Productive discussions have taken place over proposed housing on Seaclose Park, the ward councillor has said.
Since the draft Newport Harbour Masterplan was made public earlier in the year, the Isle of Wight Council has faced backlash against plans to build more than 40 houses on the Fairlee Road entrance to the Newport park.
The local community has fought back, with Cllr Matthew Price starting a petition calling for the removal of the houses from the plans, which has been signed by more than 3,100 people.
The masterplan is set to become a supplementary planning document if cabinet members approve the plans, now at its meeting in October.
After the petition was started, Isle of Wight Council leader Cllr Dave Stewart confirmed he will listen to residents’ concerns over the housing going forward and meet with the Cllr Price. These discussions with senior council members and officers at County Hall, Cllr Price says, have been productive and that they recognised the strength of feeling locally.
“I am therefore hopeful that common sense will prevail and the Newport Harbour Masterplan will not include the proposal to build housing on part of Seaclose Park and all of Fairlee Service Station”.
Newport and Carisbrooke Community Council has also voted to oppose the plans.
If a decision is made regarding the housing on the park, which Cllr Price hopes will be to rule it out, he suggests the decision could be confirmed as soon as possible. He said:
“The sooner we know that the future of Seaclose Park is secure, the sooner we can look to the future.”
Cllr Price has now asked for the focus to shift to looking at how sports and recreation at Seaclose Park can not only be maintained but enhanced and improved, with amenity facilities improved as the masterplan suggests.
“I welcome any suggestions from the community and local sports groups. With the Government having launched a “Better Health” campaign, encouraging people to “get active”, I hope to see Seaclose Park being used more than ever for a diverse range of sports and recreational uses.”
Council Planning: I know let’s find all the green areas and cover them with slab grey concrete and house so that we can keep our pension funds afloat. It’s a scandal.
We HAVE to vote these scumbags out. And vote in people who are genuinely concerned for the Island and not hellbent on destroying it.
Better still, put them all onto the “Bloating Fridge”, tow it out to sea and let the navy use it for target practice.
Well said Brian..drill 4 oil in shanklin.lol.and build 10,000 houses in niton.but keep seaclose clear 4 the kid,s,,or they will b the next lot of board kid,s on the street corner,s,,and we all know,s what happen,s then,,and yes the kid,s get the blame by guess who,,u got it in one,,the scumbag,s, the council,,u just can,t make it up..the s,b,s are to slow,or it doesn’t get dung…ptd
Only one discussion needed, how can we keep it as a park and maintain it. There are many brownfield sites that can be used for this. And some areas just up the road that could be used. But that would not be land the council will own and so not get their money. This park is essential for the locals and for their mental health.
I hate to say this, this is the start of the end of Seaclose PARK.
This council and a lot of councillors just do not act on what the Island people want.
They have decided what they want despite what the public want and i can not see things changing.
How can the Councillors say they are representing their voters and yet appear not to?
‘Productive Discussions’ – Councilspeak for ‘We are going ahead with it anyway’
So why won’t Cllr Stewart also listen to residents concerns about being trapped in their homes next summer when the roads are made unsafe by high speed motor bikes instead of simply stating that he’d been involved in it for quite sometime and then presenting it as a ‘done deal’.
This has to be the most ridiculous comment yet
This is a terrible decision. The park is busy most of the time with people already enjoying the open space and facilities that are already there. For locals in this area including alot of older people this is the only open green space they have access to. There isn’t a single person I’ve spoken to locally who doesn’t object to this. They really do need to listen to their public as this decision goes directly against the views of islanders. And as someone else put this seems mainly to generate more money for the council instead if looking after the islands green spaces.
Productive = Ignore residents and go ahead with it anyway.
Lets have a statement from DS that it has been dropped, suspect we might still be waiting to hear something as the bulldozers move in.
Why does regeneration = lets build a load of houses on it. The isle of wight council has as much vision as a blind man in a mine
This council will build as many homes as it can, as the more homes, the more council tax paid, the larger then the income, so when they take larger salaries, pensions, expenses etc, it doesn’t take such a large percentage as it would from a lesser income.
Also the planning and developers on Wight have ‘too’ cosy a relationship, and one can only surmise the amount that such are grateful when being awarded permission for them to earn millions, and for the rest of us to watch, helplessly the Island we love getting destroyed bit by bit.
Maybe a masse non payment of council tax would make a difference, but can’t see that happening, as everyone moans but ‘leave it to others’ to do anything more.
Hence it just carries on, with complaints and ‘mere background noise’.
Ryde’s fate is now sealed with Penny feathers, and Bullen and Ashey, etc, so I guess other areas, will be next.
Wait until the choice residents not from the Island fill such.
Yet fear not, the planners and developers and top councillors will be like our MP, not living anywhere near the ruination they happily create for others.
You have got to build on the Island, it’s the only lucrative revenue stream there is! Covid has finished tourism. The DFL’s might spend a few quid when over but not enough to keep it afloat.
Selling ices and beachside tat is hardly helping the economy if many of the workers are cash in hand, thus neither they, nor the illustrious employer is paying taxes, but still claiming everything from the state?
Lucrative for those doing such, but not helping the wider economy.