Plans for 50 homes at Puckpool have been given the go-ahead, despite more than 180 objections and claims it would destroy the area.
18 months since the plans were first submitted for the former Harcourt Sands holiday centre golf course on Puckpool Hill, the Isle of Wight Council’s planning committee has approved outline plans.
Under the permission, the access to the site and the principle of development have been approved, with other aspects (layout, scale and design) to be decided at a later date.
The lack of information in the application, however, caused concern for some members of the planning committee, with calls to defer until more details were submitted. However, members were told an outline application had different rules but they did request the application be brought back to the committee when developers, RJB SIBA Trust, applied for further permissions.
The scheme was approved in a tight vote last night (Tuesday), with 5 councillors in favour and 4 against.
Along with objectors, problems with the application were raised by committee members about road safety, the impact on wildlife (including the rare grey long-eared bat), overdevelopment of the site, and the loss of space between Ryde, Nettlestone and Seaview.
There were also concerns about the urbanisation of the area but councillors pointed out the site was surrounded by development and had once been part of a thriving holiday camp.
As the Isle of Wight Council currently fails to meet government housing targets, the harm of the application would have to demonstrably outweigh the benefits of providing housing.
With the scheme potentially providing up to 18 affordable properties and 32 market houses, the development was supported but with caveats that a zebra crossing is added across Puckpool HIll to increase road safety for residents and 80% of the affordable properties would be rented with the remaining 20% available for shared ownership.
The more I see and hear of this type of development being passed, the more I have to question the legitimacy of the decision.
And, when that land was up for sale, why couldn’t the council have bought the land, instead of investing our money off the Island, and have it developed to their own requirements. Just a thought.
Maybe the person has owned the land for years, and decided to make it work for them
i have said it before and I will say it again until we have an Island Plan detailing where houses can be built this will keep on happening. It does not help now that Councillor Roberts is campaigning to remove housing allocations from his ward in Bembridge to include Freshwater and placing over 300 houses in Newport which Councillor Garrett is now objecting too, this is just causing more delays to ratification of the Island plan. The numbers have been reduced and all wards need to bear the brunt of new housing. To delay further will just increase pressure on inappropriate greenfield sites.
The concrete jungle jigsaw is getting 1 step closer !!!!!
And with 5 votes in favour 4 against, where are all the other councillors??????
Surely when you are elected you should have to go these meetings ??????
This affects the whole island ….
No point mentioning infrastructure jobs etc ,because they don’t give a damn ….
And that folk’s is the Council !!!!!!
So much for protect the “green spaces” more like “protect the council coffers” All the wildlife gone from that area now for sure. Putin is alive and kicking in country hall. Once again thinking of all the high council tax they can slap on these hutches.
What is the current definition of an affordable home? Affordable by whom?
Affordable by whom?
Well by people who listen at school, who leave, who get a job, who meets someone else who works, who uses free contraception so doesn’t have three ‘kids’ in tow, and who doesn’t blow all on beer, fags, drugs, sky plus plus, new car, massive wedding, long exotic hols to boast to friends, who are not smothered in fake tans and tattoos, and false lashes, nails and hair, with designer clothes but are pot less because of such.
That is who.
So who voted what then? No names this time IE.
Have to assume that its the same ‘yes’ councillors which are tipping the scales on this committee.
It was about time this plan was either placed in dustbin or approved! The site has been an eyesore for years, and bye the way are the objectors ,been living there for a number of years or 2nd homes????
More bad building on the Isle of Wight?
50 homes. Don’t you mean 50 holiday/2nd homes
Given the government handed out 900,000 visas to new arrivals last year in what is supposedly a housing crisis(that’s 6 times the population of the whole IOW), all these cries about 2nd homes are a distraction – the vast majority of concreting currently destroying green spaces in England is to accommodate incomers or those displaced by them as they move into their chosen areas
Sadly very few are wise enough to see the real reason why the housing stock is so oversubscribed.
Thankfully you have, despite the media, politicians and figures of authority afraid, to tell the truth or have ‘vested interests’ in not telling the real reason why our society is crumbling and not just housing.
Ukraine war: Fears over lack of homes for refugees in Wales is an article I’ve just read. Seems Wales has accepted so many refugee’s they now have nowhere to house them so they are stuck in camps. Didn’t anyone have the savvy to realise this country is full
Ukraine war: Fears over lack of homes for refugees in Wales is an article I’ve just read. Seems Wales has accepted so many refugee’s they now have nowhere to house them so they are stuck in camps. Didn’t anyone have the savvy to realise this country is full up.
This site is just right for redevelopment surely? It’s been empty and derelict for many years.
