County Hall refused the latest attempt to build 12 houses on the edge of Newport yesterday evening (Tuesday).
The council’s planning committee rejected Mrs C. Ferns’ revised proposal for a development with vehicle and pedestrian access on Landscape Lane, off Long Lane.
The rejection went against officers’ recommendation which was for conditional approval.
It was declined due to a lack of ‘adequate provision’ for ‘safe pedestrian access’ to public footways and local services, deemed detrimental to both pedestrian and highway safety, in wording put forward by Oliver Boulter, strategic manager for planning and infrastructure delivery.
Councillor Geoff Brodie, representative for Pan and Barton, said:
“People do regularly walk through the area, there are rights of way nearby, crossing the road is not good.
“We’re missing an opportunity here for a good pedestrian crossing.
“I’d like to formally propose that we refuse this application, largely on highway safety issues.”
Article continues below this advertisement
Councillor Matthew Price, representative for Fairlee and Whippingham, said:
“The local highway footway network is not improved and is in fact disadvantaged by this application.
“The complete ignoring of the Long Lane connectivity is unbelievably dangerous and embarrasing.”
Town planning consultant Phil Salmon, Mrs Ferns’ agent, said:
“The scheme is fully compliant with adopted local planning policy and now the new National Planning Policy Framework published just at the end of last week.
“Housing need for the Island is under new calculation methods, now at over 1,000 dwellings per year whilst the submitted Island planning strategy provides just 453 per year.
“This is reflective of historic under-achievement of housing delivery against actual need.
“There are not enough houses being built, evident by the lack of opportunities for local people to rent or buy or move within the housing market.”
The Landscape Lane proposal included 2x 4-bed houses, 3x bungalows, 5x 3-bed houses and 2x 2-bed houses.
Recent revisions include an adjusted site boundary and general revisions to the application’s block plan, announced in September.
Committee members voted on Mrs Ferns’s application due to it being ‘contentious’ among the ‘wider Island communities’ and its ‘potential significant impact’ on the proposed development site’s locality, a council report said.
There are too many homes on the island for sale
on Rightmove.
Also the derelict hotels and holiday centres could
be converted into housing.
I am reading this from the other side of the world! Being a private planner/architectural and heritage consultant myself, we have a system whereby the local authority, when a development is of a certain level, the recommendation is through a Design Advisory Committee. Employed by the LA and on a 3-4 year tenure, local architectural/planning.heritage professionals, including the council planner, sit down with the client and discuss the proposal. Recommendations are delivered and adjustments are made. Once this process is ‘approved’ local councillors are notified of this engagement. During the process local councillors are invited to the site, any questions raised are then dealt with. One recent project secured three DAC meetings, on site and approval was unanimous at council level. It can be done; there needs to be a robust planning framework. This access through would have been a red flag raised early in the review and should have been dealt with.
As Alex says this seems something that could / should have been discussed, amended and agreed prior to consideration of the application. I live very nearby the site and cannot see any practical reason for a proposal such as this to be refused as long as the lane itself is improved and not worsened by it. This lane is currently narrow with no pavement and is, therefore, dangerous for pedestrians ( and even vehicles ). It’s used as a rat run between Staplers Road and Long Lane and would benefit greatly from widening and the addition of at least a pavement to one side ( which could be paid for by such a developemnt under condition of approval ). A wasted opportunity and somewhat incompetent planning in my view
Yet again this will be appealed and the council will lose and probably cost the local taxpayers money, that there isnt a pedestrian crossing is not the fault or concern of the would be developer.