Isle of Wight Council Consultation Statement

Isle of Wight Council

Consultation Statement

to support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 (Housing)

March 2015

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Page intentionally left blank

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Contents

1. Introduction 5

2. SP2 Review Regulation 18 Consultation 7

3. SP2 Review SA/SEA Scoping Consultation 11

4. SP2 Review HRA Background Report Consultation 13

5. Quarterly meetings with elected members 14

6. AAP Informal Discussion Document Consultation 15

7. How the main issues identified through consultation have been 17 addressed

Appendix 1 Full list of Regulation 18 & SA/SEA Scoping consultation recipients

Appendix 2 Example of Regulation 18 & SA/SEA Scoping consultation correspondence

Appendix 3 Further Regulation 18 & SA/SEA Scoping consultation correspondence

Appendix 4 Summaries of individual Regulation 18 representations

Appendix 5 SP2 Review HRA Background Report Consultation correspondence

Appendix 6 Quarterly meeting agenda

Appendix 7 AAP Informal Discussion Document Consultation advert

Appendix 8 Summaries of relevant AAP Informal Discussion Document Consultation responses

Figures and Tables

Figure 1.1: Event timeline

Table 2.1: Targetted stakeholder types and examples Table 2.2: Categories of responses to the consultation Table 3.1: Summary of SA Scoping consultation representations and the council’s responses Table 5.1: Dates of quarterly meetings

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Page intentionally left blank

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 1. Introduction

1.1 The Island Plan Core Strategy was adopted in March 2012, having been found sound by an independent Planning Inspector. The Isle of Wight Council is now undertaking a review of the core strategy strategic housing policy, SP2, to establish whether the adopted quantum and distribution is appropriate and deliverable.

1.2 As the process for undertaking a review of an adopted policy is the same as the process for a development plan document, this document has been prepared in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations and sets out how the council has consulted through the SP2 review process to date, provides a summary of the main issues raised by those representations and how they have been addressed.

1.3 The consultation associated with preparation work has been undertaken in accordance with the council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), and because the review into SP2 is a standalone policy review this has been applied in what the council believes to be an appropriate and proportionate manner.

1.4 The councils’ Local Development Scheme (LDS) was published in January 2014, and this version of the LDS was the first to profile the SP2 review.

1.5 The SP2 review has also drawn on a number of other sources of information outside of the dedicated statutory SP2 review consultation process, and these are set out in this document. Figure 1.1 overleaf sets out the timeline of the council’s various consultation and partnership activities relating to the SP2 review from its inception through to this consultation stage.

1.6 As the review progresses through the formal stages, this document will be updated reflect the further work undertaken and the requirements of the regulations.

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015

Figure 1.1: Event timeline

21.03.2012 Island Plan Core Strategy adopted

02.05.2013

New IWC elected 04.06.2013 IWC re-joins PUSH

09.2013 IWC joins Solent Transport 20.10.2013 First AAP Quarterly Meeting

28.11.2013

SP2R on AAP Quarterly Meeting Agenda 01.2014

Revised SCI Published

01.2014 Revised LDS Published 10.01 – 17.02.2014 SP2R Reg 18 & SA/SEA Consultation

17.02 – 24.02.2014 SP2R Reg 18 & SA/SEA Consultation Extension 28.01.2014 PUSH SHMA Published

23.05 – 07.07.2014 AAP Informal Discussion Document Consultation 09.10.2014 IW SHMA Published

30.10 – 03.11 2015 Natural England HRA Background Consultation 27.01.2015 DtC Letter sent

03.2015 SP2R Reg 18 Further Consultation

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 2. SP2 Review Regulation 18 Consultation to date

2.1 The council wrote to a range of targeted stakeholders to launch the SP2 review regulation 18 and Sustainability Appraisal / Strategic Environmental Assessment (SA/SEA) Scoping consultation, and the types of stakeholders (with examples) are set out in Table 2.1 below, with a full list of recipients in Appendix 1. The consultation period ran from 10 January 2014 until midday Monday 17 February 2014. A bespoke consultation letter was sent to each type of consultee, and an example of one of the consultation letters can be found in Appendix 2.

2.2 The public consultation was open for anyone to respond to, but to ensure that the consultation was relevant and proportionate, the notification of the regulation 18 consultation was ‘targeted’ to those that the local planning authority considered may have an interest in the subject 1.

2.3 Through the extensive consultation 2 undertaken as part of the core strategy process, the council had established an extensive consultation database (beyond the specific consultation bodies). The decision was made to notify all individuals / groups on the database of the SP2 review consultation and to invite them to make representation, as it was considered that this represented a reasonable effort to notify those who may have an interest in the review.

2.4 This resulted in over 1700 individuals and organisations being notified (by email wherever possible) of the consultation and invited to respond, and the types of individuals / groups (along with examples) are set out in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Targeted stakeholder types and examples Type Example Number on database Specific Environment Agen cy, Marine Management 32 Consultation Bodies Organisation, neighbouring councils, utility providers, sub-regional organisations General Community and interest groups 82 Consultation Bodies Resident / other Residents that had previously commented on the core 1249 persons strategy, SHLAA site owners Elected IWC Councillors, Parish and Town Councillors 73 representative Agents / developers Agents / developers 258 IWC colleagues Managing Director, Economic Development, Waste 7 Strategy 1701

2.5 The original consultation correspondence included a request to send representations to an email or postal address. During the consultation period it was brought to the council’s attention that the email address given to send representations to was incorrect. In light of this all consultees were notified of the error on 12 February and given the correct email address. To ensure that providing an incorrect email address did not prejudice respondents, the council also extended the consultation period by a week, giving a closing date for

1 As set out in Regulation 18(2)(a-c) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended) 2 Along with Appendices A, B and C

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 representations of midday Monday 24 February 2014. A copy of this correspondence is in Appendix 3.

2.6 The consultation letter posed a specific question, which was

To what extent, if at all, do you consider that there is other evidence or information that should be produced to support a review of policy SP2? If you do, can you please provide information on what that is and why it is needed?

2.7 A total of 53 representations were received on the SP2 review regulation 18 consultation. Summaries of each individual representation are set out in Appendix 4. Whilst the scope of the consultation was well-defined (i.e. covering a standalone policy review), the representations raised a range of issues that, whilst related to the review, were not necessarily directly relevant. Therefore, to assist in the analysis and to help in the understanding of whether the issues raised should be addressed, and if so how, the representations were broken down into four categories 3 (as shown in Table 2.2).

Table 2.2: Categories of responses to the consultation Category Description SP2 related this was recorded where a response made comments directly in relation to the housing number figure Spatial distribution this was recorded where a comment relates to the distribution of housing, including comments on boundaries and settlement gaps Infrastructure this included comments made in relation to flooding, flood risk and drainage Other includes references to employment, unemployment etc and areas that could not be readily identified as one of the other 3 categories above

SP2 related

2.8 There were more responses recorded against SP2 than to any other category, with 32 responses. Of these the majority (22) expressed support for a review of the existing SP2 total quantum and the distribution within the overall figure. However, opinion was split over what the outcome of the review should be with nine responses indicating the existing quantum was too high, whilst eight recommended that the review should be informed by objectively assessed evidence.

2.9 The main issues for this category can be summarised as being:

• The current SP2 figure is too high; and • The SP2 review should be informed by an object assessment.

2.10 In light of these main issues, the council undertook a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and update, which were published in August 2014. This enabled the council to identify its objectively assessed requirements in relation to housing on the Island, which was critical to the SP2 review process.

3 An individual response could be recorded against multiple categories.

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Spatial distribution

2.11 Of the 17 responses attributed to this category the majority were location specific (i.e. referring to a distinct area or place), with the next highest response relating to the use of settlement boundaries and the avoidance of rural sites.

2.12 The main issues for this category can be summarised as being:

• The current SP2 figure for Ryde is too high; and • The current SP2 figure for the Bay is too low.

2.13 In light of these main issues, and informed by other consultation responses and it’s objectively assessed evidence, the council used the SP2 review to consider the spatial distribution of the current policy rather than just the overall quantum.

Infrastructure

2.14 Half of the 16 comments recorded against infrastructure were made in relation to flood risk, which represented 15% of the total number of responses. The next highest sub-category in Infrastructure against which comments were recorded was Highway/traffic.

2.15 The main issues for this category can be summarised as being:

• There should be the appropriate consideration of flooding through the review process; and • There should be the appropriate consideration of the capacity of infrastructure to accommodate development through the review process.

2.16 A number of the issues raised, such as flooding, have been considered through the site- specific assessments undertaken to inform the Strategic Housing Market Availability Assessment (SHLAA), or already been tested through the core strategy examination process (such as infrastructure capacity). They have also been included, as appropriate, within the Sustainability Appraisal framework.

2.17 It should be noted that the SP2 review is only concerned with the strategic spatial distribution across the Island and not change the overall numbers. In light of this a number of these issues have already been tested through the core strategy examination process, and where relevant further, more detailed consideration to a number of the issues raised will be addressed through the Area Action Plan (AAP) process.

Other

2.18 As all other comments that could not be categorised as one (or more) of the three main categories above, they have each been listed separately. Due to their disparate nature it is difficult to group these comments, however it is possible to identify certain key words that sum up the themes represented, being; Space, Employment, Environmental Impacts, Island, Road Safety, Process, Green Economy, and Tourism.

2.19 Generally speaking most of these issues, whilst related, fall outside the strict remit of the SP2 policy review. A number of these issues have been considered through the site-specific assessments undertaken to inform the SHLAA, or already been tested through the core

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 strategy examination process (such as infrastructure capacity). They have also been included, as appropriate, with the Sustainability Appraisal framework. Further, more detailed consideration to a number of the issues raised will be addressed through the Area Action Plan (AAP) process.

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 3. SP2 Review SA/SEA Scoping Consultation

3.1 The representations received on this consultation that relate to the SA/SEA scoping, and the council’s responses to them, are set out in Appendix 1 of the council’s Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report to support the review of Core Strategy policy SP2 Housing, which has been published separately. For ease of reference, summaries of the representations and the council’s responses are set out in Table 3.1 below.

3.2 More detailed information regarding how the responses to the scoping consultation informed the preparation of both the SA/SEA Scoping Report and Main Report can be found in those documents.

Table 3.1: Summary of SA Scoping consultation representations and the council’s responses Comment Summary Council Response SA criteria should be designed to allow a The National Planning Policy Frame work (NPPF) clear side by side comparison of the paragraphs 17,47,159,179 and 182 and National benefits and costs of accommodating Planning Practise Guidance (NPPG), Housing and mainland housing demand relative to the economic needs assessments (updated 06/03/2014) costs and benefits of accommodating confirms that in plan making LPA’s should make existing Island housing need. provision for meeting the needs of the Housing Market Area. The Isle of Wight is a separate housing market area and therefore there is a requirement to plan for overall housing need. ‘Need for housing in the context of the guidance refers to the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that is likely to be needed in the housing market area over the plan period – and should cater for the housing demand of the area and identify the scale of housing supply necessary to meet that demand’. Therefore the NPPF and NPPG require the LPA to plan for need and demand for housing which in this context includes demographic changes, births, deaths and net inward migration. Therefore this is not a separate issue that needs to be covered as part of the SA as the Island Plan Core Strategy (and associated SA) were examined and there is no change to the housing number planned for, just the spatial distribution, as part of the SP2 review. Should the SHMA conclude additional There is no change to the housing number planned for, housing over the plan period then it may just the spatial distribution, as part of the SP2 review. be the case that additional evidence or updates is required. Provision of infrastructure capacity & site All of the issues raised are already addressed by existing suitability taking climate change into SA framework. The level of detail needs to be relevant to account. the nature of the policy. While SP2 does look to determine numbers in each growth area, the areas for growth have already been determined in SP1 Spatial Strategy, while specific allocations will be made in lower tier DPDs. Ability to deliver changed growth (either All relevant environmental designations (including bo th spatially or quantatively) when European sites and the AONB) are used to inform the considering environmental constraints. assessment process of the SA/SEA. These designations

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Comment Summary Council Response also directly inform the allocation process through GIS National Character Area profile for the constraint mapping of SHLAA sites. Isle of Wight The four Statements of Environmental Opportunity (SEOs) associated with this appraisal (no.127) have been assessed separately in Appendix 2, in order to determine their relevance and potential use in the SA process. Baseline information set out in the The purpose of the SA process is to ensure the most English Heritage guidance on “Strategic sustainable options are selected, taking all relevant Environmental Assessments, sustainability criteria into account. Inevitably this results Sustainability Appraisals and the Historic in weighing the benefits and dis-benefits of options Environment” against each other, and where necessary identifying mitigation.

The baseline for the historic environment will be set out in the SA accompanying the policy SP2 review. Important that the historic environment is broadly defined All designated historic assets and their settings will be considered, together with potential impacts on non- Potential impacts on non-designated designated features of local historic or architectural features of local historic or architectural interest and value, in a proportionate, hierarchical interest and value. manner in conformity with the NPPF (ie para 132 “ When considering the impact of a proposed development on Expect the Scoping Report to reflect EH the significance of a designated heritage asset, great guidance as appropriate, including an weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The objective for the conservation and more important the asset, the greater the weight should enhancement of the historic be .”) environment. The council will consider a wide evidence base including all the information stated in the supporting text to core strategy policy DM11 Historic and Built Environment and English Heritage’s guidance on SEA/SA and the historic environment (including an objective for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment).

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 4. SP2 Review HRA Background Report Consultation

4.1 This baseline information and the proposed methodology for conducting the HRA were collated in an HRA Background Report. This report was subject to consultation with Natural England, and the comments received informed the report and the further HRA work.

4.2 The correspondence between the council (dated 30 October 2014) and Natural England (dated 3 November 2014) is set out in Appendix 5.

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 5. Quarterly meetings with elected members

5.1 The council hosts (a broadly) quarterly update/discussion meetings between officers and elected members (both Isle of Wight Council and Town or Parish Councils). These provide an ongoing opportunity for information sharing and to discuss important local planning issues. The first of these meetings was held on 30 October 2013 as part of the AAP process, and different meetings are held to cover the three AAP areas (Medina Valley, Ryde and the Bay).

