Paper B

Reference Number: P/01030/06 - TCP/27752

Parish/Name: St. Helens - Ward/Name: Brading and St Helens

Registration Date: 05/09/2006 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr J Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Bembridge Harbour Improvements Co Limited

Continued engineering operation works to maintain access channel to Bembridge Harbour

part of access channel, Bembridge Harbour off, Embankment Road, Bembridge, PO35

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a major application and is contentious due to considerations surrounding the whole of Bembridge Harbour.

1. Details of Application

1.1 This is a full application seeking consent for the continued engineering operation of dredging works to maintain the access channel to Bembridge Harbour

1.2 The principle of this development is to dredge the entrance channel to Bembridge Harbour which is situated to the north of the “neck” of the harbour, i.e. between the point at Bembridge and the southeastern tip of St Helens Duver.

1.3 The area of harbour is a sector shape with overall dimensions of 450m x a maximum of 90m, outside of the assumed harbour ownership and areas owned by the Isle of Wight Council and the National Trust.

1.4 Excavation dredging work is proposed to be undertaken from the east side of the channel using mechanical excavators and earth moving vehicles with the use of low loader trailer to take plant to and from the site if required. Dredged material will be moved from the intertidal area to the nearby gravel processing yard and access routes will follow established existing routes to and from the channel edges. Due to tidal constraints dredging operations will be timed to coincide with fortnightly low water spring tide series which allow up to three days access before and three days after spring tide maxima. Dredging operations will normally be during daylight hours but may need to extend into hours of darkness during winter months. It is anticipated that there would up to 16 visits per month (maximum) but variations could occur due to alterations in channel deposition, cycles or for operational reasons.

1.5 The intention is to monitor the operations on a monthly basis by various means including physical observations, GPS generated data and digital photography on a monthly basis with aerial photographs acquired on an annual basis but also incorporating beach profile monitoring undertaken by the Council and bathymetric channel survey in sections taking both longitudely across the channel. It is also proposed to keep aggregate extraction records of timing and volumes with the results analysed annually. The application states that, at least initially the amount of sediment being removed will be commensurate with an annually quantity of 20,000 cu metres but that as information from bathymetry comparison starts to become available, the amount of material to be removed each year will be calculated based on a comparison of the bathymetry information with the ‘ideal’ channel. The ‘ideal’ channel is agreed by all the parties to be recorded by the bathymetric survey undertaken in 2003.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 The site is a sector shaped area of the harbour located approximately 200m off shore from St Helens fort at the northern end of the Duver at St Helens.

3. Relevant History

3.1 None in relation to this location. Bembridge Harbour has been subject of many applications bearing in mind the total area concerned.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance

· PPS9 – Nature Conservation emphasises the importance of designated sites and undesignated areas for nature conservation.

· PPG17 – Sport and Recreation, promotes sports and sporting activities both formal and informal.

· PPG20 – Coastal Planning refers to various activities and pressures surrounding coastal areas including nature conservation, tourism, recreation and policies for development.

· PPG21 – Tourism.

4.2 UDP Policy

· Site is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest and is designated under:

o Solent and Southampton Water RAMSAR

o Solent and Southampton Water SPA

o Brading Marshes to St Helens SSSI

· Policy S10 refers to designated areas of scientific value.

· Policy C10 – Sites of Natural Importance for Nature Conservation states that development will not be permitted if it would be likely to destroy or adversely affect, directly or indirectly, a Site of Special Scientific Interest or national nature reserve.

· Policy C7 – Rivers and Corridors and Estuaries advocates protection for river corridors, estuaries and associated wetland as important areas of open space by only approving development which conserves the existing areas of amenity or wildlife value and seeks to restore the natural elements of the river and associated wetland; supports initiatives which will result in improvements to water quality and where appropriate to allow for the identification and promotion of locations for water related recreation and support.

· Policy L1 – Informal Recreation Provision in the Countryside.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

County Ecologist has been working closely with English Nature regarding the proposal and the appropriate assessment and is satisfied that, subject to conditions, no adverse impact on the ecology of the site should occur.

5.2 External Consultees

The Environment Agency objects to the proposal until an appropriate assessment has been carried out. EA agrees with English Nature that the development is likely to have a significant effect on the interest features of the relevant international sites but if the appropriate assessment concludes that the development may be carried out without adverse impact and subject to stringent conditions, will accept the continuing works.

English Nature objects to the development unless the appropriate assessment concludes the development can be implemented without adverse effects on the European site without removal of excess sediment and reduction in extent of inter tidal mud flats and damage to the habitats by use of machinery and extraction and disturbance to migratory populations of waders and wildfowl. Concluding that, however, that the appropriate assessment process should provide more information to enable such possible adverse effects to be mitigated.

5.3 Town or Parish Council comments.

None at the time of writing.

5.4 Third Party comments.

Ten letters of objection from local residents on grounds of:

· Loss of habitats or adverse effect on habitats.

· Making navigation into the harbour worse.

· Increased congestion

· Inadequate dredging elsewhere

· Proposal are open ended – no controls on where and how much dredging.

· Increased number of boats and visitors resulting in increased levels of pollution.

Letters of objection also relate to other issues other than the dredging of the channel including:

· Increased number of moorings, increased number of houseboats, increased pollution.

6. Evaluation

6.1 This application seeks consent purely for the dredging of the access channel to the harbour and requires planning permission solely because parts of the area to be dredged to give adequate depth of channel, are outside of the assumed defined limits of the harbour and within areas owned by the Council and the National Trust.

6.2 The main issues relating to this application are:

· Policy and principle

· Nature Conservation considerations.

6.3 In terms of policy and principle the maintenance of the adequacy of the access channel to Bembridge Harbour should be supported to enable the continued use of the harbour by marine traffic for all purposes including tourism and leisure and as a working harbour and in visual terms, apart from the plant proposed to be used for the implementation of the dredging operations, there will be limited and transient visual impact purely by the presence of the said plant. Clearly the frequency and timing of the impact will be dependant upon the state of tide and opportunities to carry out the required operation will need to closely observe the ability to do it.

6.4 The nature conservation issues are significantly greater. The site is within an area designated under:

· Solent and Southampton Water RAMSAR

· Solent and Southampton Water SPA

· Brading Marshes to St Helens SSSI

6.5 Due to the above designations and the possible impacts on interests of nature conservation, both the Environment Agency and English Nature have objected to the scheme until an appropriate assessment, as required under the Habitat Regulations 1994, has been carried out adequate to identify possible impacts and to evaluate the proposed mitigation measures. This appropriate assessment has been carried out in parallel with the passage of the planning application in close consultation with English Nature and the conclusion of the appropriate assessment is that with adequate and relevant restrictions via planning conditions attached to a planning permission, the interests of acknowledged importance will not be significantly adversely affected.

6.6 The dredging of the channel, if carried out without strict control would be likely to impact on the features of nature conservation value by significant interference with the natural coastal process and the impact on the seabed by the physical works and in carrying out the operations, the disturbance to wildfowl and other sea birds feeding on the foreshore whilst works are being carried out.

6.7 Accordingly, whilst it is desirable to maintain an adequate access corridor it is also desirable to carry out the minimum amount of works sufficient to facilitate this provision.

6.8 Restrictions on the maximum volume of dredged material per annum, it is suggested limited to a maximum of 20,000 cu metres per annum or sufficient to maintain the navigable channel, whichever is the lesser amount; requiring details of the estimated timing of the dredging and a programme of the areas to be dredged; limiting the number of operational days and limiting the operational days between the months of November to February. In addition, comprehensive monitoring of the results of the dredging operations and their comparison to the original survey are to be carried out with a review of the forthcoming years dredging methods and quantities to take account of the results found.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 Bembridge Harbour is a working harbour, operational for many activities. The maintenance of a practically navigable entrance corridor is, in principle, essential to the harbour’s operation and it should be emphasised that this application seeks consent only for the carrying out of maintenance works to keep that channel open. It should also be noted that approval of such an application does not imply that other developments are acceptable or unacceptable, each decision being taken on merit.

7.2 The natural coastal process has caused silting of the channel which can only be rectified by the dredging of a navigable corridor but in order to carry out such necessary works, limitations on the operations to allow that to be achieved and at the same time safeguard nature conservation interests should be imposed. It is concluded that the limited operations, controlled by the conditions proposed will address the nature conservation concerns allowing the maintenance of access to the harbour and therefore conditional permission would be consistent with policies contained within the UDP regarding leisure, tourism and nature conservation.

8. Recommendation

Approval.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	This permission shall authorise the continuing engineering operation of dredging works to maintain the access channel to Bembridge Harbour along its existing course (consistent with the dimensions shown on the Shoreline Survey's Drawing No. J022 002 attached to and forming part of this decision notice) for a temporary period expiring on 30 June 2009 on or before which date all dredging works shall cease permanently unless the express permission of the Local Planning Authority has been given in writing for a further temporary period. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact of the dredging, which is not considered to be suitable for permanent continuation in the interests of the nature conservation value of the site and consistent with policies C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration), C9 (Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation) and C10 (Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
2	Within one month of this consent a comprehensive operations scheme (Management Protocol and Plan) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The agreed scheme shall include details of anticipated timing of dredging (i.e. the specific days each month), maximum quantities of dredged material, details of equipment and plant to be used in the process, details of which sections of the channel to be dredged in which months, the route of approach to and from the working area for plant. The number of operational days shall be kept to a minimum between the months of November to February inclusive. Thereafter the management protocol shall be strictly adhered to and no deviations shall occur without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate the methodology of the works in the interests of the nature conservation value of the site and to comply with policies C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration), C9 (Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation) and C10 (Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan
3	Only sufficient sand and gravel shall be extracted from the area hereby authorised to maintain the channel to the dimensions of the bathymetric survey undertaken in 1999 or to a maximum for 20,000 cu metres annually, whichever is the lesser amount. Details of the volume of the material dredged weekly shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority bi-monthly. Reason: To restrict the dredging of material to the minimum necessary to maintain the navigability of the channel whilst safeguarding the nature conservation value of the site and to comply with policies C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration), C9 (Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation) and C10 (Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan
4	The site and topographical effects of the dredging works shall be monitored annually in accordance with a scheme to be submitted within three months of the grant of this permission to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The agreed monitoring scheme shall determine the results of the dredging compared to the existing bathometric survey from 1999 and data obtained in subsequent years in order to ascertain if modifications to the dredging plan need to be made for the forthcoming year. This information will be provided to the Isle of Wight Council annually, Any adverse effect identified by the Local Planning Authority shall be rectified during the subsequent 12 month period by adjustments to the dredging regime in time for the subsequent monitoring event. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to consider and regulate the dredging operations in the interests of the nature conservation value of the site and to comply with policies C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration), C9 (Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation) and C10 (Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan

Reference Number: P/01520/06 - TCP/24035/A

Parish/Name: Ryde - Ward/Name: Ryde South East

Registration Date: 26/06/2006 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr J Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Shawford Developments Ltd

Partial demolition of no. 25; access road off Ashey Road (revised scheme)

land between 25 and 27 and, rear of 27, Ashey Road, Ryde, PO33

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a major application which has proved contentious and is required to be considered by Development Control Sub Committee by the Local Member Mrs Vanessa Churchman.

1. Details of Application

1.1 This is a full application with all matters to be considered at this time.

1.2 The proposal comprises the demolition of part of an existing residence, the removal of the front boundary wall and the engineering operation comprising the formation of substantial vehicular access from Ashey Road to the land situated at the rear of the frontage properties in Ashey Road with the purpose of providing access to a site of 25 houses within the application site delineated in red and possibly increased to approximately 220 if the land is linked with that land located further to the east.

1.2 The land at the rear was the subject of a planning refusal for residential development with an access situated further to the south, the development was refused and a decision notice was issued in March of this year and is now the subject of an appeal.

1.3 Proposal involves the demolition of a substantial part of the northern most two properties with the proposed access corridor reaching land towards the rear and submitted details show a six metre access road with a 1.8m footpath on each side, the southern side of the proposed highway abutting the northern elevation of the southern most of the two properties. Thereafter the access bends in a southerly direction finally to abut the eastern extent of the site a length of probably 60m.

1.4 Plan also includes a site section with the relative levels shown on it indicating some landfill to achieve a steady gradient varying between 1:26 and 1:15 to the rear of the site.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 The site is located on the east side of Ashey Road approximately 180m from the junction with Swanmore Road. It has an area of about 0.1 ha and there is a steady fall from west to east.

2.2 Site and land within the same ownership has a frontage to Ashey Road of 46m and presently formed part of the curtilage of two residential properties both of some considerable establishment and in use as flats.

2.5 To the east of the site the land is open and undeveloped with allotments to the north where abutting Weeks Road with open land through to and beyond the railway line between Ryde and Brading.

2.6 Ashey Road is characterised by a mix of large and small residential properties in detached and semi-detached form fronting the east side of Ashey Road and in this location there are two cul-de-sac one to north and one to south of the site namely Hazelwood Close and Leeward Close which is situated just to the south of the current application site. Otherwise, the area is predominantly residential with the exception of Swanmore Middle School located just over 100m to the south and located on the west side of Ashey Road.

3. Relevant History

3.1 Outline for residential development which related to the land situated to the east of the site with access off Woodland View was refused in March this year for the following reason:

“In the opinion of the Local Planning authority, the proposal would result in a intensification of vehicle movements to and from the site utilising the existing access off Ashey Road which is considered to be substandard by reason of inadequate visibility and capacity to serve the resultant number of dwellings, adding unduly to the hazards of highway users, and would be contrary to policies G4 (c) (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (d) (Standards of Design) and TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.”

The above proposed development includes no land the subject of the current application but it is clear the intention of the new access road is to serve that land situated to the east, formally the subject of that unsuccessful application.

That application is now the subject of an appeal which is likely to be heard in the new year.

3.2 An outline application for residential development of that land referred to in the preceding paragraph was refused in December 2002 on grounds of insufficient capacity within the existing sewage system and inadequate details of a means of treatment or upgrading of the existing sewerage and possible adverse effects on the nature conservation interests in the near vicinity.

3.3 In February 1999 an outline application which included siting, landscape and access for ten semi-detached houses and six terraced houses was refused. Again, that application related to the larger tract of land situated behind the properties fronting Ashey Road, the tract which adjoins the application site. The subsequent appeal against that refusal was allowed in November 1999 subject to conditions and a unilateral undertaking regarding pro rata payments towards cumulative facilities and traffic calming measures was provided.

3.4 The above permission was not implemented but a further outline application submitted seeking revised scheme for the residential development of that site was granted consent in February 2003 subject to a Section 106 Agreement which replaced the original unilateral undertaking referred to above. Reserved Matters consent was granted in May 2005.

3.5 Outline application for 21 detached and six terraced dwellings was approved in August 1999 subject to a Section 106 Agreement covering the payment towards community facilities and towards traffic calming in Ashey Road. A subsequent reserve matter application was approved in October 1999 which has now been completed, that development is now known as Woodland View.

3.6 A further permission for two detached houses within the rear garden of number 35 Ashey Road was also granted permission utilising access off Woodland View.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance

National policies covered in PPG3/PPS3 – Housing seeking to:

· Ensure new housing is provided at the right place at the right time and that there is a choice of sites which are both suitable and available for house building.

· Recommends regular review of housing requirement through the mechanism of local housing needs assessment.

· To provide sufficient housing land, preferring brownfield to greenfield sites.

· To provide a mix of size, type and location for housing.

· Provide for affordable housing initiatives.

· Recommends planning authorities ensure maintenance of supply of housing, concentrating most additional housing within urban areas.

· Making more efficient use of land by increased densities particularly on previously developed land.

· Assessing the capacity of urban areas to accommodate more housing.

· Adopting a sequential approach to choice of sites.

· Manage the release of housing land.

4.2 UDP Policy

The application site is located within the designated development envelope and the whole of the land located between Woodland View and Hazelwood Close, stretching as far as the lane almost 200m to the east of Weeks Road and travelling southwards, is contained within the designated development envelope and is a scheduled housing site in the Unitary Development Plan and is identified as H3 (38) which states that:

“It is proposed that an area of land to the rear of properties on the eastern side of Ashey Road to be released for residential purposes. Access to the proposed residential area will be from Ashey Road and will be constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The development of the area should be in conjunction with the provision of community care facilities either within the site or on adjoining land. The land is undulating in nature and the individual fields enclosed in main hedge and tree boundary. The design and layout of any development should take into account the topography of the site, the proximity of nearby properties and maintain the natural features of the area where possible.”

4.3 As a scheduled housing site the following housing policies in the UDP apply as follows:

· H1 – Major New Residential Developments to be Located within the main island towns.

· H2 – To ensure that large residential developments contain a variety of house sizes and types.

· H14 – Locally affordable housing as an element of housing schemes.

4.4 Unitary Development Plan Period (1996 – 2001) stated that there is a development potential for approximately 8,000 units which assumes that the development of allocated sites which will make the contribution. In terms of Regional policies in respect of the south and southeast, the targets for the Isle of Wight are in the region of 500 plus units per year. These figures will of course be revisited during the local development framework process (Island Plan) however the Unitary Development is the statutory policy document which should apply to this site.

4.5 Other local Unitary Development Plan policies applicable to this proposal are:

· G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

· G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

· G6 – Development in Areas Liable to Flooding

· G7 – Development on Unstable Land

· C8 – Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration

· C11 – Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation

· C12 – Development Affecting Trees and Woodland

· C13 – Hedgerow

· TR6 – Cycling and Walking

· TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

· TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

· U2 – ensuring Adequate Educational, Social and Community Facilities for the Future Population

· U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision

· L10 – Open Space in Housing Development

4.6 Site is located within Zone 3 of the Council’s parking policy.

4.7 Relevant Strategic Policies of the UDP relevant to this proposal are:

· S1 - New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas

· S2 – Development will be encouraged on land that has previously been developed (brownfield sites) rather than undeveloped (Greenfield sites). Greenfield sites will only be allocated for development where they are extensions to urban areas and where no suitable alternative brownfield sites exist.

· S3 – New developments of large scale will be expected to be located in or adjacent to the defined development envelopes of the main Island towns of Cowes/East Cowes/Newport/Ryde/Sandown/Shanklin.

· S7 – there is a need to provide for the development of at least 8,000 housing units in the plan period while a large proportion of this development will occur on sites with existing allocations or planning approvals or on currently unidentified sites or enough new land will be allocated to enable this target to be met and provide a range of choice and affordability.

· S11 – Land use policies and proposal to reduce the impact of and reliance on the private car will be adopted by the Council will aim to encourage development on an effective, efficient and integrated transport network.

4.8 Reference is also made to National document, residential roads and footpaths layout considerations – Design Bulletin 32 and its companion guide – Places, Streets and Movement dated September 1998.

4.9 Supplementary Planning Guidance regarding affordable housing now seeks a 30% contribution from developers on those qualifying sites and contribution towards educational facilities, open space and transport initiatives.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved but further comments that a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit has been undertaken by the Traffic Section of the Isle of Wight Council which revealed one problem which has been accepted by the developers and an exception report has been agreed and signed by the developers’ project manager. This related to the carriageway/footway gradient which should not exceed 1:13.

5.2 External Consultees

· Environment Agency recommends conditions regarding the drainage of the new access road should not exceed that which would result as a Greenfield site, achievable through attenuation measures.

5.3 Neighbours

· 63 letters of objection from local residents supported by a petition of 105 signatories objecting to the development of the site on the following grounds:

o Inaccurate plans

o Increase in traffic in Ashey Road

o Loss of an attractive building

o Loss or displacement of bus stops

o Loss of open space

o Land unsuitable for development

o Loss of pavements making access difficulties for local residents

o Loss of on-street parking whilst generating increase demand

o Traffic dangers caused by excessive vehicle speeds

o Ashey Road too narrow to take further traffic

o Development contrary to policy

o Flooding and high water table

o Land instability

o Unnecessary housing

o Proposal conflicts with Safe Routes to School Policy

o Loss of trees

o Noise of traffic from the development

o No details of development to take place

o Visual intrusion

o Questions legal ownership of land

o Loss of parking for existing properties

o Development likely to cause damage to adjoining properties through land instability.

o Some writers suggest that if consent is granted then further traffic calming or a 20 mph speed limit should be imposed and also suggesting a roundabout at the junction of Swanmore Road with Ashey Road.

5.4 Others

· Swanmore Middle School object to increased traffic and traffic dangers associated with new development.

· Island Watch object on grounds of increased traffic which they consider to be contrary to the local transport plan.

· Isle of Wight Bus Users Group objects to the displacement or adverse effects of positions of bus stops.

6. Evaluation

6.1 This is an application which seeks to demolish part of an existing building and provide a substantial access road of approximately 120m in length terminating at a field boundary. The development therefore is primarily to be determined on matters of highway considerations and policies. However, in determining whether or not an access is suitable and acceptable in planning terms, consideration of the purpose to which the access is to be put is essential. It is clear that the access is intended to serve up to 250 dwellings, therefore the capacity of the access road and its junction with Ashey Road is the prime consideration.

6.2 This application does not include the land to the east to which access will be gained and although not included within the application, acceptance of this proposal will be a tacit acknowledgement of the suitability of the development of that land situated to the east.

6.3 As the use of the land to the east for residential purposes cannot be separated from the consideration of this proposal for the access, determination of this application is considered to include the following issues:

· Adequacy of the access in highway terms, i.e. visibility, gradient, road safety issues, capacity etc.

· Policy implications as detailed above.

· Drainage

· Land stability

· Affect on adjoining properties.

6.4 It can be seen from consultations section that the highway engineers are satisfied with the specification of the access and that a road safety audit has been carried out which revealed a possible problem area, the gradient of the access road. Drainage of the access is considered by the Environment Agency to be acceptable given attenuation measures to ensure run off does not exceed that of an undeveloped site. Visibility splays of 4.5m x 90m are achievable and highway engineer has conditioned this at 4.5m x 90m. Accordingly, the junction details and the specification of the road in terms of radii and widths and gradient are acceptable to the highway engineer in the knowledge that this proposal is intended to serve 200+ residential units.

6.5 At this point Members are reminded that the previous application for the development of the land (which this alternative proposed access is intended to serve) was refused in March of this year on the sole reason that the access was inadequate. That refusal has yet to be tested at appeal but the development was not refused on any other grounds and therefore it would be improper and inappropriate to attempt to introduce reasons for withholding permission for this access on the grounds that the land to which it is intended to serve is inappropriate for development.

6.6 In the report to Members of 14 May 2006 evaluation of that proposal for residential development included considerations of foul drainage, surface water drainage, ecological issues, issues regarding contributions, affordable housing, density, slope stability and geotechnics and open space matters were discussed. Your officer’s report concluded that these issues were resolvable by condition or by the submission of further details in a reserved matters application. The committee accepted these matters could be resolved and were not of sufficient weight to warrant additional reasons for refusal and the fact that the application was refused solely on access grounds is tacit acceptance of that position.

6.7 This is an application for an access road which is known to be proposed to serve the land to the east for residential development and therefore it would be inappropriate and inadvisable to determine the application on grounds other than purely highway considerations as the inclusion of reasons for refusal on a proposal which is not currently before you would be unsustainable.

6.8 In terms of land stability within the application site, there is a degree of cut and fill. However, excavation to form the access road is minimal but the section shows that where instability of structures may be, the access road adjoining will increase the level of the land to a point which is similar to the adjoining land level and therefore by the imposition of this weight land stability is more likely to be increased.

6.9 During the processing of this application and the receipt of representations alleging land instability, advice from Building Control regarding remedial works to buildings which have suffered some subsidence has been sought and I am advised that this is localised and likely to be, unique to the individual properties concerned rather than generalised land instability in this area. The report to Members on 14 March of this year concluded that an advisory letter to the developers regarding foundation design would be appropriate.

6.10 With regard to effect on adjoining properties, the two properties adjoining the proposed access are likely to be the two most affected. Number 25 Ashey Road is proposed to have a substantial section of it removed and it is proposed to make good the remaining flank with finish in matching materials and features and incorporating windows at first and ground floor. The structure of number 27 is proposed to be untouched however replacement parking is shown on the plan to be provided in the rear part of the site but the loss of some of its amenity land however both of these properties are shown on the application plan to be within the area designated in blue which signifies that the applicant is the freeholder whilst the flats within the building are leasehold. Following my request that agent has confirmed that notice has been served on the owners and therefore, as Members will be aware the ability to carry out development on land where third parties have rights is largely a civil issue to be determined through the legal process rather than through the planning process.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 This application seeks to provide access to a tract of land which has been scheduled in the Unitary Development Plan and before for residential purposes. That land has been the subject of an application for residential development earlier this year with access from a different position, a position which was considered by this committee to be unacceptable. That application was refused solely on the grounds of inadequate access as detailed above and accordingly this application may only be determined on highway issues and issues emanating directly from the development included within this application. A Road Safety Audit has been carried out on the proposed access and has been found to be acceptable providing the gradient of 1:13 is not exceeded. Accordingly, the Highway Engineer considers that the access position and specification are satisfactory and has recommended conditional approval of the proposal.

7.2 The physical works involved in providing the access will impact on the appearance of number 25 Ashey Road by the demolition of a substantial part of the building. However elevation of the remaining building is felt still to be acceptable, despite the removal of a substantial wing and the resultant appearance is felt to be acceptable and provision of replacement car parking can be conditioned. Accordingly, it is felt that the proposal is acceptable and consistent with Policies D1, D2 and TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan as far as the development is proposed. References to other policies above are largely background references due to the unique history of the site and the need to determine an application for an alternative access to the eventual proposal to develop the substantial piece of land to the east.

8. Recommendation

Conditional Permission.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	Before the development hereby permitted is commenced details of the width, alignment, gradient and drainage of all roads shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	The development shall not be occupied until sight lines have been provided in accordance with the visibility splay shown X = 4.5 and Y = 90 m on the approved plan reference number 27-06.2 rev 1.1. Nothing that may cause an obstruction to visibility shall at any time be placed or be permitted to remain within that visibility splay. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	A temporary turning head shall be provided at the eastern side of the access road to allow vehicles to turn and egress the site in forward gear. The turning head will remain until the access road connects to the on-site residential road network. The construction details of the temporary turning head shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any works commence on site. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	No construction traffic shall enter the public highway during the site development unless their wheels and chassis have been cleaned to prevent the material being deposited onto the highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to prevent mud and dust from getting on the highway and to comply with policies TR7 (Highway Considerations) and M2 (Defined Mineral Working) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	No development shall commence until a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following details: The provision of a surface water regulation system designed and implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and supported by detailed calculations. The run off generated by the 1% probability storm must not exceed the run off from the undeveloped site. The scheme shall include a maintenance programme and establish ownership of the drainage system. Reason: To prevent flooding and ensure future maintenance of the drainage system in accordance with Policy G6 (Development in Areas Liable to Flooding) and G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Pan.
7	No development shall commence on site until a comprehensive scheme for the alteration of the partially demolished property (No. 25 Ashey Road) including details of construction and finishes has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The approved scheme shall be implemented and completed prior to the installation of the access road hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include [proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage power, communications cables, pipelines, etc, indicating lines, manholes, supports, etc); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant]. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9	No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed [before the use hereby permitted is commenced/before the building(s) hereby permitted (is/are) occupied/in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority]. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	Replacement parking for the occupants of the flats contained within numbers 25 and 27 Ashey Road shall be provided within the site edged blue on the plan in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any work on site. The agreed scheme shall be implemented and fully operational prior to the commencement of works on site. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan
11	The details of boundary treatments as required by the above condition shall include the provision of a masonry boundary wall 2 m high along the southern boundary of the site between the garages off Leighwood Close and the eastern boundary with 27a Ashey Road in accordance with a scheme of boundary treatments submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The agreed scheme shall be implemented and completed prior to the access road or the replacement car parking being brought into use. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area, the adjoining properties in particular and in accordance with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/01905/06 - TCPL/10397/Z

Parish/Name: Newport - Ward/Name: Newport North

Registration Date: 28/07/2006 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss S Wilkinson Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Primeco Ltd

Demolition of buildings at rear; conversion of 1st & 2nd floors of existing post office into 2 flats; 1/2/3 storey extension to provide additional retail area and staff facilities at ground floor and 10 flats at 1st & 2nd floors; alterations to pedestrian access (revised scheme)

Post Office Counters Ltd, Newport Post Office, 99 High Street, Newport, PO301AB

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a major application of Island wide significance.

1. Details of Application

1.1 This is a joint report for planning application and listed building consent for the demolition of buildings at rear; conversion of first and second floors of the existing Post Office into two flats; 1/2/3 storey extension to provide additional retail area and staff facilities at ground floor and ten flats at first and second floors; alterations to pedestrian access.

1.2 Due to the town centre location of this site it is a no car parking scheme, with three car parks close to the site and bicycle parking provided for each unit.

1.3 The proposal comprises 2 three bedroom flats within the first and second floor of the existing Post Office and a mix of 2 one bedroom flats and eight 2 bedroom flats in the proposed new block.

1.4 The proposal sees a single storey extension to the existing Post Office building to provide additional retail facilities stretching the length of the site with residential units above along the Lugley Street elevation moving part way down Post Office Lane.

1.5 The High Street elevation will be unchanged. The single storey extension will not be visible from Post Office Lane with the existing wall being replaced with the inclusion of lighting to improve security. The Lugley Street elevation has been designed to incorporate features of the existing Post Office so that the development is read in relation to Post Office Lane and the building fronting the High Street. The features of Lugley Street have also been incorporated with the development reading of a similar height to the proposed redevelopment at the neighbouring site. Materials proposed are of mixed brick render for the external walls with a slate roof.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 The High Street elevation of the site will be well known to Members as it is the current Post Office building which will visually remain unchanged the site then continues for the length of Post Office Lane, with a proposed new building fronting Lugley Street. The proposed development represents 100% site coverage with much of the built form being in single storey to provide the additional retail space for the Post Office use.

2.2 Lugley Street is of mixed appearance with a combination of terrace properties, the detached Lugley House, Lugley Street car park and the approved redevelopment of the former cinema site with a hotel building. There is a mix of uses within Lugley Street including restaurants, offices and residential properties. The High Street is of extensive mixed usage

2.3 The street scene is characterised by two/three storey buildings of early 19^th Century cottages to late Victorian terraced styles, of mainly brick construction with slate roofs.

3. Relevant History

3.1 P/01059/06 – LBC/10397/X. An application for Listed Building Consent for demolition of buildings at rear; conversion of 1^st and 2^nd floors of existing post office into two flats; 1/2/3 storey extension to provide additional retail area and staff facilities at ground floor and ten flats at 1^st and 2^nd floors; alterations to pedestrian accessed was refused in June 2006.

3.2 P/01049/06 – TCPL/10397/Y. An application for demolition of buildings at rear; conversion of 1^st and 2^nd floors of existing post office into two flats; 1/2/3 storey extension to provide additional retail area and staff facilities at ground floor and ten flats at 1^st and 2^nd floors; alterations to pedestrian accessed was refused in June 2006.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance

· PPG3	-	Housing and PPS Consultation Paper 3, relating to housing are applicable
· PPG6	-	Town Centres and Retail Development
· PPG15	-	Listed Buildings and the Historic Environment

4.2 The following Strategic Policies within the Unitary Development Plan are applicable:

· S1	-	New Development will be Concentrated within Existing Urban Areas
· S2	-	Development will be Encouraged on Land which has Previously been Developed
· S6	-	All Development will be Expected to be of a High Standard of Design
· S7	-	Provision of Housing Units on the Isle of Wight
· S11	-	Reducing Reliance on the Private Car
· S14	-	New Retail Development will be Expected to Locate within Existing Town Centres

4.3 The following Unitary Development Plan policies are applicable:

· G1 – Development Envelopes

· G4 – General Locational Criteria

· G10 – Existing Surrounding Uses

· D1 – Standards of Design

· D2 – Standards for Development within the Site

· D5 – Shop Fronts and Signs

· D11 – Crime and Design

· D12 – Access for People with Disabilities to Buildings Open to the Public

· D14 – Light Spillage

· B1 – Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings

· B2 – Settings of Listed Buildings

· B3 – Change of Use of Listed Buildings

· B4 – Demolition of Listed Buildings

· B6 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

· H4 – Unallocated Residential

· H10 – Above Ground Floor level in Town Centres

· E1 – Promote Suitably Located New Employment Uses

· TR6 – Cycling and Walking

· TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

· TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines

· R1 – Existing Town Centres

· R2 – New Retail Development

· R8 – Residential Use of Upper Floors in Town Centres

· U11 – Infrastructure and Services Provision. Development

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· The Council’s Crime Design Adviser has raised no objection to the application and has stated he will be contacting the developer to discuss lighting and CCTV within Post Office Lane. Additional recommendations to aid building security have been highlighted and could be incorporated within a letter accompanying the decision notice if Members were minded to approve.

· The Highway Engineer has recommended conditional approval.

· Environmental Health has recommended a number of conditions to ensure there is limited noise disturbance to future residents.

5.2 External Consultees

Southern Waters concerns have been dealt with via a condition requiring a capacity study.

5.3 Others

One letter of objection has been received objecting to the loss of the Post Office from the High Street. I can confirm however that there is no intension for the Post Office to close and the retail area at ground floor will see an extension to the current facility at this time.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The determining factors in considering this proposal are considered to be as follows:

· Design

· Conversion of upper floors of the Post Office

· Retail extension

· Impact on the listed building.

6.2 Design

The proposal has been development in order to incorporate features from the Post Office building to which it relates in construction and use terms but has also includes detailing from buildings within Lugley Street. The development is three storeys with a central gable features within the front elevation of the proposed flats to define an entrance, provide a break in the roof and reduce the massing of the building. The building is predominantly a mix of red and grey with red detailing facing brick with the central gable feature being through colour render to both provide a visual break and reduce the massing that would result if the building was all brickwork.

The design includes a number of windows overlooking Post Office Lane in order to improve surveillance. The corner of the building on Lugley Street and Post Office Lane has also been splayed from the position of the existing wall in order to increase the opening onto Post Office Lane to allow for improved pedestrian flows as well as increased safety by widening this element of the Lane.

6.3 Conversion of upper floors of the Post Office

The proposal incorporates a plan for the conversion of the first and second floors of the Post Office that are currently only used for a staff room and toilets. These facilities will be provided within the new retail ground floor extension and the upper floor of the Post Office converted to provide two residential units. The upper floors have been significantly altered and subdivided in the past and therefore minimal alterations will be required with the proposal being for a unit on each floor. Some original features do remain including coving and skirting, being replaced where possible.

6.4 Retail Extension

The proposal includes the removal of the existing sorting office although the side wall is to be retained as it provides the wall to Post Office Lane and is an important feature within the Conservation Area and to the Listed Building itself.

The proposed extension will provide a single storey retail element that will run the length of the site and allow access from both High Street and Lugley Street. As well as improving the current retail element and Post Office on site and providing a convenience store in the centre of Newport the proposed extension will also bring the staffing facilities on site in line with Disability Discrimination Act requirements.

6.5 Impact on the Listed Building

The previous application for the redevelopment of this site was refused purely on the grounds of impact on the listed building. The revised scheme sees the retention of the two-storey extension to the rear of the existing Post Office, the loss of which was of greatest concern to officers. Additionally the sidewall to the Sorting Office, which also provides a length of the boundary to Post Office Lane is to be retained and incorporated into the proposed single storey extension.

The above variations make the revised scheme far more acceptable in regards to the impact on the character and fabric of the existing listed building. A more detailed justification report in accordance with PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) has also been submitted looking into the elements of the building that are to be demolished, in relation to their age and the relationship they have with the main Post Office building. Although the Conservation Officer has raised some issues in regards to the value of the justification, it is considered that on balance the application would enhance the Conservation Area at this point without having a significantly detrimental impact on the listed building.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 Having due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that the design of the proposed flatted development and the conversion of the upper floors of the existing building are acceptable in principle and sufficient justification has now been submitted, when taking into consideration the section of the building now to be retained for the extent of demolition and the proposed works to the listed building.

8. Recommendation

Conditional Permission.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	No development shall take place until [samples of materials/details of the materials and finishes, including mortar colour] to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	No development shall take place until a detailed scheme including calculations and a capacity study, have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water disposal. Any such agreed foul and surface water disposal system shall indicate connection points on the system that adequate capacity exists, including any reasonable repairs which may be required, or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overload the existing system. No unit shall be occupied until such system has been completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul water drainage is provided for the development in compliance with policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	Development permitted by this planning permission shall not be initiated by the undertaking of material operations as defined in Section 56 (4) a-d of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the development until planning obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the said Act relating to the land has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority and the Local Planning Authority has been notified by the person submitting the same that it is to the Local Planning Authority's approval. The said Planning Obligation will provide for contributions to education, open space and transport infrastructure. Reason: To ensure educational facilities, open space, transport provision and affordable housing is made in accordance with policies U2 (Ensuring Adequate Educational, Social Communities for Future Population), L10 (Open Space and Housing Developments) and TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan
5	The use hereby permitted on the ground floor of the premises shall not be open for business outside the hours of 0800 to 2200 hours Monday to Saturday, and outside the hours of 0900 to 2200 Hours Sundays and Bank Holidays. Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance, in particular sleep disturbance from noise emissions from the premises in accordance with policy G10 (Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Users) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	Prior to the use hereby authorised on the ground floor commencing, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified of the intended hours for goods deliveries and goods dispatches to the development. The use shall not commence until these hours have been approved, or amended as necessary, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance, in particular sleep disturbance from noise emissions from the premises in accordance with policy G10 (Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Users) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 no further plant or machinery, other than that specified in the schedule attached to this permission, shall be erected on the site under or in accordance with Part 8 of the schedule to that order without planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance, in particular sleep disturbance from noise emissions from the premises in accordance with policy G10 (Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Users) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan
8	Construction of the building hereby permitted shall not commence until a full specification of the new windows (including cross sections for glazing bars, sills, heads etc, and means of opening) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To reflect the requirements of Section 16 (2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and to comply with policy B2 (Settings of Listed Buildings) B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9	Notwithstanding the approved plans, a full specification involving alterations to internal features and finishes such as doors, floors, internal joinery and ceilings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To reflect the requirements of Section 16 (2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and to protect the character and appearance of the listed building and to comply with policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) and/or B2 (Settings of Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	Notwithstanding the approved plans, a full specification of the proposed shopfronts shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To reflect the requirements of Section 16 (2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and to protect the character and appearance of the listed building and to comply with policy B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) and/or B2 (Settings of Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
11	No demolition works authorised by this consent shall take place until a programme of building recording has been undertaken in accordance with a written scheme submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order that information of architectural or historic interest may be recorded in accordance with advice in PPG15.
12	Before any demolition work is commenced, structural engineers’ drawings and a method statement shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority to ensure the safety and stability of the building fabric to be retained. The work shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To reflect the requirements of Section 16 (2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and to protect the character and appearance of the listed building and to comply with policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
13	No building shall be occupied until the means of access thereto for pedestrians and cyclists has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure adequate safe provision of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists wishing to gain access to the site and to comply with policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
14	No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out in accordance with drawing number 05-33-10 revision B for 12 bicycles to be parked securely. The space shall not be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
15	All construction traffic related to the approved development will deliver, load and unload, at times and on a route to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policies TR7 (Highway Considerations) and M2 (Defined Mineral Working) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/01906/06 - LBC/27885

Parish/Name: Newport - Ward/Name: Newport North

Registration Date: 28/07/2006 - Listed Building Consent

Officer: Miss S Wilkinson Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Primeco Ltd

LBC for demolition of buildings at rear; conversion of 1st & 2nd floors of existing post office into 2 flats; 1/2/3 storey extension to provide additional retail area and staff facilities at ground floor and 10 flats at 1st & 2nd floors; alterations to pedestrian access (revised scheme)

Post Office Counters Ltd, Newport Post Office, 99 High Street, Newport, PO301AB

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

This is a joint report with application P/01905/06 – TCPL/10397/Z (see above).

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The works hereby authorised shall be begun not later than 3 years from the date of this consent. Reason: As required by s18 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended).
2	No development shall take place until [samples of materials/details of the materials and finishes, including mortar colour] to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	Construction of the building hereby permitted shall not commence until a full specification of the new windows (including cross sections for glazing bars, sills, heads etc, and means of opening) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To reflect the requirements of section 16 (2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and to comply with policy B2 (Settings of Listed Buildings), B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	Notwithstanding the approved plans, a full specification involving alterations to internal features and finishes such as doors, floors, internal joinery and ceilings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To reflect the requirements of section 16 (2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and to protect the character and appearance of the listed building and to comply with policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) and/or B2 (Settings of Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Notwithstanding the approved plans, a full specification of the proposed shopfronts shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To reflect the requirements of Section 16 (2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and to protect the character and appearance of the listed building and to comply with policy B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) and/or B2 (Settings of Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	No demolition works authorised by this consent shall take place until a programme of building recording has been undertaken in accordance with a written scheme submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order that information of architectural or historic interest may be recorded in accordance with advice in PPG15.
7	Before any demolition work is commenced, structural engineers’ drawings and a method statement shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority to ensure the safety and stability of the building fabric to be retained. The work shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To reflect the requirements of Section 16 (2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and to protect the character and appearance of the listed building and to comply with policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/00058/05 - TCP/26502/A

Parish/Name: Ryde - Ward/Name: Ashey

Registration Date: 03/02/2005 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr C Hougham Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Island Speedway (IOW) Ltd

Variation of condition no. 1 on TCP/2170/X to increase the number of race meetings, cup and tournament events from thirty to thirty-five occasions in any calendar year

Smallbrook Stadium, Ashey Road, Ryde, PO33 4BH

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Matter continues to cause some local concern reflected by third party representations and was raised with the Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder by a member of the public at a recent forum.

1. Details of Application

1.1 Application seeks approval for the variation of the relevant condition on the most recent permission to increase the number of race meetings, cup and tournament events from 30 to 35 occasions in any calendar year. Covering letter with the application states:

…… and the increasing success of the Wightlink Islanders we are forced to undertake more meetings and more competitions……. British Speedway Promoters Association (BSPA) have agreed, and at the last AGM, the speedway season will now commence on 1 March and all matches must be completed by 7 November in each (calendar) year. Island Speedway (IOW) Limited found themselves in contravention of these rules in 2004 and received a code of conduct fine of £1,000 for failure to fulfil their fixture list.

1.2 In accordance with the necessary procedure when dealing with this type of application a screening opinion was undertaken as required by the Town and country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 and it was determined that the application did not have to be supported by an environmental impact assessment.

1.3 This application was due to be dealt with almost twelve months ago under the delegated procedure but a decision was taken by the former Interim Development Control Manager that since there were on-going enforcement investigations into various breaches of condition it would not be appropriate to grant permission for a further extended use until these matters had been resolved. Acting on this instruction the Case Officer wrote to the applicants on a variety of issues in respect of alleged breach of condition and aspects of the latest application. In the circumstances the applicants were offered the following advice.

…….. need to commission an acoustic report prepared by a competent person which deals with the present situation and the success or (otherwise) of the engineering works carried out to date in conjunction with specific recommendations which may involve extending the bunding, raising the height of the existing bunding, surmounting proposed and existing bunding with acoustic fencing with a comprehensive landscaping scheme in order to redress the damage done to the visual amenities of the area. Once this report had been completed it would form part of the application and having obtained further observations from the Environmental Health Officer the matter, in all probability, will need to be reported to the Development Control Sub-Committee.

Providing the present situation could be improved there is a possibility that officers recommend elected Members to grant permanent planning permission for the speedway subject to conditions relating to the number of meetings, the timeframe for each meeting and an agreed programme of work for additional for and/or further earth works and intensive landscaping and planting to be completed within a specified period.

1.4 There was no detailed response to this letter.

More recently, following enquiries from the portfolio holder it was decided that the best way to progress the matter was to subject a report to this committee which dealt with the various alleged breaches of condition and this application to increase the number of events held on the track in each calendar year.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 Smallbrook Stadium occupies a substantial irregularly shaped area of land on the corner of the junction of Ashey Road and Smallbrook Lane.

2.2 Predominant use of the site is by Island Speedway (IOW) Limited.

3. Relevant History

3.1 Site has been used for speedway racing since the initial grant of planning permission in late 1995 when the former Committee decided to give temporary five year consent.

3.2 Subsequently an application was made to increase the number of authorised race days to 20 and this was approved in early 1997.

