Crowdfunding Video
Please Click to read Fernbrook Report Report as PDF
Please Click to read IW Planning Office report to IW Planning Committee to prepare for 23rd Jan 2024 meeting (dated 15th January as PDF
Please Click to read Drainage Assessment Report as PDF – May 2023
Please Click to Read Planning Committee Report PDF – 13/6/2023
Please Click to read Drainage Assessment Report as PDF – May 2023
5th April 2023: Statement re: proposed Captiva Homes Bembridge High Street development
Build a Better Bembridge Ltd have been reviewing materials circulated by Captiva Homes relative to the proposed development of 130 new homes in Bembridge, aimed to be situated on the greenfield lands off High Street and Mill Road owned by the Thornycroft family.
The proposals are still at a very early stage, so there is much further information required for a complete assessment. Therefore it is premature to draw firm conclusions. Contrary to Captiva Homes’ assertions, development of this greenfield site is NOT inevitable, noting that imminent changes in Government planning legislation will prioritise development of brownfield sites and emphasise the central role of village plans in guiding development. We make the following initial observations:
- We acknowledge the desire to deliver more affordable homes for Islanders, and note designs which integrate Georgian Style gardens, walkways and open space and a small number of commercial units. We acknowledge Captiva Homes desire to engage with community members on planning matters on any development process. The initial drawings and designs are materially better thought through relative to the other Thornycroft lands proposed for development on Hillway Road (application: 21/01184/FUL, referred to as ‘Hillway’).
- While there is a pressing need for some genuinely affordable homes in the village, there is no evidence-based community need for a development of this size (whether off the High Street, Mill Road or Hillway Road), with risks of significant harm to Bembridge given the overall scale of proposed development impacting highways, ecology, drainage, and the already overwhelmed village infrastructure.
- There are material highways & transport issues, where increasing traffic flows into an already gridlocked village will create a dangerous situation, impeding emerging services access, overwhelming the High Street and Steyne Cross Roundabout[i]. Plus there is no accommodation for cycling routes and livestock movements.
- We have material concerns around ecology, with proposals seemingly removing established hedgerows which are important Island and community wildlife habitats.
- We have material concerns over sustainability – both in terms of carbon footprint and community economic impact. Residents will need to travel outside of Bembridge for work, creating material carbon impacts, and we would expect any new development to meet net zero carbon standards, including offsets for carbon for the life of the build. We note there is no information on how the development can meet modern sustainability standards.
- The Thornycroft’s Hillway development shows how acute drainage issues are for the village, and a development of the scale of that proposed by Captiva Homes will exacerbate Southern Water sewage releases into the Solent – noting the Council’s commissioned Section 9 Flood Report acknowledges that our water company does not have clarity of understanding of our co-mingled sewage and drainage system.
- We do not have sufficient information to assess “affordability” for villagers, how the Captiva Homes development would work within the framework of the new imminent NPPF[ii] which is expected to give local residents more influence over planning decisions, or the legally binding Bembridge Neighbourhood Development Plan which restricts development to a maximum of nine houses. We believe villagers need homes which are valued in the +/-£250k range (or below) to be truly affordable.
- For any plan, we are concerned about execution. Captiva Homes has a mixed delivery record, where developments have started with one aim and there have been material planning changes which deliver different outcomes. Examples include the Captiva ‘Scotland Farm” Godshill development, which commenced with a 2004 proposal for 64 care homes and ended up as a completely different 107 home residential development (see: IW County Press). We also have major concerns on the impact to the community of a construction timetable which will span three or more years and could combine (or be extended by) a simultaneous build on Thornycroft’s proposed Hillway development.
- We would expect any development to deliver a material planning gain (Section 106) for the village, with possibilities including a doctors’ surgery, fire brigade, pavement to the village centre, industrial/ commercial employment, improved car parking as well as reliable & sustainable drainage.