Table 5.1: Dates of quarterly meetings Medina The Year Ryde Valley Bay 2013 20.10 28.11 07.11 24.02 17.03 06.03 2014 25.06 28.07 17.06 01.10 13.10 16.09 2015 24.02 16.02 20.01

5.2 Once the SP2 review process began the agendas for the meetings were updated to include the review as a standing item. The date of the first agenda specifically including the issue was 28 November 2013, and a copy of this is in Appendix 6.

5.3 These meetings are informal in their nature and have been deliberately organised to foster openness between the LPA and the elected representatives of the communities the AAPs will cover. This has enabled the AAPs and the SP2 review to benefit from a greater awareness and level of understanding of local issues.

5.4 Whilst these meetings do not constitute formal consultation (as required by the regulations), they do highlight the council’s ongoing commitment to local level engagement in, and involvement with, the Island Plan process.

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 6. AAP Informal Discussion Document Consultation

6.1 The AAP informal discussion documents were published by the council for consultation in May 2014, with a specific document being prepared for each AAP area (Medina Valley, Ryde and the Bay). As the title suggests, these were informal documents published outside of the formal development plan document preparation process. Whilst the document was published to gather opinion in relation to the AAPs, it also had the added benefit of providing information that was relevant to, or could inform, the SP2 review process.

6.2 The consultation ran for six weeks from Friday 23 May until midday Monday 7 July 2014. A copy of the notice placed in the local paper, the Isle of Wight County Press, can be found in Appendix 7. A dedicated webpage was also introduced.

6.3 The discussion documents each contained a series of questions, specific to the document. In total 143 questions were asked. The following questions are identified as being the most relevant to the SP2 review process and policy evolution.

Medina Valley

Q1 What are your views on the use of brownfield land first, to support regeneration, and the impacts this could have on infrastructure development?

Q3 Should housing allocations be made on fewer, larger sites or on a higher number of smaller sites?

Q4 What are your views on how the council should approach the size of sites that it allocates in the Medina Valley Plan?

Q5 What are your views on these broad locations for new housing development?

Q25 What are your views on the areas of land listed within paragraph 10.4?

Q26 Are there other areas that need protecting to prevent settlement coalescence?

Ryde

Q1 What are your views on the use of brownfield land first, to support regeneration, and the impacts this could have on infrastructure development?

Q3 Should housing allocations be made on fewer, larger sites or on a higher number of smaller sites?

Q4 If there were to be a limit on numbers for housing allocations, how should it be worked out?

Q9 Do you agree with the suggested amendments shown in the maps on the following pages?

Q10 Do you think there are any other areas where changes to the settlement boundary should be considered?

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Q11 Should the council redraw the settlement boundary to include the Harcourt Sands site, or any other site?

Q22 Do you think that the council should seek to prevent settlement coalescence, or if the development was high quality and delivered a range of other benefits would settlement coalescence be acceptable?

Q23 If you think the council should prevent settlement coalescence do you agree with the general areas we’ve identified? Do you think there are other areas that need protecting from settlement coalescence?

The Bay

Q1 What are your views on the council permitting further development to contribute to the regeneration of The Bay area?

Q2 What are your views on the use of brownfield land first, to support regeneration, and the impact this could have on infrastructure development?

Q3 If viability is an issue on brownfield sites, should the local planning authority take a pragmatic approach to negotiating s106 contributions?

Q11 Do you agree with the possible amendments shown in the maps on the previous few pages?

Q12 Do you think there are any other areas where changes to the settlement boundary should be considered?

Q30 Do you think we should protect the gap between Brading and Sandown?

Q31 Do you think that there are other areas that should be protected to prevent settlement coalescence?

6.4 The summaries of the responses to the questions are set out in Appendix 8. To aid with the analysis the responses were categorised into respondent type (i.e. private individual, private company, planning agent, interest group, parish/town council and Isle of Wight Councillor).

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 7. How the main issues identified through consultation have been addressed

7.1 In light of the main issues identified through the consultation process to date, and summarised in this document, the council has:

• Undertaken a SHMA to identify its objectively assessed requirements and to evidence any change in the overall housing quantum.

• Used the review to test not only the overall housing quantum, but the spatial distribution (whilst maintaining the settlement hierarchy established in policy SP1 (Spatial Strategy)).

• Used the consultation responses to inform the Sustainability Appraisal Framework, against which the alternative spatial options were tested.

7.2 Informed by objectively assessed evidence and formal and informal public consultation responses, the outcomes of the SP2 review proposed submission documentation is that it is proposed to:

• Maintain the current quantum of development proposed for the Island.

• Adjust the current distribution to more closely align with the SHMA-led distribution, recognising need and demand.

• Reduce the level planned for in Ryde and increasing it in the Bay.

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Appendix 1 Full list of Regulation 18 & SA/SEA Scoping consultation recipients

Specific Consultation Bodies and Duty to Cooperate

Environment Agency English Heritage Marine Management Organisation (MMO) Natural England Network Rail Hampshire County Council New Forest District Council New Forest National Park Authority Portsmouth City Council Southampton City Council IW NHS Primary Care Trust Scottish & Southern Electric RWE npower Scotia Gas Network Scotia Group British Gas Southern Water Southern Water Homes & Communities Agency Homes & Communities Agency Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) PUSH Solent Local Enterprise Partnership Hampshire & IOW Local Nature Partnership Transport for South Hampshire & IOW Eastleigh DC East Hampshire DC Fareham BC Gosport BC Havant BC Test Valley BC Winchester CC

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 General Consultation Bodies Abbots Close Residents Association Ltd Northwood Community Partnership Age UK IW Pan Neighbourhood Partnership Battery Road Householders Pan Project Manager Bembridge & St Helens Harbour Association Quality Transport Partnership Bembridge Harbour Users Group RSPB Bembridge Heritage Society RSPB - South East Regional Office British Holiday & Home Parks Association RSPB Brading Marshes British Wind Energy Association Sandown Forum Carisbrooke Priory Trust Shanklin & District History Society Community Action IW (RCC) Solent Forum Connexions Solent Protection Society Country Land and Business Association Sport England Cowes Marine Cluster (IW Chamber of Commerce) St Margaret's Church of England Primary School East Cowes Business Association The National Trust East Cowes Heritage Centre The Showmen's Guild of Great Britain East Cowes Road Residents Association The Theatres Trust East Wight History Group The Victorian Society Farming & Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG) Tourism South East Footprint Trust Undercliff Society Forestry Commission Ventnor & District Local History Society Freshwater Village Association Ventnor Business Association Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust Wight Track Rail User Group Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust Yarmouth Coastal Defence Working Group Home Builders Federation Yarmouth Society Island Harbour Residents Association Limited Yaverland Residents Association Island Tourist Industry Association Freshwater Village Association Isle of Wight Gardens Trust Yarmouth Town Trust Isle of Wight Playing Fields Association Carisbrooke Society Isle of Wight Society Cowes Local History Group IW Buildings Preservation Trust IW Industrial Archaeological Society IW Bus Users Group Sandown & District Historical Association IW Chamber of Commerce St Helens Historical Society IW Chamber of Commerce, Tourism & Industry St John The Baptist Church IW Community Rail Partnership West Wight Community Initiative IW Gardens Trust West Wight History Group IW Historical Association Bonchurch Community Association IW History Centre IW Natural History & Archaeological Society IW Places of Interest & Leisure Activities Assoc. IW Playing Fields Assocation IW Ramblers IW Sports & Recreation Council Mineral Products Association Mobile Operators Association National Farmers Union National Trust

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Resident or other persons

1st Northwood Scout Group Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group ABP Southampton Dinosaur Isle Aggregate Industries Dinosaur Isle Museum Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (UK) DPDS Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association East Cowes Victoria Community Sports Club Apartment 10 East Midlands Airport Arreton Parish Council Embassy Air Services Ltd Asda English Partnerships Assistant Queen's Harbour Master - Portsmouth Environment Information Services Associated British Ports Equality & Human Rights Commission BAA Fields in Trust (NPFA) Bardon Vectis Fir Cottage Bardon Vectis (Aggregate Industries) Firstplan (National Grid Property Holdings) BASC Fishbourne Parish Council Bembridge Airport Fishbourne Parish Council Bembridge Harbour Improvements Co Ltd Flat 5 Bickertons Aerodromes Ltd Freshwater Lifeboat Assocation Biffa Waste Services Ltd Friends, Families and Travellers and Traveller Law Reform Project Bournemouth International Airport GKN plc Brading Roman Villa Golden Hill Homes Ltd Brent Marine Greener Energy Systems British Horse Society Greenpeace (IW) British Horse Society IW Guinness Hermitage Burry & Knight Gurnard Parish Council Campaign for Real Ale Ltd H N Butler Farms Ltd Campaign to Protect Rural England (Isle of Wight) H N Butler Farms Ltd Carpenters Farm Camping Site Hampshire Constabulary Carr & Priddle Hampshire Constabulary Cemoc Ltd Heritage Management Consultant Challenge & Adventure Ltd Honnor & Jeffrey Cheverton Aggregates Hovertravel Cheverton Copse Holiday Park IMS Industrial Cheverton Farm IMS Industrial Chillerton & Gatcombe Parish Council Inflight Peripherals Ltd Cowes Golf Club Island Harbour Cowes Hammerhead Crane Trust Island Labour Cowes Harbour Commission Island Turbine Action Group CPRE-IW Island Turbine Action Group Cycle Forum Island Waste Services Cyclewight Islandline CycleWight Isle of Wight Athletics Club Daffodil Cottage Isle of Wight College Defence Estates Portsmouth Isle of Wight Friends of the Earth Defence Estates South Isle of Wight Island Games Association DEFRA Isle of Wight Local Access Forum

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Isle of Wight Motorcycle Training Scheme Planning Aid Isle of Wight Pet Centre Planning Inspectorate Isle of Wight Schools Cricket Association Priory Bay Hotel Isle of Wight Tramway Company Ltd Radian Avon Isle of Wight Zoo Red Funnel IW Bus Museum Red Squirrel Ltd IW Enterprise Agency REG Windpower (Cornwall Light & Power) IW Steam Railway Royal Yacht Squadron Jerome & Co Solicitors RPW & GA Steele Property Job Centre Plus Ryde Against Pennyfeathers Jones Day Ryde North East Heritage Group Judith Norris Ryde School Kingcross Ltd Ryde Town Council Kirkwells SERFCA Kitbridge Enterprises Trust Shanklin & Sandown Golf Club Labour Party - Sandown and Shanklin Branch Sibden Hill Action Group Leisure Steam Skills Funding Agency Lidl UK GmbH Solent Architecture Centre LSP Southern Housing Group Lymington Harbour Commissioners Southern Vectis Martineau Specialist Flying School Marvins Estate Agency Spectrum Housing Medina Medina High School St Cecilia's Abbey Medina Housing Association Strategic Housing Partnership Medina Mariners Association The Environment Centre Medina Valley Centre The Planning Inspectorate MG Leisure Ltd The Woodland Trust Moreys The Wright Estate Agency MP ThWART National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups ThWART NATS (En Route) Plc Tomlinsons Ltd Natural Enterprise Traveller Law Reform Project Natural Enterprise Vectis Housing Association Natural Enterprise Vectis Ventures Ltd Natural Enterprise Ventnor 2008 Newport Harbour Action Group Ventnor Botanic Garden Ninham Country Holidays Ventnor Golf Club Northwood Business Park Vessel Traffic Services Centre Odessa Marine Vestas Technology R&D Odessa Marine Vintage Vacations Old Barn Touring Park West Wight Riding Club Oldham MBC Whitecliff Bay Holiday Park Openreach Wight Conservation Past Chair RIBA (IW) Wight Nature Fund People off the Streets Wight Salads Group Ltd Planning Advisory Group Wight Squirrel Project

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Wightcable Ltd Wightlink Wightlink Ltd Wight-Tri Yarmouth Harbour Commissioners

Mr John Abrook Mr Patrick Bentley Mrs Rosemary Abukar Claire Cain Mr R Adams Dr Ian Cairns Mr Richard Adams Mr Laurie Calloway Mr Keith Adlam Mrs Pat Cameron Mr Alan Ainslie Mr Keith Campbell Ms Sandra Allen Rosemary Cantwell Mrs Grainne Andrews Beverly Capon Mrs Rachel Andrews Mr and Mrs Carter Mr Alan Ash Mr Geoff Case Captain Andrew Asher Mr & Mrs M R & J E Cass Mr David Atkin Miss Cassels Mr Edward Atkins Mrs Diana Cave Howard Atkins Mr & Mrs M Cave Mr J J W Attrill Mr & Mrs G & J Cawood Mr & Mrs B Attrill Mr Fred Caws Mr Mark Augustus Mr Tony Chadwick Mr Tony Austin Mr Glen Chambers Delian Backhouse-Fry Mr Robert Cheek Mr Tony Badham Mr Bryan Cheek J Bagnall Mr and Mrs Cheney Mr Greg Bailey Mrs Sue Chilton Susy Bainbridge Mr Alistair Chisholm Mr Chris Bakewell Ms A Clark Mr Barry Baldock Nick & Jan Clark Dr Jonathan Ball Mr K Clatworthy Brian Ballard Mr Peter Clayton Mr Anthony Ballard Mrs Pat Clayton Jenny Barker Mr Robert Cleverdon Linda Barnard Peter & Heather Cobb J P & H Bartlett & Brading Penny Codd Mrs M Barton Mr & Mrs Kevin Coghlan Mr W Bates Mr P J Coke Brenda Baxandall Steve Cole Mrs Janet Beasley Mr Philip Cole Mr Toby Beasley Mr John Coleman Mr & Mrs T Bek Mr Dennis Colenutt Valerie Bennett Mr Alan Coles Mrs Christine Bentley Mrs K Colley Chris Colley Mr Richard Day