3.3 In 1999 a further application was made to increase to 30 meetings in any calendar year and for finish times to be extended from 2130 to 2230 hrs.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance

· PPS7	-	Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (2004)
· PPG17	-	Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (2002)
· PPG24	-	Planning and Noise

4.2 Strategic Policies are as follows:

· S4	-	Countryside will be protected from inappropriate development
· S5	-	Proposes for development which on balance will be for the overall benefit of the Island……
· S6	-	All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design

4.3 Local Planning Policies are as follows:

· G4	-	General Locational Criteria for Development
· D1	-	Standards of Design
· D14	-	Light Spillage
· T1	-	The Promotion of Tourism and the Extension of the Season
· T11	-	Special Events or Festival Sites
· C1	-	Protection of Landscape Character
· P1	-	Pollution and Development
· P5	-	Reducing the Impact of Noise
· TR7	-	Highway Considerations for New Development
· TR16	-	Parking Policies and Guidelines
· L2	-	Formal Recreation Provision
· L9	-	Noisy Sports

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· Environmental Health Officer advises that his service area has received many complaints about noise in connection with the use for speedway racing. He states that the noise is audible over a larger area and, in his view it is not possible to reduce the noise (e.g. by insisting on quieter bikes or by constructing a noise barrier.) He says, allowing this application will have an adverse effect on the community of a wide area of Ryde and the only way to limit the adverse effect on local amenity is to limit the number of days on which racing is permitted. He is “inclined” to recommend refusal of permission. He also remarks,

While I am sympathetic to the quandary in which Island speedway finds itself, vis-à-vis the British Speedway Promoters Association, I do not believe that a local authority should allow itself to be swayed by a non-statutory body in this way. However, 30 days is a somewhat arbitrary figure .Should you be inclined to approve the application, I would certainly be opposed to any further increase.

5.2 Others

· Isle of Wight County Table Tennis Association claim there is a conflict of use of the facility within the confines of the site as a table tennis centre.

· Country Watch Residents Association objects to the application on grounds of noise, pollution and unsuccessful attempts to mitigate against this particular problem.

· Owner/occupiers of nearest residential property in Ashey Road raise no objection to the application but would rather see an extension of the season rather than increase in the frequency of events which may lead to meetings on two nights a week.

· Six letters of objection have been received from residents living in Great Preston Road who have reservations and object to the application on the gradual intensification of the use through requests of a variation of conditions and the noise pollution and ineffective measures undertaken to alleviate the problem.

· Calthorpe Road resident expresses concern about increased frequency events during the summer months; claims that the use does not enjoy the support from Island residents that it did two years ago and loss of amenity due to noise pollution. He also objects on the lack of an effective acoustic barrier.

6. Evaluation

6.1 This report focuses on two specific issues.

· Alleged breach of conditions in respect of bunding and apparent failure to mitigate against a problem identified by the Environmental Health Officer.

· The merits of this application to increase the number of meetings to 35 events in any one calendar year.

6.2 Members are asked to note that it is alleged that Island Speedway are already holding 35 events in any calendar year.

6.3 Quite clearly the two issues are inextricably linked and Members are invited to take an overall view of the matter with an objective of resolving these outstanding issues in combination with the determination of this latest application.

6.4 Notwithstanding the comments made by the Environmental Health Officer, in the ten years that the speedway has been operating at Smallbrook Stadium the Council, as Local Planning Authority, has received relatively few formal complaints concerning noise levels. Nevertheless an extension to the temporary planning permission in November 1999 required the construction of an appropriately designed embankment or bund/acoustic wall to minimise the impact of the operation on residential property located adjacent to the stadium and/or in the direction of the prevailing wind. These works have largely been completed and it is understood that a former Environmental Health Officer carried out noise level measurements to assess the impact of the operation on the amenity of neighbouring and nearby residential properties. Consequently, the observations of the Environmental Health Officer and third party representations (see Consultee and Third Party Representations) in combination with the interpretation of the relevant policies is an important factor in the determination of the application, which, if approved, will allow the site to be used on a further five occasions during the calendar year.

6.5 Background the alleged breach of planning condition relates to the planning permission granted in November 1999. Records show that prior to the grant of permission the landowner, the Council, obtained a report from a local noise and vibration control specialist and his detailed advice included the following recommendation.

“….., the only practicable solution would be to erect an acoustic barrier enclosing as much of the northeast and southwest perimeters as possible.

Best results, as might be expected, would obtained from a six metre high screen consisting of, for example, a three to four metres earth bund topped by a two to three metre close boarded heavy timber fence.”

6.6 This observation was made in connection with his expressed view that race noise levels in all the residential areas which he surveyed are significantly above background noise levels and, by any objective test, would probably judged to be intrusive. This information advice was taken into account when the matter was considered by the former Development Control Committee who overturned officers’ recommendation and decided to grant conditional planning permission including a condition that required the track “to be enclosed by an appropriately designed embankment/acoustic wall and landscaped accordingly.” The condition required Island Speedway to submit, obtain approval and fully implement the agreed details prior to the 2001 season.

6.7 Compliance with this condition fell short of the prescribed timescale and the level of detail that would have reasonably been expected. Nevertheless, the former Chief Environmental Protection Officer subsequently advised that agreement had been reached on the construction of acoustic barriers on the two sides of the track and, in accordance with the consultant’s recommendations, those barriers will be six metres high and would be constructed of earth and inert material. A detailed site inspection reveals that there is an argument that the applicants have failed to fully comply with this condition and there remains the difficulty of audible noise from the site now combined with the loss of visual amenity arising from the earth bunding works in the absence of any appropriate landscaping/planting. Nevertheless, this is not sufficient reason to further delay the determination of this application any longer.

6.8 On the basis that the use of the site for speedway causes some loss of residential amenity for properties on an occasional basis, based on the representations that we have received it is audible, if not a nuisance, at properties much further afield within the built up area of the town and the key test in this particular case must be whether the five additional days is sufficient to warrant refusing planning permission when the Council, as local Planning Authority, have previously supported the use of site for 30 events in the calendar years subject to certain conditions.

6.9 Notwithstanding the lengthy and relatively complicated planning history of the site the decision inevitably must be policy based and, in my view, the most appropriate “tests” feature in Policy P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) and Policy L9 (Noisy Sports). In relatively simple terms P5, in part, states that “where proposal for potentially noisy activities are likely to adversely impact upon sensitive development, details of mitigating measures will need to accompany planning applications and may become subject to conditions of approval.” Where practical it is important to ensure that where uses could conflict because of noise levels and tolerance that they should be physically separated to minimise potential conflict and that adequate and/or practical controls are put in place to reduce noise by levels of insulation, screening, design or layout or operational controls. In similar terms Policy L9(c) says that the use of land for noisy sports may be permitted where they do not adversely effect nearby residents.

6.10 The view is that the determination of this application for arguably modest extension or intensification of the existing use relies on interpretation and the level of weight given to the following key factors.

· Interpretation and application of key relevant policies (see above) and other policies relating to development in the countryside, visual impact etc.

· Site has been used for speedway purposes for approximately ten years.

· Council has previously supported the use of this site for speedway racing and there is an extant permission which includes conditions limiting the number race meetings to a maximum of 30 in any calendar and matters relating to acoustic mitigation referred to elsewhere in this report.

· Recommendation of the Environmental Health Officer to refuse permission.

· Limited third party representations in response to the application including comments from the owner/occupier of the nearest property, several letters of objection from residents living in Great Preston Road and one letter of objection from a resident living further afield.

· Short term and long term implications in the event of a decision to either approve or refuse the application.

6.11 When taking all the factors into account it is not considered that there is sufficient conflict with the aforementioned policies to sustain a decision to withhold permission which would deny the applicants the opportunity to hold up to 35 meetings per calendar year when there is already a (conditional) extant consent to use the site for up to 30 meetings a years. Consequently the recommendation is to support the application by granting permission.

6.12 Nevertheless there remains the difficulty of audible noise from the site, even at some considerable distance, and, in my opinion, a noticeable detriment to visual amenity arising from various activities on the site, associated outbuildings, unauthorised advertisements as well as the measures taken to reduce the impact of noise to the immediate locality by banking (or bunding) along one side of the track but predominantly at the northern end of the site close to Smallbrook Lane. In this context a favourable decision offers the Council, as local Planning Authority, the opportunity to impose further conditions to enhance the general level of visual amenity by a comprehensive landscaping scheme with the aforementioned banking in combination with a general “tidying-up” of the site.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 The matter has become unduly protracted and needs to be resolved with the minimum of prevarication and delay. It is not considered that there is any substantial objection sufficient to justify refusing permission to an additional five meetings but it is vitally important that matters relating to the boundary, landscaping/planting are dealt within a very strict timescale, hence the second recommendation and have suggested conditions.

8. Recommendation 1.

Approve

Conditions/Reasons:

1	This permission hereby authorises the use of the race track for formal speedway league race meetings, cup and tournament events only up to a maximum of 35 occasions in any calendar year and for no other purpose, including practice sessions, engine testing or any other informal use without the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with policies P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
2	The use of the site as outlined in condition no. 1 shall only operate between 1900 hrs and 2130 hrs except when a meeting is delayed due to an emergency situation involving an accident or injury when the site may operate until 2200 hrs. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with policies P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	Upon the request of the Local Planning Authority and within seven working days, the operator shall provide as required details of the dates of scheduled meetings held at the stadium and/or documentary evidence from either the governing body or the event referee to justify any operation of the site until 2200 hours. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with policies P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	Full details of the (partially completed) earthworks including a detailed and comprehensive landscaping scheme, which will include seeding and planting of trees within the immediate vicinity of the earthworks, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, implemented and completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority within six months of the date of this permission. The landscaping plan must include a maintenance programme for a minimum period of 5 years which must also be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of maintaining and improving the visual amenities of the area and to comply with policies D1 (Standards of Design) and D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation 2.

That a letter be sent accompanying the decision notice making two specific points:

· Notwithstanding the decision to grant conditional permission the Council, as Local Planning Authority, are not prepared to support further incremental approval to the intensification of the use of the site for speedway racing and are also not prepared to accept any informal request for variation of these conditions in the absence of a formal planning application.

Work specified in condition no. 4 must be completed within the specified six month period in accordance with an approved scheme to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and must be maintained in accordance with details of the approved plan for a minimum period of five years. This work should be carried out in combination with a programme of improvements designed to mitigate against the present level of visual intrusion and this will include the removal of unauthorised advertisements around the outside of the site. In the particular circumstances the Council as Local Planning Authority, will have no hesitation in taking appropriate enforcement action if there is a breach of this condition.

Reference Number: P/01693/06 - TCP/22670/E

Parish/Name: Nettlestone & Seaview - Ward/Name: Seaview & Nettlestone

Registration Date: 19/07/2006 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr C Hougham Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Sandown Developments

Continued use of land for outdoor go-kart track and associated buildings

land adjacent, Westridge Leisure Centre, Brading Road, Ryde, PO33

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Although this use has previously been approved, failure to comply with planning conditions meant that the consent was invalidated and this new submission has attracted a number of third party representations objecting to the continuation of the use.

1. Details of Application

1.1 Application seeks approval for continued use of land for an outdoor go-kart track and associated buildings on land to the rear of Westridge Leisure Centre.

1.2 Application is supported by the following plans:

· Location plan

· Site plan showing extent of hard surfaced area, present layout of the track, soil bunds, boundary treatment and position of buildings together with a cross-section through the site.

· Floor plans and elevations of a relatively substantial but low profile building (clubhouse) in the southeastern corner of the site.

· Acoustic Assessment Report carried out by a competent person in June 2006 which includes detailed noise assessment and photographic evidence.

1.3 In a covering letter with the application the applicant’s agent says:

Consent was granted under P/02500/03 for use of tourism designated land as an outdoor go-kart track for two buildings, one to provide a café, the other storage and workshop. The application was subject to a legal agreement and conditions. Consent was withdrawn as unfortunately there were concerns raised with conditions relating to the noise and the track bunding.

It is considered that this application has addressed these issues. The track has been surveyed including all aspects of the landscaping and buildings on site to show what has been constructed. An acoustic assessment report has been included with this application carried out on site on 5 June 2006. Which we understand confirms that the output is within acceptable limits.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 Largely a rectangular shaped area of land laid out as a go-kart track to the rear of the Westridge Leisure Centre adjacent to woodland, served off Brading Road (A3056) which also provides access to Tesco stores and various other commercial/tourist related facilities within the vicinity of the site.

3. Relevant History

3.1 In January 1999 conditional outline planning permission was granted for a 120 bedroom hotel with ancillary accommodation and associated parking on this site. This consent was renewed in January 2002 but is no longer valid.

3.2 In June 2004 conditional planning permission was granted for the use of the land as an outdoor go-kart track with building to provide café and associated facilities, a storage building and a workshop. Permission was the subject of a legal agreement in respect of a financial contribution towards double glazing and acoustic ventilation to the offices at Westridge Leisure Centre and for obvious reasons, a number of conditions were imposed. The most important conditions (pertinent to the application now under consideration) can be summarised in the following terms:

· Time restriction (0900 hrs to 2100 hrs)

· Noise level controls, as required by the Environmental Health Officer, in accordance with BS 4142:1997

· Details of banking (or bunding) to be agreed and installed prior to implementation of the permission

· Details of lighting to be submitted and agreed prior to implementation of the permission.

· Provision of petrol interceptor as part of the surface water drainage scheme prior to the permission being implemented.

On completion of the aforementioned legal agreement the decision notice granting conditional planning permission was issued.

3.3 In February 2005 an application for the provision of five lighting columns each 8.0m high in connection with the use of the land as a go-kart track was approved on a temporary basis expiring on 31 August 2006 with the intention of enabling the Council, as Local Planning Authority, to assess the impact of the proposed use in view of Policies S6 and D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

3.4 Both the above decisions (3.2 and 3.3) were taken by the Development Control Committee, not under the delegated procedure.

3.5 Problems relating to the failure to (fully) comply with a number of conditions on the earlier permission have been well documented and can be best summarised in extracts from a letter sent by the former Enforcement Team Leader to Westridge Racing Limited in February 2006.

Local Planning Authority continues to receive complaints with regard to noise intrusion since the track opened. Environmental Health Officer has taken measurements in the locality and at track side. Those latter measurements showed readings of 77 dB(A). I am aware that colleagues wrote …… as far back as August 2005 (about failure to comply (fully) with conditions). This series of letters failed to generate the information required and on 13 December 2005 the interim Development Control Manager wrote to all the business partners stipulating that unless the details were submitted then the Council would draw on the legal interpretation that a failure to submit and comply with a pre-condition (the is a condition that requires works to be agreed and undertaken before a development starts) then this would have the effect of nullifying the existing permission. On the basis that the necessary details were not submitted then the Councillors decided to follow through on this matter……

…..variations from the approved scheme …… raised questions as to whether or not you have implemented the approved scheme, but in any event failure to comply with the condition(s) has the effect of nullifying the existing consent and as a consequence all the works on site to date are unauthorised. I believe that you have recognised these difficulties in agreeing not to operate until these matters are resolved.

