Affordable houses could be built in Calbourne, but local residents and public bodies are objecting to the application.
Plans submitted by Vectis Housing, an Isle of Wight housing association, propose the construction of 12 houses — 11 affordable — on Elm Lane.
The development would compromise of 4x 2-bed, 6x 3-bed and 1x 4-bed affordable houses.
Documents supporting the application say the 12th house, a 3-bed property, would go to the landowner as part of an agreement.
Planning agents, the Planning and Development Hub, said the site is a ‘significant opportunity’ in delivering much-needed affordable housing on the Island, in a sustainable rural location. The greenfield site proposed, currently used as agricultural grazing land, would continue the line of houses on Elm Lane.
Homes England has also indicated its strong support of the scheme, documents show, as long work starts by March next year, making the affordable houses available in the spring or early summer of 2022.
Residents of Elm Lane, however, have already submitted objections to the development, with one saying the “unsustainable, inappropriate overdeveloped” planning proposal should be withdrawn.
Concerns over dangerous traffic, privacy and local wildlife were raised by another resident. They said:
“Unsupervised children having to walk in the road along Elm Lane is a recipe for disaster and would not be a matter of if, but when someone is seriously injured.”
Island Roads has also recommended the planning authority refuse permission as the site access provides unacceptable visibility to the main road, there would be a significant increase of traffic generated by the development and deter travel by more sustainable modes of transport.
The council’s public right of way service mentioned the development would be built on top of a public footpath (CB12) and there is a lack of information about what would be done to correct the problem.
To view the proposals, 20/01872/FUL, or to comment on the plans by 29th December, you can visit the Isle of Wight Council’s planning portal.
They say much needed housing! For Who????..it won’t be for island residents.
And when the unwanted rejects from other councils move here, where are they going to Work???… I think we all know the answer to that…
Housing should be built for young families that live on the island, Not the mainland.
Housing should be built for need not for greed. If there’s no jobs then there is no need so it must be just greed.
Vote this council OUT. They care NOTHING for the Island or It’s people, just money and feathering their and developer friends nests, and very well at that.
Also important to remember that Shalfleet is having affordable housing built as we speak.
For those of us who went to the meeting at the time the current Shalfleet build is phase 1. The plans had phase 2 and 3 which involved a huge number of houses.
So the justification for needing affordable houses in Calbourne which is literally just down the road is flawed.
Where is the employment in or near Calbourne. Just another money grabbing development.
Just how much does Affordable Housing cost… can someone on minimum wage afford one ?
people on minimum wage can’t afford to rent never mind buy.
Dear Calbourne,
Your turn now….good luck.
Love Shalfleet
11!? Imagine if they were facing a build of 911!!
Development on yet more greenfield, and yet this council keep saying they are protecting the green fields.
Are they blatantly lying, or are they telling the public one thing and doing what they wanted all alone?
When are they going to actually represent the public that at voting time they say they will.
con men/women never keep to there word lowest of the low
Will these dwellings house island residents? I doubt it. This council is out to ruin the island. Vote them out.
It is not AFFORDABLE HOUSING it is free housing for mainland over spill junkies and drunks exactly the same as all the other chav shacks being built here ready for the council’s back handers. Who is going to BUY a house on a life time mortgage surrounded by low life and their feral brats. Bloody strange how none of these new sh*te sites are never near any of those approving them.