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Mr Peter Collins Sue Day Mr Paul Collis Mr Richard de Kerbrech Mr Martin Conder Messrs B H W & G D Deacon Mr Terry Connelly Mr Trevor Debenham Mr Frank Cook Mr Robert Dees Mrs Pat Cook Mr Bruce Denness J Cook Barbara Dent RW Cook Ms Judie Diment Mr Alan Cooke Mr Nick Diment Mr A B Cooke Mr N P Dix Mr Chris Cooke Sue Dixon Pam and Jack Coole Mr Christopher Dodd Mr Tony Cooper Mr Terry Down Mr Martin Cooper Mrs Trudy Draper Gillian Corby Mr & Mrs R Drummond Mr Graham Cotterill Jan Dryden Alexandra Cotton Mrs Caroline Dudley Mr Ron Cowland Mr Howard Duffus Mr S Cowley Mr Ian Dunsire Mr & Mrs John & Joan Cox Mr Stuart Dyer Mr Naren Cox Stuart Dyer Mr Alan Cozens Mr Guy Eades Mr David Craddock Rick East Colin Cramp Charles Eden Mrs Fiona Crouch Mrs Karen Edwards Antony & Joan Cubitt Dr Keith and Kristin Eldridge and Hauge Mr Richard Cullen Ms Bron Elis-Williams Mr & Mrs Ian & Jean Cunningham Mrs Nancy Ellacott Mr John Currie Energy Saving Trust Ms M Currie Mr Philip Errington Lynne Cutts Mr Alun Evans Russell Dale Mrs Vera Evans R Dalton Mr Larry Evans Pippa D'Arcy Mrs Sally Evensen Mrs Doreen Davies Mrs Linda Fair Mr Stephen Davies Mr Ian Faithfull Mr Harry Dawes Sarah Faithfull Mr James Dawes Edwina-Maria Farr Mr Max Dawes Mr David Faulkner Mr Richard Dawnay Mrs A V Field Mr Dick Dawson Mr A M Fish Mrs Sally Dawson Mr Michael Fitt Mr Tom Dawson Mr James Flavell J & J Flexer & Walker David Groves Mr Ian Forman Mr Malcolm Groves Mr W Foss Iain Hall

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Mr Peter Frankland Mrs Joan Hall Paul French Mr P Hallums Mr & Mrs P J French Mrs Judith Hammer Dr Christine Freytag Mr M J H Hammond Jutta Freytag John & Lesley Hampshire Ken and Denise Avril Frogbrook Mr Jeremy Hannan Graham Fuller Mr Adrian Hardingham Mr Richard Gale Mr David Harrigan Mrs P Gallier Mr Peter Harris Mr John Gallimore N M Harris Mr & Mrs John & Julia Gange Mr Nigel Harriskine-Cook Mr Guy Gardner Mr John Harrison Mr and Mrs P Gasper Mr James Harrison Miss Daniela Gatto-Ronchieri Mr Christopher Hartley Mr Conrad Gauntlett Ms Gillian Harvey Mr Duncan Gayler Dr P Hatchwell Mr Peter Geach Mrs Sian Hawker Mr Keith Gentleman Mrs Elaine Hawkins Ian Gibbs Jackie Hawkins Sue Gibbs Andrew Hawkins Mr Piers Goad Mr Tony Hawkins Ray & Sheila Godwin Mrs G Hawkins Mr Nick Goodings Mr K Hayden Mr Tony Gordon Mr & Mrs A J & S Hayward Mr J Gormer Ms J Henry Mr Alan Goswell Mr & Mrs Herbert Norman Grant Mr & Mrs P Herbert Wendy Grant Mr Tony Hess Mr E Graves Mrs A Hewitt Mr Jim Gray Mrs Angela Hewitt Ms Jill Green Heather Hicks Mr David Green Mr Nicholas Hicks Mrs Y L Green Mrs Jenny Hillier Mr John Greenaway Mr Trevor Hills Mr Jon Greenham Dr Brian Hinton Mr C A Greenham Mr P R Hippolite Anne Greenham Mrs Kirsty Hippolite Mrs Mary Gregory Mrs Sheila Hiscock Mr David Griffin Mr Melvyn Hiscock Paul Griffin Sir John & Lady Hobart Mr Mark Hobbs Faith Jordan Mr N J Hobbs Mike Jordan Mr & Mrs A D Hocknull Bert Jupe Ben Hollis Joanne Kearney

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Sasha Hollis Mr & Mrs B J & M Keen Glen Holman Pamela Keen Mr Tony Holmes Mr & Ms C M & G M Keith & Pentelow Mr Derek Holmes Mr Tony Kelly Mr Keith Hookey Capt & Mrs R L & A Kemball Mr Michael Hooper Mrs Janet Kendall J Howe Mrs S Kennedy Mr Michael Howels Doreen Kent Mrs Charlotte Howlett Mr John Kenyon Mrs Val Hudson Mr John Kerr Mr Paul Hughes Mrs Margaret Keynes Mrs Avril Hulse Miss Lorraine Keynon Mr J W Hulse Mr Moiz Khanbhai Mr Martin Humphray Mr Victor Kimber Mrs Patricia Hurley Mr Dave Kimpton Laura Hurt Messrs S P & S N King Mr Paul Hutton Mr King Mr T J Hyde Mr Derek Kingsland Mrs Mary Ignarski Joanne Kirkpatrick Mr A E Inett John Kirkpatrick Mr Derek Jackson Ms Evelyn Knowles Mrs H Jackson Mrs Caroline Knox Alan Jacobs Colonel Robin Laird Jacobs Mrs T A Lane Mr Martin Janes Mr Steve Lansley Mr John Jefferies Mr Francis Laugharne Clare Jilani Mr & Mrs E Lawless Dr G Jilani Valerie Lawson Mr Paul Johns Mr Patrick Le Pen Mr D Johnson Mr & Mrs Christopher Leslie Mr Terry Johnson Mr Andrew Levison Mr David Johnston Mr D Lewis Mrs M Johnston Mr Geoffrey Lewis Mr R F Johnston Martin Light Prof Ian Jolliffe Mr Graham Lloyd Jean Jolliffe Pauline Lloyd Mr Alan Jones Mr Ian Logan Mrs Heather Jones Mr Christopher Long Mr Phil Jones J V Lucas Mr Deryck Jones D F Moorse Mr Robin Lucas Jo Morgan Michael & Sabine Luckmann Robert Morgan Mr Timothy Lyoms Steve Morgan Mr Tom Lyons Mr Steve Morley Mrs Carol Mabey Mr & Mrs D Morris Mr Lewis Macdonald Mr & Mrs D Morritt

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Mrs L MacFarlane Mr Jonathan Mortimer J Maciw Mr David Motkin Mr Tony Maizey Mr Jeremy Mudford Mr Greg Malone Mrs Marilyn Muffett Mr J Manning Mrs M K Muffett Mr Ian Margham John Mundell Mr K Marsh Brian and Jan Munro Robina Marshall Sandie Munt Mr John Martin Mr Ian Murdock Mr Paul Martin Andrea Murphy Mr Robert Matthews Pam Murton Mr Peter McCall Stuart & Rosemary Nash Sylvia McCall Mr N Nayi Mrs C D McDowell Mr & Mrs J G Neill Jane McKean Mr & Miss P & H Neill & Field Angela Mcmurtry Kathy Newnham Rev'd Lyn McRostie Mr M Newton Miranda Mellor Mr Adrian Nicholas Mr Peter Mellor Mrs M Nicholls Julian Metcalf Robert & Lynda Nicholls Mr Patrick Methold Mr Rhys Nigh Rowan Middleton-Leal Mr David Nixon Tracy Mikich Mrs Barbara Nolan Mr David Mildon Betty Nolan Mr Dave Miller Mr J D Nolan Mr David Millward Terry Nolan Mr John Milner Mr John Richard Nutter Mr Stephen Misner Joanne O'Connor Mr Oliver Mitchell Annette O'Dowd S Mitchell Ms F O'Kane Ian Moore Mr K O'Kane Emily Moore Mr & Mrs Martin & Olive O'Neil&McLuggage James Moorman Mr K M Orchard Mr Roger Moorman Mr & Mrs S Orr Mrs Maureen Moorman Mr Mark O'Sullivan Paul Moorman Mr & Mrs E R & G Y Overall Ann Moorman Mr H W Paice Mrs P A Parker Sheila Rainey Mr Andy Parkhouse Sylvia Rand Mr Antony Pass Ms S Randall Miss J L Pearce T Rann Mr Jonathan Pearson Mr Joshua Reay Mr and Mrs R Pease Captain Jerry Ree Captain Richard Pease Mr James Reed

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Mr David Pelham Mr Christopher Reed David Perryman Magee Rees Mr Mike Peskett Mr Martin Renshaw Wendy Peskett Mr Maurice Richards J Peters Mr R C Richards Mr Tim Phelps Anne Ricketts Mr Paul Philbrow Mr A H Ridett Mr Alan R Phillips Robert Rising John & Gill Pidgeley Mr Glynn Roberts Graham Pilcher Mr and Mrs Roberts Ms Kathrine Pilcher Sandra Roberts Mr Richard Piper Mrs Angela Robertson Mr David Pitts Mr I Robertson Mr Nicholas Pointing Mr C Robinson Mr M Porteous Debbie Robinson-Phillips Christina Poulter Hugh & Ann Robotham Burnie & Cherry Powell Jill & Don Roe Louise Powell Mr Peter Rogers Mr & Mrs T & S Power Mr Winston Rogers Mr Christopher Pratt Mrs Anne Rogers Mr Robert Preston Dr Jon Rose Bridget Preston Mr Norman Rose Mr David Preston Mrs Alexandra Rowe Mrs Jenny Preston Mr Phil Rudd Mr B D A Price Mr & Mrs Edward Rulton Mrs Price Mr & Mrs A Russell Keith Priest Mr Bob Russell Mr Harry Pritchard Mr C J Russell Mr Derrick Procter Brenda & Peter Salter Mr C E Prudham Mr Paul Sammons

Mr and Mrs Pryce Mr Michael Samuelson Stuart & Sue Quarrie Mr Chris Sandell Mr Chris Quirk Mrs Diana Sandford Mr & Mrs Rackett T Saxcoburg Mr J Raeside Mr Paul Schofield Michael Rainey Mr Scott Scott Mr G Scott Chris Symons Mr Peter Scott Anne & Bob Taylor Mrs J G Sellars Sue & Ken Taylor Mrs Jane Shackleton Mr David Thomas Mr David Sharpe Mr Nick Thomas Mr Frank Sharples Mr Chris Thompson Mr Graham Shaw Mrs J B Thompson Jan & Tony Shaw Mr Tim Thorne Ms Linda Sheasby ThWART

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Mr Jamie Sheldon Mrs J Tibbott Mrs Susie Sheldon Anne Timony Mr Rob Shepherd Dr Andrew Tobias Mr Michael Sheppard Mr Robert Tolchard Mrs Andrea Sheridan Annika Tomlinson Mrs R Shore Rev Noel Toogood Mr Peter Short Kyle, Nora & Ian Tremlett Mr & Mrs Terry Silk Mr A T Tulloch Simm and Jennifer and Glenn Holman Liz Turner Carole Simmonds Dr Matthew Turner Mr Graham Sitton Mr & Mrs S H G & J Twining Mr Michael Slater Peter & Dorothy Uren Mr Frederick Smith Mrs Heidi Vail Mr & Mrs N Smith Mr Joseph Valvona Miss Sandra Smith Mr L Verstraeten Mr Roger Sparling Jane Vivash Roy Spearman Mr Feroz Wadia Mrs Vicky Spencer Mr A Wakeley Mark Spencer Mr Tim Wakeley Mrs Valerie Sprack Mr Christopher Wakeley Chris Sprackling Annie Wakeling Mrs Anne Springman Clyde Wakeling Mr Jim Squire Mrs M Walker Mr Will Stay K Walters Mrs Janet Stean Claire Ward Brian Stean Jill Ward Janet Stevens Nicola Ward Mrs Margaret Stewart Mr Ivor Warlow Mr Norman Stewart Mr Terry Warren Mr Peter Stockman Mr Vic Warren Mr C Stone Ms Sally Wartman Mr A A Strydom Mr & Mrs Watson Mr & Mrs Sutton Mrs Sue Watt Ruth Symons Joan & Freddy Watts Mr & Mrs Weaver Mrs Diana Wood Clive Webb Mrs Sally Woodburn Mr Tony Webb Mrs Kathy Woolfenden Mrs Phillipa Weber Mr Colin Worsfold Dr Nils Wedi Mrs Anne Wray Stephen Weekes Mr Stan Wright Anthea Weekes Mrs Linda Wright Mr Michael Welch Ian Wright Mrs Stephanie Welch Mr & Mrs Wyman Mr Anthony Philip Wellings Mr Neil Yarwood Denis Welsh Beryl Young

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Mr Ian Welsh Mrs R E Bailey Ursula Welsh M A Baker Mr Rob Wendes Mr R Ball Mr Marcel Westbrook Mr & Mrs Eric Barber Mick Westby Ms Mary Barnes Janet Weston Mr D Barsdell Mr Timothy Whelan S J Bartlett Mr Robert Whiller Ron and Pauline Bartlett and Hatt Mr and Adrian and Mrs Heather White Miss M Barton Liz White Ms L Bateman Mr & Mrs R J & F C White Mrs B Bax Mr Martyn White Mr & Mrs J W Beach A Whitehouse Mrs Beardsall Karen Whiteside Mrs D Bearwish Mr Geoff Whitmore C E Belford Mr & Mrs B Wilcock Dr & Mrs D T Biggs Mr Sean Wildman Mr & Mrs David & Diana Biles Mr George Wilks Mrs M Bishop Mr & Mrs G & S J Willetts Mrs B Blackburn Mr & Mrs A P & J Williams Mrs B A Blackwell Mr Chris Williams Mr & Mrs G R Booth Sue Williams P Bourne T Williams Mr & Mrs Bowen Mr Brian Williams Mrs M Bownas Hazel Williams Mr Roger Boxell James Williamson Luke Bradley Mr Stephen Willis Mr & Mrs J B Bradley Mr John Willmott Mr B M Brake Mrs Jennifer Willson Mrs J Bray Julia Winder Mr I & Mrs K Brenchley Mr Justin Wolfe R W & K M Brien Mr & Mrs J Wolfe N Broadsmith Mr R Wood Cynthia Leigh Brodie Mrs Susan Yoxall M J Brookes Mr R Merrifield Ms J Brookes Mr Mr H D Allix Ms A Broome W & S Angell J Brownsward Mrs Annett Mr & Mrs Eric Buckett Mr & Mrs R Antwiss Mr C Buckett T Ashdown Mr R Burlison Mrs N R Ashton Mr Frederick Burt Mr & Mrs John & Angela Attrill Mr & Mrs I Butchers Mr M Augustus Mrs V Bailey

