southern side of the church hall - st saviours, shanklin

Plans to renovate Historic England’s at-risk Shanklin Church Hall into dwelling

Plans have been submitted to convert the Church Hall adjoining the Church of St Saviour’s on the Cliff, Queens Road, Shanklin, to a single dwelling home.

Documents on the council’s planning portal explain that the Church itself is a Grade II listed building, with the Hall currently recognised as being in need of urgent repairs — it’s actually included within Historic England’s Heritage At Risk Register — but the applicant says, without the necessary funds available, these works cannot be undertaken as there are no financial means to do so.

Sold off with permission to fund other repairs
The applicant explain that by achieving residential planning permission the “currently unusable asset” could be sold, allowing the necessary works to the Church Hall itself to be carried out, but also generating funds that can be spent elsewhere on necessary repairs, renovations and upgrades as desperately needed by the Church.

The Hall is an extension to the north side of the main building group which was constructed with the North Aisle in 1876. The more recent addition of 1972 is planned to be demolished.

View the plans
You can view the plans on the council’s planning portal (24/00007/FUL).

The public consultation runs until Friday 26th July 2024.

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
0 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bystander
16, April 2013 11:24 am

I would have thought any such allegations should be raised officially with the returning officer, anything else looks like a smear campaign.

Bystander
Reply to  Bystander
16, April 2013 12:15 pm

and when it comes from someone previously rejected by the electorate it also looks suspiciously like sour grapes.

nonpolitical
16, April 2013 11:46 am

Taking this with the accusation the other day by the Tories about the Independents using a photo it does make you wonder what’s going on. Is this going to be a dirty campaign? I hope not.

Robert Jones
16, April 2013 12:57 pm

It is a potentially extremely serious offence, and for that reason the Returning Officer should be informed and should investigate urgently. But what I would not have done when I was an Election Agent was to pre-empt that process in any way, eg by publicizing the fact that an accusation had been made. IF it’s true, both the candidate concerned and his Agent will find out all… Read more »

Darcy
16, April 2013 1:09 pm

Rather than spending his time attempting to find fault with the minutiae of opponent’s admin, or election communications, wouldn’t Mr Wells’ ample time be better occupied engaging in grown-up debate about the issues that affect all of us?
Watch out Labour and Lib-Dem candidates. You’re next!

no.5
Reply to  Darcy
16, April 2013 4:01 pm

They are welcome to try

The Coal Man
16, April 2013 1:41 pm

‘… and it may backfire badly’

Well, Well then I would suggest that Alan stops looking at the mantle-piece when he’s poking the fire in future!
Silly Man.

Victor Meldrew
16, April 2013 1:55 pm

Perhaps the grate (sic) Alan Wells should’nt be in such a hurry to involve the police in an election issue, it could well blow up in his face and leave his mini-me dangerously exposed. Gerrymandering is a much more serious electoral offence and the he would be best off calling his own troops to order. Not only gerrymandering but failing to declare an interest does not go… Read more »

steve s
16, April 2013 3:23 pm

I’m accusing the Island Conservatives of having spent the last eight years running the Isle of Wight into the ground. Who do I report THAT to?

matt.h
Reply to  steve s
16, April 2013 3:45 pm

Hi Steve,

The island will be all right, if the Tories get back, they’ll outsource the lot to Hampshire. That’ll save the necessity of employing anyone other than Directors of Service of course, who’ll be needed to oversee thing.

Oh happy days :-(

Cynic
16, April 2013 4:54 pm

Mmmm! 131 candidates x 10 nominators each x minimum of 4 pieces of data to verify = 5240 checks to be made against the electoral register that the nominator is qualified and against who-knows-where that the signature is valid.

Who would have the time, inclination and access to the relevant information to carry out such checks? And why?

no.5
Reply to  Cynic
16, April 2013 5:10 pm

well the proposer, seconder and nominators data is already computerised so generating a letter to the address listed should not take to long….if someone could be bothered

Cynic
16, April 2013 6:11 pm

OK. Let’s forget the provisions of the Data Protection Acts for Electoral registers for the moment and just “follow the money”.

5240 letters at 50p each = £2620 of election expenses to be accounted for.

Which candidates could afford those additional expenses out of their £600 + 5p per local government elector (average ward = 2500 x 5p = £125:) total £625)?

Robert Jones
16, April 2013 6:25 pm

Nomination papers are checked against the electoral register when handed in, to ensure the name of the nominator, seconder and assentors match the electoral number – and basically that they’re actually ON the register in the first place. The Agent him or herself will have checked the paper before submitting it. What is not obvious, of course, is whether a signature has been forged or not –… Read more »

tryme
16, April 2013 6:36 pm

As Darcy indicates, this is probably the start of Tory smear campaigning – just in time to affect voting, but too late to put the record straight until after election day.

Postal Voter
Reply to  tryme
29, April 2013 4:03 pm

Please can anybody confirm if any family members using a postal vote this week have also been sent any candidate’s election leaflets as well from the council? I was chatting with one of my daughters over the weekend, whilst they are at University and they happened to mention in passing that the letter from the council with their postal vote, reply letter/card, etc. also contained one of… Read more »