Cowes – Torquay – Cowes Power Boat Race

The Cowes-Torquay-Cowes powerboat race which was due to be resurrected last year, but cancelled due to low attendance, has been confirmed to be taking place this year summer.

P1 Cowes-Torquay-Cowes CancelledIt is part of a four race event which kicks off in May in Poole and the Cowes – Torquay – Cowes race will take place over the weekend of 28th 29th & 30th August.

According to the Boat, Yachts and Marinas Magazine, there will be all sorts of powerboat racing taking place over the weekend in the Solent, with those unable to make it as far as the Torquay and back race, the option of doing Poole and back.

Read the article in full

Image: 1972 race courtesy of New Jersey Performance Powerboat Club]

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
2 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ebod
11, March 2015 9:30 am

Good result but why had officers approved it in the first place?

Caconym
Reply to  ebod
11, March 2015 2:16 pm

Because it was the right thing to do? The officers can be impartial as they don’t have to stand for election. Councillors, however, are always looking at the next election.

ebod
Reply to  Caconym
11, March 2015 2:34 pm

The right thing seems a bit subjective given the fierce opposition of villagers. So what was the officers decision based on?

Joe
Reply to  ebod
11, March 2015 2:39 pm

The law? If the committee go against officer recommendation then there’s a good chance that an appeal will succeed.

Caconym
Reply to  ebod
11, March 2015 2:56 pm

The officers will have followed planning guidelines and laws when deciding whether to approve the application. They are impartial

The councillors will have followed the ballot box and are likely to be less impartial.

ebod
Reply to  Caconym
11, March 2015 3:09 pm

But there is an assertion that planning guidelines and laws were not followed with the decision, so who is correct?
Regardless of this are the guidelines and laws fair and correct? Perhaps they need to be changed?

The Sciolist
11, March 2015 2:53 pm

All the residents and Sgt Councillor Seely have done is slow things up a bit. I suppose they will count it as a success, given the average age of many of the objectors who may not be around to see the development after it gets built on appeal.

It’s how planning works.

Cynic
Reply to  The Sciolist
11, March 2015 3:17 pm

In which case perhaps you would welcome that euthanasia of aged NIMBYs should be formalised by including it in the National Planning Framework?

Capitalism extended to capital punishment of objectors? :-))

Vix Lowthion
Reply to  The Sciolist
11, March 2015 3:24 pm

If it slows the planning decision, until the Neighbourhood Plan (which is in its final stages) is published then it’s all to the good. The proposed development was not well thought out and continued to be put in as an application without consultation with the people of Brighstone. Brighstone will only get one chance to develop Blanchards. The wrong development will have deep implications for the village.… Read more »

Albert Street
Reply to  Vix Lowthion
11, March 2015 3:44 pm

@Vix Lowthion – What exactly are you saying? Are you supporting the people of Brighstone or the developers? Just a straight answer or clearer comments would be better understood. Nevertheless you make comments unlike the ever elusive Independent Candidate.

Rich
Reply to  Albert Street
11, March 2015 10:19 pm

The Green Party candidate is in favour of concreting over all our Island villages it would seem. With a letter of support for the first application on the Blanchards site, see the first planning application on IOW Council website. This totally goes against the majority of villagers, mind you she did purchase the village pub shortly beforehand……… She was also very argumentative and supportive of an increase… Read more »

Vix Lowthion
Reply to  Rich
11, March 2015 10:25 pm

I am certainly on the record for more affordable rural housing, yes. Our villages need families and young people. They need to grow. But this must be done sustainably. I am not anti development, no. I didn’t pretend otherwise. Green is not about leaving villages stuck in aspic, with only the retired and 2nd home owners able to afford to live there. But neither is it big… Read more »

sam salt
Reply to  Vix Lowthion
13, March 2015 8:52 am

@Vix are you sure that the Neighbourhood Plan for Brighstone is in its final stages? I thought the plan was only just going out to public consultation. Depending on that consultation, the plan needs to be written, agreed with the IWC and then go before the IWC for adoption. The process could take another year. It matters not at this stage whether the plan goes through. If… Read more »

Cynic
Reply to  sam salt
13, March 2015 9:12 am

Tess- some recent court cases cover this problem of timing of NP and developments.

Bob Seely
11, March 2015 10:53 pm

Thanks to those who posted comments. Just to pick up on a couple of points, and the debate between ebod and Suruk. Suruk, you say the officers are impartial and that the councilors are partial. With planning there can be a judgment issue and there is always interpretation. Two years ago the planners vetoed a very similar scheme on this site. It didn’t even get to committee.… Read more »

Vix Lowthion
Reply to  Bob Seely
11, March 2015 11:03 pm

Thanks Bob. I believe that it was you and the Parish Council keeping to planning reasons which has meant the planning committee have come to the correct decision about this particular application. There were a lot of emotions surrounding the development – but the fact remains that it was flawed.

The Sciolist
Reply to  Bob Seely
12, March 2015 8:44 am

If as Bob claims, the applicant doesn’t take it to appeal I may challenge him to a duel. I think it’s a racing certainty myself.

You did what you had to do councillor, that is represent the vocal wrinkly NIMBY’s of Brighstone. This field is in the centre of the village, it’s not actually an AONB is it?

Cynic
Reply to  The Sciolist
12, March 2015 8:56 am

What are the odds on “exceptional circumstances” being discovered that allows the planners and developers to escape s.116 of the National Planning Framework? ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, S.116 Planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas (National Parks and AONBs) EXCEPT IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of: ●… Read more »

John Nash
Reply to  The Sciolist
12, March 2015 9:04 am

AONBs often include settlements, and the village of Brighstone is WITHIN the AONB. You can check this out by looking at the definitive map of the IOW AONB.

Even “old wrinklies” can take the trouble to look it up for themselves!

Paleo
12, March 2015 9:30 am

There seems to be a nasty whiff of ageism going on here… Change Old Wrinklies to Blacks in the above to see what I mean.

mat
12, March 2015 11:08 am

The Protectors of Mottistone Privilege. The starting point of this argument is privilege. It is a question of class. The Seely clan are active representatives and form the minority, active in ‘thwarting’, all on the pretence of traditional landowners and aristocracy, being the only ones who have the God-given right as protectors of the countryside. But what are they thwarting this time? All on the basis of… Read more »

Cynic
Reply to  mat
12, March 2015 11:49 am

re Affordable housing (per Island Core Strategy policies 10.7.4) 10.7.4 DM4 – Locally Affordable Housing states that 1,790 affordable homes are to be provided for the Isle of Wight in the period 2011 and 2027. Outside the Key Regeneration Areas, schemes for 10+ units will be required to provide 35% of the development as on-site affordable housing units. For schemes 1-9 units, financial contributions towards affordable housing… Read more »

Robert Jones
Reply to  mat
13, March 2015 1:55 am

Speculative developments don’t benefit workers – they benefit developers. It may be tempting to swallow the developers’ agents in their contention that this has anything at all to do with housing need, but it hasn’t; it’s just the way planning law is framed – you can claim that because a survey has indicated a level of need, the building of houses is going to meet it. A… Read more »

Bob Seely
12, March 2015 11:22 am

The field is in the AONB. There is no hole in the AONB for Brighstone. Youngsters were opposed too. We need to keep the village as a vibrant one with people with all ages. The development proposed the overwhelming majority of properties to be purchased by the elderly. We need mixed communities, not retirement communities. We have one development recently with affordable housing. We have another being… Read more »

Mark Francis
12, March 2015 3:15 pm

Reference the article on the vast tracts of Sandown lying derelict.
Not only are there empty shops there is the Grand Hotel, Wight City (although I think this is being developed into flats) the Royal Cliff Estate & the Savoy -all sites which would actually be IMPROVED by new housing developments & which have the infrastructure (such as it is) already there.

Bob Seely
12, March 2015 3:18 pm

Mark,
Exactly, very good point.
Bob

Bones
12, March 2015 4:34 pm

I can only apologise for owning a house and being ‘old’

Bob Seely
12, March 2015 8:53 pm

Bones, well done on both!

Mark Francis
Reply to  Bob Seely
12, March 2015 11:55 pm

Being old is better than the alternative!

Cynic
Reply to  Mark Francis
13, March 2015 8:31 am

Given the way the world is going…. somtimes I wonder! :-((

Geoff Lumley
13, March 2015 11:41 am

All 255 affordable homes at Pan Meadows are occupied. Rented, affordable social housing IS needed on the Island. BTW ‘Bluebell Meadows’ is just the re-branding wheeze Barratt’s unilaterally introduced in an attempt to improve private sales.

Cynic
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
13, March 2015 11:43 am

Thanks Geoff