Plans to build 50 homes on Puckpool Hill: Have your say

Outline plans have been submitted to build up to 50 homes on Puckpool Hill opposite former the holiday park

puckpool hill plans for 50 houses

Up to 50 houses could be built on Puckpool Hill — opposite the former Harcourt Sands Holiday Park.

Following pre-application consultation earlier in the year, the applicant RJB SIBA Trust has put forward outline plans for a range of two to five bedroom houses on the top of Puckpool Hill.

Outline plans only
The outline plans mean only the access, landscaping and other associated works are to be determined at this stage, with other matters, including the layout of the development, coming later.

The greenfield site, which was formerly used by the holiday park as a recreation field and golf course, had been identified by the Isle of Wight Council in the draft Island Planning Strategy Development Plan as providing space for homes.

Split of property types
Agents WYG said a meeting has been requested with the council to discuss the viability of providing affordable housing on the site.

Nine two-beds, 13 three-beds, 24 four-beds and potentially four five-bed houses are proposed for the site.

According to the agents’ design statement, the proposed scale and layout would ‘respect and preserve the character and appearance of the locality’.

Concerns raised about impact on wildlife
Feedback from the pre-application consultation saw concerns raised about the development of the greenfield land and the impact on wildlife, but some comments supported the need for housing.

It is also proposed the pedestrian safety will be improved by widening the road at Puckpool Hill, building a new footway on Appley Road and bus stop improvements at Thornton Cross.

Have your say
View the plans or comment on the application, 20/01733/OUT, via the Isle of Wight Council’s planning portal.


This article is from the BBC’s LDRS (Local Democracy Reporter Service) scheme, which OnTheWight is taking part in. Some alterations and additions may be been made by OnTheWight. Ed

Image: © WYG

Any views or opinions presented in the comments below must comply with the Commenting 'House Rules' and are solely those of the author and do not represent those of OnTheWight.

Leave your Reply

6 Comments on "Plans to build 50 homes on Puckpool Hill: Have your say"

newest oldest most voted
Steve Goodman

Still eager to build on what remains of our valuable greenfield spaces before building on the long neglected brownfield opposite and similar sites, knowing so much about why we shouldn’t…

alisonjane

Yet another greenfield site!
Why not build on the disused, eyesore holiday park?
More houses that Island residents won’t be able to afford.

seadog

Another shocking development proposal on a greenfield site- especially considering there is a ripe for development brownfield site across the road. Thanks for the heads up OnTheWight

chrisinthemorning
This is just about money as it’s cheaper to build on greenfield rather than clean up and clear brownfield sites. Developers want maximum profits but no social responsibility to the places in which they build. Councils should have a policy of not allowing greenfield site development when there are brownfield sites available. It would have the double advantage of protectiong the countryside and getting rid of ugly… Read more »
Benny C
Basic economics. There has been central govt resistance to blanket presumptions for brownfield over green because it simply pushes up house prices via additional land preparation costs being passed on in the pricing. Taxpayer funded grants are available but these take time and energy on top of the actual site clean up. Using only brown field also restricts supply, again a price mover. The argument that green… Read more »
t1lly

Not only should they not be considering building on greenfield sites, they should be putting safeguards in place to ensure that any houses being built are affordable, only accessible to Island residents and not being on offer to second-home owners. The old Harcourt Sands site would be the logical place to develop, not our open green spaces, which we need to conserve for our wildlife.