Author: Helen Cunningham
Vintage Vacations Planning Application Refused
Wednesday, 23rd July, 2008 at 2:31 pm, Isle of Wight
We were really shocked to hear this morning, that the Planning Committee yesterday decided to refuse an application by the owners of Vintage Vacations (a couple responsible for masses of very positive free publicity for the Isle of Wight in the press) for a permanent site in Hillis Gate Road, Northwood. Helen Cunningham exclusively gives us below her response to the outcome. Ed
After a four year search and six alternative sites having been discussed at the planning office, our planning application for a seasonal site for ten of our Vintage Airstream caravans was refused at yesterday’s planning committee meeting.
One goes into a planning application knowing that there may be various scenarios at the end of it. What isn’t to be expected, is that despite our plans carefully addressing all relevant issues, officers recommendation for approval and comment from the planning policy team stating that a scheme such as ours is appropriate for, and to be encouraged on the Hillis Gate site, points raised for discussion by those committee members that bothered to comment, ranged from laughably lame to shocking attempts to undermine the facts in our professional reports.
Councillor Mosdell was warned by the chairman not to overstep the mark with some of his misjudged comments.
Cllr Cunningham recommended approval but was not seconded.
Despite the braying mob in the public gallery it was still possible to hear the sound of goalposts being moved as committee members struggled to find a satisfactory reason for a refusal decision.
The final grounds for refusal, as reported by the CP today, were that the plan would ‘have a detrimental impact on quality of life in a rural area’ – a catch-all for pure NIMBY-ism.
We have (I hope) maintained our dignity and refrained from getting into a tit-for-tat situation with objectors, despite nasty personal attacks on our integrity. The campaign against us was heavily agitated and lately included derogatory posters featuring a picture of one of our trailers with words to the effect of ‘we don’t want these on the Isle of Wight’ being posted around Parkhurst Forest.
Cllr Mazillius was very self-congratulatory after the hearing.
I wonder if his adoring public are aware that he failed to acknowledge or answer repeated emails and a letter from us offering to come and present our ideas to the local community. The Chamber of Commerce also re-sent my original correspondence along with the offer of hosting such a meeting. I would like to know why he undemocratically chose to ignore these offers? It would have been a great opportunity to show residents how stylish and low key our holiday offer really is.
We read weekly on the front page of the CP that IOW tourism is in peril.
Cllrs recommendations? Advertise … eventually. An unprecedented amount of high end press coverage for Vintage Vacations both here and abroad has saved them a few thousand pounds on that score.
The toe-curling ‘smile at a tourist’ suggestion from Cllr George Brown? Mr Brown – you might try smiling at those wanting to invest in tourism instead of turning your back.
This decision sends out a clear message to anyone thinking of investing in innovative tourism on the Isle of Wight. Don’t bother slapping your wallet on the table – chummily slap the back of a councillor instead.
No thanks.
We will wait to receive the formal decision notice, take the appropriate advice and most likely appeal.
What we simply can’t do is spend another four years looking for another site .. only to face the same NIMBY objections.
We will be looking at re-location, which is disappointing after investing so much, on a personal and business level here on the island.
Helen Cunningham
Email This Story To A Friend
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I wish I had a field they could use, I love these caravans. Again this council makes itself a laughing stock (no surprise there) when it comes to people actually trying to run a business and encourage visitors to the Island
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Throw them a bung/handshake of around £120k, offer to put in some affordable housing (withdraw it at the last minute if you like) and the application should go through with no problems. Allegedly of course.
When the CP this week said tourism is down by £50m, the clowns at County Hall pull stunts like this. Are they really this much out of touch?
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Helen, I suggest you come back in June of next year. We’ll have a new council by then. The circus will have well and truly left town, taking this bunch of clowns with it!
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:34 pm
This is really disappointing for Vintage Vacations, especially after all thier hard work to get a quality tourism business off the ground on the Island. All I can say is please don’t relocate!
Finally can I add that this was a decision by the Councillors who have gone against the advise of the Planning Officers who recommended approval! The Councillors are the root cause of the problem.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
I found the tone of some of the comments in this article rather distasteful. People talk of “braying mobs” when local opinion is against them, but we don’t hear such words when supporting rallies are organised to refuse, say, developments on Ventnor esplanade. And which of the correspondents to this post would welcome developments in their own back yard ? The truth is that if it were not for the Nimbys, the Island would be covered with inappropriate developments - the Nimby is merely the equivalent of a Neighbourhood Watch for the Environment.
