Developers not building houses when they have been given the green light to do so needs to be dealt with says the Conservative group leader at County Hall.
Holding onto land, potentially with the view to sell it on once development has been given permission, is an issue the Island faces that is unfair on local authorities, said Councillor Steve Hastings.
Using the Pennyfeathers development as an example, Cllr Hastings said the 900-home scheme in Ryde, which got permission in 2017, is still yet to put a brick into place. An application was submitted to approve further details of the scheme earlier this year.
Cllr Hastings has said:
“The government says we should be giving permission and looking to develop.
“Well, we gave permission and nothing yet, so it does not count towards the number of homes built.
“We should be able to say after x amount of time we can take planning permission back. Why are they allowed to keep it? I think it is ludicrous.”
Talking about the latest draft of the Island Planning Strategy, currently being consulted on, Cllr Hastings said the Island effectively has no plan, no 5-year land supply and suffers from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
He said:
“We have a beautiful Island that tourists love and we do not want to ruin it.
“But we also have families who have lived here for generations and their children now need a home but they cannot afford it in the area they grew up in.
“We somehow have got to put together affordable homes and jobs on the Island.
“We still have to produce homes, but in the right places.”
Earlier in the year the Riverside Quarter, which could have seen patches of Newport including County Hall, the police and fire stations made into housing, was mooted by the outgoing Tory administration.
Cllr Hastings said the Riverside Quarter was the kind of project Homes England would back as the infrastructure was already around it and it would protect greenfield land. He said:
“We do things the wrong way round, we look at development because we are under pressure to build homes but have we got the infrastructure that goes with it? It has to come first.”
Cllr Hastings said when infrastructure is added after development it is sometimes not fit for purpose and causes more issues.
In October, the corporate scrutiny committee’s IPS task and finish group will report back to the committee, after having looked at certain issues including the special circumstances of building on an island. Cllr Hastings said:
“The main thing is we cannot keep going without a five-year land supply.
“We need to make sure we have the right things in there, it will still pass inspector scrutiny and is in line with the national policy framework.”
well councillor hastings – perhaps if the council put a stop to anyone moving to the island who is funded by the state for the move..in otherwords, any one who doesn’t have their own money, to find a property, rent or purchase it and then fund the move themselves, without any benefit claims at all then there would be far more properties available for locals moving out of their parents homes, into their first homes.
Also, those islanders looking to move to bigger homes, due to families growing, should be able to do so, if there weren’t so many second home owners buying up the properties and barely using them.
“isle of wighter” would feel really at home on Guernsey. Ever thought of moving?
hope springs – these are logical solutions to the problem the island has – it is not a shortage of housing, it is an overpopulation issue. The two categories of people mentioned, are the cause of the issue, as there is enough housing stock on the island, for islanders only.
stop burying your head in the sand, thinking the issue will magically disappear, buy building more benefit hutches, whilst virtue signalling about an open door policy to this country and its benefit system.
Damn shame we’re not more like Guernsey. Once the Island is completely covered in concrete as it will be if certain people have their way, they’ll be building houses on stilts to stand above all the others to provide more “much needed houses” for all the “need” of them.
PS Thank you IE for taking away the very useful and sensible editing facility that used to exist on this site. I’m sure you must have very good and sensible reasons but I really can’t think of any. Apologies to everyone else if my comment shows up twice but wanted to put right a typo, and used to be able to with the editing function.
Affordable housing is certainly needed, where owners invest, what often is their life savings, so will look after and care about the area.
Social housing is not. This is where often disfunctional families, where drug and alcohol abuse is commonplace are given housing. Drug runners have a steady trade in such estates, using violence against anyone who challenges them. Crime increases as drug dependant users turn to robbery to fund their habit.
Increases in social housing provision is rarely accompanied by enhanced law enforcement, which will be needed.
The safety and security of islanders should always come before socialist policies.
Is Mr Hastings really unaware that after 5 years PP lapses anyway? Or that his Tory-funding mates the developers know that if they just stick a spade in the ground that counts as starting and PP is thus secured in perpetuity?
Or is he just unaware?
Agreed that things need tightening up. Another stupid loophole is where a house is built and no council tax is due until completed. So they sit on the property and await the price going up. I understand that and profit is not a crime , but Council Tax should be levied as soon as the property is structurally completed and weatherproof.
Leaving out things like a toilet or bath should not exempt the property from Council Tax , it is an unfair tax avoidance loophole which needs fixing.
That is not true. We built a house 5 years ago and had to pay full councill tax when it was just an empty shell .
it is good to see that not a brick has been anywhere near pennyfeathers – an unwanted and unneeded pointless waste of good green fields. Long may it stay undeveloped
Well said
Leave people with some breathing space
But not next week anyway
Why not just bring it up on the last Thursday of the month during any other business at your local lodge.
I agree with him that we don’t have a plan or strategy.
A plan would clearly and transparently set out targets for who is going to live in new developments. And targets which could be checked against.
All they have is a number of people on a housing list. They have no idea about overall local need or who is buying houses.
Stop press. Just read . The government are going to back track on the projected housing requirement. So council take note.
If someone /anyone lays a brick before our supersonic planners say yes …..
Planning permission should be negated !!!!!
And if the said building is not as planned knock it down and a wait of Many Many Many year’s before they can put forward new plans….
Retrograde Planning just say NO they are taking the mickey…..
Affordable housing should be priority not fat cat profits ……
When planning permission is given give the developer 2years to make a meaningful start after that withdraw the permission CHANGE THE LAW