The Isle of Wight Council has taken a major step forward in protecting and shaping the Island’s long-term development by voting to accept the planning inspector’s required changes to the Island Planning Strategy (IPS).
The decision, made during an extraordinary meeting of Full Council on Wednesday night, clears the way for the IPS to progress toward formal adoption.
The IPS is a long-term strategic framework that guides how the Island will manage housing, infrastructure, job creation, and environmental priorities across the Island.
It strikes a careful balance between the need for new and affordable homes and the protection of the Island’s unique communities, environment and heritage.
One of the most significant changes required by the Planning Inspectorate was an increase in the Island’s annual housing target.
While the original draft proposed 453 new homes per year — based on local evidence — the government’s standard method would have required the Island to plan for 1,104 homes annually.
However, after reviewing the council’s detailed submission and supporting evidence, the planning inspectors concluded that a revised minimum target of 703 homes per year would be required to comply with national planning policies.
Council officers will now begin to identify how to deliver an additional, modest, 79 homes per year for the first 5 years of the plan.
They will also address other minor changes requested by the inspectors. These updates will be subject to public consultation, ensuring residents continue to have a voice in how the Island develops.
The IPS continues to include strengthened policies to protect the Island’s natural environment and biodiversity.
It promotes sustainable transport, supports renewable energy, and encourages development in areas with existing infrastructure, especially on brownfield land — helping to reduce pressure on greenfield sites and preserve the Island’s rural charm and nature.
The plan also addresses key local concerns such as flood risk, coastal erosion, and affordable housing, aiming to ensure that future growth is both responsible, resilient, appropriate, and sustainable.
Councillors considered several options before reaching their decision.
The approved route, known as Option A, allows the council to move forward with the IPS while incorporating the inspector’s recommendations. This approach was seen as the most balanced, enabling the council to retain local control over planning decisions while meeting national policy requirements.
Alternative options included withdrawing the IPS entirely and starting from scratch, which would have triggered the higher housing target of 1,104 homes per year.
Another proposal to formally challenge the inspector’s recommendations was rejected, as it lacked a credible risk assessment and could have left the Island without a valid local plan — potentially opening the door to speculative and unregulated development.
A council spokesperson said:
“This was not an easy decision, but it was the right one under the circumstances we face. By accepting the Inspector’s recommendations, we are securing a plan that gives us the best chance to protect our Island from speculative development, while still meeting the needs of our communities.
“Rejecting the plan, starting over or opposing the inspector’s requirements would have left us exposed to far greater housing targets and far less control. The worst of all outcomes for the Island.”
Next steps include preparing detailed proposals to meet the revised housing requirement and completing other evidence-based work.
These will be published for public consultation in the coming months, giving residents another opportunity to help shape the final version of the plan.
More information and updates can be found on the dedicated IPS examination website: https://www.iow.gov.uk/environment-and-planning/planning/island-planning-strategy/island-planning-strategy-examination/
You will do as the mainland mayor tells you to do.
It’s all being orchestrated from
their elite bosses.
You don’t seem to know much about how devolution works, or what a mayor’s powers are.
703 houses a year you call that protecting the island more like a recipe for disaster
The danger is overriding influence from an unwanted mainland mayor, elected via the discredited first past the post system. No more housing should be built unless and until Harcourt Sands is used. Despoiling greenfield sites is unnecessary and unacceptable.
With all the flooding the island gets. Building just half that number is going to make it worse.
The drainage on the island is too old to take anymore. They are dumping raw sewage in the sea now. Imagine what it would be like with that many more homes on the island.
I do wish people would read the original and updated versions of the Island Plan, spearheaded under the previous administration which eventually had targets of 688 new homes a year and spread over a 15 year period. Todays new targets are a reaction to the newly identified needs of homelessness and an increased number of overseas workers we need to prop up the aging population and health workers. The plan (if you bother to look) encompasses all that is necessary over the coming years; infrastructure, flood risks, environment and the first use of existing building AND existing houses, which is why there are many applications to convert from hotels etc to HMOs or flats. Coupled with an overhaul (overdue) of the planning laws it’s doable. It’s a strategy BASED ON the original Island Plans. Many of the originally proposed new sites were removed when reconsidered. You might like to put it into perspective; the Gaza strip is roughly the size of the Island…..and there are (were) 2.3 million people living there. Here, 140,000. Of that 140k, over 1,200 are in one-room temporary accommodation waiting for a home, 400 of them children at a time when there are almost 9,000 second or empty homes. That number increases significantly every time a greedy landlord puts the private rent up. The majority of those families are working. There are many more in overcrowded housing, living in one room with parents or who expanded their families thinking they could move and then couldn’t when the housing/financial crisis kicked in. All these thing contribute to need, so chew on that before you squawk ‘not in my very comfortable back yard’. The figures equate to an extra 30-odd a year for the next 5 years; if you were going to have an opinion, why didn’t you do so originally in 2015-2019 under Seely?