Penzance Heliport Planning Application PA25/04955 - How to file a supportive comment.

  Introduction

This post explains how to submit online comments to support Penzance Heliport’s planning application (PA25/04955) to have some restrictive operating conditions relaxed.

As with the two previous Penzance Heliport planning applications (both seeking planning permission to build the current heliport) opposition is very well organised and very well funded.

As of 16 April, there were a total of 233 public comments recorded on Cornwall Council’s online planning register with 178 ‘objecting’ 48 ‘supporting’ and  7 ‘neutral’.

Public comments for and against planning proposals matter.  They have to have to be considered by planning officers (and councillors if taking the final decision).

Background

The Penzance – Isles of Scilly helicopter service first started from Penzance in 1964.  It closed in Oct 2012 after 48 years continuous service. The service used mainly Sikorsky 61 helicopters which could carry around 24 passengers (massive compared to today’s aircraft). Competition arrived in 1984 with the IOSSCO’s launch of Skybus. The loss of the helicopter service in Oct 2012 damaged the economy of the Isles of Scilly and had a negative economic impact on Penzance.

In 2016 Tresco Island Ltd launched plans for a new service from a new Heliport located approximately 400 metres away from the old heliport. The planning application was vigorously resisted by the ISSCO who sought Judicial Review of the 2017 planning approval decision in the High Court. The first planning decision was withdrawn and a second planning application made. The second application was approved by councillors (unanimously) in 2018 but with very tight operating conditions compared to those applied to the historic service operated by BIH. The new heliport started operating in March 2021. ISSCO launched a competitor helicopter service (Island Helicopters) from Lands End Airport but this was a short-lived venture (May 2018 to Feb 2019).

The current planning application was accepted by Cornwall Council on 24 July 2025 and over the last 9 months significant concessions have been agreed.ted. The current 'whittled down' list of changes are listed below.

What is this Application About

Below is the 'whittled down' list of changes proposed by Penzance Heliport (Tresco Island Ltd)  - these are 'revised proposals' submitted by letter on 18 Nov 25

Proposed Variations For absolute clarity, a full list of the specific amendments to the conditions sought include the following:

Condition 26 – Variation no longer sought.

Condition 27 – To increase the permitted noise limit by 2db above the AW139 threshold, enabling the heliport to accommodate the full range of helicopters under its Category 1 and 2 licences.

Condition 28 - To allow engine testing from 07:30, Monday to Saturday, limited to no more than three occasions per week.

Condition 29 – Variation no longer sought.

Condition 30 – To amend Sunday flying hours to between 10:00 and 13:00, applicable only in the circumstances already specified—namely, emergencies, public safety, or where adverse weather on preceding days resulted in cancelled flights. An additional caveat is proposed to include circumstances where technical issues on previous days prevented scheduled flights.

Condition 31 – To introduce a corresponding caveat allowing rescheduled Sunday flights where operations were cancelled due to technical issues on earlier days.

Condition 38 – Removal of condition. The requirement of this condition has been fully satisfied through the submission of a noise report as part of this Section 73 application. As the condition did not require any ongoing noise monitoring or further compliance measures, it is now considered redundant and unnecessary, and its removal is therefore justified.

(For a table of current conditions and proposed conditions see the original letter from CarneySweeney, Planning Agents,  dated 18 Nov 2025 on Cornwall Council’s planning register).  

What is this Application Not About

To quote the Planning Agent:  

 

"In response to comments from statutory consultees and third parties, it is necessary to state categorically that variations are NOT sought to permit:

An increase in the number of flights permitted.

An increase in flying hours.

Pleasure flights

Unlimited private flights.

Removal of any obligation for ongoing monitoring – Condition 38 did not require any ongoing monitoring; accordingly, no continuing monitoring obligations were imposed as part of the permission.

Any other relaxation of planning controls."

General Advice about Comments

It is important each supportive comment appears to be a genuine opinion whilst raising valid points (what are termed 'material planning considerations'.  See list of "Potentially Valid Reasons” in the next section below.

Your comments should be politely expressed (for maximum impact). 

Avoid libellous comments.

Use your own words and expressions.  My example at the end is just an aid/prompt. A short objection can still be highly effective.

The number of supportive  comments count so if you have a partner or friend with similar views encourage them to file a supportive comment as well.

I may have missed important points about the current service/transport situation so add your own points.

