Thanks to one of our readers, it has been brought to our attention that Cheetah Marine have once again submitted a planning application to build a factory bang in the middle of the esplanade car park.
Where does the arrogance of thinking they can take away such an important public amenity come from? I’m totally baffled and finding it hard to take this application seriously.
Here’s a rendition of it marked up on a photo taken in the summer.
From looking at the application details it was received by the council on 8th August 2006, I am wondering why it has taken so long for it to go out to public consultation? There may well be a reasonable explanation, and invite the planning office to come on the blog/forum and let us know (pretty unlikely given they rarely respond to direct correspondence).
People power is needed here – if there aren’t enough valid objections it WILL go through and next year, all the holiday makers that so many businesses rely upon will just keep driving when they happen upon Ventnor and can’t find anywhere to park.
Cheetah may’ve changed it to less floors and chucked out the idea of accommodation units, but it’s not a matter of accepting the lesser of two evils – there should be no evil. They should NOT be able to take away a public amenity. Lose the car park could have a serious effect on the town.
If this application goes through, we will eventually lose the paddling pool (who will want to paddle next to a fish factory and an industrial unit) and then what’s next?
Having seen the proposed Mill Bay development and now this, perhaps it goes some way to explaining why there has been so much resistance to pedestrianisation of the esplanade by some seafront businesses.
Planning Application – TCP/14875/L, P/02013/06. We have until 27th October to get our comments into the council.
Have your say on the forum.
BTW, I was going through a number of planning applications on the council website and noticed that an application from a resident in a property in Spring Hill to convert part of their garden to hardstanding for parking was rejected as they ‘would not be able to enter and exit in forward gear only’ and it would therefore be contrary to policy TR7, D1.d and G4.c of the UDP.
Perhaps the owners of the Spring Hill property didn’t have ‘friends’ at County Hall?