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Mr & Mrs JR & TG Butchers Ms V Evans P J & M Butler S.C.R. Evans Paul, Jenny E Dunlop & C Sheath and Richard Farley Mr & Mrs C & K Chambers Ms D Faulkner Mrs K Chambers Mr & Mrs P.W. Ferguson Mr & Mrs K J Chambers Mr N Ferguson Mrs B Chandler Mr D Finch C Chapman Mrs M Finlayson Mr John Clark P Finn K & H Clarke Mrs W R Flux Mr A P S Clarke Mr A Forman Mr D Coghlan Ms S Fox Mr B Cole Mr John Franco Mrs P Colebrook Mr & Mrs M H Fry Mrs G L Coles Mr K P Fry Mrs A Coles Mr D Fryer Miss K S Coles Mr P Fulljames R W Hanson Mr J.D.H Collier & G Marsden L Collings Mrs S Gambles Mr A E Cooke Mr D J Gammage Mr & Mrs Derek & Monica Cool Mr K & Mrs V Gibbs Mr T W Couch Mr & Mrs H L Godber Mr R Cowell Mr L E Grant Mrs J M Cresswell Mr J Greaves J A Crowhurst Ms A Greaves

Mr W & Mrs D Davies Dr & Mrs I R Mr & Mrs T Davies Mr Shaun Gregory Mr W Dawes E O Grove Mr J D Denham Mr & Mrs M Groves Mr M Denness Mr I Gurden C M Dennis Mr & Mrs S Gustar Mr & Mrs A Denton S & S Guy C Dewey Mrs Jacqueline Hagon WG Dines Mr Hailes Mr & Mrs R Downer Mr Keith Haines G & E Doyle Mrs Mavis Halder D Drake Mr & Mrs J Hall Mr B H Drake Mr A Hamflett S Earle Mrs H Hamflett

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 S Easton Mr D Harle Mr R Edgerton Mr S John Richard & Mollie Ellis B Johnson S A Harlow E Johnson K W Harris Mr G Jolliffe Mr & Mrs Harris Mrs A Jonas V M Harris Mr B & Mrs J Kadeit Mrs A Harrison Mr L Kearns Mr D Hartley Mr L Kelland Fiona Harvey Mr D King Mrs S Harvey Mr A C Kirkpatrick K Hathaway T Goodley & L Tiller Mr J Hawes Ms S Lake Mr E Hawkes Mr and Mrs Lambert Mrs J Hayles Mr M Lambert Mrs B Hayward Mrs R Lansfield-Jones Ms J Hermiston-Hooper Mrs Leafe Miss Phillipa Hersey Mr C Leal Mr D Higgs Dr T A Lee Mrs J Hitch Mrs Susan Leeson Mr J M Hodnitt Mr S Light Mr A C J Hofton Mr Peter Lilley Mr S Holmes J Lloyd Audrey Honey Mr & Mrs D Lloyd Mr & Mrs D Howell Mr R D Long Mr T Hughes Mr R D Lovegrove Mr P Humber M Luck Mr A Hunter Mr & Mrs M Lucy Mr R J Hurrell Mrs B A Luter Mrs C Hustler Mr & Mrs J Lyons Isle of Wight Airport E H Mallory Mr & Mrs Ivey Mr & Mrs D Mannering Dr M Jackson Mr T W C Marsh Capt P Jackson RN G Martill W F Jacobs Joyce Martin Mr P James Mrs Rosemary Martindale Mr & Mrs T & J James Mrs R Matthews Mrs M Jeanes Mrs M McComb Mr & Mrs D M Jefferies Mr & Mrs W McKenzie Mr & Mrs C R & H F Jenkins Pippa Mellor M Jenkins Mrs Jenny Mew Mr M Jennings Capt & Mrs David Pentreath

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Capt & Mrs C D Jewell Mr & Mrs LC Perdis Mr A R Milton Mr & Mrs C & M Perry Mrs B M Moore Mr Norman Pethick Mrs C Moorton Mr & Mrs Phillips V D Morris Mr & Mrs B C & J H Pike Mrs R M Mortlock Lauren Pilcher Mr & Mrs P Mortlock RE and AJ Poynter and Ellis Mr C Mower Mrs M Poynton Mrs M Mumford Mr & Mrs C H Preston Dr Desmond Murphy R J Preston Mr John Nash Mr Tom Pretty Mr C Navato Mr & Mrs J Price Mrs Caroline Newham Mrs M Prior Mr & Mrs Newman Mr & Mrs R Pritchard Mr D C Newnham Mr D Pritchard Mr & Mrs J & P Newsome Mr & Mrs D Procter Mrs V H Newton Mr & Mrs T D & M Radcliffe Mr G Nichols S Radford Mr Henry Nobbs Sarah Rashley Mr & Mrs R & M E Norman Mr William Reay Mr & Mrs L Norman Mr K Redhead Miss A Normanton J & C Reed Mr R Noyes Mr M Renouf Mr & Mrs D Orman A & T Revert Mr J Osborn E Richards A Forwary & P Forman Mr Glyn Richards Mr John Parker Mrs Joanna Richards Mr N G Parker Sally Riley Mr & Mrs D Parkin A J Riley Mrs T Parsonage Dr John Roberts Mrs M Parsonage Mrs H Robinson Dr & Mrs J & P Partridge Mr D Rolf Mr N Patton P Rooke Mr J M Paul Mrs M Rose Mr John Peach J Rodgers & S Cooke Mrs Sally Peachey Mr R Samuel Mr T Pearson N S & L D Sanler Mr Dennis Peirson N & K Saunders Mr Andrew Pellow Mr B Penfold Jennifer Schofield C Walker

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Mr D Scott Mr & Mrs J R Walker W J & AD Seeney Mrs N Wall Mr J Simmonds I S Wallace Mr G L Smallman Christine Walsh Mr & Mrs I Smith Mr A J Wannop Mrs A Smith Mr J M Watt Mr C R Smith Mrs Monika Wellham Mrs M I Smith Mr & Mrs C N West JW Sparks Mr R L Wheeler Mr & Mrs R Sparrow Mrs V Wheeler Mr R Spencer Mr G Whitchurch Mrs J Spiller Mr P J White Mr G Stanton Mrs L Whittle Mr P Starke Mrs J Wild Mr T Stowe Mr E Willett Mr G Stowers Mr A H Williams J R Strike Mr Tony Williams Mr & Mrs R Strong-Jones Mr & Mrs T Willis Ms J Sturmey Mrs P H Wilson Mr & Mrs A & A M Symmans Mr & Mrs J Wilson Mr A Taggart Mr & Mrs I Winter-Goodwin Mr C Taylor Mr M R J Wood Mrs V Taylor Mr & Mrs Woodford Mrs A Tennant Mr & Mrs D & C A Woodmore Mr B Thearle Mr & Mrs Young Mrs Jenny Thomas JE Tilbury Mr John Tolley Mr R Tomlin Mrs A Tomlinson Ms C Tompkins JW Townsend Mrs Y Treon Mr Trevor Truran Mrs K Trzard Mrs J Turner Mr & Mrs RC & PM Vivash Rowena von Albedhyll Mr & Mrs Eddie & Diana Wainwright Mrs H Walker Mr & Mrs G & A Walker

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Page intentionally left blank

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Appendix 2 Example of Regulation 18 & SA/SEA Scoping consultation correspondence

Bill Murphy, Head of Planning & Regulatory Services

Isle of Wight Council, Council Offices, Seaclose, Fairlee Road, Newport, Isle of Wight, PO30 2QS

Tel (01983) 823552

Fax (01983) 823851

Email [email protected]

Web iwight.com/planning

IWC Ref Contact Ollie Boulter

Your Ref Date 10 th January 2014

Dear Sir/Madam,

Review of the Island Plan Core Strategy Policy SP2 Housing Regulation 18 and SA/SEA Scoping Consultation

Policy SP2 Housing of the adopted Island Plan Core Strategy sets out that the plan provides for 8,320 dwellings over the period 2011-2027 (which is an average of 520 per year). We will be reviewing the overall quantum that is planned for delivery for the period 2011-2027 and also the broad distribution of delivery across the Island. The review will not be making housing allocations; these will continue to be allocated through the other Island Plan documents.

To that end we intend to produce the following in support of a review of the policy:

• A key part of the review is to undertake a new Strategic Housing Market Assessment document, which will replace the previous document published in 2007.

• The SHMA will be used as the basis for an objectively assessed requirement for housing over the Core Strategy plan period and be able to evidence any proposed changes in the adopted approach to housing provision.

• Part of the review process will also include work on a Sustainability Appraisal / Strategic Environmental Assessment (SA/SEA). The level of associated SA/SEA work will be dependent on the nature and scale of the proposed policy amendments.

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 I am writing to all people on our planning policy consultation database to notify you that the Isle of Wight Council is undertaking a review of this policy. It is not currently proposed to include any other policy as part of this particular review process. For your reference a copy of the policy is enclosed, and the whole Core Strategy document can be viewed online at www.iwight.com/Residents/Environment-Planning-and-Waste .

To fulfil the requirements of Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 and Article 5(4) of the SEA Directive (2001/42/EC), the council would welcome your response to the following question:

Responses should be clearly marked to distinguish whether they are made in relation to the SP2 review or the SA/SEA.

Responses should be received by midday Monday 17 th February , be clearly marked SP2 Review and be sent to [email protected] or

Planning Policy, Seaclose Offices, Fairlee Road, Newport, Isle of Wight, PO30 2QS

This consultation is asking about the scope of the review. The results of this and the technical work the council is undertaking will inform any changes the council proposes to make. There will be further opportunities for public scrutiny and the ability to make representations later on in the process, when the council publishes its proposals and at a public examination into the proposals.

If you have any queries regarding the SP2 Review please contact the Planning Policy Team, using the contact details at the top of this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Ollie

Ollie Boulter Team Leader, Planning Policy, Conservation & Design

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015

SP2 Housing

The strategy provides for 8,320 dwellings for the Isle of Wight in the period 2011-2027, which is an average of 520 dwellings per year. These will be delivered broadly in accordance with the following distribution:

3,200 existing permissions and a further:

1,350 dwellings within the Medina Valley.

2,100 dwellings within Ryde.

370 dwellings within The Bay.

240 dwellings within the West Wight.

80 dwellings within Ventnor.

980 through smaller-scale development at the Rural Service Centres and wider rural area.

To ensure that these targets are met, the Council:

1. Will permit development in accordance with the provisions and policies of this plan.

2. Will prepare an Area Action Plan for each of the Key Regeneration Areas, which will identify appropriate development sites within or immediately adjacent to the settlement boundaries within the Area Action Plan boundaries.

3. Will prepare a Delivery and Management DPD, which will, if required, allocate land outside of the Area Action Plan boundaries for development, which could include Rural Exception Sites.

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Page intentionally left blank

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Appendix 3 Further Regulation 18 & SA/SEA Scoping consultation correspondence

Bill Murphy, Head of Planning & Regulatory Services

Isle of Wight Council, Council Offices, Seaclose, Fairlee Road, Newport, Isle of Wight, PO30 2QS

Tel (01983) 823552

Fax (01983) 529386

Email [email protected]

Web iwight.com/planningpolicy

IWC Ref SP2R/Reg18 Contact Ollie Boulter

Your Ref Date 12 th February 2014

Dear Mr Adams

Re: Review of the Island Plan Core Strategy Policy SP2 Housing Regulation 18 and SA/SEA Scoping Consultation

You may recollect that I wrote to you on 10 th January 2014 regarding the above consultation. It has been brought to my attention that the email address provided within the main body of the letter was incorrect.

The correct email address to return comments to is [email protected]

Any comments that have been received by the Planning Policy Team by the 12 th February have been acknowledged. If you had sent a response via email and have not yet received an acknowledgement, I would be grateful if you could resend your comment.

In light of this, the consultation period is being extended by a week to midday Monday 24 th February .

Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience or difficulties caused. If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of the Planning Policy Team.