Cllr Mosdell was badly maligned. He is a qualified engineer, and raised valid points about drainage and soakaway on a waterlogged site, where treated sewage overflows were due to be run into ditches - and he pointed out the concentration of phosphates which would result. He was simply told that he could not use PPS25 (Flood Risk) as an objection, because the Environment Agency had written a letter saying that the site was “low risk”. Unfortunately the EA had not visited the site, and sent their usual form letter saying that they were too busy to comment properly.
Maybe Vintage Vacations could tell us whether they have planning permission to operate their present site on Burnt House Lane.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:23 pm
UNBELIEVABLE!! I know these guys, and how hard they’ve worked over the last four years. To be knocked back like this by short sighted, narrow minded, NIMBYS is so sad. We’re living in the 21st Century, whilst these objectors are still in the Dark Ages. Tourism is the Lifeblood of the Island, HELLO wake up and smell the coffee!!!
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Or maybe we should ask what it is that will make this Island survive. It is innovative tourism and people with ideas like this should be assisted in their plans rather than strangled out of existance.
If the NIMBYS ran this island it would be a OAPs haven with nobody under the age of 50 living here, not a real place with real problems and real people
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
I’d rather put my money on 10 of these beautiful airstreams than the rows and rows of cruddy beige caravans that can be seen via google earth. This couple should be congratulated for their efforts. I’ve seen them featured in loads of magazines and newspapers.
I’ve visited Ventnor many times (and the ventnor blog quite often too) and are aware of what you’re referring to Watchdog, but a few airstreams in a field for 6 months a years is not the same as a big development on the seafront.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:12 pm
‘Watchdog’any planning process is about give and take on both sides, Vintage Vacations have gone above and beyond in addressing the issues raised. When viewing the majority of objections posted on iwight.com, many were ill informed and smacked of small minded daily express reading comment.
This site was in poor repair and Vintage Vacations are proposing a small low impact temporary development. Cllr Mazillus should be treating ALL members of his ward fairly- not just listening to certain views.
I was also very shocked that a poster campaign stating ‘we don’t want these (trailers) on the isle of wight’ had been started-if individuals want to mount this sort of attack please don’t include the whole of the island- let’s hope that the lovely people at Vintage Vacations don’t give up- it’s very sad that certain people on the island seem to resent anyone trying to do something in a professional manner.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 pm
It seems to me that the NIMBYs hate what might be a step into the unknown with a quality holiday that might attract interesting tourists. They clearly prefer to perpetuate the cheap Chav-magnet arrangements that they are used to.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:37 am
What a shame, these vehicles are beautiful and super funky looking:(
July 24th, 2008 at 11:49 am
For the first time, I am ashamed of being an Islander. What are we doing turning down a fantastic opportunity for all of us, a quality, well run, inspiring business whose clients would indirectly help us all here? Helen and Frazer have worked so hard on every single detail of this business, with a love of the Isle of Wight at the heart of it, we are lucky to have them here and this is what we do. Shameful!
July 24th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Well said Zoiner. Consider for a minute the income generated by the kind of people that are customers of Vintage Vacations, who I supect are not short of spending money. This isn’t a downmarket caravan site that people on low incomes NEED to holiday in, as the poorly-pitched posters inferred, it’s for well-heeled holidaymakers with an interest in classic retro design and, I’m sure, the attendent benefits that the island itself offers, such as shops, restaurants, galleries and the like, that come with it in such a unique way on the IOW. They bring in income, it’s not complicated. Such tourists of this quality should be encouraged. Have the present council or islanders really thought about the consequences of their draconian attitudes? The owners of VV seem to have been let down by an island they love and put a lot of time into. Best of luck Vintage Vacations.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
It is so saddening to see such a fantastic business like Vintage Vacations come under such scrutiny and attack from these misguided and bigoted natives. The IOW council should use their energy into marketing holidays like this instead of condemning them. In my opinion there are two types of holiday maker that visit the Isle of Wight:
• Those that spend money.
• Those that don’t.