……consensus view is that you need to take further advice from an appropriately qualified and experienced acoustic consultant with a view to bringing the noise level down to that specified in (the relevant) condition and secondly to implement measures that would comply with the requirements of (the other relevant) condition. This work could then be submitted as part of a further planning application in the hope of gaining a planning permission which will be required if the site is to be used again in the future. Obviously any subsequent application must be treated on its merits and my reference here to a further submission cannot be taken as binding the Authority to approve such a scheme as the final decision rests with the elected Members.

3.6 For obvious reasons there was local concern about the situation and the former Enforcement Team Leader used his best endeavours to ensure that the local Member, Parish Council and certain residents who had expressed an interest were kept informed about developments following the decision taken by the Council in January 2006; including alerting those persons to the use of the track for a two hour period on a weekday a few months ago in order to allow noise measurements to be taken as part of this new submission.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance

PPG24 – Planning and Noise

In annex 2, paragraph 22 deals with, quite specifically, with noise from recreational and sporting activities, stating:

……, the Local Planning authority will have to take account of how frequently the noise will be generated and how disturbing it will be, and balance the enjoyment of the participants against nuisance to other people…… Depending on local circumstances and public opinion, local planning authorities may consider it reasonable to permit higher noise emission levels then they would from industrial development, subject to a limit on the hours of use, and the control of noise emissions (including public address systems) during unsocial hours.

4.2 Strategic Policy S4, S5, S6

4.3 Local Planning Policies

· G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

· G5 – Development Outside Defined Settlements

· D1 - Standards of Design

· D2 - Standards for Development within the Site

· P1 – Pollution and Development

· P5 – Reducing the Impact of Noise

· L2 – Formal Recreational Provision

· L9 – Noisy Sports

· T1 - The Promotion of Tourism and the Extension of the Season

· T2 – Tourism Related Development

· T7 – Sites suitable for Tourism Related Development

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· Environmental Health Officer has submitted detailed observations on this application. He has, of course, had the opportunity to carefully study the acoustic assessment report submitted as part of the application. Members are invited to consider the following extracts from his written observations and advice.

In practice, the sound level experienced by local residents will vary with wind speed and direction, as sound is propagated down wind. Previous observations have demonstrated that the impact of the noise from the track on local residential premises varies greatly. On some occasions, it is hardly noticeable; at other times, at the same location, the noise can be distinctly intrusive.

If approved, this proposal will result in a loss of amenity to local residents. The report…. has quantified this loss in still–air conditions. The actual loss, will however, vary with wind conditions; sometimes being less, sometimes greater than indicated….. However, it will not result in actionable noise nuisance, and will, therefore, not be amenable to control by legislation available to Environmental Health.

Environmental Health Officer also advises that if the application is to be approved they would expect to see three specific conditions:

· Time operation restriction (0800 to 2000 hrs)

· No more than eight karts at any one time.

· No vehicles other than karts powered by silenced 4 stroke motors are to be run on the track. (No modified or race-prepared karts are to be run on the track)

Reason for the imposition of these conditions would be to prevent annoyance and disturbance, in particular sleep disturbance, from noise emissions from the site. He advises that the condition in respect of type/size of engine (or type of vehicle) is necessary as some types of vehicles make a noise that by reason of intensity or character are significantly more annoying or irritating than the karts that were tested and are the subject of the acoustic report.

Environmental Health Officer has been asked to clarify some of the points contained in his written observations and any further comments will be reported to Members at the meeting.

5.2 External Consultees

· Nettlestone and Seaview Parish Council object to the application on the basis that “noise emanating from the facility will remain excessive”. They point out that (once again) “noise levels were measured during the peak period when other traffic noise would be at its greatest.” In the same context they also note “that experienced drivers were used during the tests and it is considered that this type of driver will be in a minority during day to day operation.”

5.3 Third Party Representations.

Letters of objection have been received from a number of local residents but predominantly living the new Bullen Village and Bullen Road but also including representations from a resident from Wootton. There are also representations from a therapy clinic based in the Westridge Centre and the nearby golf club. Many of these are detailed and comprehensive representations objecting to the application but essentially they relate to noise pollution, nuisance and loss of amenity suffered during the earlier use of the site and the possible future use of the site as a go-kart track with or without similar an/or additional controls by way of conditions.

6. Evaluation

6.1 From a procedural perspective there is no longer an extant permission to use this site for go-kart racing and the separate permission granted for the floodlighting in February 2005 was for a temporary period expiring on 31 August 2006 which means they should have been removed and the land restored to its former condition. The retention of this floodlighting does not feature as part of this application and therefore if the use is recommenced, on the assumption that this application is approved, then the applicants will need to make a further submission if they wish to retain the floodlighting.

6.2 Prior to examining the merits of the application in detail it is important to deal with some fundamental points about the possible continued use of the site for go-kart racing.

· Notwithstanding the fact that the site is outside the development envelope boundary and designated for tourism purposes it is reasonably clear that the site forms part of a larger area now used for retail, commercial and recreational purposes and consequently there does not appear to be a sustainable objection in principle to the use of this land for this type of recreational activity in a semi-isolated location.

· In similar terms the site is not unduly visually obtrusive as it is largely screened by the rear of the Westridge Leisure Centre, the adjacent woodland and the somewhat crude security fencing around the perimeter. It would be difficult to sustain an objection to the continued use on grounds of visual intrusion in a predominantly rural area.

· This site and the other retail, commercial and recreational facilities are served by a purpose designed access road off a roundabout on the A3055 and adequate parking facilities in the immediate vicinity.

6.3 If Members accept the analysis contained in the preceding paragraph this application largely needs to be determined on the issue of potential degree of noise pollution within the approved policy framework while giving due regard and appropriate weight to the previous conditional permission, the observations and recommendations contained in the acoustic assessment report prepared by consultants on behalf of the applicants, consultee responses and third party representations.

6.4 Background to this case has been set out in some detail in the earlier part of this report (see Relevant History). Essentially a decision on this application should be taken within the context of the guidance contained in the relevant national policy (PPG24 – Planning and Noise) and, more specifically, the most relevant local planning policies which, in my view, are P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) and L9 (Noisy Sports).

· Policy P5 states (in part):

….. where proposals for potentially noisy activities are likely to adversely impact upon sensitive development, details of mitigating measures will need to accompany planning applications and may become subject to conditions of approval.

· Policy L9(c) states:

Planning applications for the use of land for noisy sports may be permitted where they do not adversely affect nearby residents.

Existing mineral workings should be considered as a first option where the proposal would not prejudice the long term extraction of material. In some cases, a temporary or time limited consent may be considered appropriate.

It is evident that the planning system has the task of guiding development to the most appropriate locations. Development or material change of use which has the potential to create a noise nuisance should be separated form existing noise sensitive activities or adequate and practical controls should be put in place to reduce noise levels by insulation, screening, design, layout or operational controls. Clearly there is a need to find acceptable sites for activities such as go-kart racing which then allows more stringent policies to be applied in other countryside areas and, for obvious reasons, this is a preferred option to allowing this type of activity to take place as “permitted development” for fourteen days in any calendar year in potentially more sensitive areas.

6.5 Notwithstanding the comments made by the local Parish Council, which will be referred to in the latter part of this report, the acoustic assessment report accompanying the application is a detailed and comprehensive area of work key to the determination of this application and careful attention needs to be given to the findings and the conclusions as well as the observations and advice from the principle consultee in this matter, the Environmental Health Officer. Author of the report states that the measured noise is “due less to direct radiation and more to meteorological propagation”.

It is therefore subject to the vagaries of the prevailing weather conditions: when the assessment was conducted, wind speeds were very low and not coming specifically from any particular direction; under different weather conditions the levels perceived at position 2 (Bullen Village) would be greater or lesser depending (primarily) on wind direction.

Report examines the merits or otherwise of a noise barrier in order to mitigate against any potential noise pollution and concludes that “even if it were acoustically perfect, would be extremely costly; to construct when the likely acoustic benefits are so small (it) would constitute inappropriate expense”.

… reduction of sound by a barrier is only effective where the barrier is large compared with the wavelength of the noise: low frequency wavelength will diffract over the barrier and hence will not be effectively attenuated, so even increasing the bank height by two metres around the whole circuit is unlikely to give any significant reduction.

6.6 Members will have to take into account these views and set those against the advice and any further detailed observations from the Environmental Health Officer who expresses the view that at various times the use will result in a loss of amenity to local residents.

6.7 Council, as Local Planning Authority, were satisfied when considering the initial submission in June 2004 that when taking into account the location of the site and the proposed operation together with any protection measures any adverse effects on the local environment and people living in the immediate vicinity would not be sufficient to justify refusing planning permission. Although the applicants breached certain conditions which caused the permission to be invalidated the circumstances have not changed significantly since that decision was taken other than the experience of the operators, users and people living in the immediate locality in addition to the work carried out by the consultant who prepared the report which accompanies this latest application. This does not mean that there is any obligation on the Council to grant a further consent but it would mean that there would have to be substantive authoritive evidence which was not previously available to support a decision to refuse permission.

6.8 Parish Council has raised a reasonable point about the time of day, and presumably weather conditions, when the measurements were carried out which was 5 June 2006 between 0925 hours and 1310 hours. From a lay perspective there would appear to be an argument that background noise would have been greater during the measurement period than, for example, early evening and therefore this is a factor that should not be overlooked in the determination of the application.

6.9 On balance it is not considered that the Council is in a position to withhold permission particularly as the failure to offer substantive evidence, in the event of an appeal, to support such a decision would run the risk of losing (conditional) control over the use. Nevertheless, the circumstances have enabled the Council to review the matter against a background of the various problems associated with the use over the last two years in conjunction with the expert opinion and consultee responses as well as the third party representations. Consequently, in light of this information it is prudent to revisit the conditions imposed on the earlier permission and to consider whether they should be amended, or additional conditions imposed, in connection with a further permission. In this context Members are invited to consider the following suggestions.

· Permission should be for a temporary period of no more than two years during which time the applicants shall be responsible for carrying out further noise measurement work at different times of the year, different times of the day and in varying weather conditions in accordance with a programme to be agreed with the Environmental Health Officer. At the end of that period the use shall cease and the land restored to something approaching its former condition or, alternatively, the information collected over the period shall form the basis of a more detailed and comprehensive report, ideally agreed by the Environmental Health Officer, as part of an application to renew the permission. As a separate exercise the Environmental Health Officer should be invited to conduct his own investigations/measurements during this trial period.

· Notwithstanding the details of the condition imposed on the earlier permission or the recommendations of the Environmental Health Officer, the operational hours (and days) should be (further) restricted to 1030 hours to 2000 hours (1900 hours on Sundays).

· Restrict the number of go-karts using the track at any one time to a maximum of eight.

· Restrict the type of kart operated on the track to silenced four stroke motors fitted with an appropriate silencer with no modified or race prepared karts or any other type of vehicle including any kind of motorbike.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 For the reasons set out in a comprehensive manner in this report, information submitted in conjunction with the application, consultee responses and third party representations the application is recommended for temporary permission subject to the detailed requirements set out in the temporary condition and amended and/or additional conditions when compared with the earlier permission.

8. Recommendation

Approve.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition on or before 30 September 2008 in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact of the proposed use in view of policies S6 (Standards of Design), policy P1 (Pollution and Development), P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
2	During the three year period a monitoring programme, developed in consultation with the Council, shall be carried out by a competent person(s) in connection with the use of the site for go-kart racing based on the criteria and parameters of the acoustic assessment report but including readings taken at different times of the day, different times of the years and various weather conditions to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. This information together with a detailed assessment and any mitigation measures must feature as an integral part of any application to renew the temporary planning permission. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact of the proposed use in view of policies S6 (Standards of Design), policy P1 (Pollution and Development), P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	No go-karts shall be operated on the site before 1030 hours or after 2000 hours (1200 hours to 1900 hours on Sundays) on any day unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent disturbance from noise emission from the premises and to comply with policy P1 (Pollution and Development) and P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	No more than eight go-karts shall be operated on the site at any one time. Reason: To prevent disturbance from noise emission from the premises and to comply with policy P1 (Pollution and Development) and P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Only go-karts powered by silenced four stroke motors, whose precise specifications are to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before the use recommences, shall be used on the site. No modified or race prepared karts, motorbikes, "mini motos" or any other motorised vehicles are to be used on the site. Reason: To prevent disturbance from noise emission from the premises and to comply with policy P1 (Pollution and Development) and P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	Noise emitted from the operation of the go-karts on the site for the use, hereby approved, shall not exceed L_{Aeq 5 minute}of 70dB (and shall have no significant tonal component with any 1/3 Octave Band Level). Where any 1/3 Octave Band Level is 5dB or above the adjacent band levels the tone is deemed to be significant. The noise levels should be determined at a point within 2 metres of the outside edge of the track or on top of (any) bank around the track by measurements or calculations. The measurements shall be made in accordance with BS 4142:1997. Reason: To prevent disturbance from noise emission from the premises and to comply with policy P1 (Pollution and Development) and P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	Before the use, hereby approved, is recommenced the applicants shall submit to the Local Planning Authority for approval a scheme to provide fencing and/or banking around the outside of the track to be used as a noise barrier/screen complemented by landscaping/planting. The approved scheme of works shall be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority within three months of the recommencement of the use, hereby approved. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact of the proposed use in view of policies S6 (Standards of Design), policy P1 (Pollution and Development), P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	Car parking/turning/loading/unloading areas shown on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice shall be retained hereafter for the use by the operators, customers and visitors to the site in connection with the use, hereby approved. Reason: To ensure adequate off street parking provision to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Second Recommendation

That a detailed letter be sent to the applicants accompanying the formal decision notice highlighting the amended and/or additional conditions, stressing the importance of condition no. 2, should they have any expectations of submitting an application to renew this temporary permission, and advising them that the Council, as Local Planning Authority, expect full compliance with the conditions at all times and that any breach of condition will be dealt with in the strongest possible terms. The letter should also include advice to the effect that the existing floodlighting system does not have the benefit of an extant planning permission and if they wish to retain this floodlighting in connection with the approved use they will need to submit an application prior to recommencement of the use.

Environmental Health Officer to be notified and invited to carry out his own investigations during the two year period.

Reference Number: P/01727/06 - TCP/02459/H

Parish/Name: Brading - Ward/Name: Brading and St Helens

Registration Date: 10/07/2006 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr C Hougham Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Hepburns Town & Country Planning Partnership

Demolition of single storey extension & outbuilding; conversion of dwelling into 3 separate living units; residential development of 4 terraced houses with parking & alterations to vehicular access, (revised scheme)

70 and 71, High Street, Brading, Sandown, PO360DG

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Local Member shares concerns of Brading Town Council principally in respect of the proposed access arrangements and likely level of traffic generation.

1. Details of Application

1.1 Applications for planning permission and Conservation Area Consent involve the demolition of a small single storey addition/extensions and various outbuildings and seeks approval to convert the existing building (no’s 70 and 71) into three units comprising a three bedroom terraced house (no. 71) and two one bedroom self-contained flats, one at ground floor level and one at first floor level (no. 70) with a terrace of four small two bedroom town cottages to the rear of the site facing in a westerly direction “down” the site towards the rear of the existing buildings.