It is easier to prepare your text comments using Word or similar word processing application and then just cutting and pasting the text into the Council’s online form.

You might want to review existing public comments in Cornwall Council's online register before posting your own comment.

There are many ‘red herrings’ amongst objections. See extract from Planning Agent’s letter listing these above under "What this application is NOT about".

Check List of Potentially Valid Reasons to Support the Application

The Heliport provides an essential service:

a. The Helicopter service is a lifeline service serving the Isles of Scilly. The current planning restrictions unreasonably hobble the service for islanders and add costs which increase the ticket price.

b. The Helicopter service is wrongly portrayed as an elitist service by detractors. Air travel is the only travel option in the winter months and ticket prices are similar whichever air service is used.

c. The community on the islands is under demographic pressure (it is shrinking) and the high cost and difficulty of travelling to and from the islands are major contributory factors. We don’t avoidable obstacles to travel.

d. The Helicopter service is essential for every Island household and for the economy which is highly dependent on visitors.

e. The helicopter service serves Tresco unlike the competitor air service. 

 Sunday Hours. It is rare for the helicopter to operate on a Sunday but when it does it is important flights arrive in Penzance in the morning or early afternoon  to allow onward travel by train. Extra nights in a Penzance hotel/B&B just add additional cost and delay to a journey already delayed from the Saturday before.

Noise. ‘Noise’ and how it is perceived and measured is a deeply technical matter. It is reasonable to note that the previous service operated for 48 years with the much larger and noisier Sikorsky 61 helicopter. Those living near the heliport or on the approach path can comment on their subjective experience of the noise.

Engine Tests. Many unplanned maintenance tasks require an engine test, this is not necessarily to test the engine itself but rather to power up all the entire system (i.e replacing a leaking hydraulic line). Permitting engine tests from 7.30 a.m. rather then from 08.00 allows helicopters fixed over night to be signed off before the start of scheduled flying the next morning. The alternative (current situation) means quite minor maintenance tasks identified at the end of the flying day automatically delay the next days flying schedule became tests cannot be performed until after the flying day has started.  Don't feel obliged to comment on 'engine testing'. 

Example Public Comment

I have drafted some example comments below depending on whether you are an islander, resident of Penzance or a visitor.  Use your own words, the example is a guide/prompt not a ‘bible’. You ‘own’ your comment.

Penzance Resident:

I support this application to amend the conditions attached to planning permission for Penzance Heliport.

The Heliport provides an essential service for islanders, especially in the winter when there is no ferry service. I can hear helicopter flights from the Heliport from where I live but I don’t find them especially intrusive as they only occur during working hours on weekdays and Saturdays.

Penzance has had a Heliport since the 1960s and it worked successfully for 48 years using the much larger S61 helicopter. I don't consider the new heliport a problem of the request to relax some conditions unreasonable. 

Visitor:

I support the application to amend the conditions attached to planning permission for Penzance Heliport.

I am a regular visitor to the Isles of Scilly and, much though I enjoy my stays on the Islands, transport to and from the Islands can be nightmarish with any disruption adding lots of cost and delay.

I was delighted when the new helicopter service started in 2021 but it appears more restricted in its operation than the previous BIH service which, after decades of successful operation, ended in 2012.

I believe it is particularly important than the rare Sunday flights arrive in Penzance in the morning to aid onward travel by rail. It is bad enough to have ones flight off the islands cancelled on a Saturday thereby requiring an extra night’s accommodation on the islands but a late afternoon flight on Sunday means an additional overnight stay in Penzance as well.

IOS Resident:

I support the application to amend the conditions attached to planning permission for Penzance Heliport.

The Heliport provides an essential service to islanders. For 4 months of the year air travel is the only option for travelling to/from the islands. The cost of travelling by air is broadly similar whether travelling by fixed wing or helicopter (it is not an ‘elitist service’ just for visiting high rollers – it can often be the only service to/from the islands).

It is important that the rare Sunday flights allow for onward travel from Penzance by rail. Sunday flights typically only occur when Saturday flights have been disrupted and arriving in the later afternoon on Sunday often imposes an additional night in a hotel/B&B in Penzance meaning more cost and additional delay.

The proposed amended conditions have been whittled down through discussion and need to be accepted. The previous helicopter service operated successfully for 48 years within more flexible conditions and with a much larger and noisier helicopter (the Sikorsky 61).

How to Register a Comment. 

