Updates coming every five minutes. Keep refreshing your page to get most up to date info.
16:40 – Just got in. Train/Ferry delays. Presentation by planning officer Mackenzie has started
Going through photos and drawings.
14 car parking spaces being shown.
Narrow gap between towers pointed out – stated at 1.6m. “These are individual buildings.”
Split by a larger gap at the higher level – keeps saying
The most affected is Esplanade House, others aren’t really affected. 12m gap. Loss of light and over dominance.
Update 1:
Debbie Robinson speaks for one minute:
Short sighted development – damaging for Ventnor
Bunbury artistic impression misleading
Tourism is the life blood of Ventnor
Applause from the gallery
Mr Powell speaks for one minute:
The haven, fisheries – good proportion.
Metropole – ugly far too big
This is Ventnor cove not Sandown
Grossly out of proportion.
Applause from the gallery
Mr Russell, CPRE speaks for one minute:
This decision will affect Ventnor for the next generation
Will become a sterile line of blocks
Will obliterate the terracing
Officer report is inconsistent with Beachlands
The scale and style is out of keeping
I urge you to reject this threat that looms over Ventnor bay
Applause from the gallery
Update 2:
Val Taylor, Ventnor Town Councillor speaks against the proposal
Ventnor Town Council objected to this – out of keeping with the conservation bay
Concern on comment from the planning officer comments
Terracing effect will be lost.
Ground stability is an issue.
Design drawings are the most flight of fancy
Comment from the public – not 50/50
UDP items – PPG 15 – P6 –
Gaps between buildings can only be seen from the sea
D1 D2 – massively overdeveloped
B6
Planning need to be consistent – same ground for refusal as Beachlands
Applause from the public gallery.
Update 3:
Chris Mortimer speaks:
Runs the Mill Bay
We employ over 250 people
Nearly £600k wage bill
Sea front is vital to us.
Modern dining is what the public seem to want. We can have a larger kitchen. We hope to offer more fish.
We don’t think the building needs saving as it’s been changed.
Only one person living in the Mill Bay site.
Many are against the development.
Progression is needed.
IW radio showed that the majority supports the development.
Jonathan Fitzgerald-Bond speaks:
Declares an interest – many people for and against.
Macaulay and Gaylor – none of them have been to my house
Many constituents have said that they are in favour of this.
Sympathetic building – in 100 years.
English Heritage brought up again
Three separate buildings
The council asked for ???
Site became derelict – 1995 conservatory built
Approve this stunning building
(update – JFB declaring his connections with those involved with the development was nearly as long as his presentation)
A few claps from the gallery.
Susan Scoccia queried JFB speaking.
Broad agreement that JFB was OK to speak. (Update: He’d consulted with the County Hall legal team first)
Update 4:
Susan Scoccia, Ventnor Mayor and Town Councillor speaking
Lots of people are passionate about our town There is no mention of design & development advice 14 March 2006 – from the Conservation Department.
Ventnor is Fragile What justification has been given to demolish the Mill Bay Inn?
Design & Dev Advice – preserving buildings – B7 of UDP – where the existing building does not make a positive contribution. The Mill Bay does provide a valued service.
All buildings in the Victorian era had a sea view.
If approved it would change the fragile beauty of Ventnor.
It appears that the applicants have not provided ??? Replacement Hotel would be a better use. Car parking – is being used by the Mill Bay clients currently
Most worrying – the lack of detail 6.4 – I think we should know what the details are before 6.8 – method statement required – more details needed again Beachlands refused – Inspectors words Don’t let our seafront become Benidorm
(Update: there was loads of detail that I couldn’t get down here – perhaps SS could upload the full text soon)
I can’t vote tonight
There are many residents who do not think this is right.
Site is of such ???
Councillors, if not 100% sure – I beg you not to approve it.
Why was it overlooked?
Photo from Pier shows three story building.
It is far too high. Dominating and over-bearing.
Is a pastiche of Regency style.
Flats are twice as large as three bedroom needs. We can guess the flats will only be for the wealthy.
How do empty flats benefit the area?
Esplanade House – we all have a right to light.
Worried about subsidence cracks.
This area is subject to moving.
item 20 –
Southern Water – more details needed again
Are we sure that these drawings are what is required.
Shop front design to be submitted
Extraction to be submitted.
Quotes from the Inspector – Incongruous – would not enhance the area.
PPG15 & S10
17:15 Bill Murphy speaks
For everyone policy that has been quoted in favour, there’s prob as many against.
It’s a delicate balance – the difficult position that the planning officers are in.
Heard about historic references – want to make clear which are important.
Loss of private view is not grounds – as we’ve reported.
Design – is a matter of personal taste
English Heritage – they’re not objecting. Final comments from EH – While they’ve said further work is needed, they’ve said it’s up to the LPA.
Ground stability by SS – building control says that it’s compliant
SS gave a whole list of things that are missing/outstanding.
Officer haven’t formed a view on minute details.
17:22 – Conditions 14-20 highway conditions.
Mr Pegram – concern was raised. Conservation have looked at it. No fundamental loss if the Mill Bay is demolished.