1.2 Proposals involve improvement to the existing vehicular access and a landscaped hard surfaced parking area with space for seven vehicles, one for each unit.

1.3 Agent has submitted supporting design and access statement which includes a Conservation Area appraisal prepared by the former Conservation Officer and photographs of the immediate vicinity of the site. Statement deals with policy related issues; analysis of the setting within the designated Conservation Area and the suitability of the proposed development; design and technical constraints including highway related issues and drainage.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 Site comprises older style terrace properties and relatively large rear gardens situated on the eastern side of Brading High Street to the north of the Bull Ring and the Wheatsheaf (PH).

2.2 Essentially the building comprises three elements, two terraced properties but with a third element in the form of first floor accommodation over a gated entrance which gives vehicular/pedestrian access to the rear of the site. It is difficult to establish the age of the building because of extensive repair and improvement work carried out over many years with a number of unsympathetic alterations including installation of inappropriate replacement windows.

3. Relevant History

3.1 In April 2006 applications were submitted for the demolition of a single storey rear extension and outbuildings and conversion of the existing premises into two separate living units with four terraced houses and a detached house to the rear with parking and alterations to vehicular access onto the High Street. On completion of the various consultations, having carried out an analysis of third party representations and a detailed site inspection, a letter was sent to the applicant’s agent advising him that officers were not prepared to support the application for three specific reasons.

· Inclusion in the scheme of a single narrow fronted detached unit adjacent to the northern boundary of the site represented an inappropriate form of development which failed to enhance then concept of a small courtyard scheme in the village centre.

· Integral part of the scheme was the conversion of 70/71 into two reasonably sized three bedroom dwellings and as the main façade of these properties had been the subject of unsympathetic alterations it was disappointing that as part of the overall scheme the agent had failed to undertake improvements to the external appearance of the buildings to achieve a balance of design, style and proportion in keeping with the prevailing character of the area.

· As this was a relatively high density development the application should have included details of landscaping/planting, particularly the boundary treatment including information on walls/fences to be retained, restored/improved or replaced.

On officers advice these applications were withdrawn.

3.2 Agent then submitted draft amended proposals which addressed the above concerns and focused on converting the existing building(s) into three separate living units with a terrace of four town cottages to the rear giving a total of seven units. He was advised that if these amended proposals form the basis of an amended application(s) it was likely to be supported by officers.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policies are:

PPS1, PPG3, PP13 and PPG15.

4.2 The relevant Strategic Policies are:

· S1	-	New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas
· S2	-	Development will be encouraged on land which has been previously development (Brownfield sites), …
· S5	-	Proposals for development which on balance, ………… will be for the overall benefit of the Island, by enhancing the economic, social and environmental position will be approved, provided any adverse impacts can be ameliorated
· S6	-	All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design
· S7	-	There is a need to provide for the development of at least 8,000 units over the plan period……………
· S10	-	In areas of designated or defined …………historic value, development will be permitted only if it will conserved or enhance the features of special character of these areas

4.3 The relevant local planning policies

· G4	-	General Locational Criteria for Development
· D1	-	Standards of Design
· D2	-	Standards for Development Within the Site
· B6	-	Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
· B7	-	Demolition of Non Listed Buildings in Conservation Areas
· B8	-	Alterations and Extension on Non Listed Buildings in Conservation Areas
· H4	-	Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements
· H5	-	Infill Development
· H6	-	High Density Residential Development
· TR7	-	Highway Considerations for New Development
· TR16	-	Parking Policies and Guidelines
· U11	-	Infrastructure and Services Provision

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· Area Highway Engineer raises no objection to the proposed development but requests the imposition of appropriate conditions should the application be approved. In support of this decision he has provided some detailed observations, in which he says:

High Street, Brading (A3055) is within a 20 mph limit which due to the width and horizontal/vertical alignment of this road, is basically self enforcing. As such visibility splays of only x = 2 metres by y = 33 metres are required. Due to the width of the footway and favourable alignment of the road at this point, splays in excess of this figure are achievable. There is also adequate roadside boundary width to provide acceptable pedestrian visibility splays. Proposed level of parking is suitable for this Zone 4 area and will not result in any additional stress being placed on the surrounding streets in terms of “on street” parking.

Conditions have been recommended to provide a landscaping scheme to remove the possibility of any more than the seven car parking spaces being provided and to stop indiscriminate parking occurring, blocking the turning areas. A gate set back condition has been included that, if they are provided, will allow adequate space for vehicles to leave the highway prior to stopping to open the gates, thus allowing continued free flow of traffic. Details of works at the junction to ensure that the newly laid footway construction across the sites’ roadside boundary is satisfactorily reinstated have been requested. Standard conditions requesting detail of all access construction within the site, including surface water drainage have also been recommended along with a “timing of occupation” condition.

5.2 Town or Parish Council Comments

Brading Town Council object to the applications for reasons that can be summarised in the following terms.

· Access point is in close proximity to the controlled pedestrian crossing at the Bull Ring.

· Vehicles entering and leaving the site would need to cross a busy pavement area used by school children and people using nearby shops.

· Visibility onto busy A3055 is “not good” which could cause a hazard to users of the highway.

5.3 Others

There are three letters of objection from local residents living in the immediate vicinity of the site who make a number of points similar to those submitted by the local Town Council (see above) but also object on grounds of loss of privacy and amenity due to overlooking, noise pollution arising from vehicular movement and density of development.

6. Evaluation

6.1 There are a number of key considerations in connection with the determination of these applications. However, it is important to highlight several fundamental points.

· Site is within the development envelope boundary and therefore in terms of broad principle there is no objection to the redevelopment or further development for residential purposes.

· Site is within a designated Conservation Area and, as such, a duty is imposed on the Council as Planning Authority to ensure that all new development protects and enhances the character and amenities of the Area.

· Numbers 70 and 71 High Street are not Listed Buildings but nevertheless make a significant contribution to the character of the area in terms of scale and height although the main façade has been damaged by unsympathetic alterations and “improvements” over a period of time.

· There is no sustainable objection to the demolition of various later extensions/additions and outbuildings in order to facilitate the proposed development.

6.2 Major determining factor in this application is the opportunity to renovate and upgrade the existing building(s) and use the area of land to the rear to provide seven units of accommodation in the form of affordable homes within a sustainable location close to local facilities and on a main public transport corridor.

6.3 Provision of affordable homes in this location may present an opportunity to local people to continue to live in the village while also improving the viability of local facilities mostly centred around the Bull Ring just a short distance away from the application site. Indeed, this scheme has a number of similarities with another application to convert and develop land to the rear of nos. 67 and 68 High Street, currently the local grocery (Londis) store, which was approved several months ago.

6.4 In terms of layout the limited selective demolition of later additions result in improvements to the existing access leading to a landscaped parking area between the proposed terrace and the existing building. This layout is satisfactory and makes provision for small garden areas to the rear of the proposed cottages while restricting “on site” car parking to a “one for one” basis which will limit the amount of vehicular traffic entering and leaving the site and is more than acceptable in this particular location, especially when giving appropriate weight to the current policy and relevant guidelines.

6.5 In design terms the installation of suitably proportioned sash windows at first floor level will benefit the building is visual terms and enhance the area and, if approved, an appropriate condition should be imposed requiring the submission of further details on this particular point which may eventually involve some improvements at ground floor level on the main façade. Small terrace at the rear of the site is of an appropriate scale and size in keeping with the character of the area with further interest created by a vertical “stagger” because of a fall across the site.

6.6 Clearly there is much to commend the proposed scheme but nevertheless there are objections from the Town Council and three local residents (see above). Principle concern would appear to be the access to the site, a view not shared by the Area Highway Engineer who does not consider that this represents a sustainable reason for withholding permission. In this respect it is important to take into consideration the following points.

· Existing premises already has a restricted although rarely used vehicular access off High Street.

· Number of “on site” parking spaces is limited to one per unit and there is no certainty that the provision of small affordable homes in such a sustainable location is necessarily going to attract car owners in every instance.

· Brading High Street is the subject of a 20 mph speed restriction.

· Visibility in either direction is good and more than adequate when taking into account the speed of vehicular traffic.

It is considered that there is no sustainable reason for refusing permission.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 In conclusion, in terms of the Governments initiative to make the “best possible use of urban land”, the need to protect and enhance the character and amenities of a designated Conservation Area and provide affordable homes in a sustainable location, this application should be supported and it is recommended for conditional approval accordingly.

8. Recommendation

Conditional Approval.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	The proposed courtyard area between the existing buildings and the proposed terrace of four town cottages should be laid out in accordance with the details shown on the approved plan (drawing no. 613/01/06B) before any of the individual units, hereby approved, are occupied and shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate off street parking provision and in the interests of the amenities of the area to comply with policies TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development), D1 (Standards of Design) and D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	Development shall not commence until details of the facilities to be provided for the storage of refuse have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No building shall be occupied until the facilities have been provided in accordance with the approved details and the facilities shall thereafter be retained. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	Before the development hereby permitted is commenced details of the width, alignment, gradient and drainage of the proposed improved access shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development should be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building(s) hereby permitted are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	No development shall take place until a schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of five years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schedule shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule. Reason: To ensure satisfactory long-term maintenance of the landscaping of the [site/ development] and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	Before any work commences on site full details of the alterations/improvements to the external fabric of the existing building(s) including both ground and first floor elements and the elevations of the proposed terrace of town cottages, at a minimum scale of 1:50, showing all details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To secure a satisfactory and sympathetic form of development in the interests of the character of the area and to comply with policy B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	The doors and door/window frames of the converted and new buildings shall be constructed of timber and shall be painted in an appropriate colour in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the existing building and to comply with policies B1 to B8 (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development within Classes A to E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out other than that expressly authorised by this permission. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
11	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no addition or alteration to the roof of the dwelling hereby approved (including the addition of windows) shall be made. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
12	No development shall take place until details of the materials and finishes to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
13	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) the exterior of the building(s) hereby permitted shall not be painted or coloured other than as expressly authorised by this permission. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
14	Development shall not begin until details of the junction between the proposed service road and the highway have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; and the building shall not be occupied until that junction has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
15	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no gates shall be erected other than gates that are set back a minimum distance of five metres from the edge of the carriageway of the adjoining highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
16	No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until these works have been carried out in accordance with the approved details and the approved works shall be retained thereafter. These details shall include provision to restrict parking on site to seven car parking spaces, hard and soft surfacing materials, extent of hard and soft landscaping, proposed and existing functional services above and below ground. Reason: To ensure that parking provision within the site is limited to seven spaces and to comply with Policies TR16 and TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Second Recommendation

That a letter be sent to the applicant’s agent drawing attention to condition 7 and advising him that in future small scale elevational drawings will not be acceptable and may result in the application being invalidated; referring him to the notes for guidance produced for applicants an agents when submitting applications.

Reference Number: P/01756/06 - TCP/10017/P

Parish/Name: Bembridge - Ward/Name: Bembridge North

Registration Date: 08/08/2006 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr C Hougham Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Airep Holdings Ltd

Demolition of garage & store; construction of 3 detached houses with parking/garages; alterations to vehicular access off Swains Road & landscaping, (revised scheme)

land adjacent, The Orchard, Swains Road, Bembridge, PO35

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Due to the large number of representations objecting to the application it was decided that it should be determined by the Committee rather than under the delegated procedure.

1. Details of Application

1.1 This is a detailed amended submission following an earlier application to develop the site with five units which was refused permission under the delegated procedure.

1.2 Application involves the demolition and removal of existing garage and outbuildings in front of the property (The Orchard) adjacent to the north eastern boundary of the site in order to facilitate an extension to the existing driveway off Swains Road and the development of a substantial part of the garden area with three large detached dwellings.

1.3 In terms of the access arrangements the submitted drawing indicates that the existing access point onto Swains Road offers visibility of 2.0 m x 70 m; the first length of the access drive, about 80 or 90 metres, appears to be unchanged (approximately 3.0 m in width); and the remainder of the existing driveway with the extension to serve the development will be realigned with an extended width passing area and a carriageway width of 3.6 m.

1.4 Layout shown on the submitted drawing shows a relatively informal arrangement around a purpose designed turning head with three individual house types providing five or six bedroom accommodation. One of the units is a conventional two storey dwellinghouse while the other two units are larger six bedroom dwelling houses with additional accommodation within the roofspace. Each unit will have the benefit of separate detached garage facilities and a proposed detached garage for the existing property which will be the subject of future application.

1.5 Important detail to be noted is that the layout plan identifies the large number of trees on the site and the application is supported by a tree survey, as required showing those trees to be retained and those to be removed in order to facilitate the proposed development of the site.

1.6 In a covering letter with the application the applicants’ agent says:

Application, which has been the subject of various meetings with your planning, highways and tree officers, seeks consent for the erection of three detached houses adjacent to the existing dwelling……… The scheme has been extensively revised with a reduction in density from five to three detached units.

The majority of existing tree screen bordering the site has been retained and additional planting has been indicated to the south western boundary. The mature poplar, beech and lime trees in the “centre” of the site are shown to be removed and this has been discussed and agreed with the tree officer. Also several of the existing poor quality conifers towards the north eastern part of the site have been removed to facilitate the vehicle access.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 Swains Road and the immediate locality is a well established low density residential area in Bembridge characterised by relatively substantial large detached properties within mature landscaped gardens.

2.2 Property, the subject of the application, known as The Orchard, is a large detached older style property occupying a set back position between more modern properties in Meadow Drive and Nightingale Close.

2.3 Premises enjoys the benefit of a large curtilage of approximately 0.5 hectare comprising an area of woodland along the north eastern boundary to the rear of properties fronting onto Meadow Drive and a larger expansive of open grassed area where there are a number of mature trees.

2.4 Property has the benefit of a vehicular/pedestrian access onto the north western side of Swains Road and is served by a long, straight tarmacadum driveway which has a length of approximately 150 metres.

3. Relevant History

3.1 In February 2006 a detailed application was submitted for the development of the site with five detached houses served by an improved access with appropriate landscaping. Application was the subject of a large number of third party representations objecting to the development of the site in this form and a draft report was prepared recommending that permission should be refused for reasons that can be summarised in the following terms.

· Number, layout and design of individual units represents overdevelopment of the site at an excessive density out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding area.

· Proposal seeks to remove (protected) trees which are a significant feature in the local landscape, worthy of retention and their loss would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality.

The view was taken that the proposed development in this form would conflict with policy S6 and local planning policies D1, D2 and C12.

3.2 Prior to issuing the decision notice refusing planning permission the agent was formally notified about the Case Officers’ intention and offered advice on specific points in relation to the draft reasons (see above) for withholding permission. Following an initial consultation the agent decided to withdraw the application.

3.3 There then followed a period of negotiations including a site meeting which was attended by the Case Officer and the Tree Officer. This resulted in the agent preparing a suggested amended scheme for three detached houses. In a letter from the Case Officer the agent was advised that the overall reduction in the number of units, in his view, overcame the objection relating to potential over development and consequently the key issue related to the loss of (protected) trees in the central part of the site which involved five larger specimens comprising two beech trees in very close proximity to each other, two poplars and a lime. Agent was given formal advice from the Tree Officer who indicated that he was prepared to support an amended application involving the loss of these trees subject to certain requirements and likely conditions. His requirements were three fold.