I’m all for careful and appropriate, proportional building and some plans are definitely not this, but why is this site not acceptable? Is it because they probably won’t be affordable homes? If so, it’s about time the council get on top of this problem and insist more homes which are affordable are made available for island residents only.
Surely far better to build expensive homes rather than filling our Isle with cheap benefit breeding boxes.
Rarely do the rich vandalise, rob, drive like maniacs, beat, mug, or cost our council millions as do the poorer classes?
Be careful what you wish for
Yet more holiday homes.
Being that Whitby residents have just voted in favour to prevent the sale of all new build homes to second home owners, can we please have the same here so the prices can come down and there’s more homes for the young islanders to own their first home.
It will happen but it depends how long it takes to go from ‘clueless’ to ‘clued-up’.
Maybe 10+ years for the Island council/councillors.
Obvious decision, well it is the Isle of Wight isn’t it?
Never used to be so bad as it is now.
We’ll look at the rubbish that are meant to ‘run’ the place. And our ‘representatives’ who, I thought, were meant to represent those stupidly enough to put an X against their name. NEVER AGAIN.
The site will now be progressed as a quality development, building a mix (including min 35%) affordable sustainable homes (toward NetZero) targeted for IoW locals, resulting in much reduced future energy bills for residents.
As outlined in the planning submission and supporting statement.
Ha ha ha
Is it just me or is anyone else seriously worried the affect all this building is going to have on East Wight ? I thought Pennyfeathers had around 1000 homes, then Westridge, the traffic is going to be incredibly increased, seriously I feel helpless to stop all this as objecting doesn’t make a jot of difference? I bet these Councillors don’t care as long as they get their Pensions !!!
no it’s not just you. I feel the same. It seems this area is being deliberately targeted for over development, with now four major sites and a cuople of smaller ones.
The traffic is going to be awful and more loss of nature and wildlife.
It is criminal.
I’m worried too but will try to leave before it happens. I think it has been a plan for some time. Basically to create a Binstead type estate on the other side of Ryde. It’s a shame because Appley and Puckpool were viewed as green and pleasant outskirts of the town, complementing the villages of Seaview and Nettlestone. But they are now being subsumed by Oakfield and Elmfield, and will feel like one large estate after the building is completed.
I think some Councillors care, particularly those representing villages, but others don’t give a monkeys and just want more houses wherever.
Very objective reporrting, IE. Keep it up.
Surely there should be a named list of those for and against and those who cared not to show up? We are the idjeets who voted this shower in thinking they would make the “declared difference” what mugs are we we should have spotted the plethora of Brown envelopes awaiting the new council! Passing this after a Conservative led green thinking planning junket were saying more Brown field sites should be used on The Island! All talk and patting the heavily wadded back pocket!
You’ve missed the key element: IW Council did NOT pass this, it was referred to appeal (probably in Bristol) where it was approved by off-Islanders.By all means accuse your elected reps of corruption when you have evidence, but you might applaud them for doing the right thing in this case.
It clearly states that it was the local council at a meeting on Tuesday who voted in favour by 5 votes to 4. It was NOT decided on appeal. It also could not be deferred as requested because it is an outline application different rules. it will go back to planning when the developers submit an application for full planning.
I wnated to correct the error in my reply to “fedup” but the “Edit” function does not work. Sorry.
Wait till the overspill of Ryde encroach upon Seaview, and Rotti and Staffy dogs cover their beaches and footpaths with doo doo, and anti social feral benefit supported fatherless children run wild there.
Ryde is ruined forever now but the effects of such will be felt much further afield, yet, never as far as where the planners and developers live, that you can be sure of.
There’s nothing wrong with Staffy dogs! it’s irresponsible owners… don’t brand a breed to stupid people. When there’s plenty of love for a staffie in a normal household they are one of the best protectors I’ve ever known ( I should know, I own a loveable beagle) Beyond druggies and dodgites they are truly beautiful characters… its not the dogs fault that they occasionally fall into irresponsible hands! So don’t sweep the whole yard with the same brush!! Thats being judgmental of people you know nothing about !!
Another green space gone on a so called green Island it’s a joke
Green space?? HARCOURT SANDS WAS A HOLIDAY CAMP THAT SCHOOLS USED FOR THEIR TRIPS AWAY, IT HAD A FANTASTIC POOL WITH A WAVE MACHINE- THE ONLY ONE ON THE ISLAND!…i was gutted when it closed, but we all need to move with the times… I know that the majority of folk on this chat are against development. However, time brings generations, generations bring change, change means updates… get real the population is not going to stop growing and therefore needs space to live!… Greenbelt myarse!!! If it was good enough to take money for accommodation back in its hey day, then it’s bloody good enough to develop much needed residential today x