PAPER C
THE URBAN EXTENSION ANNEX JUNE 2020
The Covid-19 pandemic, the public health emergency and socio-economic impacts that have
followed, and the curtailment of normal activity in so many areas, has inevitably generated a pause
for thought in local authority plans and programmes. In the case of the Ryde Place Plan, the urban
extension, its spread of development proposals, housing numbers and types, infrastructure
improvements and wider community relevance, is one such topic for re-evaluation. The themes of
community open space, pedestrian and cycle access, local health services and economic recovery are
natural priorities for change in the context of the pandemic.
The extent to which RTC can influence these development schemes is constrained by the fact that
some have already been approved by the local planning authority and there is no legal basis for
revoking those decisions other than through the planning process itself (i.e. schemes seeking
variations and the possibility of ‘timing out’).
This annex therefore explores areas of useful intervention by which RTC can seek to secure better
post-Covid outcomes for the Place Plan, through development, or object to plans and variations that
it does not consider beneficial.
1. SCALE AND IMPACT
The schemes with the largest potential impact on Ryde, in housing, employment, public realm,
landscape and road infrastructure are Pennyfeathers, Nicholson Road and West Acre (Bullen Dairy).
All are ‘live’ in the planning system (Pennyfeathers through variations to approval, the others still
under consideration at the time of writing) and therefore their proposals are open to influence,
alteration, or withdrawal.
RTC needs a professional working relationship with each project team in order to be able to
effectively communicate its own point of view, discuss options, challenge claims, and ask for
essential information on the development details. This action does not impair or compromise RTC’s
entitlement to object to, approve, or defer judgement on the same proposals. Response to a
submitted planning application, in the normal process of public consultation, is not enough on its
own; there must be more proactive engagement and dialogue from RTC.
Each of these development sites is likely to persist as a potential future impact whether current
applications succeed or not and so the relationship between RTC, landowners and development
interests is essential if proper influence over the expansion of Ryde is to be achieved and
overarching community benefit, for the people and places of the town, set in place as the essential
benchmark.
C - 1
The points for consideration given in this annex are based on the three major developments, but all
apply equally to the smaller schemes nearby and can be applied in the same way to, for example,
Rosemary Vineyard/Trotters and Smallbrook Stadium.
2. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
RTC will need to carefully consider the in-combination offer of infrastructure improvements shared
between these major development proposals. RTC will need to seek clear and regular briefing from
the IWC team working on priority junctions for example, to understand the degree to which all
developments are dependent upon one another, i.e. can a minimum acceptable level of
infrastructure be delivered by any one scheme alone and how will any deficit be solved given the
local authority’s extreme financial constraint following the pandemic?
Transport
The problems that affect Westridge crossroads junction, the Great Preston Road/Smallbrook Lane
junction, road safety issues on Smallbrook Lane to Ashey Road, road safety and traffic management
in and around the existing Nicholson Road industrial estate, might all be exacerbated by partial or
site-only highways changes delivered by individual developments. A complete overview can only
come from IWC and Island Roads but a well-informed, local voice demanding coherent planning
must come from RTC. The relationship between the proposed developments and the LCWIP is
similarly essential. Do the schemes facilitate its delivery, add value and capacity, or do they make it
harder by working against the local cycling and walking targets?
Green
The same evaluation must apply to green and community infrastructure. To what extent does each
scheme add to, expand, and enhance the existing public open space, public access, and permeability
of its local environment? Do any of the proposals provide a means of better overall management of
existing and neighbouring public greenspace or will they add pressure and risk eroding the existing
resource?
There is an opportunity to combine the plans for Ryde Country Park with those for community land
and buildings. The new park would incorporate the greenspace provision from both Nicholson Road
and Pennyfeathers and could potentially ‘twin’ with the proposals for an eastern park at West Acre,
creating the largest area of its kind on the Island. A consistent land management approach will be
needed across the whole park and so a ‘ranger base’ sited at the most convenient or expedient
development should be considered a priority. This would then also allow environmental outreach
and engagement activity to grow from the same centre.
Community
Each of the three major schemes is offering to provide a community building or centre. It is
important that there is clarity around the sorts of activities and services imagined. If each is
essentially the same all-purpose facility, then it may be that one or more becomes redundant and is
at risk from redevelopment for housing or workspace.
It is important that RTC makes it clear, to both developers and the LPA that it expects to see some
element of masterplanning in the decision making around community contribution.
The new community centres promised by each development all include GP services. It is essential
that RTC works with the NHS, CCG, ICP and locality hub to ensure that there is no permanent drift of
health service provision from existing areas in Ryde which are currently accessible by walking for
many who would find it much harder to reach the urban extension without driving (and may not
have a car).
