nicholson road artist impression

Regeneration plans for Ryde Business Park open for public comment

Plans to expand Ryde Business Park by building new homes, a GP surgery, gym and cafe have been drawn up by the Isle of Wight Council.

A planning application has been submitted by the council, as part of its regeneration strategy, to improve access to community facilities at the Nicholson Road site.

‘Enhance the attractiveness of Ryde Business Park’
It said the expansion would also ‘enhance the attractiveness of Ryde Business Park by providing new, modern units and a high quality landscaped setting.’

The proposals include 15 houses, a GP surgery and pharmacy, gym and community cafe, as well as new open spaces including a main square and garden.

First major regeneration project
Announced in December 2016, the Nicholson Road redevelopment was the first major project in the council’s regeneration strategy, aimed at bringing investment and jobs to the Island.

The plan is to expand the site, creating new jobs.

Companies based at the business park include Liz Earle, Travis Perkins and Sydenhams, as well as a Royal Mail delivery office.

A series of phases
If the scheme is approved, the project would be delivered in phases. The first phase would include the development of a community hub and landscaped route through the site, and the creation of ponds to help combat flooding.

Phase two would see office buildings and supporting infrastructure built, followed by industrial units during phase three.

Design and infrastructure
Two applications have be submitted — one with details of the overall design and layout of the site, and the other with details of the proposed infrastructure.

Although the application has been submitted by the council, which owns the land, it will still be dealt with as any other application would.
Comments can be made online via the council’s planning Website.

A decision is due in December.


This article is from the BBC’s LDRS (Local Democracy Reporter Service) scheme, which OnTheWight is taking part in. Some alterations and additions may be been made by OnTheWight. Ed

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
3 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
retired Hack
9, June 2015 12:33 pm

There are nine planning applications on today’s committee agenda. As I understand it, Friday’s site visit “tour” will have included most or all of them. I’d be interested to hear why those four councillors couldn’t make it. And even more interested to see whether the constitutional rules are followed this evening.

Alistair
9, June 2015 1:28 pm

Sounds like a standard NIMBY fear exercise, 1500 people signed a petition to stop an ice cream van from being told to move near me. None of what has been written here seems to have any traction. A tidal facility needs to be near to a suitable offshore location (water speed, depth, distance to shore), therefore onshore sites are designated with this in mind. Visual impact is… Read more »

retired Hack
Reply to  Alistair
9, June 2015 4:01 pm

Sounds more like a news story to me, Alistair. A news story about four councillors who, unless they had an extremely good reason, seem to not have found it necessary to attend a very important part of the IWC process for deciding a very important planning application. It remains to be seen whether they intend to vote this evening, but the constitution clearly says they should not.… Read more »

derek
9, June 2015 1:49 pm

Enough to put any sort of development off.

derek
Reply to  derek
9, June 2015 2:21 pm

There is a big problem now with development on the Island.

P Lacey
9, June 2015 2:26 pm

Apart from promising 600 new jobs and power for 150,000 IOW homes, precious few facts have been made available by PTEC. The developers of the £1 billion Swansea Lagoon scheme has produced figures which may be of interest: 16 tidal powered turbines will only generate electricity intermittently- engineers have expressed doubts about the viability of the turbines. the cost will be £168 per megawatt hour including a… Read more »

Alistair
Reply to  P Lacey
9, June 2015 3:46 pm

To reply to some of your comments. This is test site not a commercial site so these devices will be prototypes undertaking testing. Think of them as being small scale generators, they contribute to the overall picture but the whole grid can’t rely on them. It is also an idea in infancy so it doesn’t make sense to try and scale them up to commercial scale without… Read more »

Geoff m
Reply to  Alistair
9, June 2015 6:26 pm

Thank you Alistair, an interesting contribution. I firmly believe that tidal energy should form part of UK energy production simply because tides are completely predictable unlike wind power are available twenty hours or so hours a day, unlike solar power; each location of turbines around the coast will have a different period of “slack tides” and so a permanent flow of tremendous power will be available across… Read more »

Stewart Blackmore
Reply to  Alistair
9, June 2015 10:36 pm

All well and good, Alistair, except that tonight’s planning committee was nothing to do with the prospective turbines and the (now granted) application for Flowersbrook was not for prototypes, but for very real and working transformers.

The turbine installations will not be considered by Isle of Wight Council but by the Marine Management Organization.

Caconym
Reply to  Stewart Blackmore
10, June 2015 6:25 am

What? Were you expecting a prototype turbine installation to use fake, non-working transformers?

Of course they are real transformers.

Caconym
Reply to  P Lacey
9, June 2015 6:06 pm

No, you are not a NIMBY. You are worse. You are one of those individuals whose knee-jerk reaction is to oppose any kind of development, wherever it is, regardless of the facts ( see Alistair’s reply).

The correct term is BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything).

Cicero
9, June 2015 4:06 pm

Protestors not allowed to talk to councillors?

Presumably given the sensitivity of the application, the site visit would also be attended by local Ventnor/Niton councillors as Downer, Perks, Stewart and Stubbings?

Would the protestors not be allowed to talk to their elected representatives?

Cicero
9, June 2015 5:07 pm

(per the Beeb in the last hour) “But before the (Swansea Tidal) lagoon becomes a reality, there are three main challenges that need to be met: The estimated cost of the project has almost doubled to £1bn. To make this scheme possible, a government subsidy for the power generated – a strike price – has to be agreed. The company is asking for a higher incentive than… Read more »

Caconym
Reply to  Cicero
9, June 2015 6:12 pm

Tidal lagoon generation (Swansea) is very, very, different to tidal stream generation.

Those protesting about Flowersbrook would be wise to learn the difference to avoid looking foolish.

P Lacey
9, June 2015 5:59 pm

Alistair the financing of this project is interesting in itself. You will of course be aware that according to “Renews” the industry’s media outlet, UK tidal energy projects were wiped out last year with the closure of Siemen’s ocean division and the divesting of their marine current turbine subsidiary (even though their Strangford Lough turbine was up and running) and the liquidation of Pilamis. Blame was attached… Read more »

temperance
9, June 2015 10:01 pm

Its nuclear although for me none of this wishy washy green stuff..

Caconym
Reply to  temperance
11, June 2015 7:26 am

Really? So the good people of Ventnor would be happy to have a nuclear power plant, but not a tidal or wind turbine installation?

The truth is that you favour nuclear because you know there is no possibility of an installation being built near you.

Typical IW Nimbyati attitude. Happy to use a service as long as it is affecting someone else’s view.

Chris
10, June 2015 1:33 am

A tragedy for the Island, for its political process, for its standards in public life, for its environment.

And if the MCT Technology is not being deployed, why is it in the application? PTEC has been asked that several times…. not going to use it? Amend the application to the MMO…. Not hard…. If PTEC asks the Council, they might do it for them!

barbara
10, June 2015 11:59 am

Good idea! Wrong place! Too many residents living nearby and looking at the video too much traffic.

Vix Lowthion
10, June 2015 5:47 pm

Where do people feel would be the ‘right place’ for the offshore and on shore parts?

Caconym
Reply to  Vix Lowthion
11, June 2015 7:31 am

Where do the Nimbyati think is the right place for ANYTHING?

It doesn’t matter whether it is wind turbines, tidal turbines, housing, infrastructure, commercial or industrial, they rise from the ground like zombies in a cheap horror flick moaning “protesssst, protessssssst”

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined