PAPER C

8a) Table showing the percentage of respondents in agreement with the various

proposed developments

Site Proposal % of Respondents in Agreement

Marina Support services for boats 80

Seaclose Quay Cultural/Tourism/Leisure 76.66

Gas Works Car Parking 72.22

Bottle Store Car Parking 71.11

Sea Street 1 Residential/Car Parking 68.89

Little London 2 Employment with some residential 66.66

Little London 1 Residential with some employment 61.11

Blackhouse Quay Employment with some residential 61.11

Sea Street 2 Office with Public Access 61.11

New Quay Residential with some employment 51.11

Over the three days of the public exhibition, Officers spent 17 hours gauging public opinion and listening to public concerns. The comments received can be broadly categorised into areas of concern, the major issue being the lifting cill, closely followed by the type of housing, particularly the provision of social housing. A close third was the continued and improved provision of leisure facilities including toilet/showers, support for Rowing Club access to public slipways, cycle paths, provision for house boat owners and winter boat storage.

1. The Cill

Whether or not any development should include a lifting cill was the biggest single issue. The lifting cill attracted a mixed response with strong arguments being put forward both for and against. A construction of this kind will require investigations into viability, land drainage and impact on natural environment before it can be fully evaluated. The retention of water in the harbour has the potential to dramatically alter the appearance of the quay, whether this alteration would be of benefit or detriment to the unique tidal nature of Newport Harbour, was a matter of debate. The planning brief mentions the potential for a cill to be included in the regeneration of the Harbour but contains caveats that it would need to be demonstrated that land drainage, siltation and impact on nature conservation have been resolved and that the cill will have to be proven to be viable.

COMMENTS REPRODUCED FROM COMMENTS BOOK AT RIVERSIDE CENTRE, 15 16 & 17 JUNE 2002

“Newport Youth Club - Visit to Youth Club. Foot Bridge nearer to where the cill was going to be built”

“A lifting cill is essential!”

“If cill is constructed dry berth facilities should be provided down stream”

“Cill essential and much improved security as Quay vandalism is a put-off for boat owners”

“A lifting cill is essential. Boats is what this area is all about. There is enough residential house although nowhere to park.”

“Leisure attraction will only be successful if tidal barrier incorporated to ensure a minimum water level in harbour”

“The trapped water behind the cill would provide additional opportunity for rowing, particularly in the training of juniors in a safe section as long as public slipways are available.”

“Sound plan. Need for cill and improvements to Sea Street housing and suitable building for staff car park site.”

COMMENTS ADDED TO NEWPORT HARBOUR REGENERATION QUESTIONNAIRE

“No mention on this form of a lifting cill. I think this would be a worthwhile investment which would transform Newport.”

“Why not add a second cill to the plan which could be combined with a footbridge, under the south side of the flyover.

1. The Quay Arts Centre area would be permanently at high water (very scenic)

2. Pedestrians coming down Quay Street could access the Bargeman’s and west bank without having to traverse the narrow road round the Quay Arts Centre

3. The cill - if the lower proposed cill is set say 1 foot down, it would make a permanent small waterfall which would be a welcome distraction form the concrete of the flyover.”

LETTERS REGARDING NEWPORT HARBOUR REGENERATION

“Cill should not be built, would prefer River Medina to remain tidal, essential to maintain character of area.”

“The (Cowes) Harbour Commission fully support the regeneration of Newport Harbour providing the regeneration realises the full potential of the harbour for visiting and permanent leisure craft. The feasibility of a lifting cill should be fully investigate. If commercial shipping traffic is removed from Newport Harbour then it should be found an alternative location.”

2. Housing

While the majority of people accepted that an element of residential development on the Quay would be necessary to enable regeneration and desirable to improve security, there was a demand that any residential accommodation should include affordable housing. Since the total number of new residential units in the regeneration is expected to exceed the 25 unit threshold for Newport, 20% affordable housing will be required as defined by Policy H(14) in the UDP. The planning brief makes the point that any residential development in the area will be expected to make provision for a proportion of affordable housing.