- We observe there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that the village could manage the 200 homes proposed by both developments proposed by the Thornycroft landowners who own both greenfield development sites (High Street/Mill Road and Hillway). It is extraordinary that these off-Island resident landowners are profiteering through proposals to massively alter Bembridge with developments on a scale not seen in the village for almost 50 years. If one or both developments proceed at the scale planned, two precious green fields will be lost and the character of the village will be changed forever. We find the lack of Thornycroft engagement irresponsible and harmful to our community. Sir John Thornycroft would turn in his grave if he knew his renowned naval design legacy including as ‘the founder of the torpedo-boat industry’[iii] would ‘torpedo’ Bembridge village.
End notes:
[i] Captiva Homes tacitly acknowledge the Bembridge High Street congestion issue within their plan with the no right turn restriction when leaving the North end of the proposed development.
[ii] NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework
[iii] Mason, Herbert B., ed. (1908). Encyclopædia of Ships and Shipping. London: The Shipping Encyclopædia. pp. 630. Also: Sir John Thornycroft biography, Wikipedia.
ACTION NEEDED
PLEASE SUPPORT THE VILLAGE AND STOP THE HOUSING ESTATE TO BE BUILT ON STEYNE ROAD/HILLWAY GREEN FIELD.
PLEASE SAY NO TO THE REVISED PLANNING APPLICATION
To lodge an objection please visit:
https://publicaccess.iow.gov.uk/online-applications/ or email:
development@iow.gov.uk quoting reference 23/01920/FUL.
REASONS TO OBJECT
1. LEGAL: The Bembridge Neighbourhood Development Plan recognises that some development is inevitable but that it should be small scale, tailored to identified needs and ideally on existing sites within the village NOT greenfield. If passed this application would undermine the principle of plan led development.
2. LANDSCAPE: The proposed housing estate is incompatible with the community landscape – The application site is an attractive green open space which acts as a transition between the built-up settlement of Bembridge and the undeveloped open countryside which makes up the remainder of the parish.
3. FLOODING & DRAINAGE: Flooding issues previously raised with the IOW Council have not been sufficiently addressed in the new application. Bembridge has suffered major flooding issues recently. The Section 19 Flood Report commissioned by the IOW Council in 2022 identified this very area as prone to flooding.
4. CONGESTION: The highways issues have not been addressed in the application. An additional 57 houses with 6 vehicle movements per day will generate 342 extra daily car movements in our already congested village. Bembridge is a remote village on a peninsula served by only two minor roads.
5. ENVIRONMENTAL: The application is incomplete as there is no Environmental Study nor Ecological study. The site contains numerous ancient hedgerows, ancient English oaks (under tree protection orders). There is no reference to how biodiversity gain will be achieved. The application is therefore at odds with our newly acquired Isle of Wight biodiversity status.
6. CONSULTATION: Limited attempt has been made by the absentee owners of the land – the Thornycroft family, or the developers – Thornwood, to consult with the Parish Council or Bembridge residents.
7. NEED: There is a need for housing in Bembridge. This need is for GENUINELY affordable homes for local people earning Isle of Wight wages. Not for more luxury homes. The smallest proposed property has Rightmove evidence of being marketed at over £625K.
CONCLUSION: There is no material difference between the initial and this revised planning application 21/01884/FUL. The revised application does little to address
the well-reasoned objections made by the local residents in January 2022. The impacts of building a housing estate on the edge of the village significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and will cause real harm to the environment and infrastructure of Bembridge.
Please Click Here to read Build-a-Better-Bembridge Ltd submission for comment on the planning application for the proposed development of 57 Dwellings in Bembridge as PDF.
Additional issues
- The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area;
- The effect of the proposed development on trees
- The effect of the proposed development on protected habitats sites
- The effect of the proposed development on protected species.
