Aerial view of Sylvan Drive plans

Proposed housing development near Newport faces criticism over environmental and flooding concerns

Heavily criticised plans for a raft of new housing on the edge of the Isle of Wight’s county town have resurfaced.

Gallantgreen Ltd resubmitted a hybrid application to County Hall including planning permission to demolish a garage and build 19 homes with associated access and infrastructure on land north of Sylvan Drive in Newport.

Also included in the proposal is a bid for outline permission for a residential development with means of access and open space.

The latest plans have been amended with the position of a combined cycle and pedestrian path changed and one plot removed.

Stiff resistance
Gallantgreen’s original 2023 bid included 20 homes and was subsequently met with stiff resistance from Newport residents, Newport and Carisbrooke Community Council and councillor Joe Lever, who represents Carisbrooke and Gunville at County Hall.

Objections raised concerns relating to the environment, wildlife, local services and infrastructure, traffic flows, rights of way, affordability, flooding, road safety, water quality, sewerage, submitted documents’ accuracy and clarity, noise and dust levels, parking space and the area’s recreational use.

Environment Agency objection
Councillor Ray Redrup objected to the application following a November 2023 plan revision to extend the combined cycle and pedestrian path.

He said,

“As the ward councillor for Newport West I am objecting to this application. This is because there have been several significant flooding events in this area in recent months and I am concerned that the application doesn’t provide enough information on what impact the development will have on this.

“The Environment Agency (EA) has objected to the application due to this, and in particular the EA points out that the Flood Risk Assessment fails to adequately assess the risk posed by this development.”

Proposal ‘strategically located’
The application’s original Design and Access Statement written by the consultancy BCM said its client’s proposal was ‘strategically located’ in an area which is neither ‘environmentally sensitive’ nor specially designated.

It said,

“The site is within a sustainable location close to services and facilities. The proposal has evolved with a clear understanding of all physical, social, economic, environmental and policy considerations.

“The layout has been designed so as not to adversely impact on neighbouring properties or any key considerations, including trees.”

View the plans
You can view the plans on the council’s planning register (23/01410/FUL).

The public consultation runs until 21st February 2025.


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

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
0 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
neilpalmer400
27, January 2022 5:24 pm

Isn’t this five yearly inspection a little premature? After all although FB6 may have been around for 5 years it’s probably only been “in service” for half that time.

Rhos yr Alarch
27, January 2022 8:30 pm

Presumably it could be away for more than six weeks – it’s far from impossible the inspection reveals faults which need to be rectified…

charlest
27, January 2022 10:22 pm

Given that most of the time it can not get across the river they are hoping to take it to Falmouth?

daverose88
27, January 2022 10:32 pm

I understand from the previous press reports from the Council that this survey is going to cost in the region of £250,000. So a further quarter of a million pounds cost for Island Council Taxpayers. Can the onthewight confirm this as this would be an absolute scandal.

Sally Perry
Admin
Reply to  daverose88
28, January 2022 1:40 pm

That’s right, IWC can’t choose whether or not they’d like the MCA inspection to happen, it’s mandatory and the fees are factored into the costs of running the FB. Here’s a snippet of the report from October 2021 in the words of Cllr Jordan: “In March 2022 there is a statutory MCA five-year inspection of the vessel, as they inspect all floating bridges top to bottom every… Read more »

sjw1
28, January 2022 7:20 am

If this is a planned routine inspection it’s rather disappointing that it couldn’t have been undertaken during one of the numerous times the fb was out of service previously

Sally Perry
Admin
Reply to  sjw1
28, January 2022 1:37 pm

When it was out of service, it was being repaired, either here on the Island or in Southampton.

For the MCA inspection, which happens every five years (as it did for FB5), the FB has to go to Falmouth, so not possible to do when it out of service whilst being repaired.

neilpalmer400
Reply to  Sally Perry
29, January 2022 10:55 pm

It’s replacement needs to be a swing or lifting bridge. They wouldn’t have to send that to Falmouth every 5 years for an inspection.

neilpalmer400
Reply to  neilpalmer400
29, January 2022 10:56 pm

And yes I now that apostrophe shouldn’t be in Its.

Mark L Francis
28, January 2022 9:03 am

FB out of service ? How can they tell?

Mason Watch
28, January 2022 11:00 am

Another demonstration of the inability of this administration to grasp a problem and deal with it. Planning is a total shambles, the Floating Bridge is a money pit and responsibility is an unknown concept apparently. Six weeks out….. In the second world war they could have built a fleet of liberty ships in that time and crossed an ocean. This heap of scrap can’t even cross a… Read more »

Phil Jordan
Reply to  Mason Watch
28, January 2022 1:17 pm

Far from not ‘grasping a problem’ we have done the exact opposite on the FB since last May when we took over the administration… Only to discover there were no Mediation dates in the diary, it had not been organised whatsoever (contrary to comments from the previous Leader of the Council when refusing to answer questions about the Fb) and that the SLEP, who funded this vessel,… Read more »

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined