Top Ten Seaside Hotels - The Telegraph
1 min read

Little Gloster and Hillside, Ventnor in Telegraph’s Top Ten list

Sally Perry·

Congratulations to two Isle of Wight hotels for making it into the Telegraph’s Top Ten list of ‘Britain’s best seaside hotels’.

Gurnard’s http://onthewight.com/about/little-gloster/ and Hillside Ventnor appear in position nine and ten respectively on the list of 25.

Both properties are heavily influenced by Scandanavian design, with fantastic attention to detail.

We agree they’re worthy entries in the Top Ten list.

Source – Thanks to OnTheWight reader Seb for the headsup.

Tags
Advertisement
Related
Subscribe
Email updates?
0 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rowena Nihell
3, November 2014 6:42 pm

Why would a donation be given of £10,000.00 in a parish someone lives in that wants to obtain planning permission?!…. Well I’ll leave this one for people to ponder over…..and ofcourse….not forgetting the same person can get elected on the parish council at the same time ……when not having done any canvasing in the area before the election!! Very strange! I feel all the election papers should… Read more »

0
0
Rowena Nihell
Reply to  Rowena Nihell
3, November 2014 6:44 pm

Excuse the odd spelling in the last email….the computor seems to do it’s own thing…even after spell checking!!

0
0
Lord Summerisle
3, November 2014 6:49 pm

If the applicants are hell bent on some philanthropic gesture then why don’t they just donate the money to the local school in some other way. If the £10k is linked to obtaining approval then do the applicants seriously believe that it would not be interpreted in any other way than an inducement? Unbelievable!

0
0
retired Hack
3, November 2014 6:58 pm

I appreciate that Shalfleet Parish Council has some new members; and that all of them, old and new, give their time and efforts voluntarily. Nonetheless, they should listen to their clerk, who is experienced. The clerk tried to explain what a Section 106 Agreement is, and guide the PC towards a recommendation based on planning criteria. Their “official” comment posted on the IWC website refers only to… Read more »

0
0
retired Hack
3, November 2014 7:22 pm

Just as an example of the common use of S106 Agreements: in 2009 a planning inspector ruled that Tesco should pay £190,000 under S106 in return for being allowed to expand its Ryde store. The money was to be used for public realm improvements in Ryde Town Centre, to take account of the detrimental effect Tesco’s expansion was expected to have on the town centre. This kind… Read more »

0
0
Robert Jones
3, November 2014 7:32 pm

It would seem that the planning application included the information that a sum of money would be expended in the village if it were approved. These offers or stipulations are commonplace – developers use them all the time in negotiation with the planning office; you could refer to them as a bribe if you were so minded (and I’ve never been in favour of them) but they’re… Read more »

0
0
Cynic
3, November 2014 7:52 pm

Bribery is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as the “offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.” Making such an offer conditional on an outcome satuifactory to the offeror exacerbates the problem. IMHO the fact that a s.106 “inducement” is an increasingly commonplace accompaniments to a planning… Read more »

0
0
Robert Jones
Reply to  Cynic
3, November 2014 8:02 pm

As I say, and for the reasons you give, I have never been a supporter of Section 106 agreements – I think they’ve enabled planning applications to succeed which should not have done. It’s one thing to think that, though, and quite another to leave the strong impression, since remarks are recorded in Council minutes, that this thought has prompted your opposition if you’re a parish councillor.… Read more »

0
0
davidwalter
3, November 2014 8:03 pm

Just after Sally had put the link live on On the Wight, the blog slowed then stopped responding properly. I found some urls gnarled-up. They are very hard to alter on blogger but I have put up a replacement page until the morning at a slightly different url http://shalfleetparish.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/shalfleet-parish-council-planning.html Sorry for the inconvenience

0
0
davidwalter
3, November 2014 8:12 pm

Robert Jones, I’m not sure you can have read the full transcript of that part of the meeting? Transcript at https://www.scribd.com/doc/244079615/SPC-meeting-22-10-14-transcript-planning-pdf and the audio of that section at https://www.youtube.com/edit?video_id=A-OMMJe5LfQ Although on Youtube it is just audio.