- Contradicts Policy SP1 of Island Plan
- Planning balance
Character and appearance
The proposed site is a large rectangular greenfield site outside the settlement boundary to the south of Steyne Road and the East of Hillway road. It is a relatively open area of grassland enclosed by mature hedgerows and ancient trees many of which are the subject of Tree Preservation Orders
Steyne Road runs along the northern boundary of the site and provides one of the two access routes into the village of Bembridge. The road is busy with narrow pavements and is already significantly congested at peak periods and is particularly busy on rubbish collection days and when any events are held at the recreation ground. The western edge of the proposed site is bordered by Hillway road which provides access to dwellings on Howgate road and the ever expanding holiday camps located on Hillway road. This road has a 25 meter stretch of pavement on the western side running south from Steyne Cross roundabout. There is no street lighting, the road is not straight and has very limited sightlines for drivers from either direction. Additionally, there is a 90 degree bend at the junction with Howgate road. This stretch of road is used by residents and visitors to access the coastal path and is regularly used by horseriders and cyclists.
From the boundary roads, there are clear views into the proposed site through gaps in the boundary hedges and trees. The proposed site is outside the settlement boundary defined in the Bembridge Neighbourhood Development and is undeveloped and has a tranquil and rural character.
The proposed development of 57 houses will be visually prominent and at odds with the sylvan character of the area.
Although the proposed site is partially screened from view by trees and hedgerows, the presence of 57 dwellings, domestic paraphernalia and the vehicle and pedestrian movements associated with this proposed development will adversely effect the tranquil semi rural character of the village.
Whilst there is some linear development along Steyne Road which marks the northern boundary of the proposed site, there is an absence of development on the southern side of the road where the proposed site is located, with the only property being Nansen Farm and (Andrew’s house), both of which are large detached houses in substantial grounds and not part of linear development. It would therefore be out of character with the pattern of development. The proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policies SP1, SP5 and DM2 of the Island Plan Isle of Wight Core Strategy 2012 (the Island Plan) and the Bembridge Neighbourhood Development Plan. It would also not align with the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). These policies seek to protect, conserve and enhance the Island’s built environment and require that any development on previously non developed land adjacent to settlement boundaries should enhance the character and context of the local area
Trees
There are a significant number of ancient and veteran trees around the perimeter and throughout the site in a mix of species, covered by Tree Preservation Orders. These trees significantly contribute to the character and appearance of the area when viewed from the surrounding roads. The application has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would not adversely affect trees on the site, meaning that that the proposal is in conflict with Policies SP5 and DM12 of the Island Plan which seek to protect, conserve and enhance the landscape and the Island’s natural environments. It would also conflict with the NPPF which recognises the contribution trees make to character and seeks their retention wherever possible.
Protected habitats sites
The appeal site is in the Solent Region where there are a number of internationally designated sites. It is also located within the 5.6 kilometre buffer zone around the Solent and Southampton Water SPA. These sites are European Sites of Nature Conservation Importance and are subject to statutory protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Any proposals that would adversely affect the integrity of a European site of Nature Conservation Importance should not be approved as per Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017
The water environment within the Solent region is internationally important for its wildlife. The conservation objectives for the protected sites within this area are to ensure that the integrity of the sites are maintained or restored as appropriate.
Any new residential development within this area is likely to have a significant effect on the designated sites as a result of increased recreational pressure from future occupants. To avoid such harmful impacts, mitigation would be required. The Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy 2017 sets out the mitigation measures required from new dwellings and a sliding scale of developer contributions based on property sizes. The current application makes no mention of this
Additionally, recent advice issued by Natural England has identified that The Solent is in poor condition due to excessive nitrogen inputs into the water environment causing eutrophication of the designated sites, and adversely impacting on the protected habitats. Natural England has advised that wastewater arising from additional housing which discharges into the SPA is likely to contribute further to the degradation of the Solent and therefore avoidance measures are required. Even if the foul water and sewage from the proposed development is routed to the Sandown Wastewater Treatment Work and thence discharged into the English Channel rather than the Solent there is irrefutable data from the Southern Water “Beachbuoy” app showing that the sewage and surface water infrastructure in Bembridge is overwhelmed on a frequent basis by rainfall events. This results in surface water and untreated sewage being discharged into the Solent. Consequently, the proposal will adversely affect protected habitats sites. It would therefore be in conflict with Policy DM12 of the Island Plan and the NPPF that, together, seek to protect the integrity of internally designated sites.