Vintage Vacations customers are young, vibrant, family orientated professionals with disposable incomes that want to spend their hard earned cash in our shops and restaurants. These are the type of people we need and want on the Isle of Wight.
With nationwide press coverage for this innovative and exciting business in quality magazines and newspapers almost every month, this is a missed opportunity for us all. The Isle of Wight council should be ashamed. Good luck Helen and Fraser.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:37 am
i have stayed in all sorts of caravans and i think the retro look of these is perfect for the island, but then what do you expect from a ROTTEN council
July 27th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Helen & Fraser - don’t let your spirits be crushed!
July 27th, 2008 at 10:05 am
We are devastated for Helen & Fraser on the decision but not entirely surprised- the rot of Government both local and national is endemic. You may be a few years behind the mainland (great)but human nature is human nature.How ironic too that only yesterday in the Travel section of the Telegraph VV were mention once again.We were first drawn to the IOW after reading another enticing article in that publication a couple of years ago - and have visited frequently since - to these unique “Land Yacht” vacations.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:49 am
I can’t believe it!!! Again they miss the point!!
It is a great opportunity for the island and should be supported, as it offers something different! Many be those holiday makers wouldn’t have visited the Island if it wasn’t for something different like Vintage vacations.
Also their Great Vintage Airstream caravans have given the Island So much extra FREE advertising positive free publicity - http://www.vintagevacations.co.uk/reviews.htm
letting All to know, how great The Island is.
Don’t give up Vintage Vacations, as any one that supports Tourism for the Island will be behind you
July 31st, 2008 at 9:42 am
We have stayed at Vintage Vacations site in the IOW on two occasions now.We had never considered holidaying on the island until we saw these lovely vans featured in a piece in Homes and Gardens, I had to contact Helen and arrange a surprise trip for my husband who loves this Retro look. We enjoyed both our holidays, obviously spending quite a lot of money in local restaurants, tourist attractions and shops which would not have happened had it not have been for Helen and her skills at promoting her business and of course the island. We believe this is an extremely shortsighted approach by the council, turning down a stylish and well thought through development that would benefit the locals by attracting high spending visitors like myself and my family and of course people we have recommended
August 8th, 2008 at 11:51 am
After taking the relevant advice we have decided to appeal against the refusal.
It will now be somewhat of a relief to step away from the plate and hand everything over to the professionals!
We’d just like to say thanks to all who support us (it really helps) and to those who don’t ….. well, as always you are very welcome to get in touch, come and see us and find out what we are really all about.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Sometimes there is only one phrase that comes to mind when such shortsightedness and vitriol has been expressed - SHAME ON YOU.
Vintage Vacations have worked so hard to provide exactly what the Island is crying out for. Leave them to it guys and bring your magic to Dorset - we will support you, encourage you but most importantly be very grateful that there are people of vision still around to try and make dreams come true.
August 10th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
As so often, I have only come across this as a result of reading VB, and would like to add my support to the project. The objectors’ reference to an ‘American Style Caravan Park’ is disingenuous, as it implies that it will be a ‘trailer park’ (i.e. trashy) as opposed to a smart park for stylish American caravans. I despair of the small-mindedness of so many of our councillors, but I have long since stopped being surprised by it.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Well surprise surprise-stumbled on this blog when looking for something else so for your information-here you are:- Quality Tourism should mean “Quality” for both the Potential Tourist and also Island Residents.
This application provided neither-anybody with local knowledge -that is if the Frazer Cunninghams had bothered to find out -could tell you that the area around Hillis Gate is incredibly wet with a very high water table.It’s land that cannot be worked on in the winter months and in most years well into the late spring and quite frequently also in the Autumn. This means that you cannot drive machinery let alone tow and move caravans/trailers during these months. Without mains sewage disposal available the ammount of effluent produced by the potential number of people in ten caravans at any one time has the potential of creating a very smelly rural bog which is not how our lovely Island should be remebered by anyone visiting us.
The Pro-Frazer Cunningham fan mail and their own comments are typical of the overners attitudes adopted when they find they cannot achieve the modern equivelent of “he came,he saw, he conquered”.
How very clever of them to “re-discover” our beautiful Island and to make capital out of something that in the right circles is already a well known fact and has been since well before the Romans chose to settle here.
