Plans for a contentious mixed-use development that could be built on the edge of a Freshwater have been revised and resubmitted to the Isle of Wight Council.
Stephen Hucklesby’s amended proposals include 60 residential units with a minimum 35% of the homes classed as affordable housing, retail floorspace and parking provision at the Heathfield Farm Campsite on the edge of Freshwater and just south of Colwell Road.
An updated Design and Access Statement written by Island architects Rainey Petrie Architecture on behalf of Mr Hucklesby said the latest plans contained fewer plots for residential properties to allow for more open green space in the interests of public amenity value and to aid the movement of reptile species.
It said:
“These proposals represent a well-considered, sympathetic mixed use residential and retail development on a land parcel that has been identified and proven as a viable location for sustainable housing.
“Links to public transport infrastructure are readily available and can be successfully integrated into the proposals.”
An Air Quality Appraisal prepared by consultants Michael Bull & Associates and an ecology report from the Ecosupport consultancy were also submitted.
Michael Bull & Associates assessed the possible air quality impacts of the proposed development and found modelled changes in pollution to be negligible.
Ecosupport’s research found the site’s hedgerows to be unimportant but deemed on-site bats to be of “county significance” and identified a “good population” of Slow Worm.
The ecology report also detailed mitigation measures and enhancements for bats and reptiles to compensate the proposed development’s possible impacts.
Previously submitted plans comprised 69 proposed residential units and received a large scale backlash from members of the public, Freshwater Parish Council and County Hall representatives including Councillor Chris Jarman and Councillor Peter Spink.
Points of objection included concerns over flooding and drainage, light pollution, impacts on tourism in the west of the Island, road safety and traffic, adverse effects on protected wildlife and housing provision for local need including the affordability of the proposed units.
A public consultation on the resubmitted plans will finish on 8th January.
Why not 60 units for social housing to cover the
shortage.
I have huge sympathy with people who need homes but this needs to be done with an eye to the long term. Developers are concerned only about making a fast buck, as, dare I say, are those who sell their land to developers. But those houses will be there for many years. Their occupants do not only need homes but their occupiers need access to work, their children need to have school places available, local doctors and dentists need to be able to absorb an additional several hundred patients, police, fire and social services need capacity to meet any demands added by 60 new dwellings and their occupants. These are complex matters and need a comprehensive approach. All of this is on top of the environmental isues etc already rehearsed.
That is why social housing is important.
The buyers may well already have a doctor and dentist. People need homes.