You can view the application and supporting documents by visiting Cornwall Council’s online planning register here  https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-applications/online-planning-register/ .   Search for the application using references PA25/04955 .

To file a comment you first have to register with Cornwall Council (see link in planning portal when you try and make a comment).

Having already registered you can file a comment.  Your personal details will automatically fill many of the boxes of the online form.

Click on  ‘Comments’ tab

Click on ‘Make a Comment ‘

Complete authentication (enter code sent to your mobile phone)

Select 'Commentor Type'  (select ‘Member of the Public’)

Stance:  select “Support”

Reason: select ‘Residential Amenity’ (the form requires a box to be ticked – there are very limited options)

Add your comments in the text box (best prepared in Word and cut & pasted into the text box).

You will get an email confirmation of your online comment submission.   

Tell other like minded individuals you have submitted a comment. Use social media if it suits you.

Prepared by Dick Cliffe  Email: dick.cliffe@gmail..com

Cornwall Council Home Purchases to Support Refugee Resettlement

 Introduction

This post provides additional detail about housing purchased by Cornwall Council to support resettlement of refugees.  It follows a post comment (4 Jan 26) on the pzbusiness FB page by Rob Trewhella (post about award of outline planning approval for 140 new homes near Castle Horneck (Penzance))  where he mentions a FOI response from Cornwall Council (Jun 2024) referring to 42 homes purchased for refugees. There was insufficient space on FB to present the Council’s response (forward to me by Rob) and associated information and links.  

Local Authority Housing Fund (Cornwall’s Grants)

The purpose of the LAHF is to help local authorities provide settled, affordable accommodation for families arriving in the UK through Ukrainian and Afghan resettlement schemes, as well as addressing broader local housing pressures.

A key point about local authorities housing refugee families is that in recent years it has been  heavily supported by Central Government funding through the LAHF and this is the case for the 42 properties referred to in Cornwall Council’s FOI response (copied at the bottom). There has been great pressure on the current and previous Governments to get asylum seekers out of B&Bs and hotels as well having refugees with approved status spread around the UK  and not concentrated in a small number of Local Authorities.

Cornwall Council receipts from LAHF:  

Round 1 £3,630,000 (Feb 2023), 33 properties  (26 for Ukrainians, 7 for Afghans)

Round 2   £2,640,000 in Nov 2023.    (12 for general need, 8 for for Afghans)

After the Jun 2024 FOI response date:

Round 3  £5,254,363  (Sep 2024).  23 properties for temporary needs purchased due to support 11 Afghan resettlement properties. Purchase of these properties will be completed by March 2026.

See Cornwall's Council's post "How the Resettlement Service is funded"   https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/people-and-communities/refugee-resettlement/how-the-resettlement-service-is-funded/#

For reference, the Afghan Resettlement Programme (ARP) closed to new applicants 1 July 2025 but there may however have been a backlog of applicants yet to be permanently housed. 

There are some 1100 Ukrainian refugees in Cornwall and 400 hosts who help house them (from Cornwall Council link above)

Social Housing Allocations with no Cornwall Connection.

The FOI (below) asked a generic question about the allocation of social housing to individuals with no local connection  plus a specific question about allocation to refugees (answered above).

The generic answer is that 4.6% of social housing allocations (133 out of 2882 allocation from 2022- 2024 (Jun)) were to individuals/families without a local connection.  Such cases lacking a local connection arise with UK nationals who are victims of domestic abuse, care leavers,  vulnerable individuals - a class that includes ex servicemen/service women amongst others.   Adult refugees with approved status do not automatically qualify as being in 'priority need' but families with children and pregnant women are always considered in 'priority need' and if a refugee you are unlikely to have a 'local connection'.   

FOI Q1 asked about "people who have been placed in social housing in the county from other counties in the UK".  Cornwall Council ignored or failed to recognize the suggestion/implication in the question that other council 'dump' the homeless on Cornwall.  Because of the severe financial impact of having to house homeless individuals councils don't accept referrals from other councils unless there is an indisputable local connection to their council area.  All councils have an obligation to provide homeless advice to the homeless.  If the homeless person has a local connection and is in 'priority need' then that council has to provide a housing solution.  If a connection to another council is identified then the housing of that person in 'priority' need' is referred on to that council. There are a few exceptions as listed in the previous paragraph but most people have a local connection somewhere in the UK (a refugee with recognized asylum status would obviously be an exception).  

