More than 180 objections have been lodged against the 50-home scheme put forward for Puckpool Hill in Ryde, which is coming before the Isle of Wight Council for the 3rd time in 18 months.
First submitted by the RJB SIBA Trust in November 2020 plans have been revised to include affordable homes and address other concerns documented.
However, since the plans were first tabled, 181 objections have been submitted and include complaints about the scheme from the Island’s MP Bob Seely, the IW Badger Trust, IW Bat Group as well as CPRE IW. The three nearest town and parish councils — Ryde, St Helens as well as Nettlestone, and Seaview — have all also objected to the development, citing a loss of valuable green space, the loss of wildlife habitats and an overdevelopment, with only 1 supportive comment noted.
The final layout, scale, appearance and landscaping of the development would be decided at a later date if the application is given the green light.
In a report compiled by planning officers, they say the housing would be built in an accessible and sustainable location and contribute positively to the Island’s housing need with officers saying the development would change the character and appearance of the site but the suburban, semi-rural character of the area would be complemented and enhanced by the plans.
Neighbours in Woodlands Close have raised concerns the housing would be visually intrusive and overbearing but officers say this could be mitigated through later applications to ensure adequate separation and an intervening landscape buffer.
They say the development could be accommodated within the site without any detriment to neighbouring amenities and officers are recommending if the outline housing application is approved then it is subject to 20 conditions.
The Isle of Wight Council’s planning committee is being asked to determine the application at their next meeting, Tuesday 21st June.
Build homes when prices are the highest ever, and on the brink of a huge recession. Applauds
The answer is no.
As there are not hoardes of homeless families huddled in shop doorways, with pockets of cash looking for homes, then this development should be denied. All that will happen is that it will be filled with unwanted asylum seekers, benefit claimants and any other undesirable that other councils don’t want and the islands environment and quality of life will be ruined further than it already is.
where are the doctors, the dentists, the school places and the other areas of infrastructure that cannot cope already.
yet more greenland lost, more pollution, more CO2 emissions and more rubbish. Where does it end.
More greenspace eaten up with concrete then. Where is Bob Seely with his words on protecting the island then, of course nowhere to be seen as usual. It will go through because it means more council tax. 180 or 180,000 objections this council will always go the way of the developers and if not they will tell the police not to investigate things if it all burns down. It’s not arson guv.
we need 1000s not 50 all that land on the south and west of the island just going to waste put homes on it
It is not going to waste bob, it is home to birds, insects, creatures, plant life, trees and other natural life. What is your obsession with turning the world into a concrete jungle, devoid of the beauty of nature and the fact that we need nature to survive.
you know – no bees means no pollination, meaning plants die, creatures that eat plants, die, humans die as crops don’t grow. Bees are responsible for about $30 billion a year in crops and that is just the start.
we need trees to remove CO2 and put oxygen into the atmosphere – without this process, we die due to a lack of oxygen and co2 poisoning
Why do you want that particular part of the island decimated? Other than your not so brilliant idea that theres lots of room? Do you have a hatred of our last remaining reasonably unspoilt area? Explain your reasoning, lets hear it. Or you will fast become yet another tiresome richard cranium that makes comment purely to be disagreeable.
We don’t need them…..
Oh a handful of affordable housing, let’s throw that in and soften the blow of the loss of Greenfield land !!!!!! Not going to wash with anyone !!!!!
Let’s hope the planning committee grow a pair and tell them to bog off !!!!!!
We want trees green grass wildlife habitat ….
Not a concrete jungle ……
Let’s not forget that in the absence of an adopted Island Plan (delayed unaccountably by the last administration) the current council is obliged to operate under Central Gov edict ie presumption of acceptance. If you don’t like it, change the government.
What?
Have Seaview physically almost touching Ryde?
And have those plebs in affordable homes thinking they are well to do yet living on tax credits and owning second hand vehicles?
The very thought
So what is different between this and the 450+ West Acre Park literally across the road?
Where is the Island plan which was delayed for whatever reason, until that is in place any greenfield site is open season to a planning application from mainland developers. The trouble is the planning office have to rule in favour of sustainable development, if they don’t the applicant will appeal and probably win at the council’s cost. JUST GET THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN PLACE, IT HAS TAKEN FAR TOO LONG. Any application made outside of the recognised development envelopes would then stand a better chance of failing and the developers will clear off back to the mainland to ruin other peoples lives.
Not whilst the developers are often tickled pink.
181 objections. Should sail through. Bring rubber stamps to meeting.
My figures may be out of date, I’m sure some know it all will correct me, but as I understand it, a ton of cement ‘costs’ one ton of carbon emissions, this may be green freak scare mongering, but consider the environmental damage beyond loss of green space and habitat, bad enough, as you will never get that back, and you begin to realise house building is a far greater threat to the environment than our current very clean petrol cars even.
Harcourt Sands opposite already has houses going up on it, Westacre Park almost opposite will have 450 houses on it and with this development, Nettlestone and Seaview will be joined to Ryde with little or no greenbelt left. Build houses yes but the right houses in the right place for people who live on the island desperate to get on the housing ladder
Would it not be better to put effort into the release the holiday homes in Seaview occupied 2 weeks of the year
Houses that were traditionally first time buyer terraced houses that are now holiday homes
People buying up property to put on Air B and B to make money.
Taking business away from the unattractive hotels that litter the sea fronts
The whole balance is wrong and I feel for those Islanders looking to purchase a house
Surely better to encourage well to do people here, rather than poor people who fill up any amount of bedrooms given, and then the male moves on, leaving us to fund his clones in several scattered locations?