Ecology
No Ecological survey has been submitted for this proposal. Local residents will attest to the fact that this greenfield site provides habitat for reptiles and amphibians including frogs toads and newts. It also provides habitat for Red squirrels and dormice and there is frequent Badger activity. It is essential that a thorough, detailed Ecological survey is completed
The application does not contain a Tree Bat survey, which examines the potential for roosting bats to be impacted by the development. Visual inspection of the site and the veteran trees indicate a significant number of trees offer roost potential and require detailed inspection.
Contradicts Policy SP1 of Island Plan
Under Policy SP1 of the Island Plan, proposals for residential development on greenfield sites such as this need to demonstrate that deliverable previously developed land is not available and an identified local need will be met. No evidence to demonstrate this requirement has been met has been submitted.
This proposal will cause harm to protected habitats sites and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and trees, It would be contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this conflict. The application should be rejected.
“Build a Better Bembridge” call for more affordable homes
Local campaign group “Build a Better Bembridge” are calling on the Isle of Wight Council to build more affordable homes on sustainable sites that can deliver realistic opportunities for Islanders. The group which was originally set up to address residents’ concerns over inappropriate housebuilding in Bembridge say they want a wider conversation about delivering appropriate homes that meet genuine Island-wide need. They cite a current planning application on Steyne Road, Bembridge for 11 two-bedroom flats on brownfield land as an example.
Build a Better Bembridge, known as BBB, have been vocal in resisting allocations for building 180 homes on the edge of Bembridge and have criticised the excessive allocation of greenfield land in the current draft Island Planning Strategy. Reflecting on recent news stories in the local press featuring Bembridge based developer Captiva Homes, BBB say local campaigners and councillors are being unfairly painted as anti-housebuilding which is not accurate. BBB say they are launching a campaign which calls for housebuilding in places which are affordable and close to local jobs and opportunities.
Sara Smith of Build a Better Bembridge said, “We agree that there is a housing need on the Island for low-cost homes including affordable rental accommodation. The key question is how to best deliver it. Developing large chunks of farmland on the edge of villages will swell the bank balances of private developers but it will do little to deliver homes that most Islanders can actually afford. Only a minority of the homes on private land can be designated as “affordable” and even then, affordable only means 80 per cent of market price. When house prices have climbed 20 per cent in the last two years in some areas, 80 per cent of the current market price is still very far from affordable for most people. These sorts of houses will appeal mainly to the second home market or investors.”
Ben Wood of BBB went on to say, “the Council should be doing more to prioritise land it owns where it is not bound by the national definition of so-called affordability. It can build and let properties at genuinely affordable low rents where there is a real shortage of supply. In addition to Council owned brownfield sites in Newport, we are aware of a site near Nettlestone which a housing association is interested in bringing forward. None of these sites are in the draft IPS notwithstanding the plan is supposed to identify land allocations for the next 15 years and help Islanders.”
Local Councillor Joe Robertson added, “Bembridge is already set to deliver over 40 homes by way of approved permissions and future windfall sites. The village has had a longstanding record of delivering housing development and it is not turning its back on delivering for local people in the future. But when the local bank has closed, the local garage has been knocked down and replaced with housing, and the Council are trying to reduce pupil places at Bembridge Primary School we have to take a stand and say enough is enough – we cannot accommodate another 180 additional properties.”
Captiva Homes has recently announced what it says are a range of environment pledges which include carbon offset against the homes it builds by planting trees and rewilding on land it says it has secured. But BBB remain sceptical. Gerry Price of BBB said, “planting trees and rewilding at some unspecified location at an unspecified future date does nothing for the individual villages which developers are pouring concrete into. How does planting trees in another part of the Island deal with the already overstretched Victorian sewage systems or the major flooding we saw in Bembridge and Binstead last summer and in Arreton this summer? What we need is specific detail within planning applications which must be delivered like flood mitigation, use of renewable energy like solar panels and ground source heat pumps, collection of rainwater, eco-friendly building designs, and use of new technologies. Looking at Captiva’s planning applications to date we have seen nothing that sets them apart in terms of delivering green or affordable housing.”
View Bembridge Flood Report – IOW Council
PLEASE READ – BUILD A BETTER BEMBRIDGE OBJECTION – PDF
PLANNING APPLICATION
Say NO to this inappropriate development which brings NO benefit to the village and ignores the democratically expressed wishes of the village community expressed in the Bembridge Neighbourhood Development Plan.
Your comments and objections must relate to land use considerations, traffic and environmental matters.
Please respond with your comments to the Isle of Wight Council Planning Office by 5pm on 12th January 2022. There are three ways to do this:
- Comment directly on the Isle of Wight Council’s planning portal – see link: https://bit.ly/3FTlWWv
- Email your comments with the subject reference 21/01884/FUL| Proposed Development of 57 Dwellings in Bembridge to: development@iow.gov.uk
- Post your comments in a letter to the Council, again with subject reference: 21/ 01884 / FUL | Proposed Development of 57 Dwellings in Bembridge to:
Isle of Wight Council Planning Services, Seaclose Offices, Fairlee Road, Newport, Isle of Wight, PO30 2QS
BACKGROUND / OVERVIEW
A developer wants to build 57 houses in the greenfield at the edge of the village adjacent to Steyne Road and Hillway Road in addition to the 9 houses that have already been granted permission. The village is already overbuilt and under resourced. The proposed development does not meet any identified need for the village. It will not produce affordable houses for local families. Green space on the edge of the village will disappear forever, fundamentally changing the character of Bembridge. It will adversely effect all residents of Bembridge by dramatically increasing traffic and straining already over stretched resources.
REASONS TO OBJECT
Ignores Bembridge Neighbourhood Development Plan. The Isle of Wight Council and the developer are ignoring the legally binding Bembridge Neighbourhood Development Plan (BNDP). The BNDP recognises that some development is inevitable but that it should be small scale, tailored to identified needs and ideally on existing sites within the village NOT greenfield.
Traffic. This is already a nightmare in winter and is significantly worse in the summer. An additional 57 houses with 6 vehicle movements per day will generate 342 extra daily car movements. The roads are narrow. There are no pavements or street lights around the development. There is no parking. This is not just an inconvenience it could be fatal if it prevents access/egress by emergency vehicles. The site entrances will be onto already overcrowded Steyne Road and Hillway Road. The additional load will inevitably cause more accidents at the poorly designed Steyne Cross mini roundabout.
Infrastructure. Our village continues to grow, yet we are suffering from massive underinvestment in infrastructure and services – with few local employment opportunities and no secondary school, no GP surgery, no bank, no petrol station. Our community therefore needs to drive beyond village boundaries to access these services. In addition there are no new car parking facilities, limited public transport and no local fire brigade.
Flooding. The proposed site floods routinely and the surface water run off regularly overwhelms the capacity of the drainage and sewage system in Steyne Road. This floods local properties and businesses and causes sewage to back up into properties and to be discharged onto our premier bathing beaches at Lane End, St Helens and Whitecliff Bay almost every time it rains heavily. The Beachbuoy website documents continual dumping of waste into our waters: https://www.southernwater.co.uk/water-for-life/our-bathing-waters/beachbuoy
Need. There is NO identified local need for 57 expensive new homes. The village population is increasingly elderly and we need to attract and retain young families. There IS a need for a small number of genuinely affordable homes for local families. The proposed development will not provide this. On the proposed development the three bedroom “affordable” houses have been valued at £450,000 – £465.000. The smaller two bedroom “affordable” houses at £400.000 – £435.000. Even with the 80% discount of market value applied to these “affordable” homes these houses are well out of the reach of our young and first-time buyers especially when you factor in Bembridge council tax and ever increasing utility bills. In short the ruse of offering “affordable” homes to legitimise a development is not fit for purpose in a village as expensive as Bembridge where the average price of a house is £407, 322 (Zoopla August 2021). *Prices above provided by local property valuer with current experience and understanding of the east wight and Bembridge specific market.
