Report from Town Council and Planning Meeting: 16th July 2007
Apologies received from Meg Mortimer, Colin Elvers and the Financial Officer.
The meeting followed its usual pattern and it was very much business as usual.
Questions from the Public:
First question from a group known as the Undercliff Gardens Defence Committee.
“At a meeting on 12 December 2005, the Plans Committee recommended to the Planning Authority that they refuse consent for a Chalet Bungalow at land between Boulders and 3 Undercliff Gardens. The reasons given were:
The revised plans show a show a much larger property. Siting at an angle is unsuitable; Loss of privacy to adjoining property. The original proposal should be adhered to.
The Authority ignored those recommendations and the proposal was approved by Mr Derek Rowell in 1 March 2006.
Due to the applicant breaching several conditions attached to that approval, the Authority encouraged another retrospective application to cover those breaches.That application was again recommended for refusal by the Plans Committee at a meeting on 21 August 2006. The reasons being: Over-development of the site; Excessive enlargement of the existing building.
The application was refused, appealed and dismissed on 30 March 2007.
Yet another retrospective application with even more additions to cover all of the latest breaches of conditions has now been received by the Planning Authority, whose actions over this application will be the subject of a Local Government Ombudsman Enquiry.
On 25 June last, a meeting of this Committee which contained 5 of the original 6 Councillors who recommended refusal twice, recommended consent be given to this unlawful property.
It would seem that an error has been made and the Committee were not aware that this was the same application they had refused twice before. Could we respectfully ask the Committee to retract their support for this application and reinstate their objection on the Planning website at the earliest opportunity?”
It was stated in the discussion that followed that the applicant is Michael Jennings. The spokesperson for the Undercliff Gardens Defence Committee asked if the Town Council had been given copies of all the objections.
The response was that the TC does not receive copies of any objections (over 40 in this case) or “support for” correspondence at all, regarding any planning application. It merely receives the core application, and that is all it can review.
Further the role of the Town Council with regard to the IOW Council is to be consulted. The Town Council does not have realistically any more power than the general public.
In this situation although there was concern that the Standing Orders needed to be checked that this was possible, the matter would be looked at again. A date was not fixed, although the next TC planning meeting is scheduled for Monday 23 July.
The reason that the Standing Orders needed to be checked were that a re consideration might set a difficult precedent and require the Town Council to re consider every decision upon demand. This would be impractical in reality and there was an inherent need to maintain consistency in the manner of assessing applications.
(We await the outcome of this and will let you know whether the Town Council, do in fact review the application – Ed)
Second question (posed by myself and seconded by a member of the Ventnor Enhancement Fund, who was also in the public gallery).
Several comments received from the general public and two visitors’ regarding the “tatty” and absurd state of the bunting over Pier Street and the High Street in the Town Centre. Specific comments highlighted that it gave a very poor impression of Ventnor. What can be done, and should it be passed to a local community project for action?
The TC said it was not their responsibility. Brenda L said she had also picked up complaints and stated that the bunting currently up was placed by the Jazz Festival organisers and when it is removed, the new bunting ready for the Carnival can go up.
The TC agreed to send a letter of concern to the Jazz Festival organisers.
On the subject of the Carnival, the TC hoped that the new illuminations for the lamp posts would arrive in time.
Main Business:
Public Consultation
Brenda L emphasised the importance of the public consultation being carried out through the questionnaire.
She pointed out that the National Government is preparing to release a large amount of funding for community development, but as in all situations, public consultation needs to be shown before applications are made. This is commonplace now even on the smallest funding opportunities.
She reminded the TC that if it had not been for the last public consultation carried out five years ago, the Rail Link Shuttle Bus which we take for granted now, would not be in existence. Community funding was used to get the service going, and it has become so successful it is now a commercial operation.
Sandown High School
This concerned the proposal of the Governors to change status from Community school to Foundation school.
Jonathan Fitzgerald-Bond abstained on the basis that it was nothing to do with Ventnor. Susan Scoccia said that the TC should not be interested in this as it was Political. The County Council had already taken a decision.
Buster Bartlett spoke in favour of. Steve Milford spoke against, arguing that businesses putting a small investment into a Foundation school, could gain disproportionate influence over the school.
The TC voted that it does not support the change of status proposed.
Bandstand Concerts
Still some on going dialogue with the IOW Council regarding support for the Park. It was noted that the amounts of money involved are very small.
It was agreed to state to the IOW Council that the TC would like to extend the lease for the Putting Green as it is in its last year of agreement.
Tennis Courts
It was agreed that the TC should endorse the bid by the Tennis Club for Lottery Funding.
Questions:
Robbie Mew raised the point of the trip hazards left by broken plastic bollards on pavements.
Brenda Lawson raised the point of builders skips being left in street beyond expected times, without any enforcement being taken to remove the skips.
Robbie Mew reminded the TC of a point he raised earlier in the year proposing the IOW Council take action over the ferry companies and encourage the setting up of a private consortium of Island based businesses to take over Red Flag when the option was there. He said the fare structures were as bad as ever.
JFB said that there was no way the IOW Council could interfere with business.
Planning Committee
Tesco – 52-58 High Street: Demolition of buildings construction of 3/4 storey building to form retail at ground floor level with 9 flats over and basement parking for residential units
The major concern raised was around the loading/unloading bay. The placement of the pedestrian crossing, and the potential noise and nuisance of delivery Lorries.
The decision was deferred, subject to a requested briefing from Highways (Could be on 23 July).
Cedar Lodge, Esplanade
Demolition of building and garage 3 storey building to form 1 house 1 maisonette and 2 apartments to include accommodation within roofspace vehicular access and parking: Approved
High Street Londis (Farleigh’s)
Application for a security roller shutter.
Major concerns raised that it would urbanise the town and make it look like something out of “Moss Side”. Coupled with the derelict site opposite, it would give the worst possible image to any visitor coming into the town: Refused
Two detached houses on land adjacent to Ventnor Tennis Club
Not felt to be in keeping with the listed building adjacent and inadequate vehicle access: Refused