COMMENTS REPRODUCED FROM COMMENTS BOOK AT RIVERSIDE CENTRE, 15, 16 & 17 JUNE 2002

“Would prefer no development at all (impractical?)”

“No more housing. More industrial. There’s enough unemployed, why not create jobs? A quay is about boats and work as in the old pictures not about yuppy houses and pink gins on the patio.”

“No more housing. A more appealing quay would be useful for visiting yachts. It’s the first thing they see on mooring up, so it should be interesting, not houses and industrial units!”

“Re: the housing developments - would prefer affordable housing for local people, not holiday homes!!”

COMMENTS ADDED TO NEWPORT HARBOUR REGENERATION QUESTIONNAIRE

“There is a definite need for affordable accommodation in the area. I am a returning graduate to the Island who cannot afford to buy here. Even more rented accommodation would be welcomed!!”

“The proposed 3 storey flats proposed for the Corporation Quay area are far too high and should be limited to 2 storey.”

3. Leisure Facilities

The planning brief supports the continued use of the river for leisure use, particularly improving facilities for visiting yachts, maintaining access to slipways and providing cycle tracks on both sides.

There was much interest in the idea of retaining water from members of the Rowing club, many of whom see an opportunity of training new rowers, this may be based on a misunderstanding of the area of water proposed to be retained. Unfortunately it will probably be unfeasible to place a cill below the Rowing club due to the SSSI protection of the river below Blackhouse Quay, the River in front of the Rowing Club will therefore remain tidal even if a cill is included in the regeneration of the Harbour.

Currently the Council provides moorings for several house boats and assurance was sort by those that live on the River that their moorings would remain. It is envisaged that a limited number of house boats on the Quay would be of benefit to the general security and character of the area.

COMMENTS REPRODUCED FROM COMMENTS BOOK AT RIVERSIDE CENTRE, 15, 16 & 17 JUNE 2002

“Need to retain in good order existing harbour toilets/shower, Newport Rowing Club is important feature of Harbour and should be supported with development”

“A good opportunity for training new rowers.”

“1 Public slipway required on west bank of river

2 Consider Cultural Strategy - What does it say about leisure/recreational facilities along river bank? Director John Metcalf

3 Is there a need for another community building (see 2 above)

4 If the Seaclose Road is a possible rat run what can be done to resolve the problem at Coppins Bridge - a graceful flyover?? “

COMMENTS ADDED TO NEWPORT HARBOUR REGENERATION QUESTIONNAIRE

“There should be more encouragement for cyclists using Fairlee Road to use the cycle track across Seaclose via Mountbatten Centre.”

“East side of flyover - berthing for small craft and leave pontoons for larger craft. Leave area for scrubbing off and repairs north side of tide cill, this could increase Harbour Master earnings.”

“Retain existing winter boat storage on Quay.”

LETTERS REGARDING NEWPORT HARBOUR REGENERATION

“All facilities for house boats should remain (such as water, showers etc). Repair and refurbish rather than redevelop.”

4. Visual Improvements

Many people commented on the need for visual improvements to the public areas and the importance of suitably designed buildings to enhance the area. The Quay Arts Centre, Jubilee Stores, Bargeman’s Rest and Carpenters Quay were identified as the buildings residents’ felt had special character. The style of these buildings was the preferred style to inspire and/or influence any further development. A list of suggested improvements for the Quay was generated by the questionnaire. This included amongst other ideas support for attractive lighting, well designed street furniture and distinctive signage.

The objective of the planning brief is to promote development and stimulate interest in regeneration of the Harbour. It makes reference to visual appropriateness, character, building form and the quality of the public realm. The planning brief also mentions the need for further design guidance for the larger sites identified. It is a recognized fact that good deign stimulates regeneration and that any planning application for the Quay should consider design as a material consideration in line with the guidelines of the UDP and PPG1.

COMMENTS REPRODUCED FROM COMMENTS BOOK AT RIVERSIDE CENTRE, 15, 16 & 17 JUNE 2002

“Hope the area won’t be too sanitised and tarted up! Thought provoking exhibition.”

“I like the old appearance of the buildings and would like to see the harsh outline of the bridge softened. More signs to show the existence of this area would be worthwhile.”

“Needs investment in nice walkway - lighting and seating - needs to be maintained and accessible. Shelter for sitting and attractions for leisure.”

COMMENTS ADDED TO NEWPORT HARBOUR REGENERATION QUESTIONNAIRE

“1 Sea Street - Seymour House Gap - Car park. Terraced housing should be provided to restore street scene.

2 IWC Staff car park - A suitably designed building must be re-erected to restore street scene.”

“I think an open space should be provided for dancing/musical/street theatre, surrounded by craft/antique shops”

“Re: Travel Inn & Pub - The siting and building design has enhanced this area.

Anything to regenerate this under-used area. What has been done fits in very well but there is still room for improvement.”

“The Quay/harbour area should not be too built-up and the problem of traffic must be addressed. The area should become an amenity for locals and visitors alike, with seats and possibly tables - perhaps allied to a café as in St Thomas’ Square and no car parking should be allowed right beside the river as it is at present. Currently it is too unpleasant and unsafe to sit here with one’s sandwiches or whatever but it could become a safe and pleasant environment to sit or walk and watch the comings and goings of boats etc.”

“Raising Profile

i Proposed car parking to have (or retain) screen walling, particularly Sea Street, bottle store

ii Use of traditional materials for floorscape, Quayside ie Granite setts, Yorkshire stone setts, Brick quays with timber baulks, Large cast iron mooring bollards - NOT - regular blocks, ornamental bollards, sheet piling or concreted quays.

iii Buildings to reflect the warehouse/trading tradition of the area such as the excellent conversion of the warehouses to the Quay Arts Centre and Jubilee Stores

NOT the Riverside Centre.

iv The area marked red - Carpenters Quay? Little London. This area to be support Services for boats rather than residential or office. To retain mooring facilities maybe with living facilities such as those at Bembridge”

LETTERS REGARDING NEWPORT HARBOUR REGENERATION

“Area could be improved with the addition of a section of the land in Sea Street indicated in red on the land use location plan and taken in line with the building on the eastern side of Quay Street and incorporated with landscaped gardens. A footbridge could be installed from the duel carriageway onto the Quay and to cross over the river. There should be less vehicular access on the Quay. There should not be >noise nuisance= related amenities on the Quay.”

5. Car Parking / Coach Parking

Other issues that were raised were the need to retain some car parking on the Quay, particularly for visitors to the Quay Arts Centre and local residences. The continued use of the Quay for coach parking on Tuesdays’ was generally thought to be a bad idea. The Planning brief recognizes that the Harbour lies within Parking Zone 2 of the UDP and while allowing cars and service vehicles to access the Quay makes the point that cars should not be allowed to dominate, shared surfaces are envisaged where pedestrians have right of way.

COMMENTS REPRODUCED FROM COMMENTS BOOK AT RIVERSIDE CENTRE, 15, 16 & 17 JUNE 2002

“The harbour should be marketed entirely as a visitor attraction with coaches etc coming every day!”

“Must retain car parking adjacent to Quay Arts Centre”

“Re: Parking facilities for residents of Quay Street, also businesses in Quay Street”

COMMENTS ADDED TO NEWPORT HARBOUR REGENERATION QUESTIONNAIRE

“No coach parking on Quay please”

“Whilst welcoming the proposed development I believe it is critically important that adequate parking is retained. Working at the Quay Arts Centre I am aware that it attracts 100,000 visitors a year. The loss of parking would have a massive detrimental effect on access for the organisation and undermine the Islands only main cultural asset.”

6. Bus Museum

The Planning brief designates the east Quay for museums with support for a maritime theme, it was thought that the Bus museum would relocate to Haven Street. However, the Bus Museum Committee have written expressing a wish to remain on the Quay.