· All other trees (and shrubs) particularly those close to the site boundaries, especially the north eastern boundary, must be retained as an integral part of the completed development.

· During the construction period those trees and treed areas shall be protected from works in accordance with BS 5837.

· Amended detailed planning application must include a comprehensive landscaping/planting scheme designed to maintain and enhance the level of screening and general visual amenity of the area.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance

PPS1 and PPG3.

4.2 Following Strategic policies within the UDP are applicable:

· S1

New Development will be Concentrated Within Existing Urban Areas

· S6

All Development will be Expected to be of a High Standard of Design

· S7

Provision of Housing Units on the Island

4.3 Relevant local planning policies contained in the UDP are as follows:

· G4	-	General Locational Criteria for Development
· D1	-	Standards of Design
· D2	-	Standards for Development within the Site
· D3	-	Landscaping
· H4	-	Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements
· H5	-	Infill Development
· H6	-	High Density Residential Development
· C12	-	Woodlands Tree Hedgerows
· TR7	-	Highway Considerations for New Development
· TR16	-	Parking Policies and Guidelines
· U11	-	Infrastructure and Services Provision

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· Final observations of the Tree Officer have been received and they accord with the discussions on site and the advice given to the applicants’ agent prior to the submission of the application. Tree Officer comments on the main issue in the following terms:

….. impact this development will have on the collective amenity the trees provide for the area will be noticeable, but could be considered unavoidable even if there were to be no development of the site. This is because it will be necessary for many of the trees shown to be removed having to be removed in the near future due their present condition and worsening.

…. it is important that a large percentage of these trees of the intended replant are at least heavy standard in size as this will make an immediate contribution to the reduced arboreal amenity of the area.

On a technical point in relation to route protection areas he advises that any damage to trees could be avoided by using a cellular confinement system and employing a no dig method of installation in these areas.

· On the basis that he raised no objection to the earlier application and the latest scheme is now for three units served by an identical (improved) access to the one shown in the initial submission he raises no objection but, of course, will require appropriate conditions.

5.2 Parish Council Comments

Parish Clerk has confirmed that Parish Council are prepared to approve the development in principle but have some concern about the access particularly for emergency vehicles. In a separate communication the Parish Clerk has submitted more detailed representations which appear to relate to concerns expressed to Parish Council by local residents.

5.3 Third Party Representations

There are thirteen letters of objection from local residents living in Nightingale Close, Meadow Drive, Swains Road and Northclose Road. Reasons for objecting to the proposed development can be summarised in the following terms.

· Houses are too large, three storey development is out of keeping with the character of the area and may lead to a potential loss of privacy and amenity for owners/occupiers of neighbouring properties

· Loss of mature trees and the detrimental effect that this may have on the visual amenities of the area

· Reservations about the accuracy and the subjectivity of the tree report accompanying the application

· Inadequate access due to limited width along a length driveway, poor visibility at junction with Swains Road and threat to pedestrian safety. Exacerbated by close proximity of other junctions (i.e. Nightingale Close and Meadow Drive)

· Inadequate foul drainage

· Development, if approved, is likely to set a precedent and there is the threat of a further development within the curtilage of the site.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The site is within the development envelope boundary and therefore in terms of broad principle there is no objection to further (residential) development in this particular locality. Nevertheless, due consideration and appropriate weight has to be given to a number of factors including the overall size and position of the application site in relation to the established pattern of development in the immediate locality and neighbouring properties.

6.2 Quite clearly the existing property is fairly typical of much of the older housing stock in Bembridge in terms of scale and size and the overall generous curtilage. Proposed development of approximately 60 –70 % of the existing garden area will still leave the existing property with a more than adequate curtilage. However, the initial application for the development of the site with five relatively substantial houses did highlight a number of issues.

· This is a backland site and although this factor does not raise a fundamental sustainable objection to any development, it is a matter that requires particularly careful attention in combination with a variety of other issues.

· Proposed development will be served by (improved) narrow access drive which will have a length of well in excess of 150 metres. Existing access drive already serves at least two properties and any impact on the current level of amenity enjoyed by the owners/occupiers of those properties needs to be properly considered. While the larger properties shown in the initial submission for five dwellings reflected the character of the area they were due to be accommodated on a comparably small area of land which in relation to the existing pattern of development could be described as cramped and over development irrespective of the overarching objectives contained in PPG3.

· Original proposals could have brought about a significant change in the character of the area due, in part, to the loss of a number of mature trees and the denudation of the woodland strip adjacent to the north eastern boundary of the site.

These factors in combination, led to the Case Officer concluding that the initial submission should be refused permission. Although the application was withdrawn prior to the issue of the decision notice the applicants’ agent took on board these views and made appropriate amendments to the scheme. The amended scheme now involves the removal of four mature trees in a relatively central position within the site, agreed by the tree officer, and the removal of a limited number of trees in boundary locations where these are dead, dying or poorly developed (i.e. no longer sustainable). Providing any felling/removal is limited to these trees only, in combination with the landscaping/planting scheme shown on the submitted layout plan it is not considered that there will be any significant loss to visual amenity as the site will continue to be relatively well screened and consequently those trees that are to be removed which are in a healthy condition do not contribute significantly to local visual amenity sufficient to sustain an objection to the application.

6.3 Quite radical reduction in proposed density from five units to three units, although they are quite substantial dwellinghouses, recognises the concerns about the potential overdevelopment of the site and the prevailing character and pattern of development in the immediate locality particularly off Swains Road where there are a number of two and/or three storey residential properties. This amendment to the proposed development of the site overcomes the previous objection.

6.4 Access to the site will be over a private (improved) access drive which seems to serve at least one other property as well as The Orchard. Layout makes adequate provision for parking and turning of vehicles, space will be provided along the improved driveway to allow vehicles to pass and the view is that the visibility at the junction with Swains Road is adequate if due regard is given to the level of vehicular/pedestrian traffic using Swains Road and the likely increase in pedestrian/vehicular traffic using the access drive when the three proposed dwellings are occupied. It is considered that the proposed level of use of the improved access drive is unlikely to have any significant detrimental effect on the level of amenity presently enjoyed by owners/occupiers of properties in Nightingale Close and Meadow Drive that back onto the access drive due to size of rear gardens, boundary treatment and mature landscaping.

6.5 A number of representations seem to express concern about the size of the individual dwellings and the possibility of overlooking of neighbouring properties with associated loss of privacy and amenity. On this point it should be noted that the scheme sets aside the overarching objectives of PPG3 designed to increase density of development in built up areas by giving greater weight to the well established character of the area, layout of proposed development is in a part horseshoe or crescent effectively facing into the site and the two units with second floor accommodation within the roofspace only have one “outward looking” dormer and that serves a bathroom so this will obviously be obscure glazed.

6.6 Members are asked to note that there does appear to be an anomaly in terms of the submitted drawings in relation to the actual house types. This is not considered to be a significant issue largely because the scheme seeks to develop three dwellings of a similar size and scale but of a contrasting design. Nevertheless agent will be asked to clarify on this particular issue and make appropriate amendments before Members are asked to determine the application.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 In summary, following the earlier application the agent has responded positively to the concerns that were expressed by the Case Officer and local residents by producing a scheme for a lesser number of units supported by a tree report prepared in accordance with BS 5837 and a landscaping/planting scheme which means there is no realistic sustainable objection to the development of the site for residential purposes for the reasons outlined above.

8. Recommendation

Approve.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	None of the dwellings shall be occupied until the [sewage disposal/drainage] works have been completed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of sewage disposal is provided for the development and to comply with policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	Development shall not commence until details of the facilities to be provided for the storage of refuse have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No building shall be occupied until the facilities have been provided in accordance with the approved details and the facilities shall thereafter be retained. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	Development shall not begin until details of the design, surfacing and construction of any new roads, footways, accesses and car parking areas, together with details of the means of disposal of surface water drainage therefrom have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	No dwelling shall be occupied until the parts of the service roads which provide access to it have been constructed, surfaced and drained in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until garages have been constructed and space has been laid out within the site and drained and surfaced in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing for a minimum of nine vehicles to be parked/garaged. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9	No development shall take place until a schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of five years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schedule shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule. Reason: To ensure satisfactory long-term maintenance of the landscaping of the [site/ development] and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building(s) hereby permitted are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
11	No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all trees, not previously agreed with the Local Planning Authority for removal, shall has been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier, Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: Barrier shall consist of a scaffold framework as shown in figure 2 of BS 5837 (2005). Comprising of vertical and horizontal framework braced to resist impact, with vertical tubes spaced at a maximum of 3 m intervals. Onto this weldmesh panels are to be securely fixed. Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site, during which period the following restrictions shall apply: (a)No placement or storage of material; (b)No placement or storage of fuels or chemicals. (c)No placement or storage of excavated soil. (d)No lighting of bonfires. (e)No physical damage to bark or branches. (f)No changes to natural ground drainage in the area. (g)No changes in ground levels. (h)No digging of trenches for services, drains or sewers. (i)Any trenches required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are left undamaged. Reason: To ensure that all general trees and shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of the amenity and to ensure the wooded southern boundary is retained as an important landscape feature which provides a valuable wildlife corridor, all in compliance with policies D3 (Landscaping) and C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
12	In this condition “retained tree” means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs (a) and (b) below shall have effect until the expiration of (1 year) from (the date of the occupation of the building for its permitted use). (a) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work); (b) lf any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, a replacement tree shall be planted in the same place, or place to be agreed and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the protection of the trees to be retained in the interests of the amenities of the area and in compliance with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
13	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development within Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out [other than that expressly authorised by this permission]. Reason: Varies: Officer to provide specific Condition.
14	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no walls, fences, gates or other means of enclosure shall be erected forward of any wall of the dwelling that fronts onto a road or footpath. Reason: Varies: Officer to provide specific Condition.
15	No development shall take place until details of the materials and finishes to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
16	The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the approved drawings. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
17	No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of foul drainage works has been approved by and implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise the risk of pollution and to comply with policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
18	No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with drawing number 2012/P/7 for a maximum of three cars per property to be parked (including garages) and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
19	The development shall not be occupied until sight lines of 2 metres = X by 70 metres = Y have been provided at the junction of The Orchard access road and Swains Road in accordance with the visibility splay shown red on the approved plan (reference number 2012/P/8). Nothing that may cause an obstruction to visibility shall at any time be placed or be permitted to remain within that visibility splay. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
20	The new boundary wall, piers and capping stone to be erected to the east of the proposed new access to The Orchard shall be constructed at a maximum of 1 metre in height above existing road level in accordance with drawing number 2012/P/8 and shall be maintained thereafter at a height no greater than 1 metre. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/01850/06 - TCP/27238/B

Parish/Name: Havenstreet & Ashey - Ward/Name: Ashey

Registration Date: 25/07/2006 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr C Hougham Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Messrs R J & D E Billings

Demolition of workshop buildings; residential development of 2 detached houses & a pair of semi-detached houses with parking & new access drive off Main Road; closure of existing access; proposed footpath, (revised scheme)

land adjacent, Sans Souci, Main Road, Havenstreet, Ryde, PO33

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Notwithstanding Members decision to overturn officers recommendation on an earlier application, officers continue to support this revised scheme and consequently the decision should be taken by Committee.

1. Details of Application

1.1 Application involves the demolition of a semi-derelict former (agricultural) workshop and stores and seeks detailed planning permission to redevelop the site with two detached houses and a pair of semi-detached houses with parking for the existing property (Sans Souci), the proposed units and three additional spaces for general use.

1.2 Proposed development involves the closure of the existing access and formation of new access point onto Main Road about five metres to the north east closer to Sans Souci. New access drive will have a width of 4.8 metres and cross the existing access into a proposed courtyard serving the four units and a purpose designed car port for four vehicles.

1.3 Pair of semi-detached houses will be positioned at right angles to the western boundary of the site with the neighbouring property (Little Cedars) with a north/south aspect. The proposed car port will also back onto this boundary and the two detached houses will be positioned in the eastern limits of the application site facing in a westerly direction.

1.4 Application is supported by plan information which includes:

· Detailed drawing based on accurate survey of the site

· Layout plan

· Detailed drawing prepared by highway consultants showing access arrangements

· Elevational/floor plan drawings

· Sections thro’ the site

1.5 In support of the application there is a design statement prepared by the applicants’ agent which deals with a variety of issues covered in the original statement that accompanied the initial application dealt with a few months ago. On the principle issue relating to the access to the site the agent has made the following observations.

this access……… will provide greatly improved visibility both up and down Main Road. The access will be 4.8 metres wide which allow the site to be accessed by delivery and emergency vehicles. Sufficient space is available for such vehicles to turn on site.

To the south, the visibility splay is better than 2.0 m x 70 m to the centre of the road. To the north land within the visibility splay (which is within the site) will be reduced to a maximum height of 1.0 m and a vision distance of 2.4 m x 70 m will be achieved to the nearside kerb line. The current speeds of traffic through the village are considered to be relatively low, and the improvement in access visibility achieved by the scheme will result in better highway safety than at present. In addition the proposal creates a new footpath to the north which will link with an existing path at the corner. This will greatly improve pedestrian safety and will provide unrestricted vision to the bend in the road 70 metres distance.

On the key issue relating to “on street” parking the agent says:

…LPA however refused the previous scheme because it was considered that parking could continue within the visibility splays to the detriment of highway safety. In order to address this issue it is proposed to provide three additional parking spaces within the development site to provide an alternative facility for cars potentially displaced from the kerbside should the Council impose any parking restrictions. There is however no reason why this access should not be perfectly safe. In almost any situation where a new access has to be provided and a visibility splay created there is potential for inconsiderate or illegal parking to take place which would reduce visibility. It is however a requirement of the Highway Code that parking does not occur within 15 m of a junction and the police have control powers in this area. It is also the responsibility of the local authority to use their parking control powers where this is considered necessary.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 This is an ‘L’ shaped site which forms part of the relatively substantial curtilage of an older style detached residential property known as Sans Souci which stands approximately mid-way along the frontage onto Main Road in a central location in the village of Havenstreet.

2.2 Other than the identifiable domestic cartilage of Sans Souci much of the land outside the application site, but under the applicants’ control, is overgrown and borders onto the rear of properties in Main Road and Church Lane including St. Peters Church.

2.3 Application site itself has an area of approximately 0.2 hectares and is elevated above the level of Main Road in a relatively secluded position behind a detached bungalow known as Little Cedars. Existing access drive has a narrow width and poor visibility and runs adjacent to the north eastern (side) boundary of the neighbouring property, where there is an extant permission for an additional dwelling.

2.4 Semi-derelict former workshop buildings are now unused and are falling into disrepair due to decay and some apparent vandalism. The one building is quite large comprising the original block or brick structure which has been the subject of a number of additions over the years and a much smaller shed. Hardstanding in front of these buildings appear to be used for limited “off street” parking.

