Report On Regeneration AGM
On Thursday 4th April 2003 the AGM was held at the Social Hall. Officers elected were
Chairman
Garvin Reynolds, Vice Chairman Bob Flower, Secretary/Treasurer Bill
Dixon.
All Committee members were re-elected enbloc with the addition of David Flower,
Denzil Flew & Max Francis.
At the Exhibition at the Visitor centre recently some 160 Public
Consultation forms were returned.
From these returns, which have not yet been
fully analysed, it appears that some on road
parking was required, loading bays
were unpopular, speed bumps were not wanted,
concern about narrowing the roads &
concern about who was to police the residents parking
in Fry's car park.
Pavement widths need to be looked into further & concern about the bus
stop in
the Visitor centre. The mini roundabout at the top of Molesworth Street was
controversial & pavement on one side of the roads was wanted by most people &
not both sides.
Some of the ideas put forward on the night were very controversial, like
moving the Tintagel
War Memorial from the Church to the Village Centre. There
were also a crazy idea that firms
should not deliver to the village between 10am
and 4pm.
Apparently this is done in the TOWN of Wadebridge but it is about time
that it is remembered
that Tintagel is a VILLAGE!!!. We would get NO
deliveries!!!!.
There was mention of noisy lorry airbrakes at midnight but I am
not sure where that would
lead us or what could be done about it!.
Also a view that Skateboarders should not be allowed to use the pavements but
surely
they shouldn't anyway. Then came a mention of dog mess & even a mention
of our bus services.!
I must admit that some of these things brought a smile to my lips but then it
was an AGM!!
In future Tintagelweb has been promised that information on meeting dates &
other
relevant details of the Regeneration of Tintagel will be given to us
David Flower Webmaster
March 2003 I went along to the Visitor Centre on Friday
March 8th & found the Project Team very
helpful
& unlike Tintagel Forum,
reasonable & sympathetic to local peoples desires!!.
The positive ideas are: Whilst the roads are to be narrowed (Tintagel Forum
ALWAYS
said
they were not NOT going to narrowed!) the pavements will
not be raised and in fact
will be
10mm high in many places. This will enable
coaches, caravans, big lorries &
cars to pass each other!.
It will also mean
that cars will be able to pull off the road
if necessary. There was to be only
one delivery bay but there will now be at least four.
The Daily bus services
will use the NCDC car park with a bus shelter. This means that the
stops outside
the Methodist Church & the old TV shop will be removed.
There will be parking
for six cars in the NCDC car park for the Post Office.
My Referendum
Committee put forward MANY of these ideas & whilst the Forum dismissed them, it is
gratifying & good for locals that our ideas have been
thought
about by those who matter!!.
There are of course more outstanding
matters & again
thanks to my committee these are being considered. Article by David Flower Tintagel Gets Its Objective
One Cash
The 2.4 million pound required for the
Regeneration of Tintagel has got the go ahead.
The work
will be spread over a
couple of years. Most of the Regeneration ideas are excellent
but there is great
concern about the narrowing of the roads & the on road parking being removed.
The battle for a Referendum on this issue was won by the rules but in his
ultimate wisdom???
Chief Ex David Brown, North Cornwall District Council,
refused permission despite nearly
half of the village wanting a referendum.
However, the committee pushing for the Referendum hope now that compromise will
be
the
name of the game. We await developments with interest.
Tintagel Regeneration Forum
List of Forum Members with the backing they gave for NARROW ROADS & NO ON STREET PARKING FOR: Sonia Tremain, Bob Flower, Mike Francis, Garvin Reynolds, Christine
Saville,
Richard Alexander, Terry Dangar, Suzy Soutter, Glenton Brown, Kelly
Palmer, Bill Dixon,
Rob Orton & Mary Dyer.
AGAINST: Ray Nute
What
chance did local villagers have of putting their views across. At the the
meeting
I attended on 6th February 2003 one of the Forum members asked 'What
right did I have to speak"!.
Since the shock decision by David Brown,Chief Executive of the
North Cornwall District Council,
not to allow a Referendum on certain aspects of the Tintagel Regeneration, it was decided
that
four members of the committee formed to fight some of the proposals, would attend
a meeting of the Regeneration Committee.
