Hostility towards proposed housing off Camp Road in Freshwater has continued to build ahead of a consultation deadline on Friday this week.
Councillor John Medland, who represents Freshwater South on the Isle of Wight Council, has joined Freshwater Parish Council and 28 residents in lodging objections against a re-advertised application for a 127 unit housing development with access roads and a junction.
2 weeks ago, the application was discussed alongside other contentious development proposals at a Freshwater Parish Council meeting at Memorial Hall.
Developer Tallulah Estates Ltd’s plans have been revised from a prior application that was rejected over 11 years ago and which was first re-advertised in 2021.
In a comment posted on the Isle of Wight Council’s planning portal last week, Cllr Medland said:
“As ward councillor I am objecting to this application for the following reasons: this application is opposed by Freshwater Parish Council Planning Committee and expressed local opinion on multiple grounds.
“This application makes no sense in the National Planning Policy Framework’s (NPPF) own definition of sustainable development.
“The application conflicts with the Freshwater Neighbourhood Plan (FNP).
Article continues below this advertisement “There has been minimal investment in water, gas, electricity, sewage and surface water further drainage contradicting NPPF 8 and 22. Our peripheral service infrastructure is already under acute pressure due to recent overdevelopment.
“The application is unlikely to meet ‘Local Housing Need’.
“The outline plan seems to offer no method of effective flood water mitigation.”
Freshwater resident Andrew Haisell said:
“I object to this revised, proposed development on several grounds.
“Area already has insufficient drainage to cope with sufficient houses in area. Road and gardens of neighbouring residencies flood each year even with a big agricultural space soaking up extensive amounts of water.
“Unsafe location of proposed development of this size due to entrance and exit to site being on a blind spot and in close proximity to other road junctions.
“A development of this size will bring with it 200 plus cars – Camp Road is a narrow country lane, single passing in many parts and without pavement.
“How will this be safe for pedestrians, cyclists, residents, families trying to walk children to school? There will be serious accidents.”
It will go ahead,just like birch close and heathfield road,money talks,and all the council are interested in is more council tax,they couldnt care less about the residents,god knows where the people who buy these rubbish new builds will get a doctors or dentist,as brookside doctors is full,and they are struggling.
Even if the Council developed some balls and refused it, the government would force it through, regardless of flood risk, road safety or any other good reason to refuse it.
Cllr Medland states above that ” this proposal makes no sense in the National Planning Policy Framework’s (NPPF) own definition of sustainable development.”. As far as I know the (NPPF) doesn’t give a definition for sustainable development – I, am I’m sure very many others, would be very greatful for his guidance on where to find this definition.