Yours sincerely, Ollie Ollie Boulter Team Leader, Planning Policy, Conservation & Design

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Page intentionally left blank

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Appendix 4 Summaries of individual Regulation 18 representations

Ref Respondent Summary of Response No. SP2R Mr R Dawnay Insufficient room for development 1 SP2R Stella Davis on behalf of Infrastructure – drainage and flood risk in Ryde 2 Ryde North East Heritage SP2R Mr P Geach Limited employment opportunities, unemployment 3 Housing should be sufficient for the needs of the indigenous Island population plus a small margin SP2R Mrs B Bunkham Infrastructure, particularly drainage 4 Existing environmental impacts with Sothern Water works in East Yar Road, Sandown Flooding and river maintenance Wrong type of development, worried that the ethos of the Island will be lost SP2R Mr C Dodd New permissions should only be granted on the following conditions: 5 - All new properties are affordable - The test for affordability is designed specifically for the conditions existing on the Island - Specific financial affordability calculations are included in planning applications - Density of development will be negotiated on a site-by-site basis based on the outcome of affordability negotiations and agreement to be part of the permission SP2R Mr N Harris Road safety – total casualties per 100 million vehicle miles exceeds 6 adjoining counties – figure will increase if based on the present housing plan and the standard of roads on the Island. SP2R V Lawson Support review of policy due to concern of providing 8320 units, and 7 infrastructure including the highway network. SP2R Mr R Bundy SP2 should not be revised as it is suitable and sustainable. Housin g 8 Ms J Hagon figures for West Wight seem sensible, giving consideration to ‘need’ and future ‘demand’. SP2R Ms S Dixon Infrastructure, including concerns about unemployment, healthcare, 9 education, roads. SP2R Mr M Richards Problem with any major development on t he Island is that there are 10 already 3000 2 nd homes. SP2R E Goldring on behalf of Evidence that should be produced to support the review of SP2 is Parish 11 Bembridge Parish Council & Town Council Housing Need Surveys. Windfall sites should be counted towards the allocation for rural service centres. Quantum figure covering the 11 rural service centres should be removed and split down to reflect the results of housing needs for each parish council. AAPs & Development Management DPD should try to allocate land within or immediately adjacent to the settlement boundaries prior to any exploration of rural exception sites. Policy as currently worded does not make this clear as it jumps from AAPs to Delivery Management DPD

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Ref Respondent Summary of Response No. rural exception sites. 8320 figure must be dramatically reduced to reflect local needs and do not feel that there is the employment or infrastructure in place to support this number. Request council consult with Neighbourhood Plan Working Groups to ascertain local knowledge regarding provision of housing, available land and development opportunities. SP2R Mr M Small on behalf of Consider revision of Sp2 is a matter for the council to determine, taking 12 English Heritage into account all relevant considerations. Refer council to requirement of NPPF para. 14 that local plans should meet objectively assessed needs “unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this framework taken as a whole” or “specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.” Consider that the council would in principle be justified in seeking to provide a lower level of housing than that objective assessment indicates is needed if it was considered that to meet the full level would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the historic environment and its designated heritage assets. SP2R Mr C Dodd Concerns about what is considered the ‘good’ reasoning for housing 13 development on the Island. Need to better define the term ‘housing’. Unique circumstances of the Island needs to be taken into account. Natural and organic growth of settlements preferred to a plan-led approach. SP2R Mr K Gentleman SP2 requires review. 2100 homes in Ryde needs careful consideration. 14 Infrastructure issues re Monkton Mead. Lacking employment opportunities. SP2R Mr R Hendy on behalf of Support the proposals to undertake a new SHMA 15 Cowes Town Council SP2R V Cooper on behalf of Local Housing Needs Survey fo r Wootton Bridge Parish Council was 16 Wootton Bridge Parish completed and accepted by the council, hope this information is taken Council into account. SP2R Mr C Hougham on behalf Does not support review of this policy. 17 of Newport Parish Council - Recent approval of Core Strategy and no evidence since to suggest need to review - Concerns about the implications of apparent prevarication - Priority should be given to completion of the MVAAP - Absence of detailed local planning policies and further vacillation in terms of SP2 results in vulnerability with regards to speculative schemes. - Review and associated delay does not help overcome obstacles, degree of uncertainty and documented negativity towards new development. - Comfortable with figures for MVAAP but want to know how may, where and when? - Like to see major improvements in terms of open spaces, children’s play areas and general design/layout when future development schemes come forward, issues of quality rather than new development.

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Ref Respondent Summary of Response SP2RNo. S Bulwer on behalf of Will lead to delay in producing AAPs. 18 Fishbourne Parish Council What is the proposed timetable for the SP2 review? Why is there a need to review so soon after plan adoption? What is the status, expectation and timing of the Delivery & Management DPD? Does the Island Plan currently have a 5yr supply of housing land as defined in NPPF para 47? Has the Island been delivering the required average 520 dwellings per annum? Is the Island wide Housing Needs Survey also to be reviewed in support of any changes to ensure future supply is meeting local IW needs and not just market demand in selected locations? How is the required work with neighbouring authorities going to be addressed? Is the Island still viewed as a housing market area separate from the mainland? Is the SHLAA also to be reviewed and updated to reflect current circumstances? SP2R Mr P Schofield Housing needs surveys produced as part of Neighbourhood Plans 19 should be taken into account in the production of required housing figures. Figures in current SP2 are in excess of any practical requirement and should be reduced to reflect Neighbourhood Plans housing needs surveys. Phrase in SP2 “…immediately adjacent to the settlement boundaries…” should be deleted. Sentence “DPD, which will, if required, allocate land outside the Area Action Plan boundaries for development, which could include rural exception sites” should be deleted. SP2R S Lorenzo Martin on Low carbon green economy for the Island. 20 behalf of the Forestry Value of integrated GI within and on adjacent land to development. Commission Positive impact of woodlands, especially Ancient Woodlands, in the community. Link between well managed natural environment, tourism and the local economy. SP2R Mr M Barton Why change? 21 SP2R Mr C Routh on behalf of Any incre ase in housing numbers needs to be deliverable. 22 Natural England NE consider there are 2 potential constraints to housing delivery in terms of broad distribution of housing quanta in terms of NE remit, being ANOB and Solent SPA. SA should consider the National Character Area profile for IW. SP2R Mr D Churchill of Iceni Support preparation of a new SHMA to determine the full objectively 23 Projects on behalf of assessed housing needs. Cogent Land LLP For SHMA recommend trend-based demographic growth scenario, modified to take account of additional in-migration resulting from forecast economic growth. Concerns with any reliance on the 2011 based household projections as they are interim. Restricting housing numbers to 370 dwellings in the Bay area may limit

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Ref Respondent Summary of Response No. opportunities for f uture growth and expansion of the local economy. Current housing allocation for Sandown is considered to be prohibitively low. SP2R Mr G Upex of Carter Support SP2. 24 Jonas Put forward for consideration for housing a number of sites located around Rural Service Centres in order to aid the 980 target. SP2R Mr M Haslin Cheverton Opportunity for Sandown Airport to accommodate some of the existing 25 Copse Holiday Park allocations either for the Bay or Wider Rural Area. Support a review of SP2. SP2R B Herbe rt on behalf of Current figure 8320 deemed too high. 26 Northwood Parish Numbers for the Medina Valley considered to be excessive. Council Parish Plan survey – majority of local residents expressed their opposition against any large scale development as there are sufficient dwellings in Northwood to meet future demand. SP2R A Mariner on behalf of Issues to be addressed as part of both a review of SP2 and it’s SA; 27 Brighstone Parish Council - Infrastructure, including; o Employment o Education o Health & social care o Transport, both roads & public o Drainage - Climate change, areas of land no longer suitable for development. SP2R L Stones of Fisher Review number using robust objectively assessed evidence. 28 German LLP Preparation of a new SHMA is critical, should be subject to consultation ahead of the detail of policy SP2 being developed. Revised SP2 should be subject to consultation ahead of formal examination of the policy. As AAPs and other Island Plan documents are tied to SP2, the preparation of these documents should be put on hold pending the outcome of the revised SHMA and updated policy SP2. SP2R Mr D Finch Extend policy of releasing hotels to residential to other tourism -related 29 residential units, eg holiday cottages, guest houses, converted barns. SP2R Mr s M Bishop Flood risk and new development in Ryde 30 SP2R R Sparling Flood risk and development 31 SP2R Mr J Maskell on behalf of There is currently sufficient up to date evidence to justify that there is 32 Environment Agency adequate environmental capacity to accommodate housing figures proposed in existing SP2 policy. Should the results of the SHMA conclude the requirement for additional housing over the plan period then it may be the case that additional evidence or updates of existing evidence is required. If this is the case the EA would like to be consulted. SP2R Mr K Gentleman Infrastructure 33 Flood risk and loss of greenfield sites, use existing brownfield sites. Planned number of new houses for Ryde should be reduced. SP2R Mr B Brake & Ms R Brake Current housing numbers excessive. 34 Loss of farmland by encroachment of residential development. Loss of open space. Infrastructure including roads, drainage, healthcare, police, education.

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Ref Respondent Summary of Response No. Oversupply of houses and sites on the Island. Impact on tourism of development. SP2R Mr W Cobley of Terence Need to fully satisfy the relevant tests set out in the NPPF, especially 35 O’Rourke the requirement to meet the objectively assessed housing need. SP2R Mr G Prince of Geoffrey Objectively assessed housing needs. 36 Prince Associates Ltd SHMA have regard to housing supply and economic growth in adjoining LPAs, Hampshire, under Duty to Co-operate. SP2R Mr G Hepburn of Redistribution of housing numbers will question how one policy can be 37 Hepburns Planning dealt with in isolation. Consultancy Ltd Core Strategy conformity with NPPF? Previous year(s) short fall in delivery against existing 520 figure. SP2R Mrs Z Barllett & Mr T Increase of 8320 too much 38 Bartlett Lack of employment opportunities Impact on tourism due to congestion Infrastructure capacity issues SP2R J Schofield Have housing needs surveys at the local/neighbourhood plan level been 39 taken into account? Concerned about the phrases “immediately adjacent to the settlement boundaries” and “allocated land outside of the AAP boundaries for development” SP2R Ms R Lansfield Better use of existing empty properties. 40 Retail homogenisation to the detriment of independent high street retailers. Consider new homes that don’t require or rely on car use. Protect rural environment from development including historic assets. SP2R K Wilson Affordable homes for Island residents 41 Re-use of existing sites requiring investment/derelict/poor state. SP2R S Kiernan on behalf of Welcome review as evidenc e is out of date for existing numbers. 42 Ryde Town Council Expect most up to date data/information to be used. SP2R Mr S Dyer SP2 and associated numbers needs reviewing 43 What has prompted review/why review? SP2 should be better linked to what can be built and where. SP2R Mr P Collins Provision made as far as possible for like for like replacement of 44 development lost due to coastal erosion. Appears to be a much greater emphasis on larger developments at the expense of carefully selected rural areas. SP2R Mr P Fuller Cur rent Core Strategy figures 520 & 1350 new dwellings too high. 45 Demand for housing is less anecdotal evidence suggests. SHMA will be bias due to commercial interests rather than needs of the Island community. Removal of settlement boundary for Gurnard Request a definitive response to SP1 what is precisely meant by the term “The Council will support development on ‘appropriate’ land ‘immediately adjacent’ to the defined settlement boundaries. SP2R H Butler Infrastructure capacity 46 Environmental impact (cats & cars) Protection of environmental and historic assets Medina Valley and areas of ancient woodland Flood risk and new development Employment opportunities to match growth

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Ref Respondent Summary of Response No. Settlement boundaries to avoid ‘urban sprawl’ Prioritise brownfield sites Importance of environment to economy through agriculture and tourism SP2R Mr G Hall on behalf of Why is review being undertaken? 47 Savills Requirement to delivery housing provision and historic under provision. Compliance with NPPF Gvt requirement for an objective assessment of housing needs Consider a review of SP2 in the context of a whole plan review. Need for credible evidence based on Housing Market Area Duty to Cooperate Compliance with the NPPG SP2R Mrs B Chandler Infrastructure and larger developments 48 No more development SP2R Mr J Rosher on behalf of Island Plan inconsistent with NPPF as it makes no housing allocations 49 Rolfe Judd Planning Ltd More wide-ranging review of Island Plan required Concern in reviewing SP2 in isolation therefore advise a full review of Island Plan SP2R Mr G Dowden on behalf Support review of numbers as seen as too high. 50 of Indigo Planning Ltd Numbers cannot be supported by infrastructure Greater protection should be given to the wider rural area Housing need should be based on Island population and not inward migration SP2R Ms M Bownas Need for housing need survey to cover entire Island 51 Flexible approach to boundaries may lead to inappropriate development that spoils the character of the Island. SP2R Mr V Morris Infrast ructure provision for new development 52 Fit for purpose housing needs survey High unemployment, low salaries and lack of investment SP2R Mr I Cobb on behalf of Areas other than East Cowes should contribute to overall housing 53 East Cowes Town Council target. Resist visual intrusion into western bank of the Medina Valley

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Appendix 5 SP2 Review HRA Background Report Consultation correspondence

From: Taylor, Matt (NE) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 03 November 2014 15:15 To: Booth, Grace Cc: Pope, Colin; Boulter, Oliver Subject: RE: Consultation on the HRA for Spatial Policy 2 Housing review

Dear Grace,

Thank you for your email consulting Natural England on the HRA for the Spatial Policy 2 Housing review.

Q1 Is the approach set out satisfactory? I am satisfied with the approach used. The report sets out in a structured manor the process to be taken for the HRA.

Q2 Have all the European and Ramsar sites that could be significantly affected by the Island Plan Core Strategy SP2 review been correctly identified in this report? Yes all the relevant European sites have been identified correctly.

Q3 Are there any further threats and vulnerabilities associated with the European and Ramsar sites which we have not identified in this report? No I am not aware of any further threats and/or vulnerabilities associated with the listed sites in this report.

Q4 Does the proposed SPA for foraging terns in the Solent and Dorset Coast need to be included within the site screening? I don’t believe it will be necessary to include the proposed SPA for foraging terns in the site screening of the HRA. I have spoken to a marine colleague and the likely notification for the foraging tern SPA extension will not be until 2016 (at earliest) and any threats and vulnerabilities will be strictly limited to the impacts on the marine environment such as dredging, fishing and offshore wind farms etc, not housing. If at a later review of SP2 it would seem prudent to include the SPA for foraging terns then it can be looked at then, but we think that all relevant impacts will be addressed by the current list of SPAs included in the report

If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me.

Matt Taylor Lead Adviser Hampshire & Isle of Wight coastal Team Natural England Cromwell House, 2nd Floor, 15 Andover Road, Winchester SO23 7BT Tel: 0300 060 4846 Mob. 07768 711282 www.naturalengland.org.uk

We are here to secure a healthy natural environment for people to enjoy, where wildlife is protected and England's traditional landscapes are safeguarded for future generations.

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 In an effort to reduce Natural England's carbon footprint, I will, wherever possible, avoid travelling to meetings and attendvia audio, video or web conferencing

From: Booth, Grace [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: 30 October 2014 09:36 To: Taylor, Matt (NE) Cc: Pope, Colin; Boulter, Oliver Subject: Consultation on the HRA for Spatial Policy 2 Housing review

Dear Matt,

The Isle of Wight Council has in place an adopted Core Strategy, the Island Plan. We are currently reviewing Spatial Policy 2 (SP2) Housing of this plan.

We are not reviewing the housing number (520 as set out in the Core Strategy) but the spatial distribution of housing requirements as set out in policy SP2.

Therefore we are considering to what extent, if any, we need to alter the housing requirements set out for each Area Action Plan and other areas.

As part of the SP2 review process we will be carrying out a Habitat Regulations Assessment. Please see attached the HRA Background Report for this review. Specifically we are seeking your advice on the following:

Q1 Is the approach set out satisfactory? Q2 Have all the European and Ramsar sites that could be significantly affected by the Island Plan Core Strategy SP2 review been correctly identified in this report? Q3 Are there any further threats and vulnerabilities associated with the European and Ramsar sites which we have not identified in this report? Q4 Does the proposed SPA for foraging terns in the Solent and Dorset Coast need to be included within the site screening?