Suggest that you are the people who have misjudged and also presumed rather to much
September 8th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Ms Merrifield. You will find detailed answers to your concerns within our ‘design and access’ statement that accompanied the planning application …. along with the expert drainage engineers report. We are not in the business of creating smelly bogs - although the previous history of the site was in fact a piggery!
Our business has already formed strong bonds with other quality businesses here on the island which is exactly what is required for a sustainable economy. A successful business community thrives on such links.
I am saddened that you are so bitter.
I’m not quite sure what ‘attitudes’ you think we have adopted and as always you would be very welcome indeed to come and see what we are all about.
(Sadly your local Cllr decided on your behalf not to take up the offer of a presentation)
Do get in touch if you would like any further information.
September 8th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
“typical of the overners attitudes”
OK, hands up all you overners! Not many present here, I think. Mind you, I’ve only been here 40 years, so maybe I’m not a proper caulkhead yet…
September 8th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
It is so sad that some individuals still consider anyone relocating their family and starting a viable business here in a negative light, and generaliastions are offensive and unhelpful . We desperately need people like Vintage Vacations to inject quality, professionalism and enthusiasm into our community.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
typical NIMBY nonsense. Very brave of her to stick her head over the fence instead of hiding behind it, but it just reveals that it is the business person who has done their homework and the local making pointless un-educated objections based on fear of change. Northwood is such an attractive place after all with loads of money making attractions and businneses
September 8th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
I can’t believe how unkind people are!!Patricia Merrifield.
Why cant people come to the Isle of Wight?
I didn’t know it was ONLY for people that didn’t want the Island to grown.
People like Vintage Vacations help the Island Blossom, offering unique opportunities to attracted More Visitors to HELP ALL Businesses on the Island.
I know as an Island business, I and Islander have benefited from them being here.
So why interfere?? In something you don’t know about???
Let people get on with there life’s and you with ours!!!!
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Hello Again Mrs Cunningham-have just not had time to fit in any blogging but now have a few spare minutes -ref your reply to my comment -yes we did read all the information attached to your planning application and I’m not to sure how much your drainage “expert” knows about the topography and geology of Isle of Wight but he certainly doesn’t know much about what you can and cannot do on clay soils. Perhaps you could give him a few tips from your experience in the field where your “Hut in a Field” resides?-This may be a cliff top location but it’s clay so you managed very successfully to trash part of the field by driving directly to your hut and allowing others to do so instead of accepting the status quo by parking and walking!
Ref your trailers - we certainly did not slag your trailers of in any of our objections just stated that Hillis Gate is not the right place. They would be ideal for a farm based joint venture where you could perhaps link them to Western Riding-a “theme” holiday-of course a shared venture would not reap such high profits as a solo venture.
In your work as a stylist you must surely be aware that tastes vary otherwise we would all be buying the same and looking the same-this is an accross the board thing and my taste in holiday caravans would be a Romany style wagon but I would not want to see these at Hillis Gate either as this whole issue is about protecting the very precious Isle of Wight countryside from creeping encroachment-ie it’s not up for grabs.
As for piggeries-well this is one pleasure you have not yet enriched your lives with-they are delightful animals to keep it’s just such a shame that we end up eating them. In fact pigs are more in keeping with our rural environment than people in silver bullet trailers.
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Planning is a subject that generates strong emotions, but planning cannot be based on mob opinions or we would have anarchy, though as a matter of fact, of the 97 respondents to this application, only a handful supported it. I just wonder how many of those commenting here have actually read the planning documentation in full, visited the site, and attended the planning meeting where it was decided.
The matter was extensively debated by the Planning Committee and voted down by 9-1 (the 1 was Cllr Cunningham). Those 9 councillors are not stupid - they had visited the site and made up their own minds, independently of what planning officers were saying. It’s called democracy.
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:35 pm
As i said NIMBYs….the death of the Island as a tourist destination, in their hands…but at least they’d have their pigs
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Kj, your bitterness towards Nimbys is entirely misplaced. None of the councillors who voted were from anywhere near the application site. Come to that, I live in Ventnor myself, so I am only supporting the principle of an orderly planning system not based on emotional pressures.
It is nonsense to point to the refusal of 10 caravans as “the death of the Island as a tourist destination”.