Environmental Impact. The proposed site contains up to 18 fine or superb oak trees and 2 veteran oak trees some of which are over 200 years old. These oak trees all have individual and area TPO’s. The developer also proposes the near complete removal of 250m of hedgerow. It is a large chunk of habitat and provides a connecting strip of cover within the overall site. Its complete removal is a significant loss, both in terms of landscape integrity and ecological function.
INDEPTH ANALYSIS PDF’s
Build a Better Bembridge
“Build a Better Bembridge’ is a non for profit group of village residents, of no particular political persuasion, who are solely concerned with the wellbeing of our village. We are hoping to make people aware of issues that affect our village.
In this instance the IOW Planning Strategy for a massive development for 180 new homes in the village.
This proposed development will have an impact on everyone in the village and nearby St Helens.
We would really value your point of view on this plan and your support in ensuring the opinions of the community get heard.
Response To Planning Permission Application
There is now an active planning permission application submitted to the IOW Council for the construction of 57 dwellings on greenfield land off Hillway Road and Steyne Road, with provisions for constructing 66 homes developed by the Thornycroft Family, together with Thornwood Developments and BCM. This application became effective on 23rd November (notwithstanding a weekly press list publication date of 17th December), with comments due into the IOW Council Planning Office by 5pm on 12th January 2022.
Members of our Build a Better Bembridge Ltd working committee have been meeting to consider responses to this application. The scale of this proposed application is excessive, disproportionate, will overwhelm Bembridge’s shrinking public services and does not meet the tests of ‘sustainability’ and ‘community need’ as set out in the Bembridge Parish Council’s Neighbourhood Plan – and it appears the IOW Council is seeking to undermine our parish council’s statutory governance by unilaterally ‘upgrading’ our village’s “Rural Service Centre”’ status to a “Secondary Settlement”, including extending the community boundary (SHLAA), all without any community consultation. The planning application can be found on the following link (54 documents): https://bit.ly/3q5WaY4. For those interested in understanding the submission, there are four key documents to consider: (1) Design & Access and Planning Statement, (2) Transport Assessment, (3) Ecological Impact Assessment and (4) Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy.
We are taking expert planning and technical advice as well as advice from the Bembridge Parish Council and Cllr Joe Robertson. Our committee aims to post an analysis of the submission on or before 31st December 2021 in order to help residents understand the issues so that they can make their individual/family representations, giving Bembridge residents at least 12 days to review and submit their written views on or before 12th January. It is crucially important that as many interested residents as possible respond and oppose this planning application. We also note that the Bembridge Parish Council is meeting on 5th January, with community members welcome to attend. Members of Build a Better Bembridge will be in attendance to advise on the issues and help with representations.
In the meantime, please feel free to contact any member of the Build a Better Bembridge working committee: Angus MacLeod, Ben Smith, Ben Wood, Bruce & Amanda Huber, Catherine Bachelor, Gerry Price, Joanna Norman, Nick & Dot Rootes, Paul & Sara Smith or Robin Ebsworth.
Or you may wish to contact BBB direct on info@buildabetterbembridge.co.uk or the Bembridge Parish Council (Chair: Liz White, liz.white@bembridgepc.org.uk) or Councillor Joe Robertson (joe.robertson@iow.gov.uk).