COMMENTS REPRODUCED FROM COMMENTS BOOK AT RIVERSIDE CENTRE, 15, 16 & 17 JUNE 2002

“Want Bus Museum to stay”

“Bus Museum No. Boats YES!!!”

LETTERS REGARDING NEWPORT HARBOUR REGENERATION

1. In support of retaining the Bus Museum on the Quay from the Bus Museum Committee

2. In support of retaining the Bus Museum on the Quay from the Bus Museum Secretary

7. Dredging

Several harbour users commented on the condition of the harbour walls and the lack of dredging of the harbour, particular concern was raised that a cill would cause the build up of sediment. The Coastal Manager did speak at the public meeting on the issue of dredging and admits that there is a build up of sediment in the harbour caused by the reduction of larger vessels using the harbour and a lack of regular dredging in recent years. Council Officers are currently seeking advice on the likely costs of repairing the harbour walls, dredging the harbour and building a cill.

COMMENTS REPRODUCED FROM COMMENTS BOOK AT RIVERSIDE CENTRE, 15, 16 & 17 JUNE 2002

“The harbour improves very slowly, but never seems to get a good dredge!”

COMMENTS ADDED TO NEWPORT HARBOUR REGENERATION QUESTIONNAIRE

“We cannot afford to keep the harbour dredged now - what hope is there to remove the silt that will inevitably deposit in the harbour should the flow be restricted by a cill!!!”

LETTERS REGARDING NEWPORT HARBOUR REGENERATION

“A cill would provide good conditions for rowers to train. Mud should be removed from the Quay end of the river. Provision should be made for improvement of the slipways and construction of a new slipway within the Blackhouse Quay vicinity.”

8. General comments about Consultation

Generally the public consultation was well received and the response encouraging. There were inevitably those who, through nostalgia, would have liked the area to remain a working harbour and many had fond memories of bygone days. It was suggested that displays showing the history of the harbour and the display of historic vessels on the quay should be included in the visual improvements to the public spaces. The harbour has a special character and it was felt generally that any proposed development should respect the historical character of the harbour.

COMMENTS REPRODUCED FROM COMMENTS BOOK AT RIVERSIDE CENTRE, 15, 16 & 17 JUNE 2002

“Public consultation completely ignored!”

“Your displays were not easily accessible to wheelchair users. Great photos. Don’t remove the car parks or people won’t come!!”

“OK - some to the text a bit small.”

“Very interesting.”

“Longstone Films, Promotional Videos.”

“(MV, Calbourne (Barge)). Very interesting and informative, thanks.”

“Harbour Development Group – Developers”

9. Meeting with land owners

After the public consultation, an informal meeting was held between Council Officers and landowners/tenants of the west bank to discuss the planning brief. Those that attended gave full support for the aims and objectives of the brief and shared willingness to work with the Council. Southern Electric commented at this meeting that residential development adjacent to their electrical Sub Station on the West bank may be problematic. It was agreed that careful consideration of design and layout on this would be required on this site and that Southern Electric would be consulted on any proposed layout. It was agreed that a future meeting be held to see how the Council and adjoining owners would progress the redevelopment of the west bank.

CONCLUSION

The Public Consultation has been a valuable exercise in gauging local opinions about the Council’s aspirations for the Harbour. The issues and concerns raised have been debated and explained, allowing supporters and objectors to understand the evolution of the Harbour and its need for change. The Officers involved have appreciated the views and opinions expressed and reviewed the content of the Planning Brief. At this point we feel that the planning brief sufficiently covers all the issues raised through the Consultation process to be recommended to the Executive for adoption as Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Members views are sought on the planning brief becoming Supplementary Planning Guidance.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Report of the Questionnaire results. Appendix A
Press Articles reporting on the planning brief and the consultation. Appendix B
Pamphlet delivered to all addresses within study area advising of the public consultation.
List of attendees and representations
Letters received regarding the planning brief.

Contact Point: Dave Moore, Principal Planning Officer, Tel: 823558

Jo Murray-Smith, Urban Designer, Tel: 823554

M FISHER

Strategic Director of Corporate and Environment Services