The Ego has Landed – the Porthleven Shipyard Building – Progress or Folly?

The new building being proposed for the Shipyard in Porthleven has split public opinion, As if you look at the number of objections and supporters on Cornwall Council’s planning portal there are 27 objections and 26 supporting the application – details can be found HERE. It is important to note, it is not too late to make comment.

The current view

This building will change Porthleven. I firmly believe this change will not be for the better. The building is huge, it will dominate the area, and will have a very negative impact on the very fabric which makes Porthleven Harbour so special.

In trying to defend this huge building, the applicant, Mr. Osborne says this building only takes up 7.8% of the overall Shipyard. This is wholly misleading, as much of the shipyard is already developed, cannot be developed due to restrictions by South West Water or is used by existing businesses. Therefore its impact is far greater than if it was an open space. The development is a substantially higher proportion of the actual free space in The Shipyard.

In previous blog posts I highlighted just how big this building will be. I measured out the site and showed the height – in a rather crude way – but it did nonetheless show just how big this building will be. I have now commissioned an architect  to draw me the building in scale, using the measurements and elevations in the submitted plans to show the true impact of this building. It is massive and blots out St. Barts.

Now you have seen the building institu (colours might not be 100% accurate) is this something you really want? If you do not want to see this built, you need to make comment to Cornwall Council.

The application number is PA17/00573. You can make comment by emailing quoting the planning reference in the title. Or using the online portal to make comments. This can be found HERE 

One of the issues with this plan is the serious lack of parking provision on this site. Anyone will know parking spaces are at a premium in Porthleven. The car park nearest the harbour is well used and full during many parts of the year. Plus, it is a known fact commuters will not pay for parking daily and will seek to park elsewhere for free.

Mr Osborne’s response to mitigate the lack of parking is he will build a new car park at Tolponds. However, this fictional car park is over half a mile away; has no formal planning application, or even an application submitted for a car park. Or even a guarantee it will even be built.

Furthermore there is no guarantee any planning application would be granted. You cannot base one planning application on another that has not even been submitted or granted to mitigate against this large and wholly inappropriate building that will have long lasting consequences on the fabric of what makes Porthleven so special.

If somehow all the hurdles of a car park application are overcome, it would also need substantial and costly highways improvement to make pedestrians safe. As the road linking the car park and the settlement is a 60mph zone and there is no pathway linking it to the main settlement of Porthleven – just road. It is inconceivable pedestrians would use this car park as it would not be safe to walk to and from it. Therefore, this car park cannot be used a mitigating factor on the lack of parking facility in the Shipyard.

If this building is built, it is the end of the Shipyard, there is no real way back for it. The next question is where do the boats go? Yes, Mr Osborne has a plan, and that is to use the ‘new car park’ for boats. This raises an interesting point. Is this a car park to mitigate the lack of parking in the building proposal or the removal of well used and needed boat storage and maintenance? To accommodate both, this car park will need to be massive, far bigger than the land available along Tolponds.

In an idea to link the car park and town Mr Osborne suggested a scheme like Boris’ Bikes in London. This cannot be taken as a serious mitigating factor as this type of facility could not be accessible to all. For instance, those with disabilities, young children and older people would find it difficult and people would be unlikely to use this if there was a charge.

Would every visitor to Porthleven have to bring cycle helmets and high-vis clothing, or would this be supplied too? Think of the danger posed by hundreds of inexperienced cyclists on this already busy, fast and totally unsuitable road. It is a recipe for a tragic incident

I urge people to act now before it is too late and make their views known. Otherwise ‘Project Porthleven’ will happen and we will have to live with many monstrous buildings -like the building proposed on Shute Lane – which will change Porthleven forever. I am all for progress, but this progress should not be down to one persons vision – who lives elsewhere too.




  • Jackie george

    I think before and after pics should be put on the gate For all to see not Eveyone has internet especially the older geration of port

  • Pam Kitchen

    I agree with Jackie, not everyone has internet access, this needs to reach the countless people who probably don’t even realise it’s happening

  • Fred

    I find your blog post biased against and you’re trying to influence people to register a comment against it.

  • Sarah Foster

    Humm, not only is the design terrrible and totally out of keeping, the bikes Mr Osborne talks about are the Nextbike ones he’s seen in the city where he lives (Bath). While the idea in a city is good, due to a high student population, what good is a bike when you need to transport elderly people or goods around Porthleven? Utterly pointless!

  • Malcolm

    What a joke and in totally bad taste .. trying to push this monstrosity of a out of character building onto the good people of Porthleven by dangling a one day a week youth club !!! There was a perfectly suited building that the council sadly refused re use of the land into a full time youth and community centre not so long ago that

  • Alison Stevenson

    Thank you for a clear well written summation of the facts relating to this proposal and the commissioning of the to scale drawing it makes the proposal and effect of such an inappropriate building very clear !!!

  • Mrs Margaret Roberts

    Again another eyesore of a building proposed for porthleven it really does astound me that people with so called insight for design can’t come up with a build that would fit into a harbour environment.I really hope the planning committee will not approve this proposed build,we will soon loss what Porthleven is all about our harbour and what people like to see when they visit not a monster of a new build which dominates the full front of the boat yard.We need to invest in the youth of Porthleven so why cant investment for the boat yard be brought back to life by bringing some form of boat building apprenticeship money in that I suppose for the harbour company.lets not loss what the boat yard is all about boats that need safe harbour from the storms and the people that relies on the businesses that works from this sight.

  • Jenny

    Who paid for the un necessary architect that you commissioned, us the tax payers?

  • Jenny

    “It blots out St Barts”

    How many people that complain about that actually bother to go to church?

  • Andrew Wallis

    Nope, me out of my own pocket.

  • Jacky Mackey

    This truly is a carbuncle.
    Is the hideous rotunda design just a cunning ploy to ultimately accept a more sympathetic design but still lose boat and parking space?

  • Suzanne

    Have a billboard made up. (LARGE image version of the proposed development) park a car in the village with the board mounted on the roof. Get it out there folks!! Not every one has Internet or know about the development

  • Julie Madison

    Is it really appropriate for a town councillor, elected by only some of the residents, to be trying to influence public opinion in this way?

  • Caroline Oakden / Hole-Jones

    Am sorry to say that your blog (from a position of Mayoral power) seems to lack objectivity and holds an underlying vindictiveness against the applicant. Is the ‘ego has landed’ truly appropriate? Surely it would be more appropriate to focus upon the issue in hand rather than make personal and unpleasantness comments which reflects badly on someone in position of power i.e. the Town’s mayor. And for the planning application, am sure the people of Porthleven and Planners will come to the right decision…

  • Andrew Wallis

    I think I had over 90% of the votes at the recent town council election, plus, the Town Council voted totally against this application.

    And furthermore, the blog title gives it away which hat I am commenting under πŸ™‚

  • L.

    My family have lived in ‘Levey’ for generations, my great, great grandparents lived in one of the houses next to the clock tower, my great grandfather was the longest serving coxswain of one of Porthleven’s lifeboat, my grandfather and his father drove the Marazion to pick up the survivor of the Energetic disaster. So having gotten my family history out of the way so none of you can say “I’m not a true Porthleven-er”….I actually think this building could be a good thing. One of the reasons I no longer live in this town is because of the general attitude toward progress and change that resides amongst some of the local ‘stalwart’ residents. This building is going to be used to help young people develop their own businesses, local producers show-case their skills and talents and could help to show the hundreds of visitors that Porthleven is not just a foody destination. Think of the potential for young people, who I know for a fact (as I was one of them once apon a time) don’t stay in Porthleven because there is nothing for them, no progress with their future at the foremost of decisions made regarding town development and their needs and requirments. This place is called the “innovation” building, let it be that. So what if the church is obscured from view? Why is that important? Surely the up and coming generations and their needs and the needs of the town to continue to grow and develop far out weigh the vanity of the older generation?

  • Caroline Oakden / Hole-Jones

    It is wrong to perpetuate a personal grudge and agenda in public office….. Porthleven deserves an objective Major…. Am not sure your stats are right either!

  • Spencer Wimbleton

    Destroying all that is lovely about Port,

  • Andrew Wallis

    No personal grudge. Just doing my role to protect the fabric of Porthleven

  • Caroline Oakden / Hole-Jones

    Then please do it objectively and professionally – which is what public office dictates and asks for… Your commitment and dedeication is undisputed….

  • Andrew Wallis

    My correction, for Town Council I have 84% (840) of those who voted vote for me
    Cornwall Council 52%

  • L.

    I think you’ve lost focus a little Andrew.

  • Andrew Wallis

    Nope. Just making sure this is not harmful to Porthleven

  • L.

