Last week the prep work for installing two new goals on the Moors playing field was started. From this, Porthleven Town Council’s handyman, Phil and his apprentice (me) fitted and installed the goal posts today.

It was good to be able to use my community fund for this, as I know many will have fun and appreciate these new goal posts. Thank to Phil and the town council for paying for the extra materials needed for the installation. Thanks also to the group of parents who helped Phil and I lift the goals in place.

No sooner than we had finished, a group of boys started to play football using the goals.

Phil and his apprentice

Thursday’s Porthleven Town Council planning meeting was likely to be a busy one, and it was, with standing room only. The item residents came to voice their concern over as you can expect was the shipyard application.

These public objections were on the size and impact of the building; not in keeping with the historic fabric of Porthleven; highways; loss of boat yard facilities; parking and access on and from the slipway. The Porthleven Fishermen’s Association also made comment at the meeting about the negative impact on the boat owner and fishing community this building would have.

This application was never going to be an easy-one, as changes to an area on this scale never run smoothly. But change can and does happen. It just not at the expensive of other important areas.

For me, I very much welcome jobs in Porthleven and those which are different to the tourism sector. However it is important to understand how many job, the type of jobs and will they be new jobs or jobs that have been relocated from existing buildings. In answering my question, Trevor Osborne and his architect suggested between 50 and 100 jobs. Though there was no confirmation as to whether these were new jobs or relocated.

I am sure many would agree there could be much more use made out of the shipyard, but this has to be in balance with other aspects of Porthleven and this building should not harm those other important aspects of Porthleven including heritage, the landscape and existing jobs.

This application comes down to need against harm. Yes we need jobs in Porthleven and it is good someone actually wants to invest in Porthleven. However, as the plans stand, I am not yet satisfied this proposal would in fact be totally positive for Porthleven.

This size, scale and impact on the area is of huge importance as this building would in effect dominate this area and would also impact on the surrounding area, including many important historical views. You only have to look at this site from different position like Peverell Terrace, Breageside, Fore Street corner and Church Row to see this building would fundamentally change those views.

There is a total lack of parking provision for the building of this size and for the number of jobs. It is no more than 10 from the plans. Parking is important, and adequate parking must be provided. Without decent levels of parking, this building would just create problems elsewhere. It was suggested by the application that parking could be provided past Tolponds. This option is flawed as the site is far away and there is no footpath. The area is also in a 60 mph zone, and you really cannot have people walking on this road without a footpath. Of course a footpath could be built, but this is not simple due to the sheer costs of putting in a footpath and this footpath would have to cross land in multiple ownerships.

A really important issue is the loss of the bus stop as this current plan removes the well used bus stop and has not been replaced with any dedicated provision in the plans for a bus stop. There is  somewhat of a ‘waiting area’ but this is not a protective shelter. It would also conflict with possible use as a café as this space would leave people confused, and unsure if they could use it whilst waiting for a bus. This current bus stop is well-used, and therefore, it would have a negative effect on those using public transport if it was removed and not replaced.

This application raises some really serious highways concerns I do raise serious concerns. There is no turning space not only for large vehicles, but those with trailers/and boats. The road on Methleigh bottoms is narrow in this location, and the field of vision looking towards the harbour with a sharp bend is not clear. If large goods vehicles, boat trailers cannot access the yard, then there would be a temptation to back on the harbour head road. If this happens, this would cause congestion in the area and will have a knock-on up Fore Street. The proposed access in and out of the shipyard is also of major concern.

The impact to the boat owners and fishermen has to be taken into serious consideration; this includes access on to and from the slip. There will also be a lack of boat repair and storage facilities if this plan was approved in its current format. Porthleven is a harbour and ‘safe haven’ and it would be totally unacceptable for a harbour not to have these facilities.

I also very much dislike the ‘company blue’

The matter is this application has to be decided on what are the current plan, and not any further amendments which may come forward. As there is no guarantee any of these changes will be made if support is given. Therefore, in light of the concerns raised, Porthleven Town Council felt it could not support this application and voted unanimously to refuse the application.

From the town council’s decision, the application can be decided by Cornwall Council as it stands, or as I am hopeful, updated plans will be submitted for the town council and the public to make further comment on.

The Government has provided the police with a range of powers to tackle dog fighting effectively. Offences cover organising, advertising and taking monies relating to animal fights as well as the possession of equipment used to train dogs for dog fighting.

In addition, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 makes it an offence to possess certain types of dog that have been identified as bred for fighting or that are similar to types bred for fighting. The police work with the Special Operations Unit of the RSPCA to target illegal dog fighting rings by gathering intelligence and prosecuting those that are involved in dog fighting.

The police have not asked for additional funding to tackle dog fighting. The maximum penalties for animal welfare offences are kept under regular review. The Sentencing Council has very recently published revised magistrates’ court sentencing guidelines, including those in relation to dog fighting, with the aim of ensuring that the most serious cases of animal cruelty receive appropriately severe penalties within the available maximum penalty.

At the 11th hour, there has been amended plans submitted for the Shipyard application. From what I can see of the new plan, the only thing to change is the ‘lookout’ which has been removed.

