overall opinion on the proposals to improve the access to, and facilities around, the castle as described in the accompanying information? | ||||||
| Strongly Approve | Approve | Disapprove | Strongly Disapprove | ||||
| Numbers Responding | 231 | 258 | 26 | 14 | 529 | ||
| Percentage | 44 | 49 | 5 | 3 | 100 | ||
| Combine % | 92 | 8 | 100 | ||||
| Spoiled | 1 | ||||||
| Unmarked | 11 | ||||||
| Returns | No. sent out | Percentage Return | |||||
| 626 | 1400 | 45 | |||||
DESTRUCTION
OF THE CHARACTER OF OUR VILLAGE...TINTAGEL
Below
is the FINAL
LETTER setting out the For's and Against the Regeneration at
Tintagel. You had a simple choice---you have to accept the plan in FULL
or say NO to the Regeneration Project. There are of course many good
aspects of the plan but personally there is simply NO WAY I would have voted YES to
the whole plan. It had to be NO because the needs of local people
have just been thrown in the dustbin. There are many elderly and infirm people
in Tintagel who need to park right outside the shop they need to visit. Parking
in a Car Park is NOT what they want or should be forced to do. There will NO return to
parking on the main street if this plan goes ahead. This is a Charter for Summer
Traders, National Trust, English Heritage and Councils. This is NOT for
the good of the residents of TINTAGEL OR VISITORS!!!!.
Remember there will be NO parking on the roads between the Social Hall
and the Country Club.
I am proud to have voted NO to this desecration. David Flower
REMEMBER: As Sir Winston Churchill Said: This is not the end, it is not even the
beginning of the end, it is just the end of the beginning. I will be pressing
for a Referendum on this issue so all ratepayers vote and not the selected
few. Just 10 names were needed and I already have these, and the Parish Council will be forced to have a
real view of the villagers of Tintagel. They are trying to rush these ridiculous
plans through, the project is due to start this November!!!!!!!
Please let me have your E Mails, FOR & AGAINST and I promise to put them all
on the web site
E Mail 16th August 2000
Having just read your piece on the web-site about the changes at Tonkin's Garage over the
years, I am prompted to write to you about the proposed regeneration project.
Is this not just another way for a few people to alter the history and heritage of the village in a
way that suits them and their businesses? I have lived very happily in Tintagel all my life, and
find it very disappointing that such a large scale project is being considered without more
in-depth consultation of the people who live but do not necessarily work in the village. I work
away from the village purely out of necessity, however, I am made to feel that, because I do not
spend more time here, my feelings about the village are not as important.
Another aspect that concerns me is the provision for traffic passing through the village beyond
the proposed pedestrian area. How will businesses which are located at the far end of the
village (ie;beyond The Cornishman) deal with essential deliveries in the busy and congested
summer months?
These are just the matters that concern me about the project as a whole.
(E Mail address supplied)
E
MAIL !!!! 16th January 2001
Dear Mr. Flower,
As a regular visitor to Tintagel I welcome any improvements that will increase the prosperity of all members of the village. Your plans seems to lack one or two facilities. 1) Access to the western end of the village for Campers, Caravaners, B&B residents and users of the King Arthur's Hotel Coaching Holidays.
2) How do the disabled visit the village if they cannot park IN the village and close to the amenities?
Could you please explain
Sincerely
Pete Stenning
MY REPLY
1. Business people are VERY concerned about the access to the areas you mention.
It seems that every thing is thrown overboard for the sake of wider pavements.
There will be serious problems if the Regeneration Plans are accepted by
villagers.
2. Another concern is about the elderly and disabled being unable to park
outside the chemist, butchers, grocers etc. it will be very detrimental to local
businesses which open all year round.
E MAIL 20th January 2001
I have taken the time to inspect the plans for Tintagel, even to the extent of printing a copy and coming into the village to look on the ground. I have to say this is one of those hair brained schemes dreamed up to satisfy the few at the expense of the many.
I understood that the parish of Tintagel was to be improved by this idea. I fail to see where the
improvement lies. I see a scheme that will only be of benefit to a very few trades
people, and a few visitors, I see a scheme that will take away from the local population the old traditional
Tintagel. Once again the heart of a country village ripped out to
accommodate a few holiday makers. The people come here to see Tintagel, as it is, turning it into another made over seaside resort will destroy the old
Tintagel. The people who live and work in Tintagel village, and the surrounding parishes will suffer with the loss of the traditional
village. The local population will be pushed aside, their views suppressed, so as to
accommodate the grand ideas of a few people who have no idea what this will do to our village. Where will the disabled, elderly, mums and kids,
the sick visiting the chemist etc, park throughout the year to gain entry to the local
shops you know, the people who live here all year, not visitors. This has been tried in many south and east coast villages and towns, any one who would take the time to go and look will see that they are now paying dearly for
their ignorance in trusting the few. Dead villages, no shops, yellow lines every where, no facilities, and an overall
loss of visitors. Housing only for the rich out of town, also, the local governments are now filling the unused guest houses, hotels, b&b, with
immigrants waiting for their asylum cases to be heard.
I put it to this way, the people who visit Tintagel do so because it is an historic and untouched village, not destroyed (yet) by the silly touristy ideas of a few greedy
people. If you cast your eyes around the Parish of Tintagel and have a good look, this vast pot of money could be spent to much better advantage of ALL the residents, not just a
few. There is, I am sure, no objections to overhead lines being placed below ground, or lamp posts being changed for better looking ones in keeping with the
history. Some of the
off street parking needs greatly improving, and better public facilities are needed, but the rest of the scheme is way,
way too much of a change, and not to our advantage, the local people.
I also put to you the following. If this money was used to improve and revamp the roads leading into the village, it would have an
enormous benefit to the local residents. Reduce the speed limit from Delabole to Tintagel down to 30mph, carry out road schemes to slow the traffic from Trebarwith Strand junction to Tintagel, this would make it safer for all of us, children, disabled, elderly and others, making our community a safer
place. Reduce the speed limit throughout the whole of the Tintagel parish villages to 20mph, would make it safer for all the users and animals alike. and enforce them with Police
presence, if you can get the police to visit us, and speed traps, even to employing our own village policeman, like others have.
In closing I would urge all the good people to start asking questions. How will this help us, who is behind this scheme, what are the true intentions of the Committee, who appointed them to represent us, also where is the copy of this plan sent to all the rate
payers?. I have not seen one, have you?. I believe that all the residents of the postal areas PL32/33/34/35, should receive a referendum form clearly explaining these proposals and to be asked to vote on
them. The voice of the many would then be heard, and I believe would say a resounding
NO. This scheme in its present form is not the way forward for our TINTAGEL.
resident of Tintagel Parish
name and address supplied
E MAIL January 24th
2001 From a Visitor To Our Lovely
Village
Hi
I have been happily browsing your TINTAGEL website and
I thought that I would drop you a line. I
have to say that I was HORRIFIED when I read of the plans for the REGENERATION of Tintagel. My Wife and I have been regular visitors to Tintagel for the last 11
years, indeed we stay just up the road in Trenale at Trenale Court. We come to Cornwall, and Tintagel in
particular because we love how it is. The proposed REGENERATION would just create another carbuncle on
the face of Cornwall. As a "Tourist" I have never liked the messes they have made of other places around
Cornwall by feeling that they have to "pretty them up" to attract tourism. Surely tourists would want to see
a village as it is, not as some plastic pretend village. In my eyes there is no need for such a
scheme, I think that Tintagel should be left alone as it is beautiful as it is, I certainly do not feel any
need for widened footpaths or any of the other proposals. I think it would probably drive away many
of the people who come to Tintagel and love it for what it is, rather than attract people. With Tintagel
what you see is what you get, and I for one love it!!
KARL BEESTON
Hello Mr. Flower,
I used to knock around with your son Robin. My name is Ian Holding and I left the village in 1977 with my family and have missed it ever since !.In two years I plan to return and bring my business that I have built up with me. Please, please do your best to save Tintagel from the rot that has befallen Newquay. I live now in London and if you Cornish don't stick together like I know you can, then you'll have all of the political correctness crap, legions of Asylum seekers like we Londoners have experienced. I'll fill out any opposition forms that you care to send me to keep Tintagel the same and not go on a downward spiral !
Another E Mail Since That Ridiculous Result
Hi
Just checked the site again and was amazed that 81% of people voted YES!! Are they stupid or what?!! Is there
anything I can sign, as a visitor to Tintagel, to put forward my point of view to stop this ridiculous plan.
Name & Address Supplied
And Another...The E Mails Flood In...Take Note Summer Traders!!!
How ANYONE could possibly believe that this is what
tourists want is obviously lacking any
common sense or intelligence. The only thing to do with such people is put them against a wall
and shoot them. A bit strong, I know, but then I think it's the least they deserve
for coming up
with this sly, disgusting scheme to wreck a beautiful village and turn it into a plastic tourist
trap. I understand your anger.
Name & Address Supplied
One
More E mail Hating The Changes
Browsed through the planned changes at Tintagel. What genius thought this up?
Does it mean one will no longer be able to drive up to the Church, or is that
still possible( could not make it out in the plan) Bet you could get the
archdiocese involved if that were so.
Over the thirty years I have not lived in Tintagel there have been some pretty
horrific changes, but this does indeed take the cake. Incidentally, who were the
500 odd folk who got to vote?
Name & Address Supplied...From Oregon, America!!
THE
PLAN & LETTER
The
plan below is made up of two sections.
To see each clearly you need to click individually on each picture
Following is the letter which accompanied
the plan.
Dear
Sir/Madam,
9
January 2001
TINTAGEL REGENERATION SCHEME.
First
of all I apologise for this rather long-winded letter, but it contains some
important information which may have a fundamental effect on the village of
Tintagel (Trevena) in the future. I
have
also attached a diagram and descriptive text that identifies the main
proposals
which are acceptable to the funding organisations. They have
indicated
strongly that they see the improvements to pedestrian access along Fore Street
and access to the castle as fundamental. Our designs have reflected this. This
will mean that the current on-street
parking will be removed BUT we are making provision for free car parking
in most of the car parks in Atlantic Road,
Fore Street and Bossiney Road. This will enable residents of the Tintagel
Parish, featuring on the electoral role, to
apply to the Parish Council for a permit to use these free parking spaces which
will be limited to 30 minutes at a time.
The spaces offered by the owners of the relevant car parks will add up to
approximately 30 spaces. Currently there
are approximately 22 on-street car-parking spaces.
I appreciate that this element may be perceived by some, at least initially, as
not being as convenient as the current
situation. However I must stress that, in my opinion and in the opinion of my
colleagues in the County Council, who
are assisting in the presentation of the proposals and who have day to day
contact with these funding bodies, if the
pedestrian access and street scene is not shown to have been substantially
improved from the current situation,
the funding bodies will be unlikely to invest in the scheme as a whole. We will
not be able to complete any part of the
scheme.
As
an officer of the North Cornwall District Council 1 have been asked to assist
with the development of the scheme and to prepare the various bids which will
need to be submitted for grant aid. To do this 1 have been able to enlist the
assistance of relevant and experienced County Council personnel.
There are two integrated elements to the Tintagel Regeneration Scheme. One part
provides better and safer access to the castle and to the beach. The other deals
with improving the environment of the village making it more pedestrian
friendly. Neither part can easily stand‑alone for the purposes of
developing a successful funding package.
By completing both aims it is hoped that Tintagel will be a more attractive
place for people to visit and an even better place to live in. More
fundamentally the work outlined should result in the stimulation of the local
economy, which has been in long‑term decline, and thus safeguard or
increase the jobs that go with it.
The cost of the scheme as outlined is considerable - approximately £1.5
million. The opportunity that the Objective 1 status given to Cornwall by Europe
brings has to be grasped now. It is highly unlikely that there will ever be
another chance to access this level of funding for such schemes.
Whilst the Objective 1 programme can deliver 50% of the funding other sources
can be tapped into to make up the other 50%. All of the organisations who will
potentially provide the match funding, as well as the Objective 1 programme
itself, will need to see specific benefits from the investment they may make.
They have criteria that we must follow when developing proposals for the
Tintagel Regeneration Scheme if we are to be successful with funding
applications.
One of the most important criteria for any of the funding organisations is that
we must demonstrate local support for the project. We have already held two
public meetings, advertised throughout the village, and have had an exhibition
in the Tintagel Visitor Centre illustrating the proposals for the physical works
to the village. Response forms have been made available and to date some 36
forms have been returned many of which are joint responses. Of the 36, 30 have
indicated that they approve or strongly approve of the scheme and have added
useful comments to qualify their support. 6 have indicated that they disapprove
or strongly disapprove of the scheme.
There are some issues that 1 am aware of which were raised at previous public
meetings mainly relating to on-street car parking.
Yours
sincerely
Charlie David
Coast & Countryside Office
REPORT
OF MEETING AT THE CAMELOT HOTEL DECEMBER 18th
Another meeting was held at the King Arthur's Castle Hotel (Camelot Hotel) on Monday December 13th at 7.30pm. This meeting was packed and it was obvious that it should not have been held in a private building as many could not hear the speakers. Gandalf Strutt, took the chair and Charlie David ( NCDC) and two members of the body who drew up the proposed plans were also in attendance. Charlie David explained the situation as it stood with grants etc and the proposed alterations. It was pretty obvious that NO consideration had been given to local residents, especially the old & infirm, who would not be able to park their cars in the street to collect medicines, groceries, newspapers and other essentials. I said it was purely a summer traders plan which was biased in their favour and to the visitor. However, I am pleased others backed me and now they are going to look at parking spaces remaining as they are today. There was to be only six spaces from the Social Hall to the Country Club...absolutely ridiculous!!. There are many attractive parts of the scheme, underground cabling being the MOST important, more friendly street lighting, crossing places for pedestrians and an attempt to slow down traffic. One idea is to have a 20mph speed limit in the village. Who will check this I have no idea as policeman are very conspicuous by their absence in our village!. I am not very happy about the narrowing of our streets to just six metres width,( in ENGLISH nineteen and a half feet), which I believe will cause traffic chaos in the peak season. If a vehicle breaks down in the street or there is a fire or ambulance emergency I fear the worst. There is a suggestion that delivery vehicles will not be allowed to make deliveries between11.30am to 3pm each day. This is utter nonsense. It should be realised that there will more and more deliveries in future years as the big stores deliver to many more homes. It is my belief that locals must take an interest in what is possibly going to happen to 'their village' or may regret some of the ideas that will be imposed on them.
Remember this is YOUR village and the changes envisaged are very dramatic. I feel personally that the feelings of villagers, who after all pay the rates of the village, MUST be a priority over visitor concerns. Whatever your feelings let them be known to your Parish Councillors.
There are many excellent features of the project and we should all back
those who have worked so very hard to get this far. However some aspects are of
a more controversial nature and these must be looked at very carefully.
These are my personal views of the plans for my village and I will be very happy to accept the
ultimate decision of ALL villagers
David Flower
TINTAGEL REGENERATION PROJECT
Aims
To improve visitor perception of Tintagel To increase length of visitor stay To
develop better economic environment and reduce the turnover of businesses, i.e.
some businesses tend to be ephemeral in Tintagel To more clearly market Tintagel
as a Visitor destination To improve the village environment and encourage a
greater sense of local distinctiveness. To improve physical access to the castle
site from the village.
Objectives
1. Enhance the street scene by; widening and resurfacing existing and providing
new pavements reducing traffic speeds lowering kerbs
2. Improve the visual appearance of the village by; undergrounding obtrusive
overhead wires introducing landscaping features such as planters, benches,
better street lighting and a well designed resurfacing of road and pavements
reducing clutter of commercial and directional signing
3. Encourage a better economic base by;
provide a better identity through careful marketing
*
providing advice and identify assistance to new and existing traders
encourage the reestablishment of a Traders Association
promote a longer season by encouraging businesses to stay open for the shoulder months
encouraging better value for money using the Visitor centres, Castle, National Trust as
examples of good quality facilities
4. Promote the wider interests of the village by; improving the access from the
village to the castle and the English
Heritage Centre
*
replacing the ruined access to the beach providing and disseminating information about the village
and its environs
*
Improve interpretation of and access to the castle site from the English
Heritage Centre
*
Creating themes walks to encourage access to and appreciation of the surrounding
area
Costs
The costs of the project have been identified from the feasibility study as;
|
|
Costs |
Total |
|
|
Site clearance |
10,000 |
|
|
Pedestrian improvements & traffic management |
200,000 |
|
|
Services |
210,000 |
|
|
Lighting |
73,000 |
|
|
Signage |
18,000 |
|
|
Street furniture |
20,000 |
|
|
Planting |
10,000 |
|
|
Community involvement/Art |
10,000 |
|
|
New footpath works to the castle |
50,000 |
|
|
Mainland steps to castle |
65,000 |
|
|
Improvement to English Heritage Centre |
220,000 |
|
|
Steps to the beach |
110,000 |
|
|
15% fees |
( 149,500 ) |
Total
1,145,500
The funding package currently looks like this:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Objective 1 |
292,500 |
292,500 |
0 |
572,500 |
|
|
ERDF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*RDC |
25,000 |
25,000 |
0 |
50,000 |
|
|
Contributions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*NCDC |
25,000 |
27,500 |
0 |
50,000 |
|
|
*SWEB/BT |
10,000 |
10,000 |
0 |
20,000 |
|
|
*Tintagel Parish |
5,000 |
5,000 |
0 |
10,000 |
|
|
Council |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*National Trust |
5,000 |
5,000 |
0 |
10,000 |
|
|
*County |
29,000 |
29,000 |
0 |
58,000 |
|
|
Highways |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Countryside |
5,000 |
5,000 |
0 |
10,000 |
|
|
Agency |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*English |
25,000 |
130,000 |
150,000 |
305,000 |
|
|
Heritage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Environment |
10,000 |
10,000 |
0 |
20,000 |
|
|
Trust |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Other Sources |
20,000 |
20,000 |
0 |
40,000 |
|
|
(SWERDA) |
|
|
|
-
- ----------------------- |
Total
1,145,500
*Committed or have indicated that they would wish to contribute).
These funding sources are currently being pursued and have indicted their
willingness to contribute as identified.
Copyright©
David Flower 2012
Disclaimer: No part of this website may be reproduced, stored on a retrieval
system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written consent of
tintagelweb.co.uk (David Flower). You may however, download on to a personal
computer owned or controlled by yourself and you may make a single copy of any
part of this publication, for your private use or study.
tintagelweb.co.uk
are not liable for any direct, indirect or consequential loss arising from the
use of information or material contained in the site or from your access to the
web sites of customers or other material on the internet obtained via links from
this site.
