APPENDIX 1

Fishbourne Quay

Response to public consultation on paper seeking to establish the way forward.

The Executive agreed to consult the public on the above paper as preparation for establishing a planning brief for Fishbourne Quay.

The paper was circulated to 45 addresses of local residents and businesses and advertised in the County Press. This resulted in the distribution of a further 15 copies of the paper. To date (of this paper) 29 detailed replies have been received in direct response to the consultation and one additional letter concerning a current use of the site. Some of the responses only relate to one or other of the main issues raised in the paper, ie the future development of the quay area or suggested alternative traffic circulation arrangements, others have responded to both issues.

Land Use and Development Issues

Eight respondents specifically support the suggested development arrangement of marine related employment use with some residential development to the east subject to adequate noise safeguards. Other related comments/caveats to the support include suggestions that:- all traffic including construction traffic, should be via Ranalagh Drive; housing density should be low, ie.1/4 acre plots; the foreshore to the NE is a haven for bird life and should not be built on; concern that the housing would be built without achieving the additional employment; support for some housing but not on the waterfront; support for the mixed housing and marine related uses but not industry per say due to noise and pollution potential. Three specifically wish to see small boat services as part of the development and one supports marine based activities on the site but not any housing. 

One respondent considers that there should be no benefit derived from development of the filled in lagoon area (NB it was not classified as a SSSI when it was filled as is suggested)

Wootton Bridge Parish Council, as the adjoining parish, support the mixed development suggested in the paper.

Queens Harbour Master does not consider that the piers proposed to date interfere with navigation. The adjoining land/foreshore owner to the south has raised concerns over the stability of his seawalls and need for geological surveys should additional dredging be considered.

TST, one of the existing employers on the site are seeking to expand their employment from 15 to 30 people this year and require access to the water for engineering operations to marine structures which are a high proportion of their work. They support the suggested land use arrangements.

Mr Cheek, the owner of Ranalagh Drive expresses the view that it is important not to loose further waterside industrial sites as although there are few industries requiring waterfront sites they are important to the local economy and employment. He therefore supports the retention of marine related industry and draws attention to the shortage of yacht storage facilities on the Island which bring boats for refitting work and hence employment. He expressed the preference that the housing element should be low rise, courtyard style rather than high rise.

It has been pointed out that a comprehensive approach to the development should be supported and may be required to address the believed need for a pumped sewer from the site.

Three detailed concepts have been submitted for consideration by Aluminium Ship builders, one of the main owners, based upon 1) the consultation paper layout, 2) suggestions being made by the other land owner and 3) an all residential development which is not preferred but is submitted to ensure that such an option is an alternative considered by the Council. The illustrated access arrangement from Ashlake Copse road in each is assumed to be an error.

Concept 1) shows 10 semi-detached houses to the east of the site, the retention of the existing Aluminium Shipbuilders 10500 sq ft workshop, 8000 sq ft of new industrial space (shown as four 2000 sq ft units) a small marina 22/24 berths and boat storage area.

Concept 2) provides replacement workshops and offices for Aluminium Shipbuilders and two 1500 sq ft units, replaces the existing workshops with 25 no. 1-3 bedroom apartments on 2 and three storeys and 8 semi-detached houses to the east (incorporating Ashlake Corner) [could be 4 semi-detached units as in concept 1 without Ashlake Corner] The existing slipway has a new boat repair jetty alongside and 30 marina berths are recreated.

Concept 3) shows 8 semi-detached houses as in concept 2, an extension of the 25 apartments in concept 2 to 35 apartments in place of the existing Aluminium Ship Builders workshop and in addition a block of 30 no. 1-3 bedroom apartments on the infilled lagoon area. The waterfront area is shown as a 76 berth marina.                                                                                     

Unfortunately neither the other land owner nor the developer who has an option on that land has responded to the consultation despite earlier indications from both that they were keen to be involved in the consultation and agreeing to respond within an extended time period.

English Nature support the direction for the site as set out in the consultation paper with residential areas to the rear and keeping coastal access for industrial and employment use. In particular they support the use of the infilled lagoon for hardstanding only as a quiet open space for use such as boat storage. They are concerned as to how to prevent the creep of industrial units onto the infilled area. They note that any buildings on the site should be designed to cope with potential flooding and should not make demands for future coastal defence works. It is also suggested that Aims of the brief should also promote development compatible with wildlife interests.

Wightlink have commented that they are disappointed at not being directly consulted. They are supportive of marine related industry but not residential development, which does not require waterfrontage. They comment that the ferry now has a 24 hour operation and that they are subject to complaints now due to residential development being allowed around the ferry terminal and the associated road infrastructure over the last 60 years. They consider that additional residential development will create more complaints about traffic levels and noise.

Access Issues

Concerns were expressed about safety issues at junctions and the desirability or not of the suggested one way system.

In relation to the junction of Ranalagh Drive and Fishbourne Lane the width of the “Keep Clear” zone markings have been reduced in width following re-surfacing which currently causes problems for turning vehicles, particularly lorries, when ferry traffic is backed up beyond this junction. It is suggested that a ‘Yellow Box Zone’ is required together with enforcement. It is pointed out that vehicle turning left are viewed as queue jumpers by ferry traffic. Four respondents specifically raised concern over the volume of traffic in Fishbourne Lane and one of these suggests that minimising traffic from Fishbourne Quay should be a constraint on development. It is also suggested that “30MPH” signs should be painted on the road surface of Fishbourne Lane as a reminder of the speed limit.

The speed of traffic entering Ranalagh Drive from Fishbourne Lane causes a safety problem for vehicles leaving the drive of Tudor Lodge, The Poplars. It is contended that increased traffic from Fishbourne Quay will increase this hazard and it is not appropriate to add more traffic from Ashlake Copse Road. A suggestion that speed control measures could be introduced has raised an objection to speed humps due to noise and vibration.

The views expressed about the suggested making of Ashlake Copse Road a one way route range from ‘the most stupid and dangerous idea’ to ‘This will enhance the safety aspect’.

The owner of Ranalagh Drive points out that it was originally envisaged to provide improved access to Fishbourne Quay but that if it was to be of overall benefit to the community he would not object to the one way proposal but would prefer the two way use of the first part of Ashlake Copse Road. to be retained.

Three specifically support the one way suggestion on the grounds of enhanced safety, particularly at the blind bend and by removing the exit turn directly on to Fishbourne Lane. Three consider the one way system to be unacceptable and unfair to properties at the southern end of the Road and comment is made about the impact of Ashlake Copse Road traffic on properties at the Poplars.

Variations on the one way route are suggested for consideration, Leaving Ashlake Copse Road two way up to the blind bend only; or make it one way for the Fishbourne Quay access as well or the view that reversing the one way north to south has some merit. It is suggested by a number of respondents that with the Fishbourne Quay traffic removed there is no need for a one way system.

There are two opposing views about whether it is appropriate to allow traffic from Ashlake Road to exit on to Ranalagh Drive. Two specifically consider that a lockable barrier should be constructed to create a cul-de-sac as had previously been considered. It is also suggested that if a through route is created locals might use Ashlake Copse Road and Ranalagh Drive to jump the ferry queues at busy times. The cul-de-sac approach would still allow some infill plots with their traffic generation in lieu of the removed Fishbourne Quay traffic.

The other view is that vehicles should be able to leave Ashlake Copse Road with a right turn only junction into Ranalagh Drive irrespective of whether there is a one way route or two way traffic in Ashlake Copse Road.. It is suggested that such a free flow of traffic would be desirable and reduce movements at the Ashlake Copse Road/Fishbourne Lane junction without providing access to the Quay from that junction. This will also remove the need for a turning area which would be needed with the barrier approach. Access to the properties Fairhaven and Ashlake Corner would have to be via Ranalagh Drive as they lie beyond the junction as would access to the driveway of the property Clymping. Clymping have commented that they would wish to retain access via Ashlake Copse Road to avoid traffic queuing beyond Ranalagh Drive and have a key to any barrier or be able to turn left towards their drive at the end of Ashlake Copse Road.

The view is also expressed that Ashlake Copse Road should remain two way but only for access to the houses with the option of both entry or exit at both Fishbourne Lane and Ranalagh Drive. It is suggested that this would overcome many of the objections to the options in the paper and split the traffic flow between both entrances and minimise traffic over the surface of Ashlake Copse Road..

Two respondents refer to restrictions in their deeds which might also relate to other properties in that their right to pass over Ashlake Copse Road is ‘ for the purpose of access to and from Fishbourne Lane and no other purpose over and above the Road/Lane to the north of the Road/Lane’. I take this to mean that their access right is only to the south of their properties. Whilst resolvable this would need to be with the agreement of any beneficiaries of that covenant, I assume the owner of the road.

Two comment that the one way system cannot work because the drive of another property makes it impossible to turn left to travel north. Having checked with the owner he can and does in fact manoeuver to turn left and with minor changes he believes this could be eased.

The condition of Ashlake Copse Road and lack of maintenance is raised together with the question of future ownership and liability for repair if it is no longer used or required by the development at Fishbourne Quay. It is suggested that the worst section should be made up before the alternative route is opened up.

Planning Conditions

Two respondents specifically request that the planning condition for the provision of a wall between numbers 2 and 4 the Poplars and Ranalagh Drive be enforced (one being from 4 the Poplars) while two others (one being from 2 the Poplars) request that the trees be kept instead of a wall due to concern over its visual impact and as it is a more rural solution and absorbs rather than reflects sound. The trees do however pose a visibility problem in the immediate vicinity of the junction of the Poplars with Ranalagh Drive. Members have previously agreed to re-visit this issue when Ranalagh Drive is opened to traffic to Fishbourne Quay. 

Other issues

The owner of the intertidal land to the north of the shingle bank points out that the stabilisation of the shingle bank was a condition of the sale of the site and looks to steps being take to prevent future erosion of the shingle bank. They also request that there should not be access over the NE boundary of the site onto their land which is leased to the Royal Victoria Yacht Club. It should be noted that the future of coastal management around the mouth of Wootton Creek is to be part of a study to be undertaken this year by the Council.

The need to properly culvert the ditches where Ranalagh Drive is to cross into Ashlake Copse Road has also been raised to ensure the maintenance of proper drainage.

Two letters have been received which question the recently commenced use of part of Fishbourne Quay as a staff carpark by Wightlink personnel with a resulting increase in traffic along Ashlake Copse Road.. This has been passed to enforcement officers for investigation.

There appear to be suggestions circulating in the area that either Wightlink are going to make up Ashlake Copse Road or that the Council are going to adopt it. As far as the latter point is concerned it is not the policy of the Council to adopt any sub-standard private roads. It would also be difficult to make the road up to adoptable standards.

Five letters specifically thank the Council for their consultation and pro-active approach to trying to resolve long standing problems and issues and one specifically welcomes the consideration of compulsory purchase to resolve long standing problems.

Conclusions

Appropriate level and type of development of Fishbourne Quay

Of the three detailed options supplied for consideration concept 3 shows the whole of the site, including the reclaimed land, to be developed for over 60 residential apartments on 2 to three floors. This proposed built development extends well beyond the development envelope approved in the UDP. It clearly represents the type of scheme which was rejected by the Inspector at the UDP enquiry. The rear of the site includes 8 semi-detached houses. There is no employment generation other than that for the construction and perhaps from the 75 berth marina. It is likely that such a scheme would also generate demand for additional coastal defences to protect the site contrary to the views of English Nature.

The concept 2 option relocates Aluminium Shipbuilders to the north and provides them with a larger building (11,500 sq ft.) and two additional units of 1,500 sq ft each. This extends north beyond the development envelope boundary and uses part of the hardstanding area for buildings and car parking. This scheme uses the current workshops site for 25 residential apartments on 2 to 3 floors and brings residential building on to the developed waterfront (apart from a strip labled ‘winter boat storage’). The rear of the site is again shown to provide for 8 semi-detached houses, including the redevelopment of Ashlake Corner.