Cornwall Council FOI Response (14 Jun 2024) 

Pages 1 &  2 (note: Includes responses from 'Housing Options' (dealing with allocations) and  Sustainable Growth & Development dealing with housing supply)

How to file a planning objection (PA25/09482 / PA25/09483 - Pulse smart hubs at 4 locations within Penzance).

 Introduction

 This post explains how to object (or alternatively support) the application to install Pulse smart hubs with integrated digital screens at 4 locations within Penzance. 

Generic image of a Pulse hub unit

There are two applications – one for Planning Consent  (application   PA25/09482) dealing with the physical installations and one for  Advertising Consent  (ref PA25/09483 ) dealing with the impact of the proposed advertising only.

Your comments will be applicable to both applications and can be copied from one application to the other unchanged.  To be strictly correct the pavement obstruction issue is not relevant to the Advertising Consent comment.

 General Points

It is important each application appears unique so feel free to (politely) let rip about how you feel about the proposal but then ensure you mention the key points for each proposed locations and end with the list of planning policy references (see below).  This way you objection appears genuinely held  but also a ‘material (valid) planning objection’ that has to be considered by  decision makers.

Your comments should be politely expressed (for maximum impact). 

Use your own words and expressions.  My example at the end is a guide/aid not a bible.  A shorter objection can still be highly effective.

Numbers of objections count  so if you have a partner or friend with similar views encourage them to file an objection.

You should comment against each of the 4 proposed locations because not all have the same issues.

If you have recommended alternative locations (train station entrance, Harbour Car Park pay point) then suggest them (it gives more weight to your objection re current proposal).

There are some common points which can be mentioned before going into the detail of each site.  The proposed benefits of free wi-fi and phone calla is of limited benefit to Penzance given recent installation of free town centre wi-fi, the fact that nearly everybody carries a mobile phone.  Two of the 4 units are advertising to passing cars so the defibulator service is largely redundant. Only 5% of the advertising space is allocated to community use.

You should list the relevant planning policies at the end of your comments using my list (see example).  There may be other policies I have missed.

It is easier to prepare your text comments using Word or similar word processing app.  Why – because the Cornwall Council online form removes all formatting and offers only a small text window for editing meaning it is easy to get lost in your own reply.

You might want to review existing public objections online to get ideas – there are 11 objections so far.

Photomontages of Proposed Installations (taken from the application) 

Market Jew St (note pavement obstruction)

Wharf Road 

East Terrace

Western Promenade Road

Check List of Potentially Valid Reasons to Object

• Impact on the heritage and character of the town, especially the three units within the Penzance Conservation Area.
• Addition of avoidable street clutter and pedestrian obstruction (especially the Market Jew unit).
• Visual amenity and advertising (the screens are large and brightly lit). They will make the town a less pleasing place to live.
• Road safety aspect given the distraction of drivers entering Penzance from the east (the East Terrace unit) and driver entering Penzance from the Newlyn direction on Western Promenade Road (children crossing Western Promenade Road from the skate park to buy sweets and drinks from the Asda store behind the petrol station).
• The impact of avoidable light pollution on the West Penwith International Dark Sky Park.
• The health and wellbeing aspects are over-promoted when weighed against the imposition of large brightly lit adverts on the streetscape and degradation of the Conservation Area.

 Example Public Comment

I have drafted an example comment (objection) at the end of this webpage.  Use your own words.  It is a guide/aid not a bible.

 References to Relevant Planning Policy (include at the end of your comment)   

Cornwall Local Plan  Policy 24: Historic Environment (3rd bullet  point).  Maintain the special character and appearance of Conservation Areas, especially those positive elements in any Conservation Area Appraisal.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Section 16. Title:  “Conserving and enhancing the historic environment”

Para 203 (f):  “ the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness”.

Para 210. “In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of”:

Sub para (c) “ the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness”.

 

Section 9. “Promoting sustainable transport”

“Considering development proposals:”

Para 117. “Within this context, applications for development should:”

Para 117 (c)” create places that are safe, secure and attractive – which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, avoid unnecessary street clutter, and respond to local character and design standards;

How to Comment. 

You can view the application and supporting documents by visiting Cornwall Council’s online planning register here  https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-applications/online-planning-register/ .   Search for the application using references  PA25/09482 & PA25/09483.

 To file a comment you first have to register with Cornwall Council (see link in planning portal when you try and make a comment).

