Updates will be added as they come in from our live reporter at County Hall (ie. Simon tapping furiously away on his keyboard, sending details of discussions back to VB HQ for adding to the blog).
Proceedings have begun at County Hall.
JFB is in the house.
No declaration of interests beyond two Cllrs on Freshwater council.
Helen Clover, member of the public, question. Mr Murphy to read. Why was UDP altered to allow building within listed buildings. 6.10 B2 in UDP.
Long answer that was technical and intricate. In summary – it’s similar.
2nd question – Is there a duty to inform the public about amended plans? Summary of answer – it depends.
Planning Applications:
First up is Hazelhurst, Gates Lane, Freshwater (raised over 200 comments on application)
Update 1:
Planning officer presents – Miss S Wilkinson.
Came up in Jan 08 when it was refused.
It’s diagonally opposite from Dimbola Lodge.
Was block of nine flats. Now nine units
9 flats proposed. six 2 bed and three 1 bed.
11 parking places, inc two visitor places.
Slight increase in height from current building.
All windows at the rear have been removed, apart form two obscured glass windows. “The perception of loss of privacy has been overcome”.
Loss of light has been overcome.
Out of character – line has changed, so it’s believed that this is much more in character.
Gap between proposed development and current building at the rear has been increased to an acceptable distance.
Public to speak.
Mr Vic Jennings speaking
Represent a group of residents. Most buildings in the area a large, single family accommodation.
Dangerous precedent. Loss of community, if they are left empty.
200 letters of objection for the latest application
A supplementary application may come later to bring back two semi detached buildings removed from this application.
If it is passed, site must not be left demolish and not developed.
Update 2:
David Long, Agent
Clear that it’s been an emotive matter for the public.
Outside
No grounds to not allow demolition.
Gains correct balance of parking and gardens.
Traditional detailings.
Dimbola isn’t effected.
All previous reasons of objection have been addressed. So there is no justification for refusal.
This is a high quality development.
Appealing the decision would give an unnecessary burden on my client.
We need certainty in decisions in this market.
Update 3:
Planning – if there is a later application to build on the amenity space, it would have to be viewed separately.
Conservation area are designed to manage change not block it.
16:30 – Cllr Kennett (local cllr)
To a small degree reasons have been. Concerned that it will have a big impact on the area.
I’ve spoken to conservation dept. Gate Lane has a great relevance – due to Tennyson Trail.
Hazelhurst isn’t the most attractive building, but demolition and building of flats would add nothing to the area.
There’s huge local public concern at this development.
There are lots of items in the agents document that are ‘interesting.’
If it’s passed, it shouldn’t be allowed to be developed.
Other people living in Gate Lane are getting approaches from developers.
(considerable applause from the audience)
Chair – We’re here to look at the reasons for refusal – the ones that came before us last time.
Cllr Cameron – 200 letters, lots of Freshwater.
It’s not the type of building that we want there.
If it weren’t for time, it would be listed by now.
Cllr Burt – Developer is trying to do something impossible. Rear boundary doesn’t look further away.
Cllr Chapman – Now declaring a prejudicial interest in the application – and is now leaving the chamber.
“Hear, hear” from the public.
Planning – distance has now increased. 1.3m max.
Update 4:
Cllr Mosdel – Why have people have such enthusiasm for the design of the old building, when it doesn’t appear to have much merit?
Planners advice, we don’t have a base for refusing demolition.
Mr Murphy – building has been changed considerably over the years – removal of front bays, etc.. Difficult to protect the current building, particularly as planner is proposing something with more in keeping.
It’s not the volume of applications of objections. It’s material planning ground that are needed.
Cllr Miller – Bats needed to be preserved. Who will maintain the shared areas? Is there a limit on satellite dishes?
Mr Murphy – A condition can be added (using a s.106) to ensure building is maintained.
Mr Pegram – restrictions would be quite tight as ANOB. Height of building would restrict to one.
Cllr Miller – still concerned.