Generally it was a very affable meeting & all those who wished to speak could do so.
My committee were advised that if the money was forthcoming for the Regeneration programme
then certain aspects could be looked at again.
Chairman Gandalph Strutt stated that 'Nothing
Was Set In Stone'
I pointed out that we were certainly NOT against the Regeneration of
Tintagel but were
unhappy
about some of the parking & road changes.
The
Regeneration committee have
taken these worries
on board & have
agreed that some
on street parking will remain &
they will listen to our other
ideas at the
appropriate time.
It does seem that the matter can
now be discussed in a
reasonable
manner with give & take
on both sides
& the village's
Regeneration can then satisfy most residents.
I must again emphasise that my committee have NEVER been against
Regeneration but we
wanted
Regeneration to suit ALL residents &
not just a
certain few.
This page will keep you informed of developments.
David Flower
The
meeting was held at a packed Social Hall in Tintagel on March 21st 2002.
Chairman David Cook
opened the meeting & introduced David Flower, who along with
five other residents of the village had
demanded a Referendum on the issue.
'Do you want the roads narrowed in Tintagel and no parking outside the local
shops as planned in
the Tintagel Regeneration'
My remarks are as detailed below:
Tonight’s meeting is held solely for local residents to decide whether or not
they want a Referendum
on the question
“Do you want the roads narrowed in Tintagel & no parking outside the local shops
as
planned in the Tintagel Regeneration”
My sole concern is for the village in which I have lived for 60 years
When we received a Questionnaire from Mr Charlie David
of the NCDC we eagerly filled it in and at
that time were led to believe we
would eventually get a vote on the final Regeneration Scheme but this
was not to
be.
The first question was ‘Do you Want Regeneration’, 499 answered Yes &
108 No, but it turned out
to be the final decision on the whole project. Some
had read the Questionnaire more carefully than others
& realised they were
saying YES to every thing. In fact it said if you didn’t accept everything you
would
get nothing.
A blackmail letter in reality.
Since that Questionnaire which I personally said NO to, I have campaigned
on behalf of local residents
to get what they wanted. I believe the majority of
locals do not want their quality of life ruined.
A letter from the Forum Chairman saying, & I quote, “The streets will not
be narrowed”, leads me
to wonder where the extra pavement space will come from
in that case!. At the moment there are
three carriage widths in most places &
this is being reduced to two carriage widths from the
Social Hall to the Country
Club.
I have received an E Mail from a company which
manufactures coaches stating the average coach
width including wing mirrors is
10’5”. The maximum width of the road is to be 19’6” so two coaches
can not pass
each other!!!. Tractors, trailers, agricultural machinery, large delivery
lorries, removal vans,
caravans and refuse lorries, will all experience
difficulties & what about ambulances, fire engines or coastguards ??.
Why take away the on street parking ?. No one will be able to stop
outside a shop to pick up that
bag of potatoes or coal or any heavy shopping.
Local residents & nearby villagers travel to Tintagel
because they can park
outside the shops. If you agree to these crazy plans you sound the death knell
for local shops.
Do you seriously think those people from Camelford,
Delabole or Boscastle are going to pay a £1
car park fee when they pay nothing
at the large Supermarkets.
I have always requested that the streets of Tintagel were not altered,
just a little bit of pavement here & there. This would avoid the character of
our village being destroyed, after all that is what visitors want & not a new
modern Tintagel. On my web site I have been deluged with support from locals &
visitors from all over the world deploring the narrowing of the roads & no
parking outside the shops.
In England at this time we still have Democracy & the right to request a
Referendum on something that is going to radically change our village. My reason
along with the other five signatories for a Referendum Meeting is that villagers
on the electoral list should have the final say. Remember this is your last
chance for Democracy because as I was told at the recent Forum AGM a petition
signed by nearly 300 people against the road plans was NOT relevant, Not
relevant…well that shows that this Forum does not listen to local people.