C - 2
Housing
The three major developments deliver approximately 1380 new homes, of which approximately 480
would be affordable. Ryde, as is the case for the other main urban centres on the Island, has an
urgent need for smaller (1,2 bed) affordable housing provision. The track record of delivery after
approval is poor across the island and this is a critical consideration for RTC when reviewing and
responding to the current applications and their revisions. Is it clear who the affordable provider is?
Does the scheme phasing show early deliver of the affordable stock? What assurance is there that
priority housing for local people has been put ahead of more speculative development? An
important question is whether assured sale and delivery of the affordable component of a much
larger, and more uncertain scheme, might provide a point of leverage for RTC to propose partial,
meanwhile, amended or alternative development options.
Economic
Each of the proposed major developments includes some workspace and retail provision. Nicholson
Road is predominantly an employment scheme whereas Pennyfeathers and West Acre are
residential, but the principle of maximum local benefit should still apply.
As with the other critical infrastructure issues, the key concern is the extent to which new centres of
economic activity promised by new development, complement, connect with, support, and extend
existing local business. Will new development build additional local economic resilience and
opportunity, or will it put existing business under new stress?
S106
Critical local infrastructure is the basis for s106 negotiations. It is important that RTC insists on
discretionary and justifiable contributions to natural and social infrastructures alongside transport
and education. These are allowed for in the Island Plan supporting documents but need lobbying for
as a local priority.
Development schemes should be expected to provide both on-site works and off-site contributions
to critical infrastructure issues such as the emerging Ryde Country Park and the delivery of the
LCWIP if they are to meet RTC and Place Plan criteria for relevance, suitability and public benefit.
3. PHASING AND PRE-COMMENCEMENT
There is scope to influence the delivery of public benefit on any approved developments that do
begin work. Planning conditions will set out pre-commencement requirements and the milestones
for discharge against any phasing programme. RTC can influence these matters, whether through
new application or variation, to deliver better outcomes for existing and future communities.
Key objectives to consider are:
• Early phase delivery and management of public open space contributory to the Ryde
Country Park.
• Early phase delivery of affordable housing both because it is a social priority and because it
is managed as a single estate and can therefore be integrated into the open space/park
‘manco’ arrangements.
• Early phase delivery of new community facilities to support existing neighbourhoods first.
C - 3
4. LAND STERILIZATION
If any of the major development projects fail, either through refusal of planning permission or by
permission lapsing, then there is the potential for large areas of land to become dormant, disused,
or derelict. RTC will need to consider if there are ways in which it can intervene to secure meanwhile
or permanent benefits for the town and its communities. These might be alternative development
conversations with the landowners where RTC plays an active role, or temporary community uses
that provide site owners with some benefit, financial or otherwise. Whatever options might emerge,
the voice of RTC and its partners in shaping those next possibilities is essential.
5. CONCLUSION
The urban extension across the south-east of Ryde is a significant component in the Place Plan. The
scrutiny, coordination and management of the extension is made much harder by the lack of a
masterplan, LDO or other mechanism to enable desired outcomes to be designed and regulated en
bloc. This has resulted in piecemeal and uncoordinated development pressure, duplication of
generic community offers, fragmented infrastructure delivery and a disjointed timetable of planning
applications and project commencements.
RTC is therefore limited in its ability to review the urban extension other than by actively engaging in
the various live planning consultations currently underway, a mix of schemes yet to be determined,
those approved but returned for variation, and those approved but presumed stalled pending some
change yet to come. This is a messy and challenging approach, but it is all that is now available.
The impact of Covid-19 on the consideration of accessible open space, neighbourhood-level
community services and partnership working has provided a set of cues for re-engaging with the
urban extension that can be used by RTC to prompt changes to the development schemes
presented. These are set out in this annex.
The component schemes within the urban extension must show how, individually, and together,
they:
• Extend, and contribute to the management of Ryde Country Park.
• Extend and deliver the LCWIP.
• Add new neighbourhood community facilities without displacing existing town centre
services (in recreation, sport, health, education, and social support) and without unhelpful
duplication/competition within the urban extension itself.
• Ensure necessary upgrades to critical local infrastructure without the risk of incomplete,
disjointed, and ineffective piecemeal implementation.
• Connect with and enhance local centres of business and employment.
RTC is encouraged to work closely with major development stakeholders in order to strengthen its
ability to shape change during the current planning timetable, and to create the conditions for
better alternative proposals should existing schemes withdraw.
C - 4