I would appreciate your comments and any other feedback you have on this by Friday 14 th November .

Kind regards,

Grace

Important Information - Disclosure, Confidentiality and Monitoring of this email

This email communication may be monitored by the Isle of Wight Council for regulatory, quality control, or crime detection purposes.

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 If you are not the Intended Recipient please contact the sender as soon as possible. It is intended only for the personal attention of the named person, firm or company to whom it is addressed. It may contain information that is privileged and confidential in law. Accordingly any unauthorised dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message or any of its content by any other person may constitute a breach of civil or criminal law and is strictly prohibited. No mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise any such privilege. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Isle of Wight Council.

The information contained in this e-mail may be subject to disclosure to third parties under either the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the extent the law allows and in accordance with the Isle of Wight Council's policies on information management. (If you wish the disclosure of the information in any reply to be restricted please make this clear in your response).

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received it in error you have no authority to use, disclose, store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender. Whilst this email and associated attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the Natural England systems, we can accept no responsibility once it has left our systems. Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Page intentionally left blank

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Appendix 6 Quarterly meeting agenda

Name of meeting Planning for the future of Ryde

Date and time 28/11/2013 18:00pm

Venue Council Chamber, County Hall

1. Welcome & introductions

2. Apologies

3. Timetable & SP2 review updates – IWC

4. Work progress updates (based on AAP2) – IWC

5. Issues from the Parishes / Towns – P&TCs

6. A.O.B.

7. Date, time and location of next meetings

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Page intentionally left blank

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Appendix 7 AAP Informal Discussion Document Consultation advert

Medina Valley, Ryde and the Bay

Area Action Plans Informal Discussion Documents Consultation

As part of the Island Plan, and to meet the requirements of the Core Strategy, the Isle of Wight Council is preparing area action plans (AAPs) for Medina Valley, Ryde and The Bay. Once adopted these will be formal planning documents that will designate uses to certain areas of land and be used to determine planning applications within each area.

The council has published for consultation, in advance of the stages that the AAPs are required by legislation to go through, an informal discussion document for each AAP area.

The discussion documents, along with a comments form, are available to view and download at:

www.iwight.com/aap

Copies of the discussion documents and comments form are also available for public inspection at:

Seaclose Offices Reception, County Hall Reception, and the following libraries during normal opening hours (please check for opening times).

Cowes, East Cowes, Newport, Ryde, Sandown and Shanklin.

The consultation will run from Friday 23 rd May until midday on Monday 7 th July 2014.

Comments should be sent to: Planning Policy, Isle of Wight Council, Seaclose Offices, Fairlee Road, Newport, Isle of Wight, PO30 2QS or via email to: [email protected]

If you have any queries, please contact Planning Policy on Tel: (01983) 823552 or email: [email protected]

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Page intentionally left blank

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Appendix 8 Summaries of relevant AAP Informal Discussion Document Consultation responses

Medina Valley Q1 – What are your views on the use of brownfield land first, to support regeneration, and the impacts this could have on infrastructure development Number of respondents 46 Breakdown of respondents Private individual 12 Private company 1 Planning agent / landowner 14 Interest group / organisation 11 Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor 8 Summary of responses Private Individual The majority of individuals supported the use of brownfield sites first, especially where sites had been derelict for many years. There was support for the redevelopment of brownfield sites as a driver for regeneration but comment made that this should only happen where the local infrastructure can support/ or be sufficiently upgraded to support it.

Further comment was made about the compatibility of land uses when redeveloping brownfield sites.

Private company There was general support of a brownfield land first approach.

Planning agent / landowner Comment was made that there is not sufficient brownfield land available on the island to deliver the objectively assessed housing requirement.

Individual landowners/agents were mixed on their response with those who had brownfield land to promote clearly confirming the approach as set out within the NPPF/NPPG and those who had greenfield land to promote clearly confirming that there is insufficient land and that any brownfield land must be suitable, available and achievable .

Interest group / organisations There was separate comment about brownfield sites for employment use with a request for additional flexibility on land allocations to support the development of small and medium sized businesses.

Comment was made that the “brownfield first” approach is in line with national planning policy as it is a Core Principle of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the associated Planning Practice Guidance.

There were additional comments about also ensuring the protection of sites with ecological or conservation (historic interest) value within this approach.

Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor There was a consensus that brownfield land should be developed first particularly as these sites are considered more sustainable with some comments going as far as only allowing brownfield land to be developed and only when those sites were exhausted should greenfield land be considered.

One respondent commented that no greenfield land should be developed on the island at all because

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 there is an overwhelming sentiment on the Island against greenfield development .

Medina Valley – Q3: Should housing allocations be made on fewer, larger sites or on a higher number of smaller sites? Number of respondents 39 Breakdown of respondents Private ind ividual – 12 Private company – 1 Planning agent / landowner – 14 Interest group / organisation – 6 P/T Councils & IW Councillors - 6 Summary of responses Private Individual There were three different types of response, being a preference for fewer, larger sites, more, smaller sites and the idea that this should not be determined on a simplified either/or basis, but each site should be considered on its individual merits. The majority of respondents supported a greater number of smaller sites approach with reasons given to support this view as minimising impact on existing communities, smaller streams of traffic entering the highway network and that there should be an emphasis on quality less dense developments. Of those that supported fewer larger sites the justification given for this was that it may provide better and more sustainable infrastructure improvements.

Private company This respondent suggested that the approach taken should be market led.

Planning agent / landowner Of the 14 responses received it is possible to categorise these into the following 3 groups; - Fewer, larger sites = 3 responses - A range (i.e. the council should not be prescriptive) = 10 responses - Control size (to be proportionate to settlement) = 1

The reasoning given for larger sites included; - Required to deliver infrastructure necessary and create sustainable communities - Multiple smaller sites would erode authority’s ability to secure infrastructure contributions - To deliver a higher number of smaller sites would lead to supply issues as multiple landowners and separate sites with individual planning issues would make delivery complex. This approach could lead to infilling and overcrowding, and inadequate delivery of infrastructure. - There are large available and deliverable sites in sustainable locations - A larger site can be comprehensively master-planned and integrated into the existing settlement. - If the focus is upon delivering smaller sites (though this is not defined), there is a risk that this will not provide for the level of affordable housing need for the Island - Larger developments, appropriately phased, would be in a better position to be self- supporting if the existing infrastructure were already at capacity. - Ideally the allocations should identify larger brownfield sites rather than identification of many smaller sites. Whilst the smaller sites should not be disregarded or excluded from development the larger sites should be identified within the allocation as they will deliver substantial regeneration and achieve housing delivery targets.

The reasoning given for a range of sites included; - Ability to consider a range of sites (sizes, locations, quantum, etc) to ensure most appropriate options are considered through the Site Allocation process. - Some smaller sites may be appropriate and even preferable to large sites, as they would not have such a high demand on existing infrastructure in a specific area.

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 - The very real danger with the 'larger site' approach is that the developer may land bank the sites on which there are consents rather than implement the developments. It is appreciated that they risk a renewal of the consent being refused after three years. The developer can also make a commencement and then cease with the LPA having no real powers to require completion. - On the Island there is an almost desperate need to create competition to generate development activity rather than rely on a single major developer who effectively monopolises the housing market and dictates the delivery of housing on the Island.

The response advocating a controlled approach justified this by stating that the Island is characterised by relatively modest settlements and it would be appropriate to control new development proportionately to the scale and character of the location.

Interest group / organisations Both Visit Isle of Wight and the Isle of Wight Chamber of Commerce, Tourism & Industry supported a flexible approach. The Environment Agency highlighted that larger allocations would provide the Council with more opportunity to secure additional enhancements through the planning system that could help provide additional benefits to the wider community. One response preferred a higher number of smaller sites, while another stated that the scale and location of development should be informed by environmental assessment. One responded had no comment.

Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor Of the 6 respondents making up this group, 4 supported the idea of smaller sites with reasons for this including; - A higher number of smaller sites would allow better integration and minimise the impact of any proposals. - Large scale sites did not facilitate a sense of ownership for the existing area and there appeared to be some difficulty in the sale of the new builds. - Gives a better opportunity for diversity, jobs, better use of smaller brownfield sites, provision of appropriate accommodation, the local economy, quality of development etc. - Fewer larger sites will certainly mean more greenfield development and possibly the need to review the settlement boundaries.

One respondent said that the issue depends upon the availability of large sites while another asked for further definition. Definitions when discussing smaller and larger sites was a recurring issue raised throughout the majority of the response groups.

Medina Valley – Q4: What are your views on how the council should approach the size of sites that it allocates in the Medina Valley Plan? Number of respondents 33 Breakdown of respondents Private individual – 9 Private company – 1 Planning agent / landowner – 11 Interest group / organisation – 7 P/T Councils & IW Councillors - 5 Summary of responses Private Individual Views expressed by this group of respondents included the following comments; • Need to assess the impact on the increase traffic created by new development; • Which sites are more appropriate for housing & which for jobs?

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 • To retain the integrity and individuality of villages/towns gaps should be retained between them to also give a feeling of ‘space’ or ‘not everything is joined up’; • Use of a ‘site-sensitive’ approach as this can encompass small or large developments as appropriate to the area; • Large housing estates ruin the rural character of the Island; • If housing is restricted to needs of Island residents then sympathetic infill and brown field sites designated for housing should surely be sufficient in the future; • East Cowes and Newport suffering from the effects of too many large scale developments. Small developments only should be considered. This would again make it possible for island builders to compete for business to build local homes. Using local builders also maintains the character of the island homes which traditionally have been more interesting and in keeping with their surroundings. • A maximum of 20 to 30 properties should be on any developments

Private company This respondent suggested that the approach taken should be market led.

Planning agent / landowner Of the 11 respondents in this category 5 (being the single largest majority for this group) indicated that they preferred a flexible, unrestricted approach, on a site by site basis (ie considering the individual merits of each site). One respondent took an opposing view of control, based on a proportionate approach to match the scale and character of existing location. Two respondents said that in order to provide an informed comment more detail is needed regarding the definition of both smaller and larger sites. One respondent suggested that the allocation process should be focused on brownfield and based on an analysis of how suitable a site is.

Interest group / organisations There was a wide range of views from this group of respondents, that can be summarised as; - A flexible approach, including a mix of sites based on deliverability; - Environmental assessment and historic interests should be used to inform scale and location; - A higher number of smaller sites is preferable to development of fewer larger sites - There has been enough large sites for housing development in East Cowes, therefore only small infill brownfield sites should be allowed in this location. - No to ribbon development.

Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor The following points summarise the responses from this group; - Paramount to prevent settlement coalescence, therefore larger scale development (of the three areas suggested in para 1.15) would be supported. - The agreed policy of green spaces between settlement areas limits the availability of large sites in Cowes. The proposed concentration of development in the Newport area must influence decision making. - Accept the inevitability of encroachment outside the settlement boundaries into green areas but feel that smaller sites makes difficulties associated with such a development more manageable and result in new housing that is more likely to enhance the area. - Brownfield site only.

Medina Valley – Q5: What are your views on these broad locations for new housing development? Number of respondents 39 Breakdown of respondents Private individual – 11

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Private company – 1 Planning agent / landowner – 15 Interest group / organisation – 4 P/T Councils & IW Councillors - 8 Summary of responses Private Individual While there was a broad consensus for the three locations there were some specific individual views, being, no more development in East Cowes, Medina Yard and SARO works should only be developed on the proviso that the deep water frontage is retained for marine-related uses (not housing), make sure brownfield sites are used first and prevent settlement coalescence between East Cowes and Whippingham.

Private company The single private company response expressed support for all three sites, but did stipulate that Medina Yard should not have just housing due to the valuable waterside frontage.

Planning agent / landowner There was a general consensus of support from agents and owners for the three broad locations. However individual views included that there was a disproportionate emphasis on Newport and that consideration should be given to a wider distribution throughout the western area of the Medina valley, that Cowes is ‘built-out’, support for the use of greenfield sites, consideration should be given to an eastern extension to Newport in the Fairlee area, support for the focus of housing development around Newport, the Saro site is rural and therefore not suitable for housing as well as support for the Saro site.

In summary, while there was general support for the broad approach, most of the time where one view of an area option was expressed there was often an opposing view; this was clearly driven by the individual site interests of the majority of respondents in this group.

Interest group / organisations While there was support for the three locations from this group, the importance of the physical and historic environment, primarily through appropriate assessments when considering specific sites, was raised.

Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor There was general support for the broad locations; use of brownfield sites first, locations within or immediately adjacent to the settlement boundaries and the prevention of settlement coalescence. Specific individual comments included a request for a definition of what was meant by ‘west of Newport’, that there is a recognised need for affordable/first-time houses near to Cowes, and development in the Newport area will have significant transport and other infrastructure issues.

Medina Valley – Q25: What are your views on land listed within paragraph 10.4? Number of respondents 27 Breakdown of respondents Private individual – 10 Private company – 0 Planning agent / landowner – 4 Interest group / organisation – 6 P/T Councils & IW Councillors – 7 Summary of responses Private Individual There was overwhelming support for the prevention of settlement coalescence, although a number of changes were suggested to the areas identified in the document: Crossways field;

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Queensgate Primary School and the Vic Football field ; the area behind Place Road and that Area 1 should be extended up to Worsley Road / to the west.

Planning agent / landowner The areas were generally supported, although it was pointed out that small-scale sensitively designed schemes may not necessarily contribute to settlement coalescence and it was also suggested that there was no logical or justified case for them and that the focus should be on sensitive areas rather than being all encompassing. There was also the suggestion of retaining the existing settlement boundary at Gurnard.

Interest group / organisations There was support for the areas identified, with a support given to the exclusion of the estuary from the settlement boundary and the prevention of settlement coalescence could increase the protection of heritage assets and their settings. It was also suggested that economic development shouldn’t be prevented and that further refinement should be given to the approach.

Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor There was support for the land listed within paragraph 10.4, with further observations that there were no areas identified around Newport and that settlement coalescence should be prevented unless there is an overwhelming and long-term reason for doing so. It was also suggested that all land not within settlement boundaries should not be built on.