3. Relevant History

3.1 In August 2005 a detailed application was submitted with limited supporting information. Both the Case Officer and the applicants’ agent were invited to attend a public meeting held at the local community centre and a short time later the Case Officer advised the agent about his initial views, the observations the Area Highway Engineer and identified further information that would be required before the application could be determined.

3.2 Subsequently the agent and his clients were advised to withdraw the application with a view to making a further (amended) submission at a later date. Agent eventually accepted this advice but only after a meeting with the Case Officer and the Area Highway Engineer to discuss a variety of issues relating to the possible development of the site but primarily access and the allocation in the UDP. A contemporaneous file note indicates that the Case Officer advised that in terms of overall strategy he preferred the submission of an “open” application but stressed that it would be necessary to deal with the obvious conflict with the allocation contained in the UDP, and that the application may be treated as a “departure”, which would involve reference to GOSE (if the Council were minded to grant permission), and the need to resolve the access problem. He also made it quite clear that, in his view, it would be necessary for the applicants and/or their agent(s) to positively engage with the local community through the local Member and/or the local environmental forum (this was prior to the formation of the new parish council) if they wish to move the matter forward with any reasonable prospect of obtaining planning permission.

3.3 These detailed pre-submission discussions resulted in the submission of an amended scheme involving the demolition of the workshop buildings and seeking approval to redevelop the site with two detached houses and a pair of semi-detached houses with “on site” parking facilities served by a new access drive off Main Road (involving the closure of the existing access). Notwithstanding considerable local objection to the proposed development the Case Officer, with the support of the Area Highway Engineer, prepared a detailed and comprehensive report on the application recommending conditional permission. Following a site visit, Members initially considered this application at the meeting held on 9 May 2006.

3.4 Members decided to defer determination of the application so that the scheme could be supported by a Stage One/Two Road Safety Audit (RSA) in order to assess in detail all the highway implications in respect of the development and the proposed access. Agent was advised that the audit should be conducted under the parameters defined by HD 19/03 (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 5, Section 2 Part 2). Members also accepted an offer from the agent to amend the layout of the scheme to move proposed pair of semi-detached houses further away from the boundary with Little Cedars in order to mitigate against any potential loss of amenity that may be suffered by the owner/occupiers of that property.

3.5 The work required by the Committee was carried out by the applicants’ agent and the matter was reconsidered at the meeting held on 27 June 2006. Officers maintained their recommendation for conditional permission subject to referral to GOSE but Members decided to refuse permission on grounds that can be summarised in the following terms.

· Proposal would result in the use of an access which would be substandard by reason of inadequate visibility given the occurrence of “on street” parking within the proposed visibility splays thereby adding unduly to the hazards of highway users.

· Scale and mass of proposed development and its proximity to the north western boundary would result in development having an overdominant and overbearing impact on the amenities enjoyed by the owners/occupiers of the neighbouring property.

To date this decision has not been the subject of an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance

Relevant national policies in this particular case:

· PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development

· PPG3 – Housing (Plus consultation papers in respect of the new draft PPS3)

· PPG13 – Transport

4.2 Strategic Policies

Relevant strategic planning policies contained in the UDP are:

S1, S2, S5, S6 and S7.

4.3 Local Planning Policies

Relevant local planning policies:

· G4	-	General Locational Criteria
· D1	-	Standards of Design
· D2	-	Standards for Development within the Site
· H4	-	Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements
· H5	-	Infill Development
· TR3	-	Local Development to Minimise the Need to Travel
· TR7	-	Highway Considerations for New Development
· TR16	-	Parking Policies and Guidelines
· U11	-	Infrastructure and Services Provision
· L4	-	Protection of Open Spaces, Village Greens and Allotments

The whole curtilage of the property known as Sans Souci including the application site is within the development envelope boundary for the village of Havenstreet and a significant part of this curtilage including part of the application site is allocated for private open space. Relevant policy is L4 which states:

Planning applications for development resulting in the loss of established, proposed or future public or private open spaces, village greens and allotments will only be approved in exceptional circumstances where:

a) Development for community purposes would be of greater benefit than retaining the open space and allotment and there are no other suitable sites available; and

b) Suitable alternative provision is provided prior to development taking place

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

Area Highway Engineer who has previously expressed concern about the proposed access arrangements in terms of visibility and “on street” parking on this side of Main Road raised no objection to the earlier application, in its revised form, and again raises no objection to this latest further revised scheme subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. His decision has come about following a negotiated solution which involves the provision of a public footway, from the access point to the existing footway to the north east, and adequate visibility in either direction.

On the earlier application he commented that the visibility and “on street” parking adjacent to the access was the main point of concern for Members, the public and engineers. However, the outcome of the audit, requested by elected Members, confirms that the matter of parked cars within visibility splays is not in itself a sustainable reason for refusal where a visibility splay of appropriate length can effectively be provided. If the development is of an appropriate size then the installation of double yellow lining, where appropriate, is a mitigation measure which is within the control of the Council. Unfortunately, due to the process involved in the decisions as to whether double yellow lines should be introduced, i.e. the identification of a traffic hazard and subsequent approval by the police, these measures can only be introduced retrospectively. However, in this case the developer will cover the costs.

He confirms that he visited the site and had extensive pre-application discussions with agent and applicant. In essence, he maintains that he has no objection to this proposal as no alterations to access proposal detailed in previous conditions have been suggested.

In order to cover the safety auditors point regarding future monitoring of the situation once constructed he proposed to amend his own RSA condition as detailed on the original recommendation in May 2006 to include for a Stage Four Road Safety Audit which requires monitoring of the situation after construction and suitable remedial measures. It is felt that amended conditions better reflects process of satisfactory guidance within HD19/03 and is easier to enforce.

5.2 External Consultees

No adverse comments have been received from Southern Water Services (Planning Engineer) or the Environment Agency although it should be noted that the former, when commenting on the earlier application, said that he did not wish to object as long as a condition is included in any planning permission to prohibit surface water being discharged to the foul sewer.

5.3 Town or Parish Council Comments

At the time of preparing this report the recently formed Parish Council do not appear to have commented on this latest application. However, Members should note that the Parish Council took the somewhat unusual step following the submission of this latest application to call a meeting with the applicants’ agent with a view to negotiating a more comprehensive scheme on the whole site in the hope that the agent would withdraw this latest application. In a recent conversation with the agent he gave no indication of his clients’ wish to withdraw the application at this moment in time.

5.4 Third Party Representations

In common with the earlier application this revised submission has been the subject of a considerable number of letters (and e-mails) objecting to the proposed development. When this report was drafted a total of 54 objections had been received from residents mostly living in Main Road, Church Road and Elizabeth Gardens. The main concerns continue to be the same as before and the more prevalent observations can be summarised as follows:

· Adequacy of proposed access to serve four units (or more) because of lack of visibility arising from directions/contours of Main Road exacerbated by “on street” parking.

· Level of vehicular traffic using Main Road particularly during peak periods and reservations about the technical information supporting the application.

· Site (or part of site), is allocated as private open space in the UDP and contributes to a semi-rural environment that should be “respected”.

· Fear that a favourable decision in this case may set a precedent for future development on the remainder of the site.

· Lack of social infrastructure.

5.5 Others

Isle of Wight Animal Preservation Action Group have said “Due to the present date we are hoping that some new consideration might take place on the land adjacent to Sans Souci. Both badgers and foxes suffer their habitat invasion. Badgers Act 1990 should have respect”.

Detailed representations objecting to the application have been received from the chairman of the local branch of the CPRE making reference to his interpretation and application of policy L4 and citing other cases (or precedents) where he believes there are parallels and also referring to approved Supplementary Planning Guidance on infill residential development. He has expanded views on whether this application is a “forerunner” for a more comprehensive scheme, the issue of piecemeal development and the possibility of a favourable decision creating an undesirable precedent. In this context he again cites a number of other cases where he feels there are potential similarities and how the Council, as Local Planning Authority, dealt with these particular applications. He has put forward several points in support of arguments relating to the proposed access to the site and, more importantly, the increased used of Main Road as a traffic route between Ryde and Newport, access to Lynbottom tip and “increasing commercialisation” of the tourist attraction at Havenstreet Station. He comments on the extended footway but appears to have misinterpreted the detailed drawings and concludes with the following observation:

We believe the proposal not only creates an unwelcome precedent for further development and urbanisation, but that it also represents an unacceptable deterioration in the quality of life for the whole of the village, and we urge refusal.

6. Evaluation

6.1 Members are asked to note that there are no significant differences between this latest application and the earlier submission in its final revised form when it was considered by this Committee just a few months ago, other than the provision of an additional three car parking spaces (five spaces in total) off the proposed access drive to serve the existing property (Sans Souci) and for other general use. In an attempt to mitigate the objection to the scheme which is based on “on street” parking impacting on the requisite visibility splays where the new access drive joins Main Road.

6.2 Initial reaction to the proposed development based on an individuals own experience of vehicular traffic through Havenstreet, the UDP allocation to retain this land (and part of the application site) as private open space and the considerable local concern would seem to suggest that it may be appropriate to refuse permission. Nevertheless, officers have consistently taken the view that there are various factors which merit very close examination as part of the process and eventual determination of this revised application. There would appear to be three main issues.

· Adequacy, or otherwise, of the purpose designed vehicular access onto Main Road to serve a development comprising four reasonable sized dwellinghouses

· Allocation of part of the application site and the neighbouring land in the Unitary Development Plan as private open space

· Precedent

6.4 It is still apparent from the written representations and informal discussions with the Parish Council that the matter of precedent, in the form of further residential development on the larger area of land, is very prevalent and inextricably linked to both the proposed access and the level of vehicular/pedestrian traffic already using Main Road and the loss of (private) open space with the potential implications in terms of loss of amenity for local residents who live in properties with a common boundary or within the immediate locality.

6.5 It is important for Members to realise that the matter of precedent is a material consideration but not one that should be given overwhelming weight in the determination of the last application or this latest submission, which should be judged on its individual merits.

6.6 Members are reminded of a series of points included in the last report that support an argument to develop this part of the site.

· Existing building(s) is of no architectural or historic merit, they are in a dilapidated condition and have a damaging effect on the visual amenities of the area.

· Existing building(s) have and could be used for purposes that may generate some level of vehicular traffic entering and leaving the site.

· Interpretation of UDP (Sheet 4 (Inset L Havenstreet)) show that building(s), hardstanding and existing access drive do not form part of the private open space allocation.

· Redevelopment of the site for residential purposes would be likely to enhance the visual amenities of the area.

· Subject to certain safeguards the redevelopment of the site is unlikely to have sufficient impact on the level of amenity currently enjoyed by the owners/occupiers of the neighbouring property to justify refusing permission.

· New homes and residents would contribute towards the protection of existing facilities and the future viability of the village.

6.7 The view of the way in which Members handled the earlier application, including the initial deferment and the eventual reasons for withholding permission, indicate that the Committee largely accept a number of the points itemised in the preceding paragraph. For this reason the major part of the remainder of this report focuses on the two reasons for refusing planning permission (see paragraph 3.5). Members will appreciate the degree of weight to be given to the work carried out by the Highway Consultant acting on behalf of the applicants’ agent, the independent RSA submissions and our own Area Highway Engineer. Notwithstanding the extensive work carried out in connection with the earlier application and the relevant sections from the design statement prepared by the agent on this revised submission Members are also asked to give due regard to the detailed submission made by the Consultant Highway Engineer which is appended to this report.

6.8 Our Area Highway Engineer maintains the view that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions there is no objection to the application on access grounds, previously stating:

….where it can be demonstrated through the submission of speed data that 85 percentile of speeds are contained within the 30 mph a lowered visibility splay of only 60 metres can be allowed. The previous submission only allowed a splay of 57 metres to the north, which was technically substandard, albeit by a very small margin. ………revised scheme allows a splay to the north of 70 metres, which is entirely acceptable.… splay to the south is limited by third party land (but) an x distance of 2 metres is acceptable here and allows a splay in excess of 70 metres to be achieved to the centre line.

On the question of vehicles parked on the carriageway he formed the view that this does not represent a sustainable objection as in his opinion users of the new access will now have ample opportunity to see vehicles from the right in sufficient time to make a decision as to whether it is safe to join the major road. To support his viewpoint he felt that some weight should be given to the “lapsed” traffic generation from the disused former workshop building(s) on the site, the improvement to the pedestrian access on this side of Main Road and the closure of the existing access which is substandard.

6.9 Members may recall that the RSA made a number of specific recommendations and to note that a number of these were of a practical/technical nature but the most pertinent recommendation related to the suggested monitoring of the new access if the application is approved and the consent is implemented, which highlights that the Council, as Local Highway Authority, may wish at a later time to promote appropriate waiting restrictions if highway users fail to recognise the significance of the newly constructed splays and continue to park at this point on Main Road. Despite the eventual decision to refuse the last application, the officer’s opinion at that time and still today is that this recommendation answered a number of concerns expressed by Members and local residents.

6.10 Based on this advice we continue to maintain a view that an objection on grounds of inadequate access is not a sustainable reason for refusing planning permission.

6.11 Members may recall that when reconsidering the earlier application for a second time that a specific objection from the owners/occupiers of the neighbouring property had, in part, been addressed by resiting the proposed pair of semi-detached houses a further 1.5 metres away from the boundary between the application site and their property. This aspect of the proposed development was not considered to be a reason for withholding permission and the amendment was offered by the agent as some degree of mitigation following discussions with the Case Officer. Nevertheless Members decided to refuse permission on this ground and Officers continue to have grave reservations as to the sustainability of this reason should the earlier application or this latest submission, if refused permission, was the subject of an appeal.

6.12 Although matters relating to the interpretation of the private open space allocation in the UDP and the matter of precedent did not feature in the reasons for withholding permission on the earlier application, it is important to remind Members of how Officers have addressed these two points.

· Matter of private open space allocation in the UDP needs to be viewed in a pragmatic way as opposed to a simpler spatial assessment which attempts to calculate in terms of area how much of the application site is within the allocation and how much is outside the allocated area. Members who have visited the site may well have formulated their own view on the general amenity value of the overall area and whether the Council, as Local Planning Authority, will be able at a later stage as part of the LDF process, to sustain an argument, to retain this land as private open space. However, what is apparent is that a significant part of the application site does not feature within this allocation and the loss of the area that is within the allocation is extremely small and, more importantly, provides only minimal or no amenity value for any local residents who do overlook or have obscure views of this part of the application site

On a procedural point, the professional view is that this application, if approved, is a “departure” from the approved development plan and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation) (Departures) Directions 1999 the matter will need to be referred to the Secretary of State if Members are now minded to grant permission.

· Overriding concern in this particular case is the likelihood of a favourable decision creating a precedent for further development on part or all of the remaining land in the ownership of the applicant. Precedent is a proper and material consideration where it is likely that similar future proposals in closely parallel situations could not be resisted and cumulative harm to planning principles or policies would result. However, the force of the “precedent argument” is reduced where the planning circumstances are unlikely to be replