For the first time in nearly 10 years, 100 affordable houses have been provided in a year on the Isle of Wight.
4 months on from the approval of the Isle of Wight Council’s 5-year housing strategy, the council’s cabinet was told on Thursday night of the ‘significant progress’ early plans and policies have made.
Successes include plans to build another 300 affordable houses in the next few years, 600 affordable homes in the pipeline for the next 5 years with the council working in partnership with housing associations and a new long-term COVID-safe homeless facility is being made.
The government has agreed the Isle of Wight can receive the social housing grant, which will allow housing associations to claim sufficient funding to provide homes at an affordable level or 60% of the market rent.
Sites for affordable houses have been identified to maximise the provision including on Eddington Road in Nettlestone, and Taylor Road in Carisbrooke, with land release funding applied for.
Cabinet member for planning and housing, Councillor Barry Abraham, said the council could be proud of the strategy’s success but it was only the start. He said:
“It is certainly not where we want to be or where we need to be.
“There are a lot of people on the Island who are struggling to find anywhere to live. It is something that does need to be looked at and we can help more people.
Article continues below this advertisement “It is our vision to enable everyone living on the Island to have a place they can call home.”
The housing strategy was approved in October 2020 with 6 main focus areas, including the new housing supply on the Island, homelessness and housing needs and affordable housing, and commits the council and its housing partner to delivering the outcomes.
So far, of the 48 actions proposed to be completed in the first year of the strategy, 40 have been achieved, another 7 have been started and 1 has not been achieved in its project timescale but could be done before its annual review.
Due to COVID-19, a positive housing campaign to ‘break down resistance’ to new housing developments on the Island has had to be put on hold.
“There are a lot of people on the Island who are struggling to find anywhere to live
………..
no there aren’t – i didn’t notice great swathes of islanders in shop doorways with bundles of cash just looking for a home.
perhaps if the island adopted a more stringent strategy on buying second homes and refused to accept benefit claimants from other areas moving to the island, then there would be no need to build more houses, as we already have enough
why they feel the need to gloat about concreting over the natural beauty of the island and destroying the natural habitats of creatures, as well as felling CO2 extracting trees is beyond me.
Let’s be realistic, thoes houses will be for people from the mainland, not for island residents wanting to be housed.
And when the mainland residents move to the island, “Where” are they going to Work???..
Whist we can speak freely of seeing the ‘ills’ of mainland residents moving here, we ALL have to never mention the obvious REAL problem of the ‘worlds poor’ filling the UK, making much of the building necessary. They never arrive with a home. THINK.
No job, no home, no infrastructure no building, provide the infrastructure and the jobs then build the homes..
Without it we end up with higher crime and getoese, with just one hospital…Planning the building without everything that needs to go with it will make everything else a disaster..
Have you noticed that when you become a councillor you have to learn a different language, i think its called
TOSH. I think Kite Hill looks ripe for affordable housing. What thinks you councillor Abrahams? Yea YOU start to breakdown new housing resistance by encouraging new housing in the Wooten bridge area. Bet you dont.
How can it be said that more affordable homes are required when estate agents have many first time buyer properties around £80,000 to £150,000.
What is wrong with starting at the bottom of the property market and working your way up as other generations have done.
Is it just that many of the purchasers want to move directly into a nice 3 bed property with their already produced 3 kids and then reap the subsidies available?
This generation have been told by the Liberal and Left, that they can mess about at school, yet still be given costly extra help, IF they come to their senses later.
They are then told they can have a child or children, YET still go back to college and gain an education they missed, costing us all a fortune as we are already paying for their ‘clones’ then their state provided home, then there ‘decided’ college course of ‘health and beauty’ whilst we fund their clones in a creche whilst they ‘decide’ whether to attend or go to the beach instead.
Then as you say they Expect a home of their own, so long as others fund that too.
Where you looking then people have the right and of they can afford it to buy something in s decent area for the first time haven’t they
2 questions for our beloved council:
1. Please define ‘affordable’ as used in the context.
2. Where are the occupants to be gainfully employed?
Answers in the standard council brown envelope.
Sorry, the brown envelopes are reserved for other purposes.
Mmmm .Get your Drift HH I think LARGE jiffy bags could be the order of the day
You couldn’t buy a affordable home on benefits
Another typical IWC “success” story: “We have a plan to build 300, 600, 900 houses sometime, not sure where…” A plan worthy of Bozo himself.
‘4 months on from the approval of the IOW Council’s 5yr housing strategy”? I thought this was a “DRAFT” document for consultation until 13 March 2021? Reading between the lines the Council are shifting their argument to play to the gallery of the Social Housing lobbying and are even asking us the great unwashed where all the Brownfield sites are! Still, all is not lost, our local landowners and developers can continue to submit their Design Access Statements full of greenfield affordable housing and eco sustainability nonsense.
You see what happens? You see what happens, Barry? This is what happens when you let a developer on your grass!
Why oh why ,is carisbrooke and Gunville to expect more
This Population /Immigration crisis is rampant all over the Country. Most people do not want mass housing, but we all want to be in a better place. In a nutshell successive governments have failed to address the issues.
Sorry, and are continuing to fail to address the issue.
Too many here where such immigration number are CURRENTLY quite low, can’t ‘see’ the link between such filling the mainland housing stock and then this in turn causes many who no longer recognise their own home towns and villages to move here to escape such, then adding to OUR housing problem
We can’t stop OUR people coming here yet our Gov COULD stop the worlds.
What seriously concerns me, is that the council want to build hundreds if not thousands of new homes.
But I never hear anything about upgrading the transport infrastructure (roads).
The Elephant in the room is the fact that, for every single house built, you will have a minimum of 2 extra cars on the roads.
In future couples will maybe have 2 children, which will inevitably lead to 2 more cars.
Anyone who drives around the island knows that we already suffer with gridlocks every day.
The roads simply can’t take anymore vehicles.
It is impossible to widen the main artery roads, because on either side there are properties.
The government want immigration, despite what they might say publicly.
more people means more cash is needed in society, which means a greater need for pound sterling. This demand ensures the banks etc can create more credit and the government gets more money printed up to meet demand, as well as increasing its revenue streams.
This has the effect of creating inflation and helping to inflate away the debts piled up by incompetent politicians over the years whose policies were designed to ensure they got re-elected and not for the benefit of the countries finances.
same as isle of wight council
more houses built, means more money for them
more houses built, means more council tax revenue for them – either from occupiers or from govt.
more houses built, means more parking revenue for them
more houses built, means more money for them in every way
the council has a vested interest in more houses – greenfields and trees do not fund their inflated pay packets.
Spot on Isle of Wighter. A larger pot of income from c tax means they can then ‘take’ more out, without it looking so bad as it would from a smaller income stream, when they take their salaries, pensions and huge expenses from the ‘pot’.
Disgusting beings, care nothing for the Island OR the islanders, just themselves.
V o t e wiserly all
Ridiculous to put them in Nettlestone, should always be in areas where transport and work is nearby, for a variety of reasons especially if not car owners and to keep expenses down.
If people really believed that housing construction was a problem, then they would stop voting for the conservatives and vote for local candidates who are opposed to the unnecessary and short sighted construction we are seeing currently
there arent any who oppose it – the supposed greens are very quiet on this point – lowthian should be shouting from the rooftops about it, but she isn’t – they are no better.