Totland seawall closed -

Deferment of Totland seawall and Undercliff Drive works recommended again by Scrutiny Committee

At last night’s Scrutiny Committee meeting, members voted to recommend the Isle of Wight council Executive reconsider their decision on the Capital Contingency Fund (paper embedded below) made at a meeting on 9th September.

Readers who followed OnTheWight’s live coverage of last night’s meeting heard an amendment tabled by Cllr Geoff Lumley to the recommendation made by Cllr Bob Blezzard (who led the call-in) to exclude five items from the deferment.

Cllr Lumley suggested the following items not be affected by any deferment of decision-making (although they had already been put on hold once the call-in was lodged with the council last month):

  • Beaulieu House boiler,
  • procurement of new Cowes Floating Bridge,
  • Housing Disabled Facilities Grant top up,
  • vehicle for facilities and property dept and
  • Elmdon residential home for adults with learning disabilities.

Defer decision on spending for other items
The recommendation called for the Executive to defer their decision on allocating spending for :

  • Totland Seawall repairs,
  • Undercliff Drive options to allow residents to return to their landlocked homes,
  • Drainage/attenuation tank works at Cemetery Road Binstead and
  • ‘Closed landfill sites’

It was suggested the items be deferred until the Executive were fully informed on possible expenditure for Shanklin Cliff lift and Shanklin Railway Cutting/Rush Close landslip. It was accepted that costs associated with Cowes Enterprise College were complex and should not hold up other items being moved forward.

This motion was voted through and the recommendation will be considered by the Isle of Wight Executive on Tuesday 9th October.

PAPER H

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
27 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Polka Dot
21, January 2011 3:07 pm

They were also asked why they didn’t return calls to at least 3 of these interested parties, who had been in touch with the council on at least a couple of occasions. They were told their calls would be returned. Have they ? The intersted parties, at the time of Wednesday’s meeting were still waiting for call- backs from the Council that, up until that point in… Read more »

hmmm
21, January 2011 3:54 pm

i do hope that the council will give favorable consideration to any planning application to replace the winter gardens with a property of similar usage, but one more fit for purpose. Especially since the council has failed to maintain the building, any planning application to replace with a larger theatre with more seating, better facilities, and perhaps more parking should be very favorably viewed. Unfortunately, due to… Read more »

Polka Dot
Reply to  hmmm
21, January 2011 3:58 pm

I doubt the building needs knocking down, its structuarally sound. Have their been surveyors reports to the contrary then ? I dont think there has.

BigEars
Reply to  Polka Dot
21, January 2011 4:06 pm

Yes. There has. Isn’t this common knowledge? Part of the building is on the water way of the old mill pond. The building is also on an unstable cliff top, which it is loading precariously.

Polka Dot
Reply to  BigEars
21, January 2011 4:16 pm

Then i stand corrected. I was unaware of this, but still i doubt the whole building needs bulldozing.
My point being, if it can be bulldozed then built on for flats, it can be worked on and made sound for the running of the WG.

hmmm
Reply to  Polka Dot
21, January 2011 4:29 pm

not flats. it must be retained as a venue. but a new building would be better than trying to fix the wreck thats there now.

hmmm
Reply to  Polka Dot
21, January 2011 4:27 pm

who needs a survey? just look at the way the doors are warped. Thats not because the doors have moved, its because the building around it has moved. Frankly, even if the building was in excellent condition I would knock it down and build something larger. Thats the whole reason the winter gardens doesnt attract groups and acts, and the reason why it is in debt. A… Read more »

No.5
Reply to  hmmm
21, January 2011 4:33 pm

new building with apartments to finance it on top floor….

Polka Dot
Reply to  No.5
21, January 2011 4:35 pm

So they can complain about the noise and get it shut down ? Flats on top of pubs and clubs , unless soundproof, dont make good bedfellows, at least not the calibre who can afford luxury penthouse apartments with stunning sea views.

hmmm
Reply to  No.5
21, January 2011 4:45 pm

well, soundproofing is very effective. But personally, i would rather see a few dozen rooms on top that could be run as a hotel, not flats. but also i see no reason why a purpose built venue could not work on its own if it was run correctly.

No.5
Reply to  No.5
21, January 2011 4:54 pm

hotel rooms would work…modern building of this type have no porblems with soundproofing…its what they are designed for.

The venue would need income in the winter and after the honeymoon period when Ventnorians go back to never going there

brunio mccallister
Reply to  hmmm
22, January 2011 4:57 pm

WOah !!! what is it about knocking things down on the island. Why cant we celebrate and restore the building back to its Art Deco original best. If you want a cineworld or wetherspoons style building there or the rex/kingsview which is lame attempt at deco then go ahead. As soon as it is knocked down – like the Grange in sandown, some grubby developer will use… Read more »

hmmm
Reply to  brunio mccallister
22, January 2011 6:52 pm

well, if the building were structurally sound and large enough to attract acts which demand a minimum venue size, I would be the first to say keep it. But its neither of those things. It suffers from subsidence and is not big enough to attract big acts. So, knock it down, stabilise the land, and build a new venue worthy of the name. Instead of keeping a… Read more »

Polka Dot
21, January 2011 4:56 pm

That top room would make a stunning restaurant, sea views, that window wall opens up completely, what a place for a high class restaurant.
There is a lot that can be done, lets hope the councils involved are open to ideas.

Disillusioned
Reply to  Polka Dot
21, January 2011 6:01 pm

Hotel rooms would not provide an income during the winter – ask any Hotelier, especially in Ventnor.

hmmm
Reply to  Disillusioned
21, January 2011 7:01 pm

in winter i would imagine any venue will only be open part time anyway, so i would put a cinema screen in there too. It could provide maybe half a dozen showings per week. A restaurant could also be run using an outside area enclosed with canvas with patio heaters, and obviously the inside areas. Also, theres no reason why shows cant continue over the winter is… Read more »

Polka Dot
Reply to  hmmm
21, January 2011 7:25 pm

If we were all doing nothing, this section wouldnt have any comments and the meeting last week would have been empty. If you generate enough interest for the average person on the street to take an interest, and that usually involves something they can get enthusiastic about, then you will be onto a winner. If its self serving and for the benefit of rich fat cats or… Read more »

No.5
Reply to  Polka Dot
21, January 2011 7:29 pm

shame all the money went to a concession who underpaid the rent.

The building in the future must be treated as a whole (holestic) and not have bits hived of for local profit

hmmm
Reply to  Polka Dot
21, January 2011 8:08 pm

the not bothering comment was aimed at disillusioned. From his comment, it seems he is saying why bother. My comment had just a little sarcasm

bes
22, January 2011 7:55 am

methinks there’s a developer in the midst of these comments! I’ve noticed one of the old ‘Bunbury’ crowd around the WG of much lately! Let’s face it, Ventnor had town meetings about the WG years ago, and for the public’s suggestions for its use. How about all the Other town meetings to save the public property along the Esplanade (paddling pool) and look what happened…the council let… Read more »