0
0
davidwalter
3, November 2014 8:17 pm

Cicero — S106s are usually more of a mitigation than an inducement. In this case the house is miles from the School and in no way connected. In any case the Planning Statement also offers the bribe to the Parish as an alternative. It’s all in the documentation on the IWC website in the public domain — embargoed until midnight on the eve after Mrs Myles’s election.

0
0
Food for Thought
Reply to  davidwalter
3, November 2014 8:31 pm

Can you explain what you mean by embargoed David. Are you saying the documents were held back by the IWC intentionally because of the election?
Reading between the lines the Clerk must have been concerned to take advice about the proposed inducement.
Listening to the tape it appears no councillor declared they knew the applicant or that the applicant was a councillor.

0
0
Cynic
Reply to  davidwalter
4, November 2014 11:01 am

Mitigation is defined as “to make less rigorous or penal” .

One might consider that the motivation behind an applicant’s making a s.106 offer (even more so a conditional one) accompanying a planning application would be to make the decision-making less rigorous. Some might call it a bribe.

0
0
davidwalter
3, November 2014 8:57 pm

pensioner — The Applicant (the new Councillor) declared a personal interest before the meeting and withdrew so this was declared. The Clerk knew all about the issue because I had written beforehand. ‘Embargoed’ — Each week new Planning Applications are released to the Parish/Town councils and the Ward Councillors around a week before they are made public. They are also released to the County Press — as… Read more »

0
0
retired Hack
Reply to  davidwalter
4, November 2014 12:32 pm

Mr Walter: into your supposed conspiracy you’ve now also drawn the junior staff at IWC planning who process and publish planning applications. The simple facts are that (a) parish council by-elections are held on Thursdays; (b) planning lists are published on Fridays; (c) between planning applications being submitted and being published they have to be checked, validated and sent to the County Press (this normally takes a… Read more »

0
0
davidwalter
Reply to  retired Hack
4, November 2014 12:59 pm

retired Hack “And you do realise, don’t you, that once the IWC realises (from your audio or wherever) what the PC’s real reason for objection was, they’re likely to discount the objection altogether. Well done.” The PC didn’t have a ‘real reason’. What they stated was simply a verbatim excerpt the wording used by the Planning Officers on their previous Decision Notice (rejected) application. No original comments… Read more »

0
0
retired Hack
Reply to  davidwalter
4, November 2014 1:20 pm

By “real reason” I mean the verbal comments made at the meeting, which you’ve helpfully published and drawn the IWC’s attention to.

0
0
Ali Hayden.
3, November 2014 11:15 pm

Does any one know of a previous planning application for a single dwelling, which the applicant has had to pay £10,000 as a section 106 then? I know plenty who have built single houses for themselves and have not had to pay a Section 106. This application has already been refused twice, was there a £10,000 Section 106 included in these? Perhaps David could clarify. This is,… Read more »

0
0
retired Hack
Reply to  Ali Hayden.
4, November 2014 1:14 pm

A S106 for a single dwelling is unusual, but the “going rate” is £10,000 per dwelling, so she’s certainly not paying “over the odds”. S106s are not applied for just any dwelling – only when a “community payback” is justified by the nature of the application. In this case the argument is that it’s justified because the dwelling would be outside the defined settlement area, and therefore… Read more »

0
0
davidwalter
4, November 2014 12:14 am

Ali, no, there was no S106 in the previous paperwork online. Yes. Emphatically, democracy depends upon the highest standards in public life. Without this democracy is doomed.

0
0
The Sciolist
4, November 2014 6:34 am

Don’t you just love parish Council’s? Section 106 agreements are routine, although those we usually get to hear about are the big ones, for example cash paid by Tesco or B & Q for expansion. I particularly like that a few people in Shalfleet seem to think that the applicant somehow won the election by foul means – because they got voters to place their X only… Read more »

0
0
sam salt
Reply to  The Sciolist
4, November 2014 7:58 am

Sciolist, As a parish councillor of many years standing who has sat on the planning committee for one of the larger parishes for longer that I care to remember I have to say that I have NEVER in all that time seen a 106 inducement offered on a single dwelling. (A quick tot up of planning applications that I have considered in my role as a councillor… Read more »

0
0
sam salt
Reply to  sam salt
4, November 2014 8:21 am

I apologise that in my missive above I omitted to say that personally I find the applicants inducement of giving money to the school and therefore using children to secure the application as offensive. There was no need whatsoever to bring the school and children into this equation.