Having already registered you can file a comment.  Your personal details will automatically fill many of the boxes of the online form.

Click on  ‘Comments’ tab

Click on ‘Make a Comment ‘

Complete authentication (enter code sent to your mobile phone)

Select 'Commentor Type'  (select ‘Member of the Public’)

Stance:  select “Object”

Reason: select ‘Residential Amenity’ (the form requires a box to be ticked)

Add your comments in the text box (best prepared in Word and cut & pasted into the text box).

Remember to submit comments on both applications.

You will get an email confirmation of your online comment submission.   

Please add a Facebook comment when complete – it will remind others to make a comment.

Example Objection

I wish to object to the installation of 4 Pulse advertising hubs in Penzance. 

The dominating 2.54 m high, futuristic, pavement mounted, display units will be highly intrusive in a small town environment like Penzance.  Three of the four units are proposed for installation within the Penzance Conservation Area where they will significantly detract from the appealing heritage setting.  The proposed units represent a pedestrian obstruction and avoidable pavement clutter, especially the unit proposed for Market Jew St (the town’s high street), a busy street with narrow pavements. 

The advertising screens are large and will feature bright, attention seeking, adverts which represent an intrusion upon the public and therefore a loss of visual amenity. 

Penzance is on the outskirts of the West Penwith International Dark Sky Park and the light from the proposed units represents avoidable light pollution.  Approval of the application would  be at odds with past precedent which has seen applications for illuminated external signage turned down for property in Penzance town centre.

Decision Makers are obliged to weigh disadvantages of applications against advantages.  The applicant refers to the public benefits the Pulse units offer which include free wi-fi and the ability to make phone calls including emergency phone calls.    Penzance has recently installed town-wide free wi-fi (a Future High Streets Fund project) and almost everybody today carries a mobile telephone on their person. The public benefits of the Pulse units are therefore tenuous.

Comments on specific sites:

Market Jew Street.   This town centre location inside the Conservation Area has narrow, busy pavements and the proposed Pulse unit will substantially narrow the  pavement further presenting an unacceptable obstruction to pedestrians, especially if disabled and in a wheelchair or on a mobility scooter.  The unit will be especially anomalous in this location.  The proposed unit will harm expensive improvements only recently completed under the Penzance Town Deal Sustainable Transport project to make the street more pedestrian friendly and aesthetically appealing.

 Wharf Road.  The proposed installation near the Wharf Road entrance to the Wharfside Shopping Centre is within the Conservation Area.  It represents significant pavement cluster and is out of keeping with the waterfront vibe of this location.  This unit would be less intrusive (but still effective) if installed next to the Harbour Car Park pay station approximately 50 metres away.

East Terrace.  This location at the back of the railway station has low footfall but faces incoming road traffic at the town’s eastern entrance.  It is located inside the Conservation Area.  The unit would represent  a stark visually anomaly.  There is a potential road traffic hazard having distracting illuminated signage on the approach to a complex junction where traffic can quickly back up at busy times  (I am referring to the notorious ‘Penzance Gyro’).

Western Promenade Road.  This installation is outside a petrol station forecourt on what is the western approach to Penzance town centre.  My concern with this location is that a large illuminated advertising screen is a distraction to drivers on a road which has many children crossing from the Wherry Town Skate Park  to buy food and drinks from the Asda convenience store .  Whilst there is a traffic light controlled  pedestrian cross some 100 metres up the road  children/youths routinely take the shortest route to cross the road.  The proposed installation also represents an avoidable blight on Penzance’s seafront.

The proposed application should be refused because all four proposed installations fail to comply with one or more planning policies (listed below) and the resulting harm is not outweighed by the relatively modest public benefits the units offer.

References to relevant planning policy: 

Cornwall Local Plan  Policy 24: Historic Environment (3rd bullet  point).  Maintain the special character and appearance of Conservation Areas, especially those positive elements in any Conservation Area Appraisal.

National Planning Policy Framework

Section 16. Title:  “Conserving and enhancing the historic environment”

Para 203 (f):  “ the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness”.

Para 210. “In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of”:

Sub para (c) “ the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness”.

 

Section 9. “Promoting sustainable transport”

“Considering development proposals:”

Para 117. “Within this context, applications for development should:”

Para 117 (c)” create places that are safe, secure and attractive – which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, avoid unnecessary street clutter, and respond to local character and design standards;