Date: 20th February 2003
Released by: ANDREW TURNER

Councillors who threw out plans for residential ‘barrack blocks’, ‘rabbit hutches’ and ‘naff development’ in Newport and Ryde have received the backing of Island MP, Andrew Turner. He criticized Council planners for ‘greed’ and ‘putting the long-term interests of the Island second to Government building targets’.

Mr Turner said,
"Government guidelines demand higher housing densities – but they also demand (in PPG3, para. 55-56) a high quality of urban environment. But too frequently, Island planners are getting the balance wrong – so I congratulate councillors for throwing out these examples of ill-considered overdevelopment.

"Islanders often raise their concerns over planning issues in my weekly surgeries. For instance, in some cases officers have demanded much more housing, and much less parking, than even the greediest developer could have wanted. Rabbit-hutch social housing without adequate gardens means the normal noise of children playing affects everyone adversely. Barrack blocks with shared staircases, without security or storage space create a crime and fire hazard. Lack of on-site car-parking pushes vehicles onto overcrowded roads and increases the opportunity for vandalism. Building in people’s gardens devalues the heritage of our towns and villages. And pushing social housing into far-flung corners of developments creates ghettos.

"It is possible to build high-density, good quality developments – for example by building on three stories instead of two, putting car-parking under buildings, reducing the waste of unusable corners of development, and taking advantage of the spectacular views available from some sites rather than building rows of characterless housing which would fit just as well in Basingstoke."

Mr Turner called upon the Council to lose no time in following PPG3 guidance to create ‘a shared vision with the local community of the types of residential environments they wish to see in their area and articulate this through their development plan policies and supplementary planning guidance,’ and demanded that, in the interim, planning applications should not be approved which contravene the best standards available nationally. He concluded,

“We are quite good at protecting the Island’s countryside and coastlines. But our planners ‘could do better’ when it comes to towns and villages – and, after all, it’s there that most Islanders live.”

Notes:

1. The IW County Press reported (14th February, 2003, page 18) the Development Control committee threw out plans for ‘rabbit hutches’, ‘barrack blocks’ and ‘naff development’.
2. The Government’s Planning Policy Guideline 3 says (inter alia):

   “55. … Local planning authorities should develop a shared vision with their local communities of the types of residential environments they wish to see in their area and articulate this through their development plan policies and supplementary planning guidance.

   56. New housing development of whatever scale should not be viewed in isolation. Considerations of design and layout must be informed by the wider context, having regard not just to any immediate neighbouring buildings but the townscape and landscape of the wider locality. The local pattern of streets and spaces, building traditions, materials and ecology should all help to determine the character and identity of a development, recognising that new building technologies are capable of delivering acceptable built forms and may be more efficient. Local planning authorities should adopt policies which:

   • create places and spaces with the needs of people in mind, which are attractive, have their own distinctive identity but respect and enhance local character;
   • promote designs and layouts which are safe and take account of public health, crime prevention and community safety considerations;
   • focus on the quality of the places and living environments being created and give priority to the needs of pedestrians rather than the movement and parking of vehicles;
   • avoid inflexible planning standards and reduce road widths, traffic speeds and promote safer environments for pedestrians; and
   • promote the energy efficiency of new housing where possible.”