16:49
Ms Wilkinson – Bats – ecology officer has visited the building. None found. If the bats are found, need to contact the council – as bats are protected. Bats may be in pipe work, so not findable until demolition starts.
Cllr Mosdell – Material considerations don’t appear to have been brought to us. Propose acceptance.
Update 5:
Has been seconded too.
Conditions – Satellite dishes. management of communal areas.
Vote – 6 for
3 against
no abstentions
Update 6:
17:58 Reconvening after break.
Due to overrun, expected start for this section was 17:30. Cheetah Marine second up.
Update 7:
18:00 – Former Whitecroft Hospital, Sandy Lane, Newport. Ashey Common Farm, Deacons Lane, Ashey
Variation for equestrian purposes.
Position of buildings (away from main cluster of buildings) is due to the application not owning the land near.
Acceptable – recommend conditional permission.
Mr Cadder? – representing residents. Clients moved in with what was around them.
It looks like people can buy a piece of land and eventually get planning permission for what ever they want.
Messing around at being farmers. How can a hobby have so many horses? We cannot see how this can be used for private use.
Liz Bell – local council – scale of development is too large. Too much traffic for a quite road. Conditions – no caravans. No waste, hay or food not in buildings. No manure to be burnt on site.
Mr Bucket (?) – Applicant – Owned the land for two years. Been there everyday.Been in farming for half of my life. Manage a 400 acre site on the mainland – a well known jockey. We don’t intend to make money out of it. We choose to spend our money on horses. It feels like we’ve upset the wrong people.
Update 8:
Cllr Churchman – it’s not a waste of time to listen to planning applications. Constituents are very concerned with the impact. There are fair few accidents around this area. I don’t see five horses as a hobby – it’s bordering on a business.
Two years ago applicant applied for a gate for agricultural use – that opened the thin end of the edge.
The land borders the railway, which is a big tourist attraction. It could well destroy the character.
18:12 – Mr Pegram – It’s not uncommon to see small scale stables sites being built. What _might_ happen isn’t a reason to refuse. Applicant has three horses and one foal.
18:15 – Cllr Burt – Is this just a summer site, as there doesn’t appear to be a road?
Update 9:
Proposed and seconded.
Cllr Miller – It’s not up to us how many horses people should have – if they want to spend all of their money on horses, it’s up to them. A couple of other bits.
Mr Jolly (?) Highway (?) – There did used to be a substantial dairy along there.
Mr Pegram – The layout of the buildings give a minimum visual impact.
Mr Pegram – Grasscrete – propriety product, let’s grass grown through while letting vehicles drive on it.
Cllr Mosdell – the longer I’ve sat here the more concerned I’ve become of this Island. I’ve just seen how areas on the mainland have been kept as they are. It’s an intrusion in the countryside. I don’t think the officers have made the case.
Poll barns went out with the arc. The land is historic agricultural land.
Update 10:
18:25
Mr Murphy – answered Cllr Mosdell questions – at length.
Cllr Burt – I’d like to second Cllr Mosdell. I’d like to see it closer to the gate, so we don’t have the road.
One proposal. One refusal.
Seven for approval
Two against
It’s approved.
Update 11:
19:02 Cheetah Marine (at last!)
Chair: Thanks for your patience.
Planning: Mr Salmon – Two wrapped
Storage building
Legal agreement – Marine employment
Amendment for Dormer extension
Consultation period ended
A number of representations have been made since the report was completed.
7 letters of objection – compromise agreement. Removal of harbour masters office. Value of site it based on jobs, back door way of resident; benefit for the town not for the developer. Also concern at
Ventnor Town Council wish to be involved earlier on in planning applications.
CRPE – three letters.
s.106 needs to be amended
Object to condition 14
Do not see the dormer window is a minor amendment.
Storage building first – supposed to be on the east of the site. Storage of materials would detract from the site. There’s a live sewer under the building. Proposal is to do this later. There’s an existing condition for non-storage of materials outside.
19:09
Condition 14 – Issue of the Harbour masters office. Have been in discussion over the legal agreement. The one stumbling block has been the HM office. CM has the contract and there is no guarantee they will always have the contract.
“It would be unreasonable to let a 3rd party to operate from the building.”
Draft legal agreement says – offices will be used for marine related employment, even if there’s no HM office.
Responses show that there’s a perceived risk to it being used for other uses.
19:12
Dormer Window – Consolation – design office is OK with it.
Officers are happy with all three applications.
Update 12:
19:14
Public speaker – Dennis Russell
Asking for condition 14 to be shown on screen. When this application appeared, documentation has been ambiguous. It’s been impossible. Flawed process.
CM application – Permanent HM office, twice confirmed by this council. ‘Best endeavours’ – has no substance.
I urge you not to allow this commitment to be eroded.
Condition 14 should not be modified.
Update: Thanks To Prof Russell for sending through exact wording as follows
“I would support a variation of condition 11 allowing phasing and redesign of the storage building, but only if it is reworded to incorporate the harbour master’s office, to be permanently retained whoever occupies that position, and so that acquisition of the freehold cannot be triggered until the whole development is complete”.
Dormer window – there’s already enough light. Out of keeping.
19:17
VTC speaker – Debby Robinson – SEEDA funding.
Documentation is inadequate and incomplete.
Public consultation has been invalidated due to short period of time.
Planning: Is the committee prepared to accept an incomplete public consideration?
Cond 11 – It was to be a essential for reasons of screening.
Original brief was to enhance the area.
Viewed by many as Selling off the family silver.
19:21
Keith Strevens (applicant)
New wording makes is possible for condition 14 to be legal. Whereever they wish to manage the haven from. Terms have now been defined, that weren’t defined before.
Condition for marine use – there’ no question of doubt as to how it will be used.
Dormer will give natural light. Can also use it an office for power boat training exercises.
Cond 11 – Will contain a HM office should CM not get the contract. We cannot have that in our own office, for obvious reasons. We will produce the office at the east building – if they choose to use that office.
New wording “maintain the spirit of the original s.106”
19:24
Cllr Fitzgerald Bond
Strongly recommend accepting
Its took four years to get this far. It’s taken another year now. CM are being held up.
There’s no intention to not build the little building
The HM office. What happens – CM run the boat service – it’s highly likely that they will win the contract.
Should they have to provide space for a competitor?
Pretty reasonable to me.
There’s no day light – need Dormer.
Planning officer – Public Responses do not change our views.
-Members
Cllr Chapman Like to move recommendation for acceptance on all three issues.
Cllr Miller – Contentious. Officers go to great length to put conditions on, then all of a sudden we are eroding these.
Things that our officers thought were correct at the out set.
The applicant looks for changes.
It cast doubt on officers professionalism
Why the sewer wasn’t spotted, I can’t understand. This should have been done before
It’s split Ventnor to a certain extent.
If I can get assurance Marine related
Reluctantly agree with this.
Mr Murphy – Do accept her point – BUT – once we got into the detail, that we came into these difficult positions.
“It was the lawyers”
Legal departments was working very closely.
We might end up with no development on this site with these restrictions.
I’m confident that we will be able to …
Unrealistic for HM office, if they lose the contract. Or because the council might change their views on the HM. They can’t force another company to use the CM office.
‘best endeavours’ I accept it’s not a definite as one would like.
Cllr Cunningham – Were coming to a point where we have to be realistic. it’s the only way forward.
Update 13
There are so many inputs that it’s complicated. I want to see this happen.
Second it.
Cllr Mosdell – I live in by an airport which is now a Industrial estate – was supposed to be an airport with legal agreement.
It will end in tears.
When they let the freehold go – HM office was part of that.
No prob with Dormer or other building.
19:38
Planning Mr Salmon – CM would need planning permission to make further changes. Control would lie with the LPA.
Mrs Manos (?)- s.106 Binding on the landowner.
Cllr Mosdell – The owner of the building has the chance to charge whatever they want for the HM office.
Coming to the vote.
In totality
Vote – 9 in favour
1 abstain.