Narrow roads will cause traffic chaos all year round & no parking outside
our local shops will be bad news for shopkeepers, bad news for the elderly of
which there are many in Tintagel & bad news for the locals who dash out in the
lashing rain & gale force winds to pick up that desperately needed item. Sadly
the Forum has not listened & now I hope you will make them listen
Vote tonight for a Referendum on the issue of “Do you want the
roads narrowed in Tintagel & no parking outside the local shops as planned in
the Tintagel Regeneration”. LET
THE PEOPLE DECIDE (David Flower)
Gandalph Strutt, Chairman of the Forum, then gave his statement. He did not have
a written statement but followed the lines as follows TINTAGEL
REGENERATION CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT 18th March 2002
There has been over the past months a number of misunderstandings surrounding
the Tintagel Regeneration, this has led to a great deal of anxiety to residents
in the Parish. This is now being exasperated by the misunderstandings being
turned into hard fact, in part by people who have not attended public meetings
and by some who have. So 1 would like to go on record to put right some of these
misconceptions.
[11 The forum is not entirely made up from shopkeepers, there are people who are
not in business and represent other aspects of the community, in fact at the
outset every branch of the community was approached. Sad to say only a few
bothered to get involved, in part due to the great deal of time that can be
taken up in a project such as this.
[21 The streets of Tintagel are not being narrowed; it is proposed that the
carriageway be wide enough to allow two lorries and or two coaches to pass each
other with safety, and in one area it will be wider then it is currently.
[3] With regards to pavements it is proposed that extra pavements be placed
where there are none at this time, this being for public safety.
[41 It is proposed that some of the current parking be removed. This 1 know is
hotly debated. And I must say that whatever happens it is not going to please
everyone. There are currently, and 1 am talking about legal parking, some 22
spaces. In the new plan on the new site this would increase to 32 including
disabled, plus another 12 at the top of the village serving the Post Office,
Hardware shop and Londis, plus the other establishments in that area. Londis
also has parking for a number of cars. And there could be room for a limited
number of vehicles at the main shops, that being the Chemist, Butchers and Newspaper shop.
[5] Other benefits that will come from this is a Village Square with seating,
New Toilets including disabled. The eradication of Knot weed, Steps down to the
cove, safer track way leading to the castle. Tintagel's first gardened area for
people to sit in, away from the street. Traffic slowed down to make it safer for
people to walk around and better crossing of roads for the disabled, the elderly
and the young. Safer speed limits up by the school and work on the continuing
problems of Fosters Lane. New and better street lighting plus of course the
cables under the ground.
The great majority of people in the Tintagel Parish rely directly or indirectly
on tourism, the whole idea for regeneration was brought about by continued bad
press both here and overseas the latest reported from the far east news paper.
These include tacky, horrible, drab, dreary, a rip off and more this is all in
papers that are read by potential visitors. Add to that the fall off in coaches
and there are more that are going to do so this year. It was felt by a great
majority of people that there was a need to do something to redress the
situation and carry Tintagel forward for a few more centuries for the people of
the world to come and see.
In closing, this is
not a perfect world and as such we are not going to please every one no matter
what we do or do not do. Change is not always easy, but it's benefits are there
for all
Gandalph Strutt
(Whilst I do not agree with some parts of the
statement above, it is in the true spirit of DEMOCRACY that the statement
in full is printed above.......David Flower)
There were many questions from the floor & then the vote was
taken on the Referendum question. It resulted in 64 in favour of the Referendum
& 73 against. Because the vote for a Referendum was more than the one third
necessary this was carried. At the end of the meeting David Flower, on behalf of
his group, announced that the Referendum would be held on a date to be announced
LATEST NEWS 10th April 2002
Unbelievably Mr David Brown, the
Chief Executive of North Cornwall District Council, has
refused to allow residents of Tintagel their right, by the rules of the Local
Government Act of 1972, to have a
Referendum vote on the Road narrowing & no parking issue. He thinks
he alone should make the decision rather than the people who live in the
village. The group behind the right for a Referendum issue have been in touch
with the Local Government Ombudsman to query Mr Brown's reasons behind his
dubious decision.
Mr Brown does not live in
Tintagel by the way!!!
