Isle of Wight Council Responds To Government Planning Policy Consultation

The council send their response to the Government’s consultation on changes to planning policy

Anyone who follows the national news will’ve heard about the Government’s consultation on changes to planning policy.

PlansThe consultation period comes to an end today and although it is not obligatory, the Isle of Wight council have submitted a response to the Government.

The documents make an interesting read, revealing further details about national and local planning policy. Just one example was the news that there are no designated greenbelt areas on the Island.

The aims are to simplify the process
The council say they welcome “the aim to simplify the planning process and slim down the abundance of planning policy guidance”, but highlight the following issues in order to support employment and regeneration on the Island.

  • Serious concerns over the apparent suggestion that employment allocations/sites should not be protected. If this were the case it would be likely to lead to a very swift rush to obtain consents for higher value use, resulting in the loss of employment sites.
  • The lack of clarity on the issue of a 5 year land supply for housing, particularly the right to refuse applications where a 5 year land supply can be demonstrated and proposals on unsustainable sites come forward.
  • The need for an additional 20% of housing supply over and above the 5 year supply would appear to be a fairly arbitrary figure. It is the view of the Council that in any case that it is the role of windfall sites to provide choice and flexibility within the housing supply.
  • The lack of reference to enforcement, particularly given the specific mention of enforcement within the Localism Bill. Particular reference should be made to the local authority role of determining whether it is expedient to enforce against a particular breach of planning consent.
  • The need for a consistent definition of “infrastructure” to provide clarity for communities and developers with regard to what it encompasses. This is particularly relevant when local authorities develop their Community Infrastructure Levy’s, which will be the major source of funding for infrastructure projects in the future.
  • The apparent focus of attention on “blaming” planning for delaying growth, without any recognition that market conditions and economic climate play a vastly influential role in terms of financing growth and viability of proposals.

Read the papers
For those interested in reading more about the proposals and the reasons behind the council’s response, we’ve embedded the documents below for your convenience.

Proposed response

Image: Owl Pacino under CC BY 2.0

Monday, 17th October, 2011 12:57pm



Filed under: Island-wide, Isle of Wight Council, Isle of Wight News, Planning

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


Any views or opinions presented in the comments below are solely those of the author and do not represent those of OnTheWight.


  1. LowerDeckLawyer

    17.Oct.2011 5:19pm

    The reason there is no greenbelt designation is probably because over half the land area of the Island is in the AONB:

    This should give a higher level of protection than greenbelt anyway, and also the AONB area should be unaffected by the NPPF. A few references from planning sites:

    However it would have been nice for IW Council to have even commented on this given its half the Island. Take for instance this response from Cotswold AONB:

    You’ll see that the Cotswolds AONB have major concerns that local plans will conflict with the AONB plan and lead to housing development being approved in the AONB on appeal. Of course the Cotwolds AONB spans several local authorities so you would hope this wouldn’t occur here as there are no overlaps.

    So depending on your point of view, this is good as on the Island, presumptive development will be limited to the current population areas (all the major towns/villages are outside the AONB, remembering that the AONB plan does allow for development related to agriculture and tourism.

    Or it is bad because remaining privately owned ‘green’ areas within the towns will be heavily developed. This could also include the loss of many industrial sites to housing, putting more pressure on employment and hiking the value of commercial land, thus becoming an impediment to business start up.

  2. somuchmerde

    18.Oct.2011 5:03pm

    Don’t suppose there was any mention of their concerns about the government removing the necessity for developers to undertake tree surveys and doing away with the need for developers to plant trees was they?? No of course not…silly me to think that the iwc care about trees………

Add comment