Complaint – The exclusion of Cornwall from the Marine Stewardship project and the Marine Communities Fund of the Crown Estate.

   
To:- Government Office for the South West, Bristol.
e-mail – rssconsult@gosw.gsi.gov.uk

Subject:- Public Consultation - period ending 17th October 2008.

Date:- 17th October 2008

Dear Sirs,

Complaint – The exclusion of Cornwall from the Marine Stewardship project and the Marine Communities Fund of the Crown Estate.

The Crown Estate Act 1961 covers only land held by the Crown Estate. (Ian Mills, Coastal Manager, Crown Estate, 16th October 2008).

“The Crown Estate has no holdings within the boundaries of Cornwall. Foreshore and other property that would in most counties be the property of the Crown Estate are, in Cornwall, not owned by the Crown Estate. The analogous landowner in Cornwall is the Duchy of Cornwall”. (Tim Riley, Librarian, Crown Estate, 7th January 2005).

Under the Articles of Agreement between the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, made law by the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858, the mineral rights beneath the foreshore of Cornwall became, “vested in the Duchy of Cornwall as part of the soil and territorial possessions of the Duke of Cornwall”.

“The Duchy of Cornwall is vested in the Prince of Wales (who is) entitled only to the annual income”. (The Prime Minister, Hansard, 27th March 1996). It would appear that ultimately, only the government is in a position to ‘vest’.

“The Duchy of Cornwall is not itself subject to the Freedom of Information Act”. (Elizabeth A. Stuart, Duchy of Cornwall, 22nd February2005).

The Duke of Cornwall does not offer a Marine Stewardship project or a Marine Communities Fund as might be reasonably expected of the owner of the foreshore of Cornwall in light of the Crown Estate example. The suspicion is aroused that the separation of the Crown land of Cornwall from the original Crown land or estate of William the Conqueror appears to be based on racial grounds connected with the Celtic ethnic (non-Anglo-Saxon) origins of the Cornish.

Recent meetings of the ‘Save our Sand Hayle’ and the ‘Hayle Towans Partnership’ have expressed serious concern at the accelerating depletion of sand caused by commercial exploitation. They have not contacted either the Crown Estate or the Duchy of Cornwall as a landowner.

The Hayle Harbour is a World Heritage site under threat of the speculative construction of water’s edge blocks of flats emulating the failed coastal second home policies of Spain. The South West Regional Assembly has recommended that the current housing policy be scrapped. (Western Morning News, 11th October 2008).

An independent evaluation and professional projection of both natural population limits as well as a global warming and tidal trends impact assessment etc., in respect of Cornwall’s peninsula coastline, is urgently required.

Clear administrative responsibilities are, however, not immediately apparent.

It is the duty of HM Treasury to give unquestioning priority, under section 8 of the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1982, to ensuring that it: “shall have regard to the interests of both present and future Dukes of Cornwall”. In its function as the source of funding for departmental budgets, it would be impossible to conceive that HM Treasury has not imposed its own priorities on such departments as the Department for Communities and Local Government; the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, (DEFRA).

Furthermore, the Cornwall County Council is expected, “not to alter or take away any of the rights, powers, privileges or authority of the Duchy of Cornwall” under section 50 of the Cornwall County Council Act 1981.

In addition, the Ministry of Justice has asserted that the Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate. (9th October 2008). However, it has neglected to explain why so much departmental assistance, or, in effect, ‘state aid’, is made available, directly or indirectly, to enhance the profitability of just one ‘private estate’. The existence of this Duchy of Cornwall enigma may, in itself, offer an explanation as to why the Department of Justice has failed to provide the British public with a statutory guarantee of the internationally accepted basic human right of equality before the law.

As a result of the credit crunch the government has taken on the role of ‘bank owner of last resort’. The public has been assured that this is only a temporary measure. ‘Temporary’ has yet, however, to be applied to the Duchy of Cornwall. Since 1337, it was, and still is, ‘vested’ with the feudal rights of, ‘landowner of last resort’ in Cornwall. (Treasury Form No. BVC5 and IHTA84/s230). This anomaly has long since required correction.

Consequently, we would be very much obliged to be informed as to:-

Who is legally responsible for ensuring the protection and survival of the foreshore and natural coastline of Cornwall in compliance with European Union Decisions and Directives in a manner that will ensure the discontinuation of the demonstrably evident institutionalised feudal legacy of racial discrimination against the Cornish people?


Yours faithfully,

E.R.Nute,
Keeper of the seal,
for and on behalf of
The Cornish Stannary Parliament.
 

What's Related

Document Options

Trackback

Trackback URL for this entry: http://cornishstannaryparliament.co.uk//resources//trackback.php?id=20081029135920508

Here's what others have to say about 'Complaint – The exclusion of Cornwall from the Marine Stewardship project and the Marine Communities Fund of the Crown Estate. ':

Who's responsible for Cornwalls coast
Tracked on Sunday, November 09 2008 @ 12:23 PM GMT

Who's responsible for Cornwalls coast - Politics.ie
Tracked on Sunday, November 09 2008 @ 12:38 PM GMT

Complaint – The exclusion of Cornwall from the Marine Stewardship project and the Marine Communities Fund of the Crown Estate. | 0 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
copyright CSP 2006 ..... Designed and hosted by FTI