Water filled barriers being added in Undercliff Drive

Barriers put in place to block residents from using road they just re-built

Residents in the landlocked properties on Undercliff Drive were forced to either move their cars off their properties or have them trapped, after staff from Island Roads arrived this afternoon to put two water-filled barriers across the entrance to the road that was rebuilt by volunteers last weekend.

Officials from engineering group Ramboll visited the site today to survey the work that has been carried out by the volunteers (some of whom we’re told are very experienced in building roads).

Future of temporary road in the hands of Ramboll
It’s not known when Ramboll’s report will be delivered back to Island Roads, but the future of the temporary road is dependent upon the outcome of it.

If the engineers confirm the work was completed to a satisfactory standard, surely there would be no reason to deny vehicle access to homes, claim residents.

The road is not open to the general public. It’s only accessible through locked barriers, which the residents, Island Roads and council officers have the passcode to.

Island Roads claim: “Stuck in the middle”
Kieron Blamey, the project manager from Island Roads, told residents they were simply carrying out instructions on behalf of the Isle of Wight Council.

He stated that Island Roads were “stuck in the middle”, claimed the company was responsible for the health and safety of anyone using the road and until they approved it as safe for cars to use, it would be made inaccessible.

All emergency services have been notified of the plans and given approval to place the water-filled barriers across the road. It would leave approximately 1.5-1.8m gap for residents or emergency services to pass through on foot.

No heating for residents
This action means the deliveries of heating oil for at least one property and LPG for another cannot now be made.

One resident in her late 60s explained she is without heating and having to stay warm by wearing hats, scarves and lots of layers when at home – and that’s before it gets really cold.

Hopes for a meeting between all parties
Residents commented on how it had taken eight months to get this far, but somehow the council and Island Roads were able to make a decision to close the road and mobilise so many staff to attend the site in just 24 hours.

Mr Blamey said he hoped to be able to organise a meeting between the residents, Island Roads and the Isle of Wight council for next week to “seek a way forward.”

Image: © Gary Smedmore

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
36 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sandown Sally
11, August 2011 12:59 pm

Ten years is not long when you’re buying an asset like this for £1. The site value must be £1 million plus.

I do hope the council haven’t done another of their silly deals, only time will tell.

Who are the people behind Mr T? Word is he’s a figurehead for the actual owners of the Hamborough.

REEH
Reply to  Sandown Sally
12, August 2011 11:33 am

Look at Appendix D, Purchasor’s Solicitor, client reference is ‘sussmilch’. Kevin Sussmilch is the true buyer of the Winter Gardens.

REEH
Reply to  Sandown Sally
12, August 2011 11:36 am

* Purchaser’s

Asite2c
11, August 2011 1:01 pm

How sad to see the soul being ripped out of Ventnor. There was a time when the town had a pier where you could catch passenger ships to France, a beautiful Victorian sea front, canoe lake, cinema, an old style Police station, the Winter Gardens providing plenty of entertainment, a train station, good pubs serving local Burt’s beer, friendly local schools and more.

REEH
11, August 2011 1:13 pm

John Metcalfe has been claiming that community access would be “in perpetuity” i.e. forever! What part of that do the council not understand – not 10years, not even 20 years, FOREVER!!

steve s
Reply to  REEH
11, August 2011 6:33 pm

Could you show us where John Metcalfe ever said this please, Rosie? Thanks.

John Allen
Reply to  steve s
11, August 2011 11:32 pm

He said that in a letter to a local resident, that I have seen, which was sent on May 13th.

REEH
Reply to  steve s
12, August 2011 10:34 am

‘One of the fundamental matters that any expression of interest had to addres was how the bidder would continue to provide community access to the building. This is different to a simple sale of the asset where the Council would only be looking to achieve the best price that it could for the building. A condition of sale to require community access to the Winter Gardens does… Read more »

steve s
Reply to  REEH
12, August 2011 10:37 am

Thank you for providing this.

steve s
11, August 2011 1:17 pm

Sal, you could equally have titled this piece “Auditorium central to long term plans”. Shouldn’t there, at very least, be a question mark at the end of your headline? Your customary balance seems to be absent here. :-S

steve s
Reply to  Sally Perry
11, August 2011 1:38 pm

Lol! But it didn’t, originally, include the word ‘possibly’, did it? Nor does it include the word ‘minimum.’

steve s
Reply to  steve s
11, August 2011 1:43 pm

I need glasses. I can’t even see the recommendation from officers about community use for ten years ONLY. :-S

steve s
11, August 2011 1:20 pm

I note you have now changed the headline, for which, many thanks.