The concept 1 option based on the layout in the consultation paper shows 10 semi-detached dwellings but does not include a re-development of Ashlake Corner so on the common basis with the above schemes there are potentially another six dwellings. The Aluminium Shipbuilders building remains at 10,500 sq ft and there are four additional workshop units of 2,000 sq ft each. This clearly maximises the employment potential of the site. Carparking is placed between the houses and the new workshops to separate these uses and would reduce car usage on the frontage of the site. In addition to the open boat storage there are also 22 or 24 small boat berths as well as the boat dock and repair berths.

There is a broad consensus amongst the respondents that marine related industry is appropriate for the site and that the waterfront should be reserved for this use. There is also support for some residential development, subject to safeguards such as noise control, to support the provision of employment. The use of the hardstanding area created from the filling of the lagoon needs to respect the nature conservation value of the adjoining Special Protection Area and SSSI. The shortage of small boat hardstanding and facilities and their employment generation potential is highlighted. The response would suggest that the concept 1 layout would be acceptable to many of those responding.

Maintenance of Ashlake Copse Road

There is concern amongst many of the residents about the current condition of the road surface of Ashlake Copse Road and lack of maintenance. Whilst Aluminium Shipbuilders have in the past filled pot holes it is understood that responsibility for the road does not lie with them but with the other owner of land at Fishbourne Quay. Some residents apparently have to contribute to maintenance costs but it is not known which properties this applies to. The removal of traffic to Fishbourne Quay is welcomed but concern that there will be no future maintenance if the road is no longer required by the owners of the Quay for access. The residents wish the road to be made up before the alternative access via Ranalagh Drive is opened up. It is not likely that the Council will adopt Ashlake Copse Road or that it could easily be made up to adoptable standards. Adoptions standards in any case would change the current rural character of the road which is also a public footpath for much of it’s length. If the road is not required for Fishbourne Quay then it is only the residents who will in future benefit from the road and ensuring its ongoing maintenance. With many private roads ownership and maintenance responsibility is vested in the properties fronting the road. This is perhaps the only way in which residents will be able to ensure the future upkeep of the road if this can be agreed with the current owner and all residents are prepared to be involved.

Traffic Circulation

The one way system suggested in the consultation paper, as expected, did not find favour with those who would have further to travel along Ashlake Copse Road as a result. However the ability to exit via Ranalagh Drive was seen as being beneficial for those on the northern part of the road.. There may be a restriction on the deeds of some houses to prevent this which would need to be resolved. There appears to be a general consensus that the current two way system should remain but that there should be a choice of exiting via Ranalagh Drive to overcome the need for a turning area which would be required if it were to effectively become a cul-de-sac should a lockable barrier be installed. The exit from Ashlake Copse Road to Ranalagh Drive should be a right turn only to prevent the continued use of Ashlake Copse Road by traffic to the Quay. This would mean that access to Ashlake Corner, the right of access to Fairhaven and the vehicular access to the rear of Clymping would have to be from Ranalagh Drive only. Clymping in particular wishes to continue to use Ashlake Copse Road and to be able to turn left at the end of the road. This will only be practical if the means of preventing left turns for most traffic is removable by Clymping. It may be that lockable bollards could provide a solution with Fairhaven also having a key if required. It is pointed out that with the removal of traffic to the Quay there would be lighter traffic loads on Ashlake Copse Road and that the capacity gained could be taken up to serve the few potential infill housing plots. Whilst there will be a reduction in traffic levels if the two way traffic system continues the problem of the narrowness of the Fishbourne Lane/Ashlake Road junction will still remain a constraint as will the blind bend by Woodside.

The increase in traffic along Ranalagh Drive from the Quay and Ashlake Copse Road is not welcomed by residents in the Drive or the Poplars and concern is raised about safety issues at the junction with Fishbourne Lane. Excessive speed of traffic turning in from Fishbourne Lane is also raised as a safety issue but one resident has already objected to any suggestion of installing speed humps as a method of reducing speeds. The keep clear area at the junction needs to be extended to prevent conflict with traffic queuing for the ferry and could become a yellow box junction. It will need to provide sight lines of local traffic for vehicles exiting across queuing ferry traffic. It is suggested that if two way traffic in Ashlake Copse Road is retained there should be no access to Ashlake Copse Road from Ranalagh Drive to reduce potential traffic entering Ranalagh Drive from Fishbourne Lane.