Flowersbrook site

Residents turn out to show opposition to Flowersbrook development (video)

Around 30 residents against to the proposed onshore elements for the Perpetuus Tidal Energy Centre at Flowersbrook turned out on a grey and chilly morning last week to express their opposition to the development.

They’d positioned themselves opposite the site on Steephill Road on Friday morning, in anticipation of members of the Isle of Wight council planning committee taking part in a site visit prior to making a decision on the application at tonight’s (Tuesday) committee meeting.

Missing members
Those who took part in the site visit included chair of the committee, Cllr Baker-Smith as well as Cllrs Eccles, Blezzard, Barry, Hollis, Whitby-Smith and Bloomfield.

Cllrs Howe, Medland, Nicholson and Price were not present on the site visit.

According to the council’s constitution, only members who’ve been present throughout the whole consideration of information gathering can vote on applications.

It reads,

Members can only take informed, objective, decisions when they have received and carefully read all written reports and submissions. They must attend official committee site visits and also carefully listen to all public speaking contributions and to all contributions to the debate from members. Therefore any member who has not been present throughout the whole consideration of an item must not vote. (our emphasis)

Mixed opposition
Residents spearheading the campaign said they’ve collected over 1,700 signatures on a petition from passersby to the site, as well as 400 signatures online.

Some members of the public opposed to the onshore element said they weren’t against the overall scheme for a tidal demonstration site off St Catherine’s point (which the Isle of Wight council has put £1m into), but felt the development would be better suited slightly further down the coast behind the Botanic Garden.

Others were strongly against the entire scheme, on and off shore, citing environmental and visual impact as some of their concerns.

Valid planning objections
As mentioned last week, officers have recommended conditional permission for the application, which attracted 281 objections.

When considering the application tonight, members will have to ensure their decision is based on material planning considerations.

The constitution says,

Local opposition or support for an application is not a ground for making a decision unless that opposition or support is based on material planning considerations.

One objector told OnTheWight that if they plan is approved, the residents intend to fight the decision in court.

Video
This short video explains what was happening at the site on Friday

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
21 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