A DECISION by the Isle of Wight Council's planning committee, to refuse plans for seven homes in Apse Heath, has been appealed.

Councillors went against the recommendation of council officers.

At the December 2020 committee meeting, councillors expressed concerns about inadequate pedestrian walkways and the location being outside of any defined settlement boundary.

It led them to reject the application by seven votes to three, even though officers suggested the scheme be conditionally approved.

Now, in an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, the applicant argues the decision was wrong, using other approved schemes as examples of a 'lack of consistency'.

Sitting alongside other houses on Ventnor Road, the site is said to be in an accessible location, supported by the fact the council granted planning permission for nine new dwellings in Apse Heath over the last four years.

One of the nearby schemes, on the A3056 heading towards Newchurch, was supposedly accepted by the planning authority as accessible as it is within a reasonable walking distance to the amenities, despite there being no pavement.

The appellant, Connie Bentley, said as that site had been accepted by the council, 'it is perverse for members to reach an opposing view' for her site.

At the same December meeting, the Branstone Farm redevelopment for 42 houses was approved.

The appellant argued inconsistency in that there was an absence of any pavements there to provide pedestrian connectivity to any local services.

In the planning statement supplied to the Inspectorate, Andrew White, of Andrew White Planning Consultancy, says: "The appellant feels she is the victim of being the later application on the agenda and that members were reluctant to be seen to be approving what cumulatively would have been a considerable amount of residential development within a small parish and ward."

Inadequate pedestrian access was given as a reason for refusal but Ms Bentley argues there is a footway running up the side of Ventnor Road already, which is regularly used by residents to access services.

Although it was recognised there was no opportunity to widen the footway and, while it would not accommodate all pedestrians, it was said to 'be suitable' for the majority of users.

Another concern was that the development was outside the settlement boundary by Mr White, who argued there was no blanket restriction that stopped development away from a defined settlement boundary.

The site on Ventnor Road is regarded as being in the wider rural area and Mr White says in the council's core planning strategy 980 units are set to be built in areas that are away from settlement boundaries.