Tintagel Castle bridge objections continue

Kernow

27 VI 2017

In a comprehensive letter of objection to the proposed bridge at Tintagel Castle, currently under the stewardship of English Heritage, Cornish historian, archaeologist and author Craig Weatherhill, himself a retired Planning Officer, joins many others including 'Kernow Matters To Us' (KMTU) in condemning the proposal.

There has been widespread opposition to the multi million pound project which has been variously called the 'Disneyfication' and making a 'Cash Cow' of a much loved and ancient site situated on Cornwall's rugged north coast.

Many are now calling for a public inquiry into the proposal.

Mr Weatherhill's letter, which has been sent to Cornwall Council and copied to KMTU is reproduced below:

"Re: Application No. PA17/05087: Proposed pedestrian footbridge, Tintagel Castle:  “English” Heritage.

I WISH to register my strongest objection to this application on several grounds, and as follows:

Tintagel is a highly sensitive archaeological site and of iconic importance to the people of Cornwall, not so much by its very tenuous links with the Arthurian legend, but through its very real links with the Kings of Dumnonia, the post-Roman southwestern Celtic kingdom of which Cornwall was part, and who are given very little mention by the site’s current and externally based managers.

This world-famous site falls under several landscape and heritage designations, not least of which are: Scheduled Ancient Monument, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Site of Special Scientific Importance, the last with regard to the geology of the site.  These designations must be of paramount consideration in the processing of this application.

It is only two years since the applicants “English” Heritage (hereafter “EH”) submitted a successful application for 27 largely unnecessary commercial items at the Tintagel site that have largely devalued and trivialised the site for no motive other than commercial gain for the site’s current managers.  That application was approved in whole despite the fact that the Council’s own expert Cornwall Archaeological Unit submitted an informed opinion that 19 of those 27 items were potentially harmful to the site.  The Local Planning Authority must never again commit such a cardinal error.

IMPACT ON THE SCHEDULED ANCIENT MONUMENT

The entire essence and experience of Tintagel Castle and headland is one of wild, natural grandeur and deeply significant antiquity.  The last thing that should be imposed upon this is an ultra-modern structure, however elegant in design it may be.

 It should be borne in mind that, at the time of writing, a proposed road tunnel under EH’s flagship site of Stonehenge, that will be largely unseen, is the cause of considerable controversy, opposition and anger.  The proposed footbridge at Tintagel should be regarded as equally controversial, but significantly differs in the fact that it will be highly visible, a span 66 metres long, and around 60 metres above mean sea level, that will visually dominate the site, and detrimentally distract attention from the real value of the historic location, both visual and otherwise.

 The proposal will therefore be completely at odds with the visual character and historic importance of the site, and should be refused for that reason alone.

STABILITY & SAFETY

I have serious doubts about the ability of the fragile, brittle siliceous slate geology of the cliffs at either end of the span, and into which rock anchors will be driven, to withstand prolonged transmission of the stresses that will be exacted upon the footbridge by the high wind and storm conditions that are common to the Cornish coast.

           I note that the footbridge slopes downward from SE to NW, thereby presenting its underside to the prevailing SW-W winds.  This will introduce vertical movement to the structure as well as lateral sway.  When transmitted down to the rock anchors at either end, this is likely to promote shattering of the brittle geology around the rock anchors, and thus instability of the entire structure which is not single span, but two independent cantilevers, each 33 metres long, that do not meet in the middle, but separated by a 100mm gap which is seen by the applicant as “symbolic”: a concept of some absurdity that escapes my own comprehension, and, doubtless, that of most visitors to the site.  The strain placed upon the cliff at either end is not, therefore, a shared load, but each must bear the stress independently.  In the light of several intense storm-cells in recent years, my doubts about the local geology to withstand these conditions over a prolonged period would seem justified.  It will be only a matter of time before the rock anchors begin to fail as result of the breakdown of the geology surrounding them as described above.

           Doubtless, the structural engineers will issue assurances, but this was also so in the case of the Millenium footbridge in London, built in 2000.  The engineers concerned admitted that the alarming lateral sway it developed soon after opening was “completely unexpected”.  Only urgent remedial works cosing a considerable sum prevented inevitable tragedy.  Should the footbridge at Tintagel fail, one does not expect the average human body to survive a 60-metre fall.  Furthermore, should the bridge collapse, a considerable portion of each cliff will also break away, irreparable altering the visual appearance of the site, and taking valuable archaeology with it.  With regard to the drop beneath of the proposed structure, with side rails only 1.3 metres in height, one must also seriously question the proposal in the tragically real terms of it being an invitation to people seeking to commit suicide.

           The 100mm “symbolic” gap in the centre of the span is another serious concern, as this is the size that can easily trap a child’s foot, with such consequences as fractured metatarsals and ankles.  Is such a risk worth taking for the sake of obscure symbolism that will mean more to the applicant than to anyone else?

It is also highly likely, following incomprehensible recent restrictions on access to the Man Engine tunnel at Levant Mine, that Health and Safety is quite likely to forbid use of the bridge, in such an exposed location, whenever wind speeds exceed 25mph (possibly even less).  In Cornwall, such conditions exist over a goodly portion of the year, and it is likely that the bridge will be closed to the public rather more often than it will be accessible.

           In all of the above, one must always err on the side of caution and such doubts and concerns as expressed above are reason enough to support a refusal.

COST & JUSTIFICATION (including ACCESS)

The applicant has yet to publicly announce the estimated cost of this proposal, despite being asked that question several times by myself and others.  Construction and professional fees will certainly account for a total sum of not less than seven figures, considerably more than the modest six-figure annual funding that has been shamefully denied to an equally valuable facet of Cornish heritage, the Cornish language.  Naturally enough, this fact has provoked considerable anger and dismay, providing evidence that the “magic money tree” is certainly available to a favoured few, but not to others.

            The applicant has not demonstrated adequate need or justification for this development, other than “ease of access.”  However, examination of Paragraphs 7.11- to 7.18 of its submitted statement suggests that the sole motivation behind the proposal is increased revenue for the applicant, this being “English” Heritage, the current managers of the site which is actually owned by the Duchy of Cornwall.

            In its statement, the applicant disingenuously alleges that “a majority are in favour of the proposal” (Para. 4.8).  A majority of whom?  No survey has ever been publicly carried out, and this claim must be disregarded as false.

            The applicant also claims that the application follows “extensive stakeholder and public consultation”, and this must also be contested.  The statement names certain stakeholders, but not others, who are referred to only in vague terms (Para. 4.3).  This is not convincing evidence and it would appear that no public consultation has ever been carried out.  There have been Press releases regarding the proposal but, as these do not invite public reaction, written or otherwise, they cannot be accepted as adequate “public consultation”.

            While the applicant claims “ease of access” to The Island as a justification, it does not explain how the landward end of the bridge at the Outer Ward of the castle is to be accessed by the disabled, or less able, along a path from the valley that is scarcely suitable for either.  Even if those people could get that far and then cross the bridge, they will find themselves restricted to the Inner Ward on The Island, due to the precipitous gradients of the paths on the island.  It has to be admitted that, due to its geography, the site – specifically the Outer Ward and Island - is not suitable for access by disabled or less able persons.  For other visitors, an integral part of the adventure and challenge of Tintagel has been the steep flights of steps on either side of the eroded gap that separates the Outer and Inner Wards.  Are these elements to be cast aside simply for the sake of convenience and increased revenue for the site managers?

            In my opinion, inadequate justification for the proposal has been offered by the applicant, and this should be regarded as contributory to reasons to refuse the application.

CONCLUSION

It is my strong contention that this application for a proposed high-level footbridge at Tintagel Castle should be refused for the reasons given in each of the above sections.

I further request that the application be presented to the full, open Planning Committee for determination.

Yn lel,

C. Weatherhill (Mr).

(address and contact details given at the head of this letter)"