Mike Starke
11, August 2011 2:06 pm

Now let me get this straight; a prime site in the popular seaside resort of Ventnor can be flogged off by County Hall for a quid. Meanwhile, when “Butcher” Beynon closed Chale primary school, community groups, with a track record of success in various village enterprises, asked to take over the site. They were sent packing. Why? Because the school and its prime building land – sorry,… Read more »

Bluey
Reply to  Mike Starke
11, August 2011 2:19 pm

This agreement is a sell-out, supported by our town council. By the time the building is finished the period of the town’s entitlement to enjoy community use will probably be 8 years. An ultra-prime site for a quid. The IOWc legal and commercial? dept are the softest roll-over of all time

Sandown Sally
Reply to  Mike Starke
11, August 2011 2:24 pm

Spot on as always Mr Stark. Why don’t you offer them £2, double the return.

Sorry, but the Winter Garden to poundshop deal smells like another fishy one to me.

Loo Loo
Reply to  Mike Starke
11, August 2011 5:41 pm

I only wish Butcher Benyon would leave the Island and take his axe with him. It makes me angry to think the Council have employed and pay this awful man a huge salary to come from the mainland, sell our heritage and destroy the Island’s public services.

Paul Miller
11, August 2011 2:20 pm

Yet another decision which is to ‘important’ to have the full council debate. Does IWC hold some kind of national record here for number of these ‘delegated’ decisions? Every time something is reported here it seems to be the product of some DD or other. Meanwhile, could Ventnorblog investigate background of the lucky owner (whoops, I know that hasn’t been confirmed by the ‘full’ cabinet yet, but… Read more »

Quirry
11, August 2011 2:25 pm

There is an ongoing conversation about ownership and RT’s backers whenever the subject of the Winter Gardens comes up. It doesn’t take much digging around in public records to see the name of Kevin Sussmilch in the picture. Evidently, an avid sailing enthusiast, possibly a member of yacht clubs in Cowes that many prominent members of IOW society frequent. It is also a name that associated with… Read more »

No.5
Reply to  Quirry
11, August 2011 4:13 pm

“possibly a member of Yacht clubs in Cowes”….in other words you guess and have no evidence….whats the point of your post?

Sandown Sally
11, August 2011 2:26 pm

Does DD mean delegated decision, or is it a decision made by someone drunk and disorderly, and how could we tell the difference?

Asite2c
11, August 2011 2:46 pm

Pugh an his gang should take notice of Harold McMillan’s advice to Thatcher many years ago when he said in the House of Lords “Don’t sell off the family silver”. Once it has gone, it will never return.

muso activator
11, August 2011 2:48 pm

GREEEEEEEEEED!

watchdog
11, August 2011 3:29 pm

I don’t know why George Brown and his cronies haven’t considered the possibility of a long lease on this site, say 100 years at a peppercorn rent. Then at least the community would remain the ground landlords and would be able to prevent any leaseholder from suddenly deciding that the plans they put forward were too expensive and the best option would be another block of flats.… Read more »

DaveQ
11, August 2011 6:25 pm

[Comment removed by moderator]

Loo Loo
Reply to  DaveQ
13, August 2011 8:28 am

[comment removed by moderator]

LMS
11, August 2011 7:22 pm

Oh, hangbags, No.5! Mr Sussmilch is a member of the ISC last I checked (records online, not difficult), and the point is very valid in that all the people involved in the decision making process here possibly know each other! Do you not agree that it might be helpful to know something about the people behind this bid, their ambitions and plans for such an important venue?… Read more »

steve s
Reply to  LMS
11, August 2011 7:49 pm

Do you suppose they arrived at the position of being preferred bidder without presenting a plan? :-S

No.5
Reply to  LMS
12, August 2011 12:55 am

whether they are or not is supersition not fact..I prefer facts.

FTR I don’t think this is the best option for the WG and if you had all been so passionate about it when it was open, none of this would have happened

Cook
Reply to  No.5
12, August 2011 8:26 am

It is a little more than superstition! Have a read about Northwood House circa this time last year. These folk have had various run-ins in the past and if I was cynical, I’d suggest that the WG is a consolation price. Why else would the council do seemingly everything it can to give it to RT (who owns neither the Hambrough nor the Pond, could someone tell… Read more »

steve s
Reply to  Cook
12, August 2011 8:33 am

You understand incorrectly.

Cook
Reply to  steve s
12, August 2011 8:44 am

How do you know?

David
11, August 2011 7:59 pm

“The auditorium (as defined by a plan) is to be retained and used for a minimum period of 10 years from the date of completion primarily for arts, cultural, educational and entertainment activities and ancillary purposes in support of these activities.” “Date of completion”… Is this the date of completion of the sale – so that if it takes them 2 years to do the works, the… Read more »

keithybaby
11, August 2011 8:41 pm

Smash and grab in London and you appear in court within 24 hours, what is the difference here? Are we being legally mugged?

jane nash
11, August 2011 10:44 pm

our local councillors who allowed this to happen should be hanging their heads in shame. Ventnor has been sold down the river, and we are supposed to be grateful!

Judge Mental
Reply to  jane nash
11, August 2011 11:25 pm

Hear,hear, A couple of years ago the WG was being run successfully by a well known and popular local Landlord. It was a superb and well used venue for a meal or drink, with in my opinion, the best view of any Pub in the UK. [Part of comment removed by moderator] Expect us to appear in the “Rotten Boroughs” section of Private Eye yet again. “Treasure… Read more »

No.5
Reply to  Judge Mental
12, August 2011 12:50 am

who would that be then…must be more than a few years ago, because the place has been run by self serving cowboys for at least 7 years

Debby Robinson
Reply to  Judge Mental
12, August 2011 7:20 am

Judge – you could not be barking up a wronger tree…..
Check out the actual facts of the WG back story http://www.ventnortowncouncil.org.uk/winter-gardens.php

Mike
Reply to  Judge Mental
12, August 2011 12:29 pm

a view through rose tinted specs.Yes the person you are presumably referring to did run the WG very well but this issue is the result of historical neglect and the current VTC have worked there socks off to get the best possible solution.I have no knowledge of Mr T or his operation but if he can give us a properly maintained building to be proud of and… Read more »

Mike
Reply to  Mike
12, August 2011 12:33 pm

…and while on the subject of VTC lets give a big thanks to Councillor Morgan for his initiative in reviving the 31 bus not only serving Bonchurch but also Ventnor espalnade up to the Spyglass.This should help the seafront busineeses a good deal.

rob
Reply to  Judge Mental
12, August 2011 10:07 pm

“A couple of years ago the WG was being run successfully by a well known and popular local Landlord”

Oh, do you mean the popular and local landlord, graham perks WHO NEVER PAID HIS RENT IN FULL?? Or is this a different landlord?

No.5
Reply to  jane nash
12, August 2011 12:52 am

surely you mean the previous councillors who left the current councillors no option….some people have very selective memories

cpss
Reply to  jane nash
12, August 2011 6:13 am

Judge Mental,

Lest you remain as confused as you seem to be now, I suggest that you are among the very first to read the report to which I refer to below. THAT would be something for Private Eye.

I do agree about the great view, though!

Loo Loo
11, August 2011 11:37 pm

Pugh, Benyon and this Tory council are doing more damage to Ventnor and the rest of this Island than the German Air Force did through bombing in the 2nd World War.

cpss
12, August 2011 6:05 am

There is a report available at the library and on line at the Ventnor Town Council website, which details the recent history of the relationship between VTC and the Winter Gardens. It makes extremely interesting reading, although it’s not short and requires some effort. I’m really surprised we have not heard more about THIS story here on VB!

insert random name here
12, August 2011 11:27 am

its being sold for £1 because Hamborough are ploughing £3million into the building to improve it. Thats hardly unreasonable, after all some of that £3 million is money the council should have spent to maintain the building. As for community use, Forever is a long time. A billion years from now, will our decendants still be demanding community usage? 10 years is reasonable, and is clearly the… Read more »