REPORT ON TINTAGEL
FORUM AGM 21ST FEBRUARY 2002 A very poorly attended meeting with only 24
people bothering to turn up, meant that there was not a Quorum to hold an AGM.
There was general discussion on the moves made over the past 12 months by the
Forum. It was a very difficult meeting which the Forum Chairman Gandalf Strutt
handled very well.
The North Cornwall District Council representative advised that the Objective
One committee were not happy with the economic improvements it would make
to the village economy. A financial expert was to look into this matter. He said
that a decision on whether the Tintagel Regeneration project would receive the
funding would be made by April 2002. There was concern about how the
parking arrangements for locals at Fry's Car park would be organised. The reply
stated this had not been decided yet. Asked if the petition with nearly
300 votes against the road narrowing & no on street parking had been looked at
by the Forum there was an outburst from a Parish Councillor & the Chairman
agreed saying "This petition was not worth considering!!!!!!.
Towards the close of the meeting David Flower presented a petition under the
Local Government Act 1972 which had been signed by six parishioners as required
stating:
We
call for a Referendum to decide on the question
" Do you want the roads narrowed in Tintagel & no parking outside the
local shops as planned in the Tintagel Regeneration"
Yes or No
We require a Parish Meeting to decide whether the residents want a Referendum &
the meeting should be published locally.
After tonight's meeting I feel I should
express my feelings of dismay for your misguided "crusade" to prevent the
proposed much needed regeneration of the village. I felt that you deliberately
mislead the audience about the narrowing of the streets the actual road width
will be unaffected it is only the removal of the parking to allow much needed
wider pavements. In a village which has more parking than allot of towns the
issue of not being able to park outside the shops is really irrelevant. I
understand parking will be made available to locals at Frys garage which will
actually be more convenient as it is often impossible to find on road parking.
Most people just seem to park on the double yellow lines. As for your point
that this would cause the closure of local shops it seems the majority of
local shop keepers and businesses are in favour of the plans. If this village
does not regenerate and attract increasing visitors it this which will cause
businesses to close. With Cornwall enjoying a resurgence of interest with the
Eden project and new cheap flights from London to Newquay beginning it would
be churlish to lose the opportunity of vastly improving the village while
funds are available. Perhaps you do not agree with the funding coming from
Europe a view you are entitled to, but as someone hoping to raise a family
here in the future I would like to see the very best outcome for Tintagel
which must be regeneration. I do not expect to see this message posted on your
website as it does not seem to be an open forum, but from talking to allot of
the younger members of the community I know my view is shared by the vast
majority. (Name supplied)
(The statement that this site is not an open forum is
completely untrue. I have ALWAYS published any E Mails relevant to
Regeneration. This is the very first E Mail in agreement with the crazy street
plans!!. I have NEVER been against Regeneration & all the Referendum
does is to allow the residents of Tintagel a VOTE on their villages
future...DEMOCRACY!!)
February 25th 2002
Dear David
As a reasonably regular visitor - every other year
- I'm dismayed to hear of this project. I've always joked that one day I will
retire to Tintagel - but who knows! The main appeal is the surrounding beauty
of the area and that things change very slowly. It's one of the few places I
feel you can return to.
I haven't voted in the poll because I find the
question conflicting. Yes, especially during the busy season I can see the
attraction of not allowing cars to park on the street - providing there is a
reasonable alternative (and I have no problem parking out away's and walking
in) - but I do not see why that means the main street should be narrowed. I
despair that the street should be altered at all.
I'll should be down again this September and am
looking forward to it. I hope I can continue to do so in years to come. I
have marked your site as a favourite and recommend it to anyone and everyone.
(Name supplied)
February 24th 2002
Dear David,
I am emailing about the plans for Tintagel which I
can't believe. My dad's family are from Tintagel, (Parsons and Cann) he was
born and brought up in the village and my parents regularly visit and stay in
the village. We love the nature of it, the quaintness and the village
life. If you narrow the roads, stop parking, make "better" changes, where is
the essence of the village. I, for one, like to come to Tintagel because of
what it has got, not what it might have in the future if people don't stand up
for their village. I will be showing my parents this web site when they come
to visit this week and I know they will want me to have sent this email.