0
0
The Sciolist
Reply to  sam salt
4, November 2014 11:45 am

Sorry to burst your bubble, but thankfully planning law virtually ignores the views of parish councils. If it did not, nothing would ever get built.

I suppose they must serve some purpose, other than making certain locals feel important – but if the electorate thought they had much of a point or any real power, they would vote for them, which 90% of us do not.

0
0
Cynic
Reply to  The Sciolist
4, November 2014 12:01 pm

Sciolist is right. As a one-time parish councillor, I found it the actual number of letters sent by locals in support or objection was more important that the PC’s view.

0
0
davidwalter
Reply to  The Sciolist
4, November 2014 12:41 pm

Sciolist and Cicero — Things have moved a lot with the Localism Act 2011. Strangely(?) few seem to be up to date with it. Bembridge are fully on the ball and have had their referendum. The official guides to the Act are pretty poor as they don’t give enough detail while the Act, like most Acts, is hard for lay-people to digest. Still, it is worth a… Read more »

0
0
sam salt
Reply to  The Sciolist
4, November 2014 12:53 pm

You are not bursting my bubble Sciolist, if it is me you are referring to. Planning law does not ignore the views of parish councils, how can law ignore views? It is the planning authority who will ignore the view of a parish/town council when the objections are not valid planning reasons, and so they should. I know of a few Parish Councillors across the Island that… Read more »

0
0
Cynic
Reply to  The Sciolist
4, November 2014 1:55 pm

re Localism Act and Neighbourhood Plans.

David might like to review the challenges in the High Court by developers to NDPs and their process in Tattersall (appeal rejected) and ongoing cases in Uppingham (Norfolk) and Chichester.

Now that IWC has formally adopted Bembridge’s NDP, we must wait to see if any developer challenges it.

0
0
bigj
4, November 2014 10:10 am

If the ‘donation’ is conditional on the planning application then it is a bribe, without going into all of the technicalities. As member of the public I too “find it very difficult to swallow” The promises of spending vast amounts of money on the Ventnor Winter Gardens had all the hallmarks of a bribe too – unfulfilled promises I might add. This application does bear many similarities… Read more »

0
0
davidwalter
4, November 2014 10:16 am

Enough, what did you mean by not agreeing with “the embargo side of this article”? Maybe I can provide more detail.

0
0
sam salt
Reply to  davidwalter
4, November 2014 10:33 am

There seemed to be an inference, and perhaps after re-reading your comment David I am wrong, that the planning application was held back until after the PC election. Indeed, and this is solely my opinion, had the application be advertised a week before then one could ask whether it might make any difference to the outcome of the Parish elections. It also appears that this is an… Read more »

0
0
davidwalter
4, November 2014 12:31 pm

Enough — Who knew about the £10,000 [part of comment removed by moderator] to the school? Certainly some people knew; the planning agent is a neighbour of the Applicant, as are the people who Proposed and Seconded her for the Parish Council. Did the school know (hence some teachers and parents)? In a FOI to the school http://tinyurl.com/n46d2aw they said not. Yet I have a written statement… Read more »

0
0
davidwalter
Reply to  davidwalter
4, November 2014 12:44 pm

Just to be clear, in my post above where I used the word ‘bribe’, this is merely the description used by a Shalfleet Parish Councillor and I used it in that context, not as an allegation of bribery by any person.

0
0
retired Hack
Reply to  davidwalter
4, November 2014 12:58 pm

You, and everyone else, needs to watch the language being used. Repeating what someone else said doesn’t absolve you of legal responsibility for your words.

0
0
reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined
Previous
Busy week for Wightlink-LCM Systems Cycle Race Team
Healthwatch meeting
Next
Healthwatch Isle of Wight reveals new workplan priorities
OnTheWight logo for image watermark