This new plan will be the one discussed at Porthleven TC tonight.

Amended plan

Old plan

Defra is committed to offering job applicants who are ex-offenders equal and fair opportunities. This commitment is supported through membership and operation of the Business in the Community ‘Ban the Box’ scheme. Following the principles in this scheme, appropriate pre-appointment checks, including a basic criminal record check, are not made until later in the recruitment process.

However, Defra does not retain details centrally that would allow us to identify employees with unspent convictions so the information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

Leaving the EU provides us with an opportunity to redesign our agricultural policy so that it works for the UK, making farming more profitable, competitive and environmentally sustainable.

Defra officials are currently undertaking analysis on future implications for farming. To support this, we will be holding a series of events in the coming months to hear as many views as possible across the country.

Any commercial buyers that source fish directly from the fishing industry must be registered, comply with the obligation to submit to the UK authorities a sales note, identifying the specific vessel that caught the fish, and must comply with ongoing requirements on traceability. Failure to comply with these obligations constitutes as a criminal offence that includes an unlimited fine.

Defra is committed to offering job applicants who are former offenders equal and fair opportunities. This commitment is supported through membership and operation of the Business in the Community ‘Ban the Box’ scheme. Following the principles in this scheme, appropriate pre-appointment checks, including a basic criminal record check, are not made until later in the recruitment process.

However, Defra does not retain details centrally that would allow us to identify former-prisoners so the information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

The intention, as I understand it, is to extend the maximum term of the lease from 31 years to 150 years, and several leases may be granted, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West pointed out—there could be several leases on different properties. The crucial thing, however, is that in my reading of the Bill, to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds, the grant would be for a lease of a maximum term of 150 years in the normal way of other leases. My hon. Friend also asked whether, in 150 years’ time, that could be considered again and a future Minister 150 years from now could decide to grant a new 150-year lease. I do not see anything in the Bill to prohibit that. The crucial thing, however, is the maximum, which is 31 years but will move to 150 years, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State at the time.

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to intervene again, I can perhaps deal with that point. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North Tyneside, pointed out, we have given quite a generous spending review settlement to Kew, with increases in resource and capital spend. This proposal will release additional funds to help it invest in its estate. It comes on top of what is already quite a generous settlement for the spending review period.

Perhaps I can add some clarity. We are aware that there are approximately six properties around Kew Green that are part of the Kew Gardens estate, some of which are rented. Some are, I understand, in a state of disrepair, so they need to be renovated. Those are the types of property that could be brought back in under a different lease and generate a better income stream than is currently possible.

To answer a point that was raised earlier, Kew Gardens itself does not have a lease; it operates under ministerial direction and occupies Crown land, so that is a different matter. The Bill is about giving Kew trustees the ability to grant leases, subject to approval by Ministers, to other parties for a period of up to 150 years.

I am delighted to rise in support of the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset. As he says, this is an important issue. The Royal Botanic Gardens Kew is globally renowned for its scientific expertise, as well as being a world-famous botanic garden and world heritage site. RBG Kew is a DEFRA non-departmental public body. We have allocated significant funding to Kew over this spending period to conserve its built infrastructure, as the shadow Minister pointed out.

A large proportion of Kew’s estate is historic in nature and requires careful management. To create world-class infrastructure, Kew would like to be able to enhance its estate. It would like to get additional investment into its infrastructure through leveraging Government investment to achieve philanthropic and private commercial investment. The Government fully support Kew in that aim, as part of its ambitions to further increase its self-generated income and become more financially self-sufficient.

My hon. Friend has explained what the two-clause bill will do. It will remove unnecessary restrictions on leases at Kew Gardens. Currently, the Crown Lands Act 1702 limits leases at Kew Gardens to 31 years. The Bill modernises those provisions, allowing leases of up to 150 years, which brings it into line with the approach taken in the Crown Estate Act 1961. The change will enable the release of value from non-core land and property at Kew Gardens. It will enable income to be generated from Kew Gardens that can be reinvested into the maintenance and development of the site. That will enable Kew’s infrastructure to be brought up to a standard that fully supports its ambitions and mission. Income generation will help enable Kew to achieve its core objectives and enhance its status as a UNESCO world heritage site.

Kew’s trustees are committed to ensuring that Kew has an estate that meets the needs of the botanic gardens, its visitors and Kew’s world-beating science. The trustees support the Bill, as the Government intend that the proceeds that result from it will provide additional income to Kew.

Examples of situations in which long leases might be granted include for the replacement of outdated catering and visitor facilities within the gardens and the renovation of properties just outside the gardens for residential use. All proposals for granting long leases will be in line with Kew’s world heritage site management plan. Proposals will be subject to scrutiny by Kew trustees and DEFRA, as well as through the planning process with local residents and businesses.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing the Bill, which will free up Kew to generate significant revenue to improve the quality of its estate and support its world-class science. The Government fully support Kew in that aim as part of its ambitions to further increase its self-generated income. I confirm that the Government are happy to work with my hon. Friend to ensure the good passage of the Bill through Parliament.