GOOD LUCK.
I will be revisiting the site to see how things
DON'T progress! (Name supplied)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
February 22nd 2002
Dear David
Regarding the
"Regeneration Project". I agree with the points made in the Email you
received from Australia. Unfortunately I have seen this type of thing
before. It is why I moved to Cornwall. The village in which I was born is
now a London suburb and the town where I lived in Kent is now a concrete
eyesore. We saw the same happening in Wiltshire shortly before we moved
here. Following our business studies this year I now have a much clearer
view of the way these things work. As you know, Cornwall is one of few
counties receiving Objective One money. There is a large amount of money
easily available to businesses and councils now. That together with the very
bad adherence to existing planning laws we have seen in Cornwall spells
disaster for small towns like Tintagel. I wish you the very best of luck
with your fight David but please do not let it get to you. There is very
little you can do against these giants. They will ultimately do whatever
they want and care little about the peoples voice. I would suggest that you
contact some of the European environmental organisations with a view to
getting some legal backing. I feel that this may be the only way to stop the
Cornish "wrecker" attitude turning on its own people. If there is any way we
can help then please contact us. (Name
supplied)
February 19th 2002
Dear David,
As to the possible changes for
Tintagel main street I feel
that the character of the village would be altered for the worse. It seems to be
change for the sake of change and will benefit very few in the
community. Over the years many people return to Tintagel time after time for
their holidays these people like
the village as it is however these very same people could be lost if there are
too many changes made to the place
they know and love. How long before Tintagel becomes just another in the
increasingly long line of tasteless bland and tacky resorts without character or
soul. Good luck with your campaign I hope you succeed in retaining the
character of the village for locals and visitors past present and future.
Best wishes, keep up the good work.
FEBRUARY 5th 2002 Dear David
I am horrified to read about the regeneration project. It reeks of high level
money mongering and is typical of the socialist approach to the workers and the
elite, the workers being the folks who have made Tintagel their home, and the
elite being those who can afford to visit it during those 2-3 months a year. The
locals are of course being compromised for the sake of the profit of the few
traitor local businessmen, as is usual in almost all fundamental change.
I laughed when I read that this kind of funding is probably only ever going to
be available now and we should take advantage of it because of this fact. Does
that justify anything - if a change is bad, why make it because money is
available?.. Well, because we need to appeal to peoples sense of greed to get
them to let things be changed I guess.
While I lived there, the village was not untouched by progress, but even to this
day, when I visit I still see a lot of the character that existed during those
12 years. I am still shocked every time I see that daft information hut in
Tremaine's old car park near Dads house. It is so visually and positionaly out
of context, but is obviously part of uniform change applied blindly.
Here in Australia we have legislation that puts protection on houses that have
heritage value (about anything that is over 100 years old I think!) to keep the
character of the house and area and retain some historic feel. But there is
nothing worse than seeing an old building in the middle of a modernised area,
completely out of context, and this is essentially where Tintagel is headed.
People like the 'feel' of the village, it is raw and maybe difficult to get
around, but then that is part of its charm, and what people do come down to see.
People do like to be somewhere different on holiday not in their comfortable
suburban style area with a few relics to look at out of the bus window.
I guess really the whole debate surrounds the differing beliefs that
1. The village area is a relic for visitors (local trade business view)
or
2. The village area is a home (the rest)
and the more you focus or invest in one, the more the other will diminish.
I hope this all works out for all concerned. I also hope that the community will
find this an opportunity to find a common voice, and to stand up for their
community rights.
What would be interesting to see is a profit loss statement for the trade in the
village over the last few years - it is supposed to be diminishing is it not? -
didn't look that way when I was there last year..
I would also like to see a local percentage figure for how many locals own
businesses as opposed to how many businesses are remotely owned
Anyhow - I'd better stop rambling on now - work to do !
Best of luck with your 'campaign'
Pete
REPORT ON MEETING 22ND NOVEMBER 2001 Sadly the Forum have not listened
to nearly 300 people who signed a petition & don't want THIS Regeneration.
Some of the ideas are very good but we DO NOT want NARROW
STREETS and NO PARKING outside the shops!!.