IOW Planing Strategy
A provision has been made for 180 new homes in Bembridge at HA064 Mill Road and HA065 Hillway on privately owned greenfield sites as part of the Draft Island Planning Strategy (published 30th July 2021) published for Regulation 18 consultation.
Bembridge Village Hall 1. 9. 2021.
The two fields are owned by the Thornycroft family who have a long tradition at Bembridge, dating back to the mid-19thcentury, but sold Steyne House & Farm in the 1980s, retaining the strip of land on the edge of the village.
This proposed development has an impact on everyone in the Village and nearby St Helens, whether they live on the Embankment, the High Street, Steyne Road or any of our lanes and roads. It has implications for our Village infrastructure which is already overwhelmed and suffering underinvestment – impacting traffic flows, drainage, water pressure, healthcare, education, emergency services access, and many other aspects of our community life.
Whilst our communities are sympathetic to the National and Isle of Wight need for more housing over the coming years, including affordable housing, would this large-scale development on a greenfield site exacerbate an already untenable infrastructure problem for Bembridge?
The Bembridge Parish Council and community has a tradition of embracing responsible development over many years and stands out amongst Island communities for working with the Isle of Wight Council to meet housing targets.
The community is not against development, rather stresses the need for sustainable development which can be managed in the context of Bembridge’s infrastructure constraints. However, the development of 180 new homes will put a strain on the village infrastructure which we believe will not be sustainable.
There is a planned meeting at Bembridge Village Hall at 7.00pm on the 27th September where local MP Bob Seely will be speaking to Bembridge residents on this issue.
Key points to consider around this development
HISTORY: Bembridge has a good history of supporting responsible development – In the last few years Bembridge has been proactive in green-lighting small proportionate housing developments within the settlement boundary such as the Primary School site off Steyne Road and the Forelands Field Road site. Both offered a proportion of affordable homes.
AFFORDABILITY: The average price of a house in Bembridge is £407,322 (Zoopla August 2021) – it is therefore unlikely that many of the houses in the proposed developments will be affordable housing.
HEALTHCARE: Bembridge village does not have any dedicated Doctors, rather it is served by the St. Helens Medical Centre. It can take up to 8 weeks to secure a routine 10 minute medical appointment.
EDUCATION: Bembridge’s very good Primary school, is nearly full – Bembridge has no provision for secondary school pupils. An extra 180 homes would add at least 60-70 pupils which would overwhelm the education infrastructure, with children likely needing to be bussed out of the village to meet their schooling needs.
TRAFFIC: An extra 180 homes with each home averaging a modest 1.5 cars would add an extra x270 cars driving in and out and around Bembridge, noting that the village already faces pressures of a ‘gridlocking’ High Street one-way system.
PARKING: Bembridge only has one council run car park in the village – This is based at the Lifeboat station.
EMPLOYMENT: There are no large employers in the village, even though Bembridge is bustling and prosperous – the majority of full time workers commute out of the village for employment.
PUBLIC TRANSPORT: The bus network is weak, even though Southern Vectis have improved their public and school bus services over the years, for many people the bus network is not a feasible option. In part this is due to Bembridge’s remote geographical location on the extreme north eastern side of the island.
VILLAGE ACCESS: There are only 2 access roads into and out of Bembridge – If as when Southern Water closed the Embankment Road for a week in June, one of these roads is closed it causes major traffic problems and diversions. This raises risks for residents to access emergency services given the size of the community, with it’s fragile connections to the rest of the Island.
WATER MANAGEMENT: Flooding, drainage, sewage and water pressure issues are prevalent – a number of homes have recently suffered from severe flooding due to weak drainage infrastructure, with a number of residents forced to leave their homes for repairs. Flooding occurred in June 2021 throughout the village in Beach Road, Weavers Yard, Hillway, Steyne Road, Love Lane, Station Road, Solent Landing and Harbour Strand.
