We promised you an official statement from English Heritage in relation to their historic area adviser, Graham Steaggles’ last letter to the council regarding the Mill Bay Development.
Some elements of the letter surprised us, while other remarks confused us. We’re publishing the statement in full and have reserved our comments to the end. The highlights in the statement are ours.
Statement for Ventnor Blog. Mill Bay scheme Ventnor There is also a short extract from one of our letters to the Planning Authority which might be clearer with more context.
We have been consulted on this application because although the buildings involved are not listed, there is a substantial area of the seafront covered by this scheme within Ventnor’s Conservation Area. In the early stages (October 2006) we offered advice that the scheme was too bulky for the seafront and that its relationship to the buildings to its east as well as the views of the roofscape from above and the sea front should be more carefully considered.
In February 2007 we reiterated our advice that the scheme needed to take account of the views into the new development from the streets above. Most recently, in April this year we have responded to the revised plans to advise that although the changes made are encouraging, they need further development – particularly in terms of the design detail and in addressing our earlier points re the views of the scheme in the townscape from the sea and the cliff above.
This is an important proposal and we understand we are likely to be consulted again.
English Heritage has been consulted by the Isle of Wight Planning Authority on the Mill Bay scheme, Ventnor and we are keen to ensure that your information represents the most up to date position – currently it seems that the blog shows an out of date first plan caricature of an October 2006 proposal to which English Heritage urged rejection.
VentnorBlog thoughts
We originally requested a statement on the English Heritage (EH) letter filed with the council about the revised Mill Bay scheme, as there had had been quite a lot of people expressing surprise at English Heritage’s seemingly relaxed approach to the application to lift the conservation area protection, to make way for the demolition of a building that is over 100 years old and its replacement with something many felt over bearing, too tall and not in keeping with a compact Victorian town.
For some unexplained reason, it took them over a week to get the above statement back to us. As to why an apparently simple statement would take so long to get out, when it was promised to us quite a few times during the intervening period, we’ll leave for your consideration.
What’s Changed?
It appears that the most significant comment in the statement is reserved for the end. Graham Steaggles previously stated that “There is no need to consult English Heritage further on this application.” Encouragingly this has now morphed to, “we understand we are likely to be consulted again.”
It’s good to see that they realise that they will need to remain involved, but it’s a great shame that the letter before this statement opened with some text that created the impression for anyone who read it quickly that they were happy about the development.
It’s also good to see that they feel that “although the changes made are encouraging, they need further development.” What’s not clear is what the ‘further development’ needs to be. A reduction in the height of the building?
It may be so, as they also now state that they want to see the design “addressing our earlier points re the views of the scheme in the townscape from the sea and the cliff above.” Sounds like “it’s too big to us.”
Now the important parts are covered, we should address a couple of points they make at the beginning of the statement – ones that appear pretty churlish to us.
Firstly, the image they refer to – “currently it seems that the blog shows an out of date first plan caricature” – was updated with a couple of hours of publishing the piece they refer to – we are a little baffled as to why they make a point of this, as the image had been amended for over a week and well before we got their statement. We guess it must be that they’ve not taken a proper look at the site, rather than Sloop John B or his/her cohorts having a hot line to the author of the statement.
The comment that we only used an extract of the letter, again a strange point to make, especially after the statement came through the EH press office. It’s perfectly normal for a publication to take extracts from letters, and in this situation, it’s made all the more confusing by the fact that we also provided a link to the original letter for anyone who wanted to read it in full.
Let’s be clear, the wording we quoted was their own, the ones that caused so much concern – “Overall we welcome the revised scheme” – but happily they appear to be backing away from it now.
Preservation, not destruction
It appears to us that this press statement falls short for that for an organisation whose stated aim is to preserve our heritage – it’s in the name of the organisation for goodness sake!
They may have welcomed it over the previous schemes, but surely they should be taking the stand for preservation, stating that the current proposal is not acceptable as it is?
Ventnor as a whole is a very special place, one that does require special consideration, before property developers wipe out those special features by building bland, ‘luxury’ flats in pursuit of profit. Once the fragile beauty has been shattered, it can never be regained.
If anything, you would have thought that English Heritage should be making Ventnor an example of how stunning a Victorian seaside town can be. After all how many other examples of Victorian seaside towns are left knocking around to preserve?
Surely it is far too big for the small bay and would have a huge impact on the entire area, something they appear to be concerned about.
Frankly, the separating of the building into three from the second storey upwards is not really an example of the developers carefully considering its impact on the sea front.
In conclusion, we see it as very positive that English Heritage are in fact concerned over the development, and are now clarifying that the townscape as a whole should be considered.
What’s still unclear from English Heritage
- Do English Heritage as a whole approve of the destruction of the original Victorian building?
- Do English Heritage as a whole feel relaxed about the construction of a building towering over the Eastern end of the Bay? (It’s not like the building _has_ to be built after all)
- Does English Heritage feel happy that it’s given enough consideration to the greater impact of high rise development on a delicate, small Victorian bay?
- Is it true, as many have said, that EH didn’t visit the site?
- What has caused the English Heritage to shift from their previous position of rejection of the original scheme, when among other things they said that they found “the scheme was too bulky for the seafront”? Simply putting a couple of narrow gaps in the building doesn’t stop it towering over the Esplanade.
- If they don’t mind about knocking down the current Victorian building, how many floors would English Heritage feel would be the maximum acceptable number?
