At the last Town Council meeting, Jamie Macaulay from Bunbury (interesting definition of the name on Wikipedia) presented artist’s impressions of what the Mill Bay development will look like.
Contrary to what some people involved in the development say, it’s clear that English Heritage are not on their side, as they state in their latest letter to the Planning Department that “Unfortunately the information appears conjecture and artistic impressions rather than accurate visual representation from points accessible by the public.”
A full understanding of the Mill Bay planning story isn’t complete without reading the letter from English Heritage (we have provided a direct link to the letter as the Planning Website has been up and down all weekend). It’s dynamite and we’ll return to it in a moment.
Let’s just go back to our ever-popular local developer, James Macaulay, who in his submission to the council, not only claimed that the public opinion gaged from the comment book left at the Winter Gardens last year, was 50/50 for/against the development (anyone who saw this book would be flabbergasted to hear this), but also claims that the height of the new development is “of similar height to the old Beach Hotel.”
What absolute tosh … The Beach Hotel was three storeys, the proposed Mill Bay development is five storeys. As seen in the Victorian postcard of the Beach Hotel pictured here, much of Esplanade House behind, can be seen. The proposed Mill Bay development would have to lose at least two floors in order to achieve the same view.
So it’s not surprising, that English Heritage states that “Reducing this further to two storeys … might positively resolve this” when referring to achieving views through to Esplanade House and the cliff.
English Heritage point out that “we have previously indicated to you where view points might be taken,” but this appears to have been ignored.
They continue that “Accurate representation work from the view point near the west steps of the pumping station could be helpful.”
It’s not hard to wonder why Bunbury haven’t supplied views from here, because it would be very clear what views would be lost as a result of the development.
Erm … we could go on, but suggest you read the letter yourselves, when reading their letter, bear in mind that they use pretty non-direct language, which at first sight may not appear damning.
Here are some key quotes from the letter.
“We do not feel that the scheme has progressed”,
“The latest submitted plans are therefore rather disappointing”.
“The Mill Bay Inn makes a visual contribution to the character of this part of Ventnor”.
“The vista through (from the seafront) to the narrow Esplanade Road and the well proportioned frontage of the late regency style house should also be retained”.
“Details indicated seem to utilise standardised components and several details appear rather heavy handed”
We were concerned about English Heritage’s view of the development back in July, but with each further communication about the development, we’re pleased to see that they are steadfast against it.
The reduction of the size and bulk of the building is exactly what the majority of Ventnor wants, as was illustrated by the 700 people who signed the petition against development (that’s nearly a fifth of Ventnor, who queued to sign it!) and the 168 letters of objection.