REEH
Reply to  insert random name here
12, August 2011 12:14 pm

Even in law terms perpetuity means at least 80years. They are getting it for a £1 because of the amount of restrictions that were SUPPOSED to be placed on the conditions of sale: Community use in perpetuity being one of them. They have yet to PROVE they have the funds readily available that they claim they will spend. The ALTERNATIVE is to revert to one of the… Read more »

insert random name here
Reply to  REEH
12, August 2011 12:22 pm

what business in its right mind is going to agree to 80 years plus of community usage. I suspect the other two bidders have also stipulated around 10 years. Public access is another matter. I would hate to see this building become a private club or hotel where the public are not welcome. As for the £1 sale, that is not a recognition of covenants that will… Read more »

REEH
Reply to  insert random name here
12, August 2011 2:36 pm

In the words of Mr Metcalfe himself: ‘A condition of sale to require community access to the Winter Gardens does imply the Council expects to receive a lower than market value for the building but it will have an expectation that the new owner will meet this condition in perpetuity.’ Therefore the sale of £1 DOES relate to the conditions the council apply to terms of sale… Read more »

insert random name here
Reply to  REEH
12, August 2011 3:03 pm

and you beleived him?

No.5
Reply to  insert random name here
12, August 2011 3:05 pm

both other parties have agreed the 20 year minimum I beleive

REEH
Reply to  No.5
12, August 2011 3:36 pm

I’m only going of facts i’ve got written in black and white. That is an exerpt from a letter to MP Andrew Turner from John Metcalfe. Tell me where you’ve seen anything about the Winter Gardens being sold for a £1 because the building is in a state… Both other bidders, had they been successful would have bought it for a £1 also, not because of how… Read more »

John Allen
Reply to  No.5
12, August 2011 5:24 pm

The Ventnor Winter Gardens Trust application did not time limit community access either in hours per week or the number of years. In fact successful community access was an important part of the business model going forward ….

cpss
Reply to  No.5
12, August 2011 9:25 pm

John, that you would place no limit on community access is very noble but how much money did you have? What fraction of the minimum requirement of £650k (to cover the current backlog of repairs) did you ACTUALLY have?

Helanbak
12, August 2011 3:33 pm

I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but Jane Nash says the town council allowed this to happen and I was under the impression it was not theirs to sell. I believe there is now a document which tells the tale of the building and how it was managed for the past decade, and by the way, I was one of those that… Read more »

REEH
Reply to  Helanbak
12, August 2011 3:41 pm

I think the Town Council should have tried to fight for a longer period of community access. “The negotiations with RTHG resulted in a difference of opinion between the partiesregarding the length of time for the guaranteed retention of the auditorium. In light of this a further meeting was held with the town council in order to brief its members onthe position and to seek its views… Read more »

REEH
12, August 2011 3:35 pm

I’m only going of facts i’ve got written in black and white. That is an exerpt from a letter to MP Andrew Turner from John Metcalfe. Tell me where you’ve seen anything about the Winter Gardens being sold for a £1 because the building is in a state… Both other bidders, had they been successful would have bought it for a £1 also, not because of how… Read more »

Quirry
12, August 2011 4:03 pm

The facts are indeed what should be informing opinion and there are many documents and records of conversation referred to in this chain. It is apparent that many of the statements of intent at the beginning of the process conflict with the outcome. It is also understandable to reach a conclusion, based on the facts, that the council negotiators were working hard to make this deal happen… Read more »

Helanbak
12, August 2011 4:48 pm

I think what I was trying to emphasise was that the building belongs/ed to the IOW council. It was/is theirs to sell. As far as I’m concerned, my grievances are directed at them. If the Hambrough group drop out because they don’t get what they want (because IOW council listen to the local population for once,)I would hope the other bidders are still able to step forward.… Read more »

Helanbak
12, August 2011 6:14 pm

To John Allen. For what it is worth I really wish that the IOW council had looked beyond these ambitious plans for the Winter Gardens and the money that has been “promised”. What happens if the Hamboroughs’ plans fall flat on their faces? If they realise they cannot make this place work? I think that your group would have made a much better go of it personally… Read more »

