In relation to Bembridge,
We object to the extension of the settlement boundary to include two SHLAA sites, because it is against the Bembridge neighbourhood plan, which sought to restrict large development and focus instead on small scale and infill development.
In addition, we object to being made a secondary settlement, rather than a rural service centre.
In addition, we wish to note that the population has doubled over twenty years without investment in infrastructure.
Overall, we believe that the Island should make the case for genuine ‘exceptional circumstances’ in housing need. This would mean creating an Island housing needs assessment, complementing the Council’s work evidencing the Island’s delivery constraints.
The Government has informed the Member of Parliament of the potential viability of the exceptional circumstances approach.
The current method used to generate housing targets is not appropriate for calculating the Island’s current or future needs. More generally, we need to develop a more sustainable future for the Island.
The IW Council plans to accept, in practice, the current targets, but to argue that the Island cannot meet those targets. I believe that the Island should in principle, argue for exceptional circumstances and NOT accept the current numbers on principle as well as arguing that it cannot build the numbers required.
The Island does not have the infrastructure, public services or inward investment to support the proposed housing targets. Our current housing targets are unachievable; despite having over 2000 dwellings permissioned and unbuilt, at no point during the last decade has Island development met the new target. Simply put, I believe we cannot build enough homes to meet a target any higher than 300-400 homes per year.
The Council plans to accept a housing target of approx. 480 homes per year. It will not achieve this target and will simply set itself up for failure, allowing developers to potentially run riot over the Island’s countryside. We must not accept a target we cannot achieve.
Furthermore, the Island’s undeveloped landscape must be better protected. This would involve a significantly lower proportion of greenfield development. To protect our landscape, the Island requires recognition and support for wider statutory designations. This includes options for expanding the Island’s AONBs (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), or creating an ‘Island Park’ designation, which could be tailored to our specific needs. Protections should include recognition of the Island’s landscape as a UNESCO biosphere and of the importance of sustainable interaction with the environment.
In addition, whilst the updated policy on high-quality design is welcome, this is an opportunity for the Council to strategically coordinate with local communities and designers to transform the standard and character of the properties we build.
Summing up, the Island needs housing; for Islanders, in sensitive numbers, in existing communities, in a recognisable Island style. What it does NOT need is generic, low density, car dependent, carbon inefficient, environmentally damaging, sprawl housing estates which destroy the landscape, are not built for Islanders and damage the Island’s economy and quality of life.
The Government has informed the Member of Parliament of the potential viability of the exceptional circumstances approach.
The current method used to generate housing targets is not appropriate for calculating the Island’s current or future needs. More generally, we need to develop a more sustainable future for the Island.
The IW Council plans to accept, in practice, the current targets, but to argue that the Island cannot meet those targets. I believe that the Island should in principle, argue for exceptional circumstances and NOT accept the current numbers on principle as well as arguing that it cannot build the numbers required.
The Island does not have the infrastructure, public services or inward investment to support the proposed housing targets. Our current housing targets are unachievable; despite having over 2000 dwellings permissioned and unbuilt, at no point during the last decade has Island development met the new target. Simply put, I believe we cannot build enough homes to meet a target any higher than 300-400 homes per year.
The Council plans to accept a housing target of approx. 480 homes per year. It will not achieve this target and will simply set itself up for failure, allowing developers to potentially run riot over the Island’s countryside. We must not accept a target we cannot achieve.
Furthermore, the Island’s undeveloped landscape must be better protected. This would involve a significantly lower proportion of greenfield development. To protect our landscape, the Island requires recognition and support for wider statutory designations. This includes options for expanding the Island’s AONBs (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), or creating an ‘Island Park’ designation, which could be tailored to our specific needs. Protections should include recognition of the Island’s landscape as a UNESCO biosphere and of the importance of sustainable interaction with the environment.
In addition, whilst the updated policy on high-quality design is welcome, this is an opportunity for the Council to strategically coordinate with local communities and designers to transform the standard and character of the properties we build.
Summing up, the Island needs housing; for Islanders, in sensitive numbers, in existing communities, in a recognisable Island style. What it does NOT need is generic, low density, car dependent, carbon inefficient, environmentally damaging, sprawl housing estates which destroy the landscape, are not built for Islanders and damage the Island’s economy and quality of life.
Links:
BEMBRIDGE RESIDENTS’ MEET BOB SEELY TO DISCUSS FUTURE HOUSING PLANS
Initial Response from Robert Seely, Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight