On Monday Ventnor Town Councillors not only rejected the most recent retrospective planning application for St Joseph’s in Ventnor, but have made it more than clear that they think the developer, Michael Jennings needs to be brought under control.
We had immense pleasure listening to the Ventnor Town Councillors discussing the issue of yet another retrospective application for St Joseph’s from Mr Michael Jennings at the VTC planning meeting on Monday.
Since the site was granted planning permission back in 2006, this is the fourth retrospective application from the ‘developer’ who has chosen to build first and sort out the details later (details like actually having permission to legally carry out the works).
The latest application is to retain the increased and unauthorised height of the rear buildings _and_ to build the pitched roof even higher, so that the roof terrace, which has not only been refused by the Planning Dept twice, but also by the Planning Inspectorate, can be used without anyone noticing.
Cllrs Lucas, Mew and Taylor all made their feelings very clear. They stated passionately that this developer should be made an example of and not allowed to get away with continuing to submit retrospective applications.
Mayor alone
Madame Mayor Scoccia however, who sits on the Planning Committee, felt differently about the development, stating that she had visited it the day before (on a Sunday?!?!) and was very impressed with what she’d seen. Having closely watched its development for over two and a half years, our advice would be don’t judge a book by its cover.
She kept her head bowed and went very quiet (make of that what you will) during the passionate statements made by the other councillors, who said they felt that Mr Jennings “needed to be taught a lesson”.
Madame Mayor Scoccia was not able to vote (as she sits on the Planning Committee) and Cllr Jonny Fitzgerald-Bond abstained from voting.
Refusal
All other councillors voted for refusal of the application and requested that a statement be added regarding enforcement of conditions by the Planning Department.
What’s changed?
We understand from the project manager on the site (Steve O’Keefe) that the Planning Officer, Russell Chick, made the recommendations for the changes to the pitched roof, despite knowing that the current increased height has affected our daylight (we’re the immediate neighbours).
We’re more than a little confused as to how Mr Chick could be negotiating with the developers over the use of the roof terrace, when the original permission stated that the flat roof could not be used, that a subsequent application was refused and that the Planning Inspectorate refused an appeal by Michael Jennings to have that decision overturned. He has also personally told us that it shouldn’t be a roof garden. What’s changed?
Surely the Planning Department should be ensuring that the roof terrace is put beyond use, rather making it more usable and denying us more natural daylight.
Let’s hope this one goes to Planning Committee and is not decided behind closed doors – although the project manager for the site did tell us that the planning department told him they’d have a decision before the end of the month, so it looks as though some are working to make the decision under delegated powers – away from the public gaze.
Expect more on this in the coming days.
Comments from the public must reach the planning department by this Friday. You can add your comment online if you wish.