Have they ever travelled as far as Bude, Bodmin, Wadebridge or Launceston---ALLTOWNS, where you can park outside the shops but in the small village of
Tintagel these Forum members are trying to foist NO PARKING in our main
street!!!!. !!!.
The Forum is sadly very biased to the concerns of visitors & their own
interests & to
hell with local wishes. They are intent to destroy the economic viability of our
ALL YEAR ROUND businesses for the sake of the summer traders.
If they
don't listen to the people of Tintagel then with your help these plans for
the destruction of Tintagel must be defeated when the vote comes to accept these
crazy ideas. All most people want in Tintagel is 'under grounding' the cables &
olde world street lights. I personally have been lied to by a leading member of
the Tintagel Parish Council who assured me that the streets would not be
narrowed. Presumably widening the pavements does not have the same
effect!!!!.
For the sake of the elderly population of our village & local businesses defeat these crackpot plans!.
DO NOT LET THESE PEOPLE MAKE
TINTAGEL YET ANOTHER MODERN PLASTIC RESORT & DESTROY THE UNIQUENESS OF OUR
SUPER VILLAGE. Please E mail me with your support to fight this Forum
LETTER FROM TINTAGEL FORUM OCTOBER 2001
Dear Tintagel Resident TINTAGEL REGENERATION PROJECT: Public Meeting November 22nd 7.30pm SOCIAL
HALL
You will be aware I hope of the moves
afoot to undertake a range of environmental improvements within the main part of
the village and to provide for better access to the castle area from the village
and to provide access to the beach. These proposals have been developed to
provide Tintagel with a stronger position as a visitor destination and an opportunity
to improve it's image thus encouraging more sustainable growth for the future.
Tourism affects a majority of businesses in the parish, providing local jobs.
Tintagel needs to remain competitive as a visitor destination and the proposals
set out in the Regeneration Project will help maintain Tintagel as an important
place for visitors in the future. The dreadful effects of the Foot & Mouth
epidemic earlier in the year dramatically underlined the importance of places
which provide good quality facilities in a good quality environment. The fact
that many public agencies are willing to invest substantial amounts into Tintagel
exhibits considerable levels of support and recognition of Tintagel being one of
the most important places in Cornwall.
A number of public meetings have been held
during a several year development period to try & keep locals people
informed as to how the plans have been developing and to provide an opportunity
for people to feed the process. The development process has been steered by a
Village Forum made up of residents representing community organisations in the
main, particularly the Parish Council. A list of the Forum members was
circulated with the letter sent to you inviting you to the last public meeting
held on the 25th January 2001 at which there were over 200 people attending.
Notes taken of that meeting are available on request.
You may also recall that prior to the meeting
on the 25th a questionnaire was circulated to all those on the electoral role.
There was 44% return from the 1400 sent out. The detail was published at the
meeting, with over 80% supporting the broad thrust of the proposals. There were
also included in many of the replies some very useful comments which we tried to
address on the night. I apologise if we did not answer to all individual enquires.
The public meeting provided for a very useful debate and stemming from the
comments made at meeting adjustments have been made to the proposals that now
broadly involve:
* Improving the pedestrian access along Bossiney Road from Foster's Lane along
Fore Street as far as the entrance to the Car park at the country Club. this
involves better quality and wider paving, traffic managements (20mph limit,
including down Foster's Lane and along Molesworth Street and out to the Camelot
Castle Hotel and day time parking restrictions allied to the provision of a free
30 space, parishioners (by permit) only car park in the centre of the village
managed by the Parish Council for access to the local shops
* Under grounding overhead wires
* Attractive street furniture provision such as seating, lighting, planting
areas
* Provision of a "Shop Front Improvement Grant" scheme which provides
an opportunity for business to apply for funds to enhance the frontage to their businesses.
*Provision of a village square half way
down Fore Street (by means of land purchase), where there will be seating
provided, some public artwork, provision for posting information and the
provision of a village clock
* A better quality replacement of the poor quality toilets currently in Mr.