Judge Mental
Reply to  Helanbak
13, August 2011 12:27 am

“Owned by the Council” i.e. Owned by us, the tax payer.. If this property had been in the ownership of a Private Company which could not afford to maintain it, and had subsequently gone bust, then administrators or liquidators would have been in charge of it’s disposal. The likely ensuing AUCTION would have sorted out the men from the boys and would have resulted in a fair… Read more »

Wiglet
13, August 2011 7:33 am

Well, having read all the comments on the proposed sale of the Winter Gardens for £1 it is blatantly clear that the majority of us are of the opinion that the so called wise men of County Hall have sold the family silver for a handful of straw. Of course their arguement would probably be that it woul be too costly to keep for the future. Well… Read more »

steve s
13, August 2011 8:23 am

It is most unfortunate that all you folks complaining about the building being sold for £1 didn’t come forward when the building was ACTUALLY FOR SALE with your half a million pound bids. In the real world, all credible bids, which reached the final round, were for £1.

REEH
Reply to  steve s
13, August 2011 12:43 pm

The difference is that both of the other two CREDIBLE bids were going to give a lot more back in return for the building. So how come the Hambrough Group were marked highest? Did they lie during their pitch? Or where the right questions not asked?

steve s
Reply to  REEH
13, August 2011 2:17 pm

On what basis are you able to judge, Rosie, that the other bids ‘were going to give a lot more back’?
Only the Hambrough Group would know if they lied.
One thing’s for sure, the same questions were asked of all bidders.

REEH
Reply to  steve s
13, August 2011 3:43 pm

On the basis that neither of the other two bidders were going to restrict the public to 10 years community access. You were on the judging panel weren’t you Steve? Does every thing in this contract tally up to what they claimed they’d do during their pitch? What did they say with regard to long term community accessibility?

steve s
Reply to  REEH
13, August 2011 4:02 pm

Yes Rosie, I was on the panel. As far as I am aware, the Hambrough Group are STILL keen to offer long term public access. It’s the main reason I’m so disappointed to see the imbalanced reporting represented here. The fact is, everybody on that panel felt that the Hambrough bid was the strongest. I can’t speak for the others, but nothing has happened since to make… Read more »

steve s
Reply to  REEH
13, August 2011 7:49 pm

Sal, I appreciate that you have embedded the Report here. The evidence would suggest that many of your commenters haven’t bothered to read it! Your original headline was deeply misleading (granted, you subsequently amended this) and the comment about the Hambrough Group being a ‘private organisation – not known for their community engagement’ strikes me as somewhat provocative. For what it’s worth, when I stated that I… Read more »

steve s
Reply to  REEH
13, August 2011 8:24 pm

:-) You get to choose which ‘facts’ get published. It puts you in a position of considerable responsibility.

steve s
Reply to  REEH
13, August 2011 9:12 pm

Well, let’s all hope you manage not to leave any words out. ;-)

Asite2c
13, August 2011 9:02 am

I don’t if this can be confirmed, but didn’t Pugh once have a plan to close Shanklin Theatre and use the site for a housing development?

No.5
Reply to  Asite2c
13, August 2011 4:14 pm

it was considered as an option…as was keeping the facade and developing inside…three options were proposed, same as Ryde Theatre

steve s
13, August 2011 9:22 am

So, VB, you’re removing comments about ‘envelopes’ but not about ‘bent… dodgy behind-the-scenes goings-on’. What’s that all about then?

David
13, August 2011 4:08 pm

“If the Hambrough Group are STILL keen to offer long term public access”, I do not understand why they are now refusing to accept the original 20 year covenant which they had apparently agreed. One is left wondering whether they just want to be able to dictate the terms on which such access is allowed – with the ability to refuse such use if it is not… Read more »

Steve The YAK
Reply to  David
26, August 2011 8:36 am

Obviously when the doors of the Winter Gardens were slammed shut for the last time they didn’t see the hornets nest they disturbed! I love this story with it’s POUNDING of the drums! It’s going to rumble on for at least ten years, I’d of thought!!

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined