A £2.4million scheme, which includes delivery of affordable housing in the centre of the Island, has been recommended for approval by the Isle of Wight Council.
With funding provided via the Solent Local Enterprise Partnership, from the government’s ‘Getting Building’ fund, the Isle of Wight Council and Vectis Housing have submitted plans to regenerate the popular former school trip destination, Branstone Farm.
Approval was given earlier in the year for Goddard’s Brewery to expand its facilities to the site near Newchurch, and now council officers are recommending giving another development conditional approval.
Current farm buildings would be demolished, apart from the studies centre and mobile classroom, building 42 affordable homes, 18 rural office units in 3 buildings, allotments and a biodiversity park.
The business park would be on the southern section of the site, closest to the main road where the current entrance to the site is, with the allotments providing a buffer between the commercial and residential zones.
A mixture of 2, 3 and 4-bed houses and bungalows are being proposed.
In the last 3 years, planning officers said the delivery of affordable housing on the Island has been exceptionally low — with 32 homes built in 2017, 18 in 2018 and none in 2019 — and that this development would hold ‘substantial weight’ in delivering the increase in affordable housing the Island needs.
Officers also said the housing, in its rural location, would maintain local villages by sending children to the primary schools, more business for pubs and shops and more parishioners to churches.
Newchurch Parish Council acknowledged the need for the low-cost housing and had no objection to the mixed-use development but said the houses should be for Islanders with a local connection, the speed limit in the area should be reduced to 40mph and an illuminated walkway should be provided to the crossroads near to the Fighting Cocks.
8 letters of objection were received for the development relating to issues about the unsustainable and isolated nature of the site, whether there was a need for the industrial units and the potential impact on the surrounding countryside, nearby properties, noise, pollution and traffic.
The Isle of Wight Ramblers’ Association also objected due to impact on public rights of way
The council’s planning officers, however, have recommended the development for approval but with 26 conditions and a £15,000 financial contribution to improve rights of way in Newchurch attached.
Planners said the site would “not only provide rural jobs and high-quality space for existing and new companies but also high-quality affordable homes within an attractive environment. ”
In the planning report, the officers said:
“The lack of housing delivery in recent years is evidence that there is a need to not only unlock urban sites or those within rural service centres but also to release rural sites for housing where impacts are not excessively harmful and sustainable transport choices can be provided.”
The development’s future will be decided by the Isle of Wight Council planning committee, which is meeting today at 16:00.
there is no need for this….which councillor is getting paid at the expense of the environment
The larger the development the more and larger the ‘thank you’ cards can be from developers.
Hence large scale project get the go ahead, yet smaller, less lucrative planning gets refused on the grounds that dwarf the large scale projects
Hence draw you ‘own’ conclusions and then vote them out next time.
More cars, more people, more congestion, more unemployment.
More concrete, less fields, less wildlife, less beauty, more ugliness.
Longer queues at doctors, hospital, dentists, schools, road junctions, landfill.
Vote this council out.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding on how an election works, you do not vote a candidate ‘out’, you vote for them or not. so if everyone stayed at home, but 2 people voted, that candidate would still get in. This constant thundering ‘vote them out’, is complete tosh unless you offer alternative candidates!
Also there was only 8 objections maybe if people stopped moaning on here and got proactive and wrote letters of objections they would have more chance of stopping these builds.
Thankfully those less enlightened and less informed or picky than your good self will fully understand the voting process and my gist.
And fortunately those perhaps not so au fait nor as fastidious as yourself are far larger in number, and each having a vote will have a far greater sway than some nit picking poster attempting, yet failing to discredit a valid and true point via a wording issues.
Vote them out, or as you prefer don’t vote for them, vote for another slightly less useless party, who will at least take time to form the dubious bonds which can become forged over time in a detrimental way to the electorate as happens with any dictatorship, which is effectively what occurs when the same people are ‘in’ too long.
At last you, unlike the other ‘vote them out’ crew have put up some sort of point of view. Your desire for a different set of councilors is perfectly legitimate. I don’t know how far political promotion is allowed on here, but the ‘vote them out’ strap line just gets boring, lets have something more informative please.
I think we all know what he means. Vote them out is the same as just not voting for them it’s just wording and you’re being very picky .
They still haven’t got the message !! That’s partially, at least. a green field site. Not needed, where’s the employment ? Or will all of the ‘take ups’, from North Island, of the fictitious ‘affordables’ be on benefits. Reject government quotas, the council are supposed to be pushing for special status, when are they going to start ?
Why not redevelop Sandown /Ryde /Shanklin inner townscapes Oh it’s too difficult for the developers These greenfield sites are unacceptable and must be stopped