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Why are these negative comments so nasty? Democracy is a wonderful thing and everyone is entitled to their own opinion but do you have to be so personal? Is this how you would speak to someone you meet in the street? I personally think the whole thing is a fantastic idea and wish it was happening in Dorset where I live, but even if I didn’t I would ensure my comments weren’t so pleasant. Try to be civilised please.
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:00 pm
watchdogs factual statement that the proposal was “voted down by 9-1″ is once again met by the inimitable, but brainwashed kj, with his puerile comment “As i said NIMBYs”.
I am afraid watchdog, although I do not always agree with you, if you are trying to convert kj into the land of factual reality, you are wasting your time.
It is akin to getting kj to accept the proven ineffectiveness of wind farms, but their proven effectiveness to avail themselves of huge subsidies, which we all then pay for.
No matter how much proof you put to these people, they put their hands over their eyes, ears and mouths and sing nah, nah, nah, nah, nah!
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Oh dear. NIMBYs abound.
At least Watchdog has sound arguments.
You refuse to see facts. Windfarms can provide 10% of our energy the rest has to be provided by other means. I’d rather have 10% than none as I’ve said again and again and again and again and again.
I don’t doubt it was voted down 9-1, these same councillors approved a school re-organsation and the Underclifee.
But without innovative tourism and people to put it into action we have very little future.
Quote from Ms Merryfield “just stated that Hillis Gate is not the right place. They would be ideal for a farm based joint venture where you could perhaps link them to Western Riding-a “theme” holiday-of course a shared venture would not reap such high profits as a solo venture.”
hense ‘not in my backyard’ NIMBY to you
people like you should try taking their foot out of their mouths before going nah,nah,nah,nah,nah
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Vintage Vacations have been the most important tourism-based business on the Isle of Wight for the past few years. They have generated millions in PR revenue and gained coverage in certain publications that money simply cannot buy. Last year I was sat on the tube and picked up a copy of ES Magazine and listed in a feature titled ‘The 10 Hottest Destinations on the Planet’ was VV and the IoW, wedged between pics of Kate Moss and the Beckham’s, no matter what you think of those individuals that is product placement at its finest.
VV have tried in vain to find an appropriate site that the planning officers would support, after a number of years they have done so, only to be turned down by a committee soon to be facing re-election and an angry mob of small-minded locals.
If VV had applied to locate on land next to my house I would have had my own personal objections, but in case such as this it is not about me, it is about the Island as a whole, and VV in the scheme of things are far more significant to the future of our Island than me.
As for ‘western-themed holidays’ - whoever pitched this idea has a very limited understanding of what the VV experience is about.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
dont waste your time … take your business elsewhere Dorsets nice “new forest” ideal and No expense of ferries .leave these “Wickermen of the wight” to there white fiberglass boxes they can fully enjoy the silence (empty shops etc)
The shortsighted attitudes of the small minded minority do seem to have more than there say at planning meetings….on the wight … and professional or expert opinion does not really count for anything (Tis Witchcraft) …but consider your self lucky you`ll never be a
accepted by the inbreads ………
November 2nd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Why dont you people who are slagging the resedents just get a life!!! if you all want ten silver caravans in your back garden then you have them! we dont want them around us! yeah call us not in our back yards but its true we dont want them in our back yards and im sure if there was a planning application for them next to your house then you would be objecting to it aswell!!
November 2nd, 2008 at 7:38 pm
If I could get 10 silver caravans in my back yard and charge them rent I would.
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
I see that new Airstreams are now available on this side of the Atlantic. Cheap American tat they are not, at £45000 each.
November 3rd, 2008 (5 weeks ago) at 12:15 pm
Three large ones have been permanently established for the last couple of months or so in a field at Niton (in the AONB), probably without any planning permission. You can see them on the right as you drive out of Niton towards Chale.
November 3rd, 2008 (5 weeks ago) at 4:53 pm
Yeah, I noticed them. Don’t they look fantastic?!
November 3rd, 2008 (5 weeks ago) at 7:28 pm
I shall drive out to see them tomorrow, got to be better than going to Northwood
November 3rd, 2008 (5 weeks ago) at 9:33 pm
Some animals go round marking their territory by urinating on the trees. Some humans can’t bear the sight of a landscape in its natural state and have the urge to put something bright and man-made on it. I can’t say that “fantastic” would be my description, more like “incongruous”.
