Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Skip Navigation LinksHome

`UGLY` ECO HOME MUST BE CHANGED

By Richard Wright - Wednesday, February 6, 2008
`UGLY` ECO HOME MUST BE CHANGED
The eco house at the centre of controversy in Ventnor. Picture by Peter Boam.
AN ECO-house branded “hideous and ugly” by councillors should be modified by its owner to comply with the planning permission which allowed it to be built.
A catalogue of differences, including a bigger balcony, larger dormer windows and a garden chalet — said to compromise the privacy of neighbours — was detailed to a meeting of the IW Council’s planning committee that unanimously decided not to accept the revisions.
Owner Michael Jennings applied to retain the house — on land between Boulders and 3 Undercliff Gardens, Ventnor — as it had been built.
He said: “I find it difficult to accept the organised agitation which shows local democracy in its worst light.”
He said he hoped councillors had been able to see his home’s eco credentials on their site visit.
“I hope this meeting brings to an end the costly use of council resources and let us all get on with our lives,” said Mr Jennings.
Neighbour Don Prescott claimed the house was an adaptation of a permission granted unlawfully and any other decision than removal of the existing building could result in judicial review.
Development control manager Andrew Pegram said he investigated the allegation of unlawfulness and officers were satisfied permission was valid.
Scores of individuals and local councillors opposed the application.
Cllr Susan Scoccia said: “The developer has treated the planning department with what I can only say is contempt. If we allow this, we will be allowing a free-for-all.”
Cllr Muriel Miller said: “There are no fewer than 14 differences from the plan.
“I am very surprised the planning inspector should support several of these faults being covered up with bamboo screening. You cannot cover up a planning gaffe with bamboo.”
Cllr Henry Adams said: “This is a hideous building. I feel very sympathetic to the neighbours who have to look at it every day.”
The meeting was told the inspector dismissed an appeal by the applicant but expressed a view that design differences could be dealt with by way of a fresh planning application.
A report to the meeting said: “Given the inspector’s clearly expressed views, were members to go against the proposal as now submitted, it would be necessary to clearly identify, quite precisely, why the submission was unacceptable.”
The application was refused because of its design and effect on neighbours’ privacy.
After the meeting, Mr Jennings said: “The house is no bigger than it should be. I am waiting to see what I am being asked to do. If this is all about the size of the dormers and the balcony, then I can comply.”