    This discuss has gone from talking about the benefits/disasterous consequences of a new build in Porthleven to how many votes you got. I thought this blog was your own personnal piont of view and not that of a town mayor/Cllr so why are you talking about how many votes you recieved. A little off topic I think.

  • Jenny

    Whether it’s harmful to Porthleven is a matter of opinion Cllr. Wallis, your opinion of which seems dominant over everyone else’s. Not only on your own blog but elsewhere too. I’m in agreement with Caroline Oakden, and the cllrs code of conduct states a Cllr shouldn’t put anyone under an advantage or disadvantage and many other things too. I think you’re promoting your own agenda and trying to put Trevor Osborne at a disadvantage. You say your commenting under your own hat as opposed to a cllrs, regarding the title of the blog post but never the less this is the blog of a Cllr. I think you’re abusing your position of mayor to our village.

  • Gilly Zella Martin

    Andrew, I am actually rather confused, your computer generated pictures of the proposed building look to me like the original proposed building for the shipyard. The architectural plans displayed on the Packet website for the currently proposed building, look vastly different to me than those here your blog.

  • Anonymous

    “You cannot base one planning application on another that has not been submitted or granted” – but then goes on to use the Shute Lane application (not granted) as a reason to object. So they can’t but you can? Leads me to wonder whose ego we should really be concerned about.

    Besides, the ‘downward spiral/if this happens then so will…’ argument is lazy. Do better.

  • Richard Bailes

    I am not a local but I do find your blog very biased. You are there to represent all tax payers not just those who voted for you or those who do not like Mr Osborne. Porthlevens character was ruined many years ago. From where I am sat now I can see some appalling buildings far worse than the proposal. The harbour area is now tidier than in all years I have been visiting and a lot of that is due to Mr O and his companies.

  • Mrs K Thomas

    I support the proposed application of Mr Osborne wholeheartedly.What a vision he has to enhance this drab eyesore in our village. The work he has done so far to the Harbour & the road alongside the key is brilliant .So much safer for pedestrians , we have enough carparks in the village for cars the trouble is nobody wants to walk nowadays !! I agree with Jenny too Mr Wallis should be neutral , & the comment he’s making about being harmful to Porthleven !!! How can improvement be harmful ?

  • Maxwell H

    “You cannot base one application on another which has not even been submitted or granted” and then goes on to use the Shute Lane application (not granted) as a reason to object. So they can’t do it but you can? Leads me to wonder whose ego we need to be concerned about.

    Besides, the ‘downward spiral/if this happens then so will…’ argument is lazy. Do better.

  • Gilly Zella Martin

    I do not really comprehend how predicting a lack of car-parking is a valid argument. Porthleven hosts four car-parks, one of which is free to use. I regularly park in the Withy Field car-park, I have never found it full in the summer, and for the most part I am the only person who uses it in the winter, probably because Kittos is comparatively cheaper during the winter months. There is obviously pavement from the Withy car-park into the village
    and it is a short walk. With complete respect, I think to site lack of parking as an obstruction to a shipyard development, is somewhat myopic. I would have thought it would be beneficial for the Community Interest Company if more people did park in the Withy Field car-park, should the shipyard development go ahead.

  • MRS K Thomas

    I agree with your statement GZM re: carparking . The trouble with the public today they want to park their humungus 4×4 ‘s anywhere and everywhere , pavements , yellow lines, on road junctions just take a walk up to the post office always parked on double yellows !!!!!!! I personally directed a family to the Withy field carpark recently as the Kitto was full .First question “how far is it to walk ” !!!!! I have no doubt if there was a poll local & visitors of what they would really want on this site it would be a carpark !!!!!!!!!!

  • Charity Porthleven

    “If you do not want to see this built, you need to make comment to Cornwall Council.”

    How about being neutral like you maintained you needed to be over the Shrubberies Hill development. You wouldn’t take sides then, or was that different cos it was before an election? Or because it wasn’t Mr O doing it?

    How about ‘whatever anyone’s views you need to make comment to Cornwall Council.’ Tut tut.

  • Miriam

    “I am all for progress, but this progress should not be down to one persons vision – who lives elsewhere too.”

    Are you saying that anyone that doesn’t live in Porthleven shouldn’t have an opinion on Porthleven, help, or do anything or pay for anything for Porthleven?

  • MRS K Thomas

    Well I am amazed , I was unaware that Mr O wasn’t a Porthleven resident !! Yet he still wants to spend his own money in making the village look appealing, & safe to residents & visitors alike !!!-
    ! Shame on all the negative stick in the muds , I may be in the minority but what Mr O has done for the Harbourside etc so far has enhanced the look no end .

