More than 300 comments have been left on a planning application to build holiday lodges on protected woodland in Bembridge.
The applicant’s consultants have branded the ‘organised campaign’ against the plan, for 2x 1-bedroom lodges off Love Lane, ‘bordering on mass hysteria’.
Martha James, of Plan Research, said she had taken the ‘unprecedented step’ of writing a letter to the Isle of Wight Council’s planning authority over the behaviour of certain residents.
Earlier in the year Police had to be called to a peaceful protest by residents at the site. Residents believed utility work being done to prepare the site was premature as no planning permission has been granted.
The vast majority of comments have been left by Bembridge residents — as well as local councillors, Isle of Wight MP Bob Seely and the Campaign for Protection of Rural England — who are against the lodges.
However, Mrs James said many of the comments are ‘duplicates, based on very similar factual errors’ and the community ‘reaching an unbalanced view of the proposal’.
Disputing points about the destruction of woodland and potential harm to wildlife, Mrs James said the point of the scheme was to provide maintenance and create an area of wildlife interest for tourists who would use the lodges as overnight accommodation. She said:
“It is perhaps unfortunate that people who wish to retain the site exactly as it is, in order to provide the particular type of visual amenity they prefer, chose not to purchase the land when it was recently offered for sale on the open market.”
According to planning documents, the lodges have been designed to fit in with the woodland setting, clad in timber and with living moss roofs, ‘directly responding to the constraints of the woodland location’.
Acting on behalf of concerned residents, planning agent David Long, of BCM, said in a letter to the Isle of Wight Council, there were ‘numerous critical considerations and obvious failures’ with the scheme, which overwhelmingly outweighed the benefit of the tourist accommodation.
Mr Long raised 5 issues with the proposals, including the physical and destructive impact on biodiversity, the failure to protect and enhance and the lack of essential highways infrastructure.
Comments on the application have now closed and the Isle of Wight Council will make the final decision, with locals hoping that officers decide to decline the application.
Very
Chinese CP styleresponse. No i dont live in Bembridge, and maybe the developer should heed the sounds of objections. Doesn’t seem to be wanted. No amount ofpersuasionis likely to work.You can make a comment right up to the decision meeting but obviously the sooner you get it in the better so as everyone should see it and planning officers and the councillors should take notice of it.
Comments are not closed until the decision meeting.
create an area of wildlife interest for tourists !
is she actually for real – cut down the trees, dig up the land, build tourist hutches on it and then where is the wildlife going to be, as it will have either been killed during construction or moved to areas where there are trees and other woodland areas to live in
Mrs James really needs a reality check – you cannot create a wildlife area by destroying the wildlife habitat
she is only trying to line her pocket at the expense of the environment by creating more pollution and mess for locals and wildlife alike.
The David and Martha Show.
Discussing this week the art of role reversal and interchangeable Planning Consultant ‘chit-chat’.
Mrs James says…It is perhaps unfortunate that people who wish to retain the site exactly as it is, in order to provide the particular type of visual amenity they prefer, chose not to purchase the land when it was recently offered for sale on the open market.
………
so, she bought it to destroy it – what kind of environmental idiocy is this. perhaps we destroy her home to make way for trees and wildlife – is she going to be happy about that.
What is it about the word “protected”do these developers NOT understand? Sacrilege also comes to mind.
Typical mainlanders attitude to the island, take over and destroy it.
These sort care nothing for wildlife, but KNOW they have to ‘include’ some small, but useless provision in their schemes to ‘gain planning’, by reading through the ‘tick sheet’ of what critics will ‘use’ to try to stop them.
Bembridge and other wealthy areas with people in the right places ‘may’ get this stopped, but for the rest of us not living there then we are just having housing filling every available space.
The mass influx into the UK, is now indirectly making people from the mainland, who no longer feel ‘at home’ in their own mainland villages and towns, head here, thus fuelling the building boom.
I and probably a few others saw this land for sale at auction, felt that it was unsuitable
For any use and forgot about it. Am staggered that any permissions could be granted.
It is green belt and should never get permission. Have the utility companies been duped as they have damaged the environment? If permission is granted here then It’s
Open to total abuse of all small parcels of land everywhere, and even large areas of outstanding beauty. Can a preservation order be put on site, make it listed ?
i did not know this was available, otherwise I may have purchased it (depending on price), purely to keep it as it is.
The land is protected Peter Hall by TPO’s.
Two wooden lodges now, fast forward 10 years to where they are falling down, and then 4 semi’s to replace them, it’s not rocket, good on bembridge residents for making a stand!
Yes, lets stop all development on the island. Lets stop growth that supports local businesses. Lets make sure our children have to move to the mainland because the island has no work. Well done to all the NIMBY’s you’re killing the island. Just because you want to make it like the 70’s again. YOU are the ones making it a dumping ground for other councils.
No Fred. We just want to live fulfilling happy lives in comfortable surroundings as we Islanders have done for centuries. Not like rats in a city!!!
well said..perhaps fred can go and live on the mainland -then we bulldoze his home and grass it over.
Prick springs to mind….
If there is over 3000 2nd homes on the island and probably the same amount of empty homes not being used…..why build more holiday caravans/lodges to so stay in….why not use the 2nd homes and empty buildings for holiday let’s and homes for people who want holidays ….or people who have no homes…..why keep building and killing the earth and nature. .
Oh Fred, also, the shops in any High Street, are they all fully open…..I don’t mean covid times…was all the shops open before that, was there everyone working….I think not….so for you to say growth and whatever other crap you came up with….bollocks…..