There needs to be the replacement of another building. So what if they’re holiday homes – they pay 95% council tax, but don’t use the resources.
Instability – we’re happy.
17:24
Clr Taylor – car parking spaces – only one per flat. No provision for staff or restaurant. Extraction provision is a concern, as is waste disposal.
Pegram – Extraction has been addressed by the late notes from environmental health
Clr Taylor back – Conservation area, do we all want to be in Victoriana for ever? Don’t want a pastiche either. I don’t find it a bad design. Some of Esplanade ….
Clr Muriel Miller (East Cowes)
No conditions on opening hours of the public house or is that dealt with licensing? Restaurant mentioned – pub isn’t.
Update 6:
Andrew Pegram – times would be 08:00 and 23:00
Bill Murphy – Wording will be made explicit.
Clr Muriel Miller – It needs to be explicit
17:31 – Clr Arnold. Asked for loss of light slide. Ground floor of Esplanade building – will it affect light
MacKenzie didn’t reference the sunlight diagram.
MacKenzie explains – Murphy joins in –
You need to bear in mind that this is an urban setting.
17:34 – Clr Cameron. Worried about light. I think it’s too tall, should be lower.
Mr Pegram – right to light is not covered by planning, it’s a separate covenant. Beachlands – inconsistency
EH – reference to the detailing – at odds with the planning findings of Beachlands
Design and ground floor parking were other reasons it was refused.
Clr Mike Cunningham – Lobbied by Ventnor person on the phone (a personal call)
Clr Cosgrove – Look at Google Earth. Most of us recognise what a wonderful place Ventnor bay is. It’s likely to attract property developers. There’s building there that will be buried by any development. Is there a master plan for this wonderful area or is it going to be piece meal development over time?
Mr Pegram – There is no design brief for Ventnor. SS interrupts and points out advice and guidance document. Pegram says, oh yes,
17:41
Clr Arnold – Light and sunlight – how different? Right to light is a legal issue, but not a material consideration for planning.
Clr Cunningham – Pleased EH have passed the decision to us. Old Victorian photo – something we should be aiming for. Perfect harmony. We must decide if the dominant proposed building is in harmony. Ventnor one of the most attractive coasts in the whole of the south of England. Proposal is over dominant and over garish. I think we should refuse – have something not so high, not so garish. VTC – have lived in the area for a long time, so we should listen to them. Calling for caution. Asking for a different proposition.
Clr Chapman – Land instability, drawn up by Robin McInnes, a map of Ventnor. Each building brought forward
Height does concern me. More modest would be sustainable. On balance height & mass a concern.
17:47
Cllr Williams – 20 years ago Ventnor wasn’t a pretty site. Now it’s a very pleasant place to go. We need to be careful with this one, what we impose on the local people. Height scale and mass a concern.
Fellow councillor have said to him “it’s so outrageous, it must be passed”
Deferral is needed, so application can be debate with the officers.
Clr Taylor has proposed it. Any seconders?
Deferment – proposed, but not seconded.
17:49
Clr Cameron – voluntary contribution should be asked for – taking into account of the ground floor.
If this could be 24 hours drinking, we need to get the environmental officers looking at that. SS – 6.9 is very confusing (Southern Water’s report). Current volumes of water not increased? This is a much bigger building how can it be the same water/waste flows.
Bill Murphy – not heard a valid reason to defer. Applicant has had two goes at this. Unclear what a deferral would benefit from. If it’s height and mass, no need to defer.
Clr Mosdell – If we refuse this, can the officers take it to Appeal with confidence. We could end up with being over-ruled.
Planning have asked for a while to compose a reply.
Clr Cunningham – Propose refusal (Meg biting his nails)
Clr Taylor – Current Mill Bay has a license already. No problem. All sea fronts have a large buildings – it’s not a problem.
Chair – I think we’ve been over all the points now. Want to wrap this up at 6pm.
Clr Miller – This will have 14 flats on top. If planning said ???
Legal advice – Two matter (pub and restaurant) are separate
17:59
Mr Pegram – (on Southern Water question) An opportunity to split the drainage, so foul goes in the current, run off in other. So it’s OK.
18:01 – Summing up
Lady Pigot – 2nd approval
No seconder for refusal.
Deferment – has a seconder
Murphy – asks for clarification for reasons for deferment.
Vote for acceptance
For – 2
Against – 5
Abst – 5
but more voting going on ….
Final Update:
18:04
Murphy & Pegram – we need to have a clear understanding of what needs to be considered for deferment. Height probably wouldn’t be changed.
Height, scale & mass changes would take a long time.
Clr Williams – “I don’t care how long it would take, I don’t want to enforce this building on the people of Ventnor.”
Murphy – Non-determination could be raised. The decision could then be taken out of our hands.
Clr ?
One floor should be removed. It is over dominant. Aesthetically over done.
__Deferment vote
For 2
Against 5
Abstentions 4
(Chair: Thought that might happen)
First and seconded on Refusal
Vote on Refusal
Chair “We need to be cautious and we need clear reasons”
(update: two other reasons were given that I didn’t hear. Murphy urged the chamber to just provide one reason)
Scale, Mass and Height used.
For 7
Against 2
Abstention 3
It’s been refused
