Plans for 7 houses in Gurnard have once again been turned down.
Previously rejected last year, a second application put forward by Glen Hepburn, of Hepburns Planning Consultancy, have followed the same route, with planning officers finding 6 reasons to refuse the outline permission.
The application for the housing scheme on Lower Church Road and Cockleton Lane had drawn more than 60 objections from residents, with only 3 in favour.
Gurnard Parish Council were among those to object and even called an extraordinary meeting to discuss the application, ultimately deciding the housing would go against the Gurnard Neighbourhood Plan and have a detrimental impact.
Those in favour of the development of all 2-bed houses said it would enable young families, some of whom may have lived in Gurnard their entire life, to be able to afford a property in the area.
It had been argued in the most recent planning application, that the reasons for refusal had been overcome. However, despite the changes, one of the same reasons for refusal given last year has remained – the development would still result in an urbanising impact which would detract from the rural character of the area and, by virtue, its encroachment into the undeveloped nature of the Gurnard Luck Valley.
The proposal also failed to mitigate for affordable housing or the identified impacts to the Solent special protection area.
Concerns were also raised to the archaeological nature of the site as only a desk-based assessment was carried out. The assessment said there was moderate to high potential of deposits from the Iron Age and Roman date which could be of high significance.
Planning officers said a more in-depth evaluation needed to be done prior to any positive determination of the application.
Areas of the scheme had improved though and overcame the impact on neighbouring properties, due to reorientation and movement of some units.
The applicant does however have the right to appeal the decision to the Planning Inspectorate, should they wish.
No more houses anywhere on the Island. There will never come a time when they say we at last have “enough” houses, because there will always be more people. That is the problem that no one dares look at.
Very well said Island born & bred Given that most houses have 2 cars at least now where the hell are they going to drive to the roads are bunged up now
How should it be “looked at” exactly? Got a plan?
To many people living on a small island, to many people living on a slightly bigger island, to many people living on a small planet.
It is time to start thinking outside of the box and be brave enough to stop keeping our heads buried in the sand. Solutions ? Mass sterilisation ? Mass volunteer euthanasia ? Mass ban on religion ? We have had our chance, and blown it.
These solutions would not happen overnight, but over the next couple of centuries. Bit drastic, but in the big scheme of things, I think not.
Humans can’t be trusted.
( The only downside is all of the paperwork lol). Sorted Innit.
If the government stopped giving perpetual handouts to the obvious benefit breeders who have been drastically increasing their numbers since at least the 1980s if not before, would be a start and would discourage many of them from breeding. Stop allowing into the country people from anywhere in the world who follow a religion that encourages as much breeding as possible. Drug addicts and alcoholics who have kid after kid, only to be taken into care because their mothers are unfit, should be sterilised to prevent any more kids coming from that particular source. People with no lives or awareness but kept alive merely to please someone else, should be allowed to die with some dignity. All this is just a start and would not solve anything overnight but in time would see some benefit from it.
Great news. Hopefully this “developer” will never get the necessary permission as I doubt that most will see past the lie of “affordability for the young locals”
7 new houses on green grass in Gurnard is urbanisation, so rejected
so what is 473 new houses on farmland in Ryde?
how do these planning officers do their job with straight faces
I will guarantee that at least some of these Objectors live in some of the relatively new houses that have been build in the Gurnard area.
Okay for THEM to have a nice sea view etc, etc…
Just saying…
they should get their metal detectors out and hunt for the iron age and roman treasures in their back gardens
If it was a development of a 4 bedroom grand design million pound house and owner part of Parish Council ,they would of got permission ,just like in Whitwell, forcing others from their homes and destroying wildlife. If you have money and influence you get what you want. If normal hard working honest people you get nowt !
Affordable houses for young locals = more second/third homes for London billionaires
I somehow think that a London billionaire would rather have a second or third home in Saudi Arabia.
Probably not an affordable rabbit hutch built for the young and first time buyers on the isle of wight. But I could be wrong. (Share the wealth.com).
Yes you are wrong. Bigger problem that you are naive as well. Thinking that these would be indeed affordable homes for islanders indicates serious lack of intelligence.
Sorry, did I touch a nerve….?
I was only quating your previous post, word for word. Maybe swap the “=” for “v” . But I’m no wordsmith, to many of them on this site already.
But I’m not naive tho !
Innit…..x
I quote “ the development would still result in an urbanising impact which would detract from the rural character of the area and, by virtue, its encroachment into the undeveloped nature of …. “
Can someone from the Council and planning unit please explain to me why this one is refused and yet all the other greenfield sites are passed when it is also an encroachment into the undeveloped nature.
The right decision! Let’s hope the 16 ‘market value’ houses in Wellow are also refused for having an ‘urbanising impact and detracting from the rural character of the area’. The applicant is non other than the Chair of Shalfleet Parish Council. It’s a poor state of affairs if ‘conflicts of interest’ means parishioners can’t even rely on their Parish Council to be a voice for their concerns regarding local housing needs.
Do Planning Officers compare with each other their reasons for refusals? If they don’t, they should!