Medina Valley – Q26: Are there other areas that need protecting to prevent settlement coalescence? Number of respondents 23 Breakdown of respondents Private individual – 9 Private company – 0 Planning agent / landowner – 5 Interest group / organisation – 3 P/T Councils & IW Councillors – 6 Summary of responses Private Individu al A number of specific areas were identified: Place Road (between identified areas 1&2), Northwood House; Park Road; the field between Hawthorn Meadows development and Whippingham Church; the field at Crossways (between the housing at Osborne, the school and the football ground); all areas that buffer settlement boundaries; to the south of Tuttons Hill to Place Road; the Luck area between Gurnard and Rew Street; and land between Cockleton Lane, Place Road and Tuttons Hill.

Planning agent / landowner The creation of a ‘greenbelt’ area was suggested, and there was support for the 6 areas identified in the discussion document although it was also suggested that there was no logical or justified case for them and that the focus should be on sensitive areas rather than being all encompassing. There was also the suggestion of retaining the existing settlement boundary at Gurnard.

The area off Place Road was identified as an area that needed protecting to prevent settlement coalescence.

Interest group / organisations There was the suggestion that reduction in the settlement boundary by the inclusion of Crossways field, Queensgate Primary School and the Vic Football field as it would maintain the gap between East Cowes and Whippingham and maintain the rural approach to Osborne House.

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015

It was also put forward that economic development should be a consideration in identifying areas.

Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor A general concern was expressed over settlement coalescence, but the point was made that it wasn’t seen as a significant problem for Newport.

A number of specific areas were identified: land at Kingswell diary, the undeveloped area between Cowes and Gurnard; Place Road, Tuttons Hill and Cockleton Lane; Horsebridge Hill / Cowes Road; North Fairlee Road / Island Harbour, Binfield area; and Kitbridge area along Forest Road.

Q1. What are your views on the use of Brownfield land first, to support regeneration, and the impact this could have on infrastructure development? Number of respondents 25 Bre akdown of respondents Private individual – 6 Private company –1 Planning agent / landowner – 8 Interest group / organisation –7 P/T Councils & IW Councillors - 3 Summary of responses Private Individual All respondents agreed that brownfield land should be used first to support regeneration. It was added that there should be a high density within the core existing settlement, development should be of a good quality design to fit with the surroundings and that that some recreation grounds could also be developed.

Private company It was commented that there should be a presumption in favour of brownfield land first.

Planning agent / landowner Some planning agents and land owners agreed that the use of brownfield land first, to support regeneration. However concerns were raised over how much brownfield land is available and suitable for development. It was suggested that it would be useful to allocate sites and include development briefs for these.

Interest group / organisations Generally it was agreed that brownfield land should be developed first. However several organisations said that there is no preference to developing brownfield or greenfield first but instead it will depend on site suitability, taking into account protected species, ecological connectivity or protection of heritage assets.

Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor Respondents to this question believe that brownfield land should be developed first and one respondent does not want to see greenfield sites developed at all. It was also suggested that smaller brownfield sites should take preference and that consideration should be given to the density and character of a site.

Ryde – Q3: Should housing allocations be made on fewer, larger sites or on a higher number of smaller sites? Number of respondents 24 Breakdown of respondents Private individual – 5 Private company – 1

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Planning agent / landowner – 10 Interest group / organisation – 5 P/T Councils & IW Councillors - 3 Summary of responses Private Individual A significant majority of respondents preferred the option of a higher number of smaller sites. Reasons given for this included larger developments creating ‘ghettos’, better standards of housing and the ability to use small brownfield sites within the town with an example of good high density infill given as 56 The Strand/East St.

Private company The single response in this group preferred a higher number of smaller sites, although no reason was given.

Planning agent / landowner Of the 10 responses given by this group just one preferred smaller sites (without providing any reason or justification). 3 responses preferred an approach where each site would be assessed on its merits and 6 responses preferred a range of sites.

Of the responses preferring each site proposal being assessed on its merits, the following points were made; • The individual size of a proposal should not have any bearing on the principles of development, if the consequences of its development are demonstrated to be beneficial and sustainable; • There should be no “blanket” approach, as this suggests that some sites could be prevented from being developed sustainably and put pressure on inferior sites, simply due artificial size criteria

Of the responses preferring each a range of sites, the following points were made; • should not rely upon one or two strategic allocations to meet the majority of the housing needs of Ryde, as this would place too much reliance on timely delivery of just one or two strategic allocations; • a range of housing sites, providing the opportunity to deliver a range of housing types in different locations will help to spread the impact of new development (for example, in terms of highways impact), and will offer the Council the opportunity to make best use of existing community infrastructure; • A range of sizes will suit varying developers; • Need to define what is meant by larger and smaller sites; • The development industry does not need a policy to be prescriptive when it could severely affect delivery rates; • It is misleading to present an option to the community that suggests that either one or the other is a realistic solution that can fully meet housing needs; • Only limited weight can be given to community responses as the Discussion Document does not give any information on: • any specific figures for the number of new houses required to be identified by this Plan; • how many smaller sites may be required; • where these other sites would be located; and • how many units would be required on them.

Interest group / organisations There was no majority or preferred response in this group, but rather each respondent gave an individual answer, which can be summarised as; - allow some flexibility

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 - support smaller sites (up to 300) - without the relevant environmental assessments there is no certainty that adverse impacts can be avoided - larger allocations would provide the council with more opportunity to secure additional enhancements through the planning system that could help provide additional benefits to the wider community.

Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor All three of the responses in this category expressed concerns over larger sites. Cllr Seely simply stated that he was in favour of smaller sites.

Havenstreet & Ashey Parish Council are concerned possible large housing developments in the south and south west areas of Ryde would create traffic movements, some of which would be through Havenstreet and the adjoining rural roads. While they accept there has to be housing development, and that only large developments can produce significant infrastructure improvements and/or affordable housing schemes, they feel that large scale developments on green land are destructive as far as the rural countryside is concerned. Accordingly, H&APC supports the principles of: a) the use of smaller brown-field sites first b) a pragmatic approach to Sec 106 contributions c) housing allocations being made on a higher number of small sites d) the definition of “immediately adjacent ” being the two “green ticked” examples given in Sec 1.15.

Ryde Town Council feel that it is important to keep a mix of sizes of developments and that there is a danger with larger sites, with the promise to provide infrastructure, which then does not emerge. They also said that when sites are allocated the policy that allocates them should include what is required and desirable on that site including the required infrastructure.

Ryde – Q4: If there were to be a limit on numbers for housing allocations, how should it be worked out? Number of respondents 19 Breakdown of respondents Private indiv idual – 5 Private company – 1 Planning agent / landowner – 8 Interest group / organisation – 4 P/T Councils & IW Councillors - 1 Summary of responses Private Individual There was a range of different responses with no clear consensus. The responses can be summarised as; - It should be based on local need - keep to present developed areas and not start new and artificial new towns/ villages - Young locals first - By considering the urban character of the area, and the surrounding densities.

Private company The single response in this group stated that any limit on numbers for housing allocations should be market driven.

Planning agent / landowner The majority from this group agreed that there should be no limit, but rather a flexible approach should be taken informed by factors such as housing need, and the nature of the site in its ability to

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 accommodate an assessed capacity.

Interest group / organisations Of the four responses in this category one suggested a site specific approach, one stated that the Council have already identified housing numbers within Ryde and one stated that the location and scale of development should be informed by the relevant environmental assessments (the remaining response provided no detail).

Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor Ryde Town Council feel that no single development should have more than 200 properties, although no reason is provided for this limit.

Q9. Do you agree with the suggested amendments shown in the maps on the following pages? Number of respondents 22 Br eakdown of respondents Private individual – 6 Private company –0 Planning agent / landowner – 10 Interest group / organisation – 4 P/T Councils & IW Councillors - 2 Summary of responses Private Individual Private individual’s views on the proposed amendments to the settlement boundaries were mixed. Some agreed fully with the changes whilst others disagreed. The reasons for agreement for all proposed changes were to protect open spaces from major development. One comment however was that the harbour should be included as they would like to see it developed further whereas the esplanade should be excluded to protect it as open space.

Private company None.

Planning agent / landowner There was strong objection to the proposed revision of the settlement boundary at the South of Ryde. Agents believe that the area south of Swanmore school, along Ashey Road should remain within the settlement boundary. This is because it is seen as a good development site. Views on the proposed changes to the other three areas of change were split with some agents agreeing and some disagreeing. One reason stated for the disagreement was because of the need for housing and therefore it would be inappropriate to reduce the boundaries. Another agent agrees with the extensions to settlement boundaries to the east of Ryde and including the Harbour and Esplanade.

Interest group / organisations The majority of respondents disagreed with the inclusion of the Esplanade and Harbour within the settlement boundary because they provide important open spaces and are in close proximity to the European SPA and Ramsar sites. One respondent agreed with the inclusion of Harcourt Sands within the boundary whilst one disagreed.

Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor Generally the proposed changes were agreed with, except one objection to the inclusion of Harcourt Sands to the east of Ryde. This was because if extended more sites adjacent to the boundary have potential for development.

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Q10. Do you think there are any other areas where changes to the settlement boundary should be considered? Number of respondents 14 Breakdown of respondents Private individual – 5 Private company –0 Planning agent / landowner – 4 Interest group / organisation – 3 P/T Councils & IW Councillors - 2 Summary of response s Private Individual One respondent suggested the Brickfields and Dame Anthony’s Common areas could also be considered in terms of amending settlement boundaries. The rest of the respondents to this question either had no further suggestions or were unsure.

Private company None.

Planning agent / landowner Planning agents suggested that Upton Road and Quarry Road should also be considered. There were a couple of comments regarding the inclusion of Harcourt Sands within the amended settlement boundary. It was suggested that if this were to happen consideration should be given to the adjacent land that could become more suitable for development, and perhaps a specific development brief provided for Harcourt Sands should be provided. It was also suggested that the settlement boundary at Harcourt Sands could be extended to include the sewerage station works at Appley and the Country Park.

Interest group / organisations It was suggested by one respondent that the Oakfield green spaces surrounding the Monkton Mead Brook should be excluded from the settlement boundary, and that Upton Road should be considered in terms of making amendments.

Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor It was commented by one respondent to this question that there should be no proposals to include Fishbourne in development. The other respondent said that they are in favour of all proposed changes as shown in the discussion document.

Q11. Should the council redraw the settlement boundary to include the Harcourt Sands site, or any other site? Number of respondents 20 Breakdown of respondents Private individual – 5 Private company –1 Planning agent / landowner – 7 Interest group / organisation – 5 P/T Councils & IW Councillors - 2 Summary of responses Private Individual All respondents said that yes Harcourt Sands needs development and the settlement boundary should be redrawn to reflect this. It was commented that a separate document should accompany this and that redevelopment should be closely controlled.

Private company One respondent stated that “yes Harcourt Sands should be included.”

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015

Planning agent / landowner It was agreed by planning agents and land owners that Harcourt Sands should be included within the settlement boundary. It was suggested that if amending the boundaries to include the site then a redevelopment design brief should accompany this to include a high quality standard of design and to protect views from the sea.

Other sites to include may be: Ashey Road, Upton Road, Quarry Road, Appley Wood and the Council’s Archery Field and Simeon Street Recreation Ground (designated as open space).

Interest group / organisations Views on whether Harcourt Sands should be were split, with half agreeing and half disagreeing. It was also commented that a substantial strip along the north boundary and Puckpool Park (including Puckpool Mortar Battery Scheduled Ancient Monument) should be excluded.

Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor One respondent states “yes please include Harcourt Sands within the Ryde settlement boundary”, whilst the other respondent supports the development of the site but does not wish to see the boundary redrawn.

Q22. Do you think that the council should seek to prevent settlement coalescence, or if the development was high quality and delivered a range of other benefits would settlement coalescence be acceptable? Number of respondents 21 Breakdown of respondents Private individual – 6 Private company – 1 Planning agent / landowner – 6 Interest group / organisation – 4 P/T Councils & IW Councillors - 4 Summary of responses Private Individual The majority of private individuals believe that the council should seek to prevent settlement coalescence. However a couple believe that if development is of a high quality and delivered with a range of benefits then coalescence is acceptable.

Private company It was agreed by the one private company that settlement coalescence should be prevented if possible.

Planning agent / landowner Views were split on this question with half the planning agents/land owners whom responded believing that settlement coalescence within the Ryde AAP area should be prevented. The other half believed that settlement coalescence does not need to be prevented, and one of the reasons given for this was to accommodate housing need in the area.

Interest group / organisations Generally it was agreed that settlement coalescence within the Ryde area should be protected. It was however also suggested that the approach should be flexible to accommodate the creation of jobs and affordable housing.

Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor The various respondents to this question all agreed that the council should seek to prevent settlement

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 coalescence within the Ryde area.

Q23. If you think the council should prevent settlement coalescence do you agree with the general areas we’ve identified? Do you think there are other areas that need protecting from settlement coalescence? Number of respondents 16 Breakdown of respondents Private individual – 5 Private company – 1 Planning agent / landowner – 2 Interest group / organisation – 4 P/T Councils & IW Councillors - 4 Summary of responses

Private Individual Generally it was agreed that the areas identified within the Ryde AAP discussion document to prevent settlement coalescence were appropriate. Further suggestions of areas to prevent coalescence included the Woodlands Vale Valley landscape, to maintain historic gaps and if Harcourt Sands is developed to keep the trees long the seafront.

Private company The sites identified within the Ryde AAP discussion document to prevent settlement coalescence seem appropriate to the private company that responded to this question.

Planning agent / landowner It was suggested that first a proper analysis of settlement coalescence within Ryde should be undertaken before particular sites are protected.

Interest group / organisations Most respondents agreed with the approach and suggested other areas that need protecting from settlement coalescence. It was suggested that the area east of Ryde (containing Puckpool Mortar Scheduled Ancient Monument and the grade II* registered historic park and garden of Woodland Vale) should also be protected. One respondent commented that they do not support the sites being put forward to prevent settlement coalescence due to housing need.

Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor Generally it is agreed by the respondents to this question that the sites identified within the discussion document are appropriate.