November 3rd, 2008 (5 weeks ago) at 9:40 pm
I know ..isn’t it terrible we have to build houses to live, offices/factories to work in and roads to get their…how I long for the heady days of the 16th century when all we had to worry about was getting a turnip on the table and not being hung by our masters.
November 3rd, 2008 (5 weeks ago) at 10:52 pm
I would agree with watchdog’s ‘incongruous’ description, alongside the ‘incongruous’ long-stone, tennyson monument, newtown’s acient field structures, carisbrooke castle, osborne estate, needles lighthouse etc.
November 4th, 2008 (5 weeks ago) at 1:29 am
Bravo, kj, a nice riposte. Of course, you know, and I know, that it’s not at all relevant to the question of to what degree our diminishing Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty should be protected from an outcrop of alien playhomes. But a good diversionary effort.
I’m not going to get into an argument with meursault over the merits of ancient monuments, grade I listed buildings, or the safety of mariners, though I do agree that the Tennyson monument is a blot on the landscape - but then, that’s part of the peculiarly British tendency to sycophancy, when a poet’s work ought to be memorial enough.
November 4th, 2008 (5 weeks ago) at 1:39 am
I have seen these in Niton the last two times I drove past. I think they look fine. Although it seems a bit bizarre to say the environs constitute an “Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty”.
I think the AONB tag is being used as an arbitrary “con” by all sorts of vested interests as regards planning on the island. Any old bit of farmland seems to be called an AONB and is being used as an excuse to prevent renovation of cottages of architectural interest in one place and prevent fairly benign development in others. Meanwhile in other locations all sorts of liberties are taken with planning permission when it suits (the pockets of ….?).
I think my original suggestion that there was a Chav mentality predominating (barely literate at that) is ably supported by “Anonaymous” [sic].
Overall I get the impression that any flat development, however speculative or inappropriate, gets a green light and someone trying to bring tourists to the island is a second class citizen. But contrast that with the shed being erected at the eastern end of Ventnor esplanade which seems likely to damage more jobs than it will ever create.
I am depressed by the complete arbitrariness, lack of consistency, and lack of long-term vision that seems to be exhibited in almost every decision.
November 4th, 2008 (5 weeks ago) at 8:50 pm
“Any old bit of farmland seems to be called an AONB”
Indeed. It is also a contradiction in terms, as farmed land is not natural! The whole English patchwork landscape that we generally admire is almost entirely the result of agriculture, and a good job too, or we would never have been able to feed ourselves, but natural it ain’t.
Ancient forests and moorland probably qualify, and a fair bit of coastline, but people readily confuse ‘rustic’ with ‘natural’, so they will gaze sympathetically at a rat-infested derelict barn or cowshed, but write to their MP about some rather rare and stylish caravans.
In any case, anyone who didn’t write letters about the tin shed that currently masquerades as a cinema in Newport has forfeited all rights to complain about anything, IMHO!
November 4th, 2008 (5 weeks ago) at 9:42 pm
I think that both Zoiner and JamesP need to find out a few more facts about the AONB. It is certainly not “any old bit of farmland”. For a start, it has to be in large swathes, as it doesn’t make sense to pick and choose small disconnected pieces pepper-pot style. London parks may be nice, but they are just breathing spaces for the buildings around. The principle of an AONB is a wide natural landscape, and some parts may be of better quality than others. The choice in the Island was subject to a long process of consultation and external inspection and the area was designated in 1963 by the National Parks Commission.
Was anyone at the town meeting at the Winter Gardens recently when the question of traffic and parking on Ventnor Esplanade was discussed ? The most vocal contributors were those businessmen who were slagging off the designation of the esplanade as a Conservation Area, because it inhibited what they could build there. But this also was the subject of wide consultation and evolved as the will of the people to protect their esplanade from the worst excesses of development.
But I’m with Zoiner on his last paragraph. I’ve long looked aghast at the inconsistency of a lot of planning decisions. But since 95% of these are made by the planning case officer, who may have come to the office after a row with the spouse or a bout of indigestion, it’s not surprsing that we get the decisions we get, especially when three-quarters of the UDP has now been abandoned and no-one quite knows what to put in the policy gaps until the new system comes in in 2011.
Under these conditions, I think I would rather trust the reactions of a group of councillors, from all parts of the Island, who have visited the site and made up their own minds independently.