ENVIRONMENT / AONB: At risk is the unique rural boundary to the Southwest of the village. The two fields provide grazing for the cattle kept by farmer Richard Salter at Steyne Farm. The two fields also contain up to 40 ancient oak trees some of which are over 200 years old. These oak trees all have tree protection orders on them, dated 13 April 2021. The TPO’s where signed off by Jerry Willis Arboricultural Officer, Isle of Wight Council.
Mill Road provides easy access and adequate parking to the historic Bembridge Windmill and the land beyond which runs down to Brading Marshes. The roads adjacent to the fields also afford locals a place to cycle, walk, run and ride horses in a village setting. The two fields in question are sandwiched between National Trust land at Bembridge Windmill and other fields of AONB which run down to Bembridge Airfield, Sandown Road and Howgate and are therefore critical to retaining Bembridge’s rural character.
Questions to the Council
Outlined are some questions we propose to put to the IOW Council. If you have any further questions please attend the meeting or send to the Parish Council through their Contact page on www.bembridgepc.org.uk
To quote from the Council’s Draft Strategy Plan
One of the aims of the strategy is “To improve the delivery and affordability of new homes to best meet island needs in the most sustainable locations with the right infrastructure reducing the reliance on private transport.” The position of the two fields on the edge of Bembridge is an unusual choice. Bembridge due to its geographical location on the extreme northeastern side of the island is by definition remote. The public transport options in and out of Bembridge are very limited so the two greenfield developments will rely heavily on car ownership which goes against the Council’s stated aims. Can the Council explain?
Another Council aim is “To prioritise land within existing settlement boundaries particularly where the land is brownfield and or in public sector ownership.” The two fields do not fit this criteria as they are greenfield sites in private ownership and are outside the agreed settlement boundary of Bembridge village. Can the Council explain?
Another Council aim is “To support proposals that increase travel choice and provide alternative means of travel to the car. The local cycling and walking infrastructure plan and the Isle of Wight rights of way improvement plan aims to meet this. The relevant proposals should provide an improved accessibility for pedestrians, cyclists, equestrian, public transport.” There are no new proposals for new cycling or walking infrastructure in Bembridge. These two sites do not fulfil that criteria. Can the Council explain?
HERE ARE SOME FURTHER QUESTIONS
Are there alternative sites on the island that might be better suited to development?
There are issues with flooding, drainage, sewage and water pressure in Bembridge. Where would the two greenfield developments dovetail into the existing Bembridge drainage and sewage systems? Is it sensible to build 180 new houses on high ground in a village that is already exposed to flooding, drainage, sewage and water pressure issues, also noting that the lower ground Steyne Road area has faced chronic drainage issues over many years?
How does the Council propose to enhance and invest in the infrastructure necessary for the proposed Bembridge sites?
How will the Council ensure that the private house developers contribute to the cost of the new infrastructure?
Can the Council explain how the current proposed housing strategy for Bembridge links in with other aspects of the Island’s regeneration?
Who exactly are these houses for? They won’t be affordable homes because of the inflated house prices in Bembridge.
Bembridge does have a Neighbourhood Development plan that was approved by referendum in 2014 and is therefore enshrined in law. Interestingly the Isle of Wight Council have unilaterally extended The Bembridge settlement boundary beyond what was agreed in 2014. Why?
Bembridge has also been proposed to be upgraded from a rural service centre to a secondary settlement. In layman’s terms, this turns Bembridge from a village into a small town, negatively impacting the ability of the village to have sovereignty over its planning. Can the local authority unilaterally overrule Bembridge’s Development plan? Is it sensible or feasible to upgrade a settlement status of a village that can only be accessed by two small roads? Also what are the implications for the emergency services especially when you note that Bembridge has an important Coastguard and RNLI presence.
Acknowledging the objective of the Thornycroft family toward some form of development for longstanding held land, perhaps this site would be better developed for solar PV to power the future energy needs of the community, or another more sympathetic development given the constraints of Bembridge infrastructure?