Dangar's car park
* Improved access from the village down the castle track by divorcing pedestrians
and vehicular access
* Provision of a new set of steps onto the haven beach
* Improved visitor facilities at the castle site
* A programme of small-scale environmental improvement works throughout the
Parish including an eradication programme of the Japanese knotweed on all land
where owners would be willing to co-operate
The plans have now reached a critical stage. There funding package for the scheme,
currently standing at 2.8 million, is now almost complete; the major source of
the funding being from Europe through the objective 1 programme, the South West
Regional Development Agency, English Heritage, Cornwall County Council, the
District and Parish Council and the National Trust.
At this stage the Village Forum feels that it would be the right thing to do to
call another Public Meeting so that people can find out about how the plans have
developed from nine months ago, what has been incorporated from the discussion
held at that meeting and what else there is still to do
For these reasons I am
inviting you to a meeting at SOCIAL HALL on the evening of November 22nd
2001 starting at 7.30pm. Apart from members of the Village Forum being present, there
will also be officers from the District & County Councils, who have been
instrumental in putting the funding packages together and who have provide
assistance with the liaison between the various authorities
who have needed to be
involved
Gandalph Strutt Chairman, Tintagel Village
Forum (Please Note: The webmaster has
corrected a couple of errors in the letter)
Clerk to Tintagel Parish Council
Cherry Trees Cottage
Atlantic View Estate
Treknow
Tintagel
Dear Mr Francis
Could you please read out to Councillors the following letter at your
meeting on Wednesday. TINTAGEL REGENERATION Following the heavily biased letter
from Mr. David of North Cornwall District Council, many voters of Tintagel
Parish were ‘fooled’ into answering YES to the first question of six.
Mr. David took this result to mean that villagers were in favour of ALL the
suggestions. However as the letter was ‘ill conceived’ many people said
Yes when they did not agree to all the proposals. Surely everyone
is happy with some Tintagel Regeneration (cables underground & new
street lighting) but only to the benefit of local people…not just some
visitors, summer traders, National Trust & English Heritage. I have attended many of the meetings and
pointed out that the roads; pavements and definitely parking should remain
as today. This ill-conceived regeneration is masterminded by the District
Council who drew up the plans & the Forum and I would imagine very few
members of the Parish Council could agree with ALL of it?????????. This letter is to simply ask a question to avoid
unnecessary costs to our Parish.
When this Forum has come up with its final plans will there be a vote for
ALL households & its occupants over 16 (not electoral list), to decide
whether they want the plans to go ahead. There should be one question
‘Do you accept in full the proposed changes to YOUR
village? A list of these changes should be made…i.e. No on street parking,
changes to the unique character of the village, no deliveries between11.30
and 3pm etc:’ No commentfrom Mr David, just a YES or NO.
I have a petition running in the village and whilst not much effort has been
put into its distribution, nearly 200 (350 at 13th April),
villagers have said they don’t want the road, pavement or parking changes. If you assure me that there will be a
sensible YES/NO vote then it will avoid the Referendum that will be demanded
at the ratepayer’s expense. I have the names of ten people who will put
their name to the Referendum. I await your answer.
Yours Faithfully
David Flower
THE
REPLY TO MY LETTER APRIL
2001
TINTAGEL VILLAGE FORUM
Chairman:Secretary:
Gandalf StruttBill Dixon
Dragons BreathKing Arthur Bookshop
Fore Street 1 Castle Hill
Tintagel Tintagel
D
Flower Esq.,
The Old Forge
Bossiney
Tintagel
PL34 OAY9th April 2001
Dear
David Having to seek
employment outside the village may well mean more shops closing,
adding yet again to the overall poor impression our visitors take with
them. The Forum believe that the plans will considerably improve the
village centre for visitors and residents alike. .
The scheme also considered the safety aspects, Fore Street in both Summer
and Winter is not pedestrian friendly and to reduce the likelihood of
accidents vehicle speed reduction and calming methods are needed, along
with obvious crossing points.
The Forum, which is made up of persons representing many facets of village
life not just traders, is aware of much concern within the village
regarding the suggestion of general withdrawing of on street parking. Many
different aspects are under consideration and it is hoped that a
satisfactory conclusion can be found for the majority. In altering road
and pavements it is planned that local materials can be used so blending
with some of the old buildings within the village.
