For those not wishing to wade through all the notes from the Planning Committee last night, but interested to hear how the Cheetah Marine application was discussed, read on.
Application: Adjacent to east side of, pumping station, Esplanade, Ventnor, Isle of Wight
19:02 Cheetah Marine (at last!)
Chair (Ivan Bulwer): Thanks for your patience.
Planning Officer: Mr Salmon – Two variations wrapped
Storage building
Legal agreement – Marine employment
Amendment for Dormer extension
Consultation period ended
A number of representations have been made since the report was completed.
7 letters of objection – compromise agreement. Removal of harbour masters office. Value of site it based on jobs, back door way of resident; benefit for the town not for the developer. Also concern at
Ventnor Town Council wish to be involved earlier on in planning applications.
CRPE – three letters.
s.106 needs to be amended
Object to condition 14
Do not see the dormer window is a minor amendment.
Storage building first – supposed to be on the east of the site. Storage of materials would detract from the site. There’s a live sewer under the building. Proposal is to do this later. There’s an existing condition for non-storage of materials outside.
19:09
Condition 14 – Issue of the Harbour masters office. Have been in discussion over the legal agreement. The one stumbling block has been the HM office. CM has the contract and there is no guarantee they will always have the contract.
“It would be unreasonable to let a 3rd party to operate from the building.”
Draft legal agreement says – offices will be used for marine related employment, even if there’s no HM office.
Responses show that there’s a perceived risk to it being used for other uses.
19:12
Dormer Window – Consolation – design office is OK with it.
Officers are happy with all three applications.
19:14
Public speaker – Dennis Russell
Asking for condition 14 to be shown on screen. When this application appeared, documentation has been ambiguous. It’s been impossible. Flawed process.
CM application – Permanent HM office, twice confirmed by this council. ‘Best endeavours’ – has no substance.
I urge you not to allow this commitment to be eroded.
Condition 14 should not be modified.
Update: Thanks To Prof Russell for sending through exact wording as follows
“I would support a variation of condition 11 allowing phasing and redesign of the storage building, but only if it is reworded to incorporate the harbour master’s office, to be permanently retained whoever occupies that position, and so that acquisition of the freehold cannot be triggered until the whole development is complete”.
Dormer window – there’s already enough light. Out of keeping.
19:17
VTC speaker – Debby Robinson – SEEDA funding.
Documentation is inadequate and incomplete.
Public consultation has been invalidated due to short period of time.
Planning: Is the committee prepared to accept an incomplete public consideration?
Cond 11 – It was to be a essential for reasons of screening.
Original brief was to enhance the area.
Viewed by many as Selling off the family silver.
19:21
Keith Strevens (applicant)
New wording makes is possible for condition 14 to be legal. Whereever they wish to manage the haven from. Terms have now been defined, that weren’t defined before.
Condition for marine use – there’ no question of doubt as to how it will be used.
Dormer will give natural light. Can also use it an office for power boat training exercises.
Cond 11 – Will contain a HM office should CM not get the contract. We cannot have that in our own office, for obvious reasons. We will produce the office at the east building – if they choose to use that office.
New wording “maintain the spirit of the original s.106″³
19:24
Cllr Fitzgerald Bond
Strongly recommend accepting
Its took four years to get this far. It’s taken another year now. CM are being held up.
There’s no intention to not build the little building
The HM office. What happens – CM run the boat service – it’s highly likely that they will win the contract.
Should they have to provide space for a competitor?
Pretty reasonable to me.
There’s no day light – need Dormer.
Planning officer – Public Responses do not change our views.
Member’s Discussion
Cllr Chapman Like to move recommendation for acceptance on all three issues.
Cllr Miller – Contentious. Officers go to great length to put conditions on, then all of a sudden we are eroding these.
Things that our officers thought were correct at the out set.
The applicant looks for changes.
It cast doubt on officers professionalism
Why the sewer wasn’t spotted, I can’t understand. This should have been done before
It’s split Ventnor to a certain extent.
If I can get assurance Marine related
Reluctantly agree with this.
Mr Murphy – Do accept her point – BUT – once we got into the detail, that we came into these difficult positions.
“It was the lawyers”
Legal departments was working very closely.
We might end up with no development on this site with these restrictions.
I’m confident that we will be able to “¦
Unrealistic for HM office, if they lose the contract. Or because the council might change their views on the HM. They can’t force another company to use the CM office.
‘best endeavours’ I accept it’s not a definite as one would like.
Cllr Cunningham – Were coming to a point where we have to be realistic. it’s the only way forward.
There are so many inputs that it’s complicated. I want to see this happen.
Second it.
Cllr Mosdell – I live in by an airport which is now a Industrial estate – was supposed to be an airport with legal agreement.
It will end in tears.
When they let the freehold go – HM office was part of that.
No prob with Dormer or other building.
19:38
Planning Mr Salmon – CM would need planning permission to make further changes. Control would lie with the LPA.
Mrs Manos (?)- s.106 Binding on the landowner.
Cllr Mosdell – The owner of the building has the chance to charge whatever they want for the HM office.
Coming to the vote.
In totality
Vote:
9 in favour
1 abstain.
Passed