  • Miriam

    Without meaning to be rude, i’ll assume the answer to my question was yes then. I think that’s a great shame, and probably quite disappointing for some people. I would have thought most other towns and villages would welcome any help from anyone no matter where they came from. I’m not saying whether the proposed building is a good idea or not, I just don’t think wherever anyone lives should come into it.

  • Gilly Zella Martin

    I too am probably in the minority, and agree with Mrs Thomas, I think the roadside alterations alongside the Harbour in Commercial Road, instigated by Mr Trevor Osborne, are an improvement, and not only effective for safety, but also aesthetically pleasing. The scheme would in my opinion, work even better traffic wise, and pedestrian safety would be further improved, if the double yellow lines were to be enforced.
    I also agree with the proposed shipyard building in principle.

    The beauty of democracy is that we are all entitled to our own opinions. I think the saddest part about this shipyard building application however, is the divide it is causing between people who live, work in, or visit the village.

    In my opinion I do not think it is fair though, for anyone to expect Andrew not to have a personal opinion outside of his positions of Cornwall Councillor, Porthleven Town Councillor and Mayor. I think those positions are irrelevant to his personal opinion on the shipyard development. He is not in a council position of influence over any planning decision, and therefore I believe he is just as much entitled to express his opinions as anyone else. No one who has a mind of their own can be influenced by what he says if they do not want to be.

  • S Pace

    Re: post under Maxwell H

    While I stand by initial comments, I realise that posting under a somebody else’s name was not transparent and an error in judgement.

    This was done in a personal capacity and not as an employee of The Trevor Osborne Property Group or with the knowledge of my employer.

    I fully support this application.

    Sam Pace

  • S Pace

    I regret to say that I posted comments on FB in a friend’s name. This was a serious error of judgement on my part, although I absolutely stand by the comments made in their entirety. This post was made in a personal capacity, not as an employee of The Osborne Group.

    I would like to state that Trevor Osborne had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of what I was doing, and I much regret the embarrassment that this has caused him and am horrified by some of the very unfair, and frankly defamatory, FB responses without the facts being fully known.

    Any opprobrium about this should be directed at me, not Trevor Osborne, or indeed any other members of his hardworking staff in Porthleven.

    Sam Pace

  • Andrew Wallis

    Thank you Sam.

  • John Boyle

    Interesting! Sam Pace stands by all her comments? Including the ageing grandmother etc.? Brings no credit to her as ” the Development Coordinator ” for the Trevor Osborne Groups projects in Cornwall – see her job title on the company’s website – and her actions even if only in a personal capacity reflect very badly on her employer.

  • Pam Kitchen

    So what happened to her dear old granny? I assume she stands by those net making comments as well?! Too little too late lady

  • John Boyle

    I’ve just read this so called apology again.

    It’s not exactly a genuine apology showing remorse. Just someone covering herself as she’s been caught out.

    And it still doesn’t make sense as Andy Wallis traced her through her own email account. Yet she claims to have posted through a friend’s FB account… Is she even now telling the truth or just digging herself a deeper hole, and with it her employer?

    This so called apology reads more like a corporate damage limitation press release.

    And she is the person with direct responsibility for The Shipyard planning application???

  • Ian Parsons

    Oh dear Sam Pace. What have you done. Totally unprofessional and a huge lapse of judgment on your part. As for your credibility within the Trevor Osborne organisation this will no doubt come under close scrutiny and so it should. Having read all of the comments I would suggest you are not alone in this conspiracy to undermine Cllr Andrew Wallis credibility. Shame on you !!!

  • Jenny Pearce

    Not to be confused with the other Jenny I see that’s posted on here, because I’ve previously found elsewhere in the past there’s someone with exactly the same full name as myself.

    I agree with Gilly when she says she agrees “in principle”. I think a building of some description would be good to smarten up the shipyard and give an opportunity for more businesses to invest in Porthleven, etc, but I think not perhaps this big, it looks a bit oversized to me, and I wouldn’t want it to dominate the original character of the place. Back to the drawing board perhaps?

  • Jo

    Your critics on here seem to have gone very quiet. Or are they all trolls in the pocket of the evil squire?

Please feel free to leave a comment to the post, as I like to hear your views! However, comments that do not meet the rules of the site (found in Blog Disclaimer) will not be published. Furthermore, all comment need to be approved by admin before publication.