The Bay – Q1: What are your views on the council permitting further development to contribute to the regeneration of The Bay area? Number of respondents 24 Breakdown of respondents Private individual – 4 Private company – 1 Planning agent / landowner – 6 Interest group / organisation – 9 P/T Councils & IW Councillors - 4 Summary of responses

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Private Individual Views expressed by respondents in this group on the council permitting further development to contribute to the regeneration of The Bay area can be summarised as; - Further development to regenerate The Bay area is very necessary; - A lot more could be done to regenerate without development; - Employment and infrastructure needs to be provided for additional housing; - Further development should be restricted to what is really needed (not what developers or government want); - Development in the Bay should primarily be aimed at developing the Bay economy, with emphasis on encouraging businesses that provide year round rather than just seasonal employment; - Expansion of the residential stock in the bay, whilst important, should be secondary to the aim of developing the Bay economy; - Specific areas within the area awarded Assisted Area Status should be specifically identified and zoned for Business Development; - Any regeneration of The Bay should first take account of all historic buildings that require restoration and retention i.e. The Grand, Savoy Court, Sandown Hotel, Rivoli Cinema and the Pier; - The cinema would be a much needed addition to the town as it could be used as a cinema, stage venue and a meeting hall.

Private company View expressed by the single respondent in this group felt that the council should only be permitting development to the extent necessary for anticipated population growth.

Planning agent / landowner Views expressed by respondents in this group on the council permitting further development to contribute to the regeneration of The Bay area can be summarised as; - Support council approach as believe it will encourage the most sustainable development; - Core Strategy SP2 housing quantum figures considered to be out of date as they pre-date adoption of the NPPF; - The local plan needs to meet the objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the market area, therefore considered it highly likely that the housing requirement for the Bay area will be increased in order to reflect the NPPF’s more positive emphasis on housing delivery; - Further housing development in the Bay area will help to support the overall regeneration objectives of the plan; - it is not clear how any responses received to this question posed will help the Council to identify such appropriate development sites, and whether any further residential development permitted would come out of the 370 dwelling allowance cited in the permitting further development - whether residential or other types of development (including tourism) - would undoubtedly contribute to the regeneration of The Bay area main policy; - Further development could be allowed if sites are appropriate and sustainable in accordance with core strategy policies; - emphasis should be on brownfield sites; - The amount of development should be proportionate to the scale and character of the location; - Could additional development in The Bay be used to reduce numbers elsewhere in more sensitive locations? - a pragmatic approach to the consideration of the location of development must be taken; - Settlement boundaries should be expanded to include areas that are most likely to contribute to regeneration; - extremely unlikely that housing and development needs can be solely met on brownfield land, and even less likely that the regeneration and redevelopment of previously developed sites can provide for infrastructure requirements given the constraints that the sites present.

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015

Interest group / organisations Both the Chamber of Commerce and Visit Isle of Wight agree on permitting further development to contribute to the regeneration of the Bay area.

Sandown Forum feel there is very little need for more housing above the plan allocation of 20 units per annum and therefore think that further development should only be permitted if it is linked to wider economic regeneration of the Bay area.

Healing Arts feel the Bay is already fairly densely built-up, with particular concern about the spread beyond the boundaries and looking to use brownfield sites where possible, harmonising good contemporary design with existing buildings.

The RSPB think it is not clear that permitting further development will have the desired effect, while the EA highlight the requirements to meet the Sequential Test as set out in the NPPF.

Shanklin Hotel & Accommodation Association think that increases in residential stock should be driven by the local need to support the expanding economy that it is believed Assisted Area Status will bring, and that there are other areas of the Island more suited to large scale residential development, and in areas that expanded capacity is less likely to attract holiday home buyers. They also think specific zones within the area of the Bay that has been awarded Assisted Area Status should be identified and zoned for Business Infrastructure.

Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor Lake Parish Council is not averse to permitting further development to contribute towards regeneration, but would favour use of brownfield land first, with a pragmatic approach to S106 contributions.

Cllr Ward thinks there is very little need for more housing above the Area Plan allocation of 20 units per year and that regeneration of economic and light industrial development desperately needed. Also, that it should be easier for the redevelopment or re-use of redundant and/or empty buildings.

Sandown Town Council think further development should be permitted within the development area.

Shanklin Town Council thinks that development in the Bay should primarily be aimed at developing the Bay economy, with emphasis on encouraging businesses that provide year round rather than just seasonal employment. Specific areas within the area awarded Assisted Area Status should be specifically identified and zoned for Business Development.

The Bay – Q2: What are your views on the use of brownfield land first, to support regeneration, and the impact this could have on infrastructure development? Number of respondents 26 Breakdown of respondents Private individual – 4 Private company – 1 Planning agent / landowner – 5 Interest group / organisation – 11 P/T Councils & IW Councillors - 5 Summary of responses Private Individual It was generally viewed that brownfield land should be used first to support regeneration. It was added

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 that when developing brownfield land consideration should be given to infrastructure requirements and in particular drainage systems. It was commented that some greenfield development would be acceptable, in particular on land adjacent to Whitecross Lane. Another respondent however stated that it is important to maintain as much greenfield land within The Bay as possible.

Private company The one respondent to this question stated that brownfield land should be developed first and that The Bay area has a number of ex-commercial areas which would benefit from regeneration within brownfield sites.

Planning agent / landowner Generally it was agreed amongst planning agents and land owners that priority should be given to the development of brownfield sites first. However the potential for development of greenfield sites was also recognised and it was commented that due to housing need some greenfield will have to come forward. One respondent had no preference for the development of a type of site but recognised it would be useful to have clearer guidance for developers on how best to approach gaining planning permission for a greenfield sites.

Interest group / organisations Most organisations and interested parties whom responded felt that brownfield land should be developed first. However some believe that instead the approach should be flexible and development should occur in the right place to meet the needs of the Island. To achieve this several respondents provided suggestions including: conducting ecological surveys to ensure protected sites and species are not harmed, to ensure heritage assets are not harmed and that an assessment of the Bay should first be carried to determine the best location to develop tourism accommodation and where current sites could be renovated.

Specific areas were also mentioned and it was suggested that the area between Fort Street and Isle of Wight Zoo is the prime location in Sandown for tourism-related development, that land behind the existing Spithead Business Park should be designated as a light industrial/commercial zone, land adjacent to Whitecross Lane is appropriate for development and within Lake commercial development should not be delayed by encouraging developers to look for “brown-field” sites.

Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor A couple of respondents believe that only brownfield land should be developed at all. A couple of other respondents agree that brownfield should be developed first but that some greenfield land is appropriate for development. Areas appropriate for development were suggested as being land adjacent to Whitecross Lane and land at the back of Spithead business centre. It was commented that all development should maintain an appropriate amount of green infrastructure.

The Bay – Q3: If viability is an issue on brownfield sites, should the local planning authority take a pragmatic approach to negotiating s106 contributions? Number of respondents 20 Breakdown of respondents Private individual – 4 Private company – 1 Planning agent / landowner – 4 Interest group / organisation – 6 P/T Councils & IW Councillors - 5 Summary of responses Private Individual It was agreed by private individuals that a pragmatic approach should be sought. This is a summary of the suggestions for doing this:

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 • make contributions significant enough to ensure greenfield development is just as uneconomic as brownfield development • where employment for local people is provided contributions should be exempt • where large hotels are converted into residential flats in the right location contributions should be exempt contributions should be made to install foul water sewers and surface water sewers

Private company It was viewed by the one respondent to this question that a pragmatic approach to collection s106 agreements should be taken when viability is an issue on brownfield sites.

Planning agent / landowner It was agreed by all respondents to this question that a pragmatic approach should be taken. It was stated by one respondent that “non- previously developed sites that have fewer constraints are much more likely to be able to contribute significantly towards community needs, infrastructure, and objectives of economic regeneration”.

Interest group / organisations Some organisations and interested parties whom responded to this question agree that a pragmatic approach should be taken. It was suggested that contributions should be collected for alleviating traffic issues. However a couple of respondents disagreed and the reasons given for this were that the environment should not be compromised due to viability issues and it was commented that increased housing numbers may increase recreational impact on designated sites and contributions must be collected to mitigate against this. It was also stated that actually s106 agreements should be removed or reduced.

Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor Generally it was agreed that a pragmatic approach should be taken to securing s106 agreements. To do this it was suggested that: • where employment for local people is provided contributions should be exempt • where large hotels are converted into residential flats in the right location contributions should be exempt One respondent however suggested that instead the long term impacts of encouraging building work should be considered rather than collecting financial contributions for development.

The Bay – Q11: Do you agree with the possible amendments shown in the maps on the previous few pages? Number of respondents 23 Breakdown of respondents Private individual – 4 Private company – 0 Planning agent / landowner – 5 Interest group / organisation – 10 P/T Councils & IW Councillors - 4 Summary of responses Private Individual The majority of private individuals agreed to the proposed amendments to the settlement boundaries within The Bay. One respondent said that areas already ear marked for development should remain so.

Private company None.

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Planning agent / landowner Generally planning agents disagree with the amendments shown in the maps because the boundary is drawn too tight to the settlement and therefore does not accommodate for future housing. Specifically agents state that removing the field adjacent to Broadlea Primary School is unnecessary as this is designated as Open Space and so protected from development anyway. It was also suggested that the boundary should be extended to include visitor attractions at Culver Parade and housing at Yaverland.

Interest group / organisations Views on redrawing the settlement boundary within The Bay were divided. Some respondents would like the boundary to remain as it is and that leisure land including the zoo and land at Yaverland should be included. It was also mentioned that the Sandown Wastewater Treatment Works should remain within the boundary because aesthetically it is developed land and within keeping with the development and that future housing requirements may require further development of the works. Other respondents agree with the proposed amendments and reasons given for this are that the land omitted are within a floodplain and inappropriate for development and that a gap between Sandown and Yaverland should be protected.

Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor Opinions on the possible amendments to the settlement boundary were split amongst respondents in this group. Half believe the boundary should remain as it currently is whereas the other respondents agree with the changes. It was stated that areas already ear marked for development should remain so and that the area in Sandown is adjacent to the light Commercial units around College Close and East Yar Road, should be kept but specifically zoned for commercial development.

The Bay – Q12: Do you think there are any other areas where changes to the settlement boundary should be considered? Number of respondents 19 Br eakdown of respondents Private individual – 3 Private company – 0 Planning agent / landowner – 6 Interest group / organisation – 6 P/T Councils & IW Councillors - 4 Summary of responses Private Individual It was suggested that consideration should be given to Lake settlement boundary too and that there should be allowance for the provision of a footpath to connect the north end of Sandown to the sea.

Private company None.

Planning agent / landowner Planning agents and land owners suggested the following areas where changes could be made: • To include east and west of Luccombe Road • Possible inclusion of some residential development adjacent to Cheverton Copse Holiday Park, as either a mobile home residential park, or for low cost homes. The settlement boundary should include Sandown Airport area which could encourage an enterprise zone and employment space, and potential tourism.

Interest group / organisations One respondent to this question stated that the boundary lines should be drawn tight to existing settlements, to protect ‘green’ sites and promote ‘brownfield’ development. However other respondents

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 suggested other areas that should also be included and it was commented that Sandown Airport could be classed as an enterprise zone and that some current holiday parks around Shanklin should be considered. One respondent would like to see land on the eastern edge of the map also removed from the possible new boundary as this is in the flood risk zone.

Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor It was commented that the proposed amendments to the boundaries are favoured however it was also commented that the current boundaries are acceptable. Further comments on this were that Los Altos park should be retained as green space and that a detailed development boundary map for Shanklin should have been included for further consideration.

The Bay - Q30: Do you think we should protect the gap between Brading and Sandown? Number of respondents 24 Breakdown of respondents Private individual – 4 Private company – 1 Planning agent / landowner – 3 Interest group / organisation – 12 P/T Councils & IW Councillors – 4 Summary of responses Private Individual Consensus amongst private individuals is that the gap between Brading and Sandown should be protected. A common theme amongst responses was that the area is a flood plain and so development would not be appropriate here anyway.

Private company One private company responded and agreed that the green gap between Brading and Sandown should be protected.

Planning agent / landowner Two of the three planning consultants that responded stated yes to this question. One planning consultant however disagreed that the area should be protected as a green gap because land may be required to meet housing targets.

Interest group / organisations Generally it is agreed that the area between Sandown and Brading should serve as a green gap. Of those who agreed a couple of the respondents suggested amendments to the protected area shown on the map. These suggestions included removing the parade area and the bit that runs to Yaverland; and Southern Water would like to see the land they own removed from this protection too. Other suggestions included increasing the designated area to include Brown’s golf course, the former boating lake and Sandham Grounds. There were a couple of organisations who disagreed with designating a protected area and suggested that instead settlement coalescence could be protected through the settlement boundaries and avoiding development on the flood plain.

Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor It was agreed by all respondents to this question that the area between Brading and Sandown should be protected to prevent settlement coalescence.

The Bay - Q31. Do you think that there are other areas that should be protected to prevent settlement coalescence? Number of respondents 19 Breakdown of respondents Private individual – 4

Consultation Statement To support the review into Island Plan Core Strategy policy SP2 March 2015 Private company – 0 Planning agent / landowner – 3 Interest group / organisation – 8 P/T Councils & IW Councillors – 4 Summary of resp onses Private Individual A common response from private individuals to this question is that the whole areas around Yaverland to Morton Common and to Dionsaur Isle should be protected. One respondent added that “We do not see any great merit in trying to maintain any gap between Shanklin and Lake, and there already is none between Lake and Sandown.”

Private company None.

Planning agent / landowner Two planning agents simply stated ‘yes’ that there are other areas that should be protected to prevent settlement coalescence. One planning agent disagrees that areas should be protected to prevent settlement coalescence due to the need for housing.

Interest group / organisations Views of organisations and interested parties were split on this question. Half stated that no there are no other areas that need to be considered to prevent settlement coalescence. The other half suggested further areas that should be protected to prevent settlement coalescence. These suggestions were the whole Yaverland area, all land between Brading and Sandown and existing open spaces within Shanklin. One respondent added that “We do not see any great merit in trying to maintain any gap between Shanklin and Lake, and there already is none between Lake and Sandown.”

Parish / Town Council / IW Councillor It was recommended that the area between Brading and Sandown as shown in the AAP discussion document should be extended to include land further to the west. Other areas also recommended by respondents were Batts Copse, Sibden Hill, America Wood and Shanklin Down.