The Forum welcomes constructive criticism and would ask you to join it so
that you can share, in detail, your worries over our currently unfinalised
plans.
I would also ask you to publish this reply to your letter on your Tintagel
Website.
Just a thought, after looking at the
regeneration news. The Forum's reply (9/4/01) to your letter
states that 'to reduce the likelihood of accidents vehicle speed
reduction and calming methods are needed'. Having been a resident
of Tintagel for 25 years, I have never known of any serious
accidents in the main street involving pedestrians or cars.
Perhaps vehicle calming measures would be more effective on approaches
into Tintagel, such as the ridiculous parking on the roads at Trewarmett
and Bossiney which form visitors first impressions of the village, but
perhaps this is not of interest to the forum who trade mainly in the
centre of Tintagel.
(Name
Supplied By A Local Resident)
Statement made at the AGM of Tintagel
Parish Council on Thursday 12th April
2001.
Regeneration
Whether you agree with my feelings or not one thing you can be sure of
is I am passionate about my village, our village, and love Tintagel. When
I was a member of the Parish Council from 1968 to 1981, four years as
chairman, the most important part of the council's efforts were to improve
Tintagel for it's residents. We were unanimous against certain changes in
the village but regrettably the District Council overruled us, to our
disadvantage. However, the Parish Council are very much involved with the
Tintagel Regeneration & will have the final say in the matter Sadly
many members of the forum are interested in only themselves I mention
English Heritage, who should NOT be involved in the
Regeneration. They should foot their own bill or get grants themselves to
tidy up the Castle road & beach. It is quite disgusting that despite
the massive profits made at King Arthur's Castle, that the Castle Beach
has been closed for nearly 15 years I know the Parish Council have pushed
English Heritage to repair the steps. The National Trust have always shown
self interest and they are another member of the forum The NCDC are
heavily involved with Charlie David master minding. Others are interested
in summer visitors only and have no concern for the people who live in the
village. Our village should be managed by the Parish Council for the good
of villagers, present & future. We want the streets to remain the same
with cables underground, new street lighting, a small amount of new
pavements in the necessary places. We want parking places as today not yet
another car park. If Fry's
is
purchased this should be made into a pleasant village centre where events
can be held, people can sit etc. How about a pull in by the NCDC car park
for buses to ease congestion, a village clock & make the village shops
tidy themselves up, get rid of those hideous boards & Coca Cola
machines In fact summer traders tidy up your act don't destroy the
uniqueness of our lovely village. Most people know I have a web site and
despite saying I would print any feelings on the proposed village changes
not one person has spoken in favour of the original changes except
Gandolph.
Think hard & long before you back proposals hated by a lot of
villagers ...this council will always be remembered ...let's hope for the
right reasons......David Flower
The Regeneration Project
January 2001
NOTE: The cleverly worded questionnaire meant that many people said
(1) 'YES' they supported
the regenerationon (They did not know they were voting to accept
ALL of the proposed changes)
We ALL support PARTS of it but I could only answer NO because
I certainly did not support ALL of it!).. (2)Question 2 tied in the Castle Access with changing pavements, footpaths
& road widths.!!!
(3) Free parking for about six people in the centre of the village by the shops
(Mayfair car park)!!!
(No mention of this!!)
(4)Agreed a speed limit is essential in villages
(5) No deliveries between 11.30 and 3pm. Too ridiculous to even comment on!!!
(6)This scheme should NOT include paying for some of Prince Charles's
expenses....he is the owner of the Tintagel Castle & land. English Heritage
are his agents who maintain, look after and rake in the profits!
Was it 200,000 visitors to King Arthur's Castle last year?!. English
Heritage should pay for this themselves!!
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?
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)
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
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 mainproposals
which are acceptable to the funding organisations. They haveindicated
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 18th2000
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 existingtraders encourage the reestablishment of a Traders Association promote a longer season by encouraging businesses to stayopen for the shoulder monthsencouraging 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 beachproviding and disseminating information about the village
and itsenvirons
*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 )
Total1,145,500
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.
