We always welcome a Letter to the Editor to share with our readers – unsurprisingly they don’t always reflect the views of this publication. If you have something you’d like to share, get in touch and of course, your considered comments are welcome below. This from Sharon Lake in East Cowes. Ed
During the recent Red Funnel planning application saga a lot of information was circulated from both Red Funnel’s agents and the East Cowes Community. Quite often this information was contradictory, leaving many residents on the Island confused about the facts.
Loss of buildings = loss of jobs
The main objection from the community was the fact that the larger marshalling yard would demolish all but one of the last remaining industrial buildings at Venture Quays, with a loss of a large number of local jobs – jobs which the Island cannot afford to lose – and would have a major impact on the local economy.
The community and those marine businesses maintain that there are no alternative sites for them to move to on the Island, and therefore would have to relocate to the mainland where there are many incentives to attract these up and coming industries.
Long term plan for Marine Quarter
The planning application stated that the businesses were on short leases and that they were aware of the intention of regeneration – what the Red Funnel marketing material did not make clear was that these businesses had a long term plan to relocate into the regenerated Marine Quarter on Venture Quays which was part of the SEEDA vision and had been adopted by the IW Council.
It was also stated that leases were lower due to being short-term. Our research did not support this information – in fact we found that the leases at Venture Quays are in fact higher than a number of suitable alternative employment sites situated around the country.
Logistical issues of location
Another argument used by the Planning Officer was that these businesses were not ‘location constrained’ however the planning committee’s visit to Venture Quays in advance of the meeting would have clarified the size of the vessels currently being built there and the logistical issues that would surround the company’s if they were not located directly on the waterfront.
The Planning committee could not have failed to be impressed with what they saw.
Despite the fact that the officer’s report recommended approval, it also accepted that there would likely be a net loss of jobs. It was on this basis that the Planning Committee rightly agreed on a refusal, which vindicated the community’s position.
The SEEDA Vision
To clarify the proposed land uses by Red Funnel take a look at this comparison (Picture A below) between the current and proposed land uses in 2016 (left) and the 2007 SEEDA Masterplan (right).
The blue areas are new employment buildings, many of which were supposed to support a regenerated Marine Quarter and would have accommodated these businesses. They are largely missing from the 2016 plan (left). What use are hundreds more houses without new and existing jobs to support those extra residents?
Picture A SEEDA Masterplan Sites
Click on images to see larger versions
Comparison of marshalling yard plans
Picture B (below) clearly shows a direct comparison between the Red Funnel Plan for their Marshalling Yard in the recent application (large yellow circle) as opposed to the SEEDA plan (red circle).
This again reveals the potential loss of valuable employment land (currently employing +150 people). The SEEDA plan for a new marshalling yard provided an additional 50% capacity over and above what Red Funnel already have.
Picture B SEEDA Masterplan Phase Diagram
Investment in the Columbine Building
People have expressed that the SEEDA plan would see the Columbine Building demolished. This however does not have to be the case.
The buildings have had extensive upgrades and repairs and therefore are no longer at the ‘end of life’ phase as they were 10 years ago when no investment had been made.
They are large industrial buildings and are suitable for building large vessels; when the SEEDA plan was created it was envisaged that smaller sheds would be more likely to be utilised; however sheds such as those currently on Venture Quays are in short supply and high demand at present.
Particularly with the Medina Yard redevelopment due to be submitted in the near future; which again would see valuable employment land/sheds removed.
Break up of land a risk
A greater risk to the Columbine Building is the proposed break-up of this land that is currently designated for employment use.
Once split the Columbine Building will be far more vulnerable to redevelopment as it would be easier for a developer to acquire ‘change of use’ to mixed use status.
The holistic vision
The SEEDA plan was an holistic vision – this means that the impacts and benefits of each phase would ultimately bring about regeneration for the local area. By coming forward with piece-meal applications this vision will never be achievable.
The Planning Officer should not be allowed to pick and choose which parts of the outline plan are extant (still in existence) whilst blatantly choosing to ignore the factors that were the main drivers of the regeneration in 2007 and still could be today.
Hopefully these diagrams and explanations have helped to clarify any contradictions that you have heard.
Regeneration does not have to be over
Despite headlines stating the regeneration of East Cowes is over this does not have to be the case. The applicant was told that bringing forward a plan that worked for both themselves and the other businesses at Venture Quays would be looked upon favourably.
Local Residents of East Cowes have always been in favour of a regeneration that supports both Red Funnels needs and ensures that the Marine Quarter can thrive on this valuable employment land.
There is no need to ‘down scale the Southampton project’ as there are alternative options that have not been thoroughly explored as yet.
The East Cowes Community Forum and their local Council Member looks forward to the opportunity to work with Red Funnel on an inclusive, symbiotic plan in the near future.
Image: stevendepolo under CC BY 2.0
