Increasing Island's housing target "contradicts local democracy" says MP

featured-image

Increasing the Isle of Wight’s annual housing target to 703 “contradicts local democracy” and is “completely impractical” - says the Conservative MP for Isle of Wight East.

Increasing the Isle of Wight’s annual housing target to 703 “contradicts local democracy” and is “completely impractical” - says the Conservative MP for Isle of Wight East. Joe Robertson spoke to the press following the Planning Inspectorate’s rejection of County Hall’s proposed target of 453 new homes per year, which the independent body said cannot be justified under claims of “exceptional circumstances”. The government’s inspectors presented the council with two options: go ahead with a short-term version of the Island Planning Strategy (IPS) which includes a higher annual target of 703 homes or start afresh by drafting a new strategy based on Whitehall’s standard method – requiring 1,100 new homes to be built on the Isle of Wight per year.

Mr Robertson said: “The Island Planning Strategy underwent a lengthy consultation process locally, and our council submitted a version that garnered the widest possible local support. Read more: Isle of Wight could be forced to build 1,100 new homes a year Read more: County Hall's refusal of seaside village homes appealed “To be now told by the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol that we need to nearly double our annual housing target to 703 contradicts local democracy and is completely impractical. “My bigger concern is that the government intends to establish a Combined Mayor with Hampshire, which could strip our council of its powers regarding planning strategy and push for an even larger annual housing target of over 1,000 homes.



“This poses a significant threat to the natural beauty of our Island and the independence of our local decision-making powers. That is why I am saying no to a Hampshire-based Mayor without Island residents having a say first.” Labour MP for IW West, Richard Quigley, has also been asked for comment.

We do not moderate comments, but we expect readers to adhere to certain rules in the interests of open and accountable debate. You must verify your phone number before you can comment. Please enter your phone number below, and a verification code will be sent to you by text message.

Please enter the six-digit verification code sent to you by SMS. Your verification code has been sent a second time to the mobile phone number you provided. Your verification code has been sent a third time to the mobile phone number you provided.

You have requested your verification code too many times. Please try again later. The code you entered has not been recognised.

Please try again You have failed to enter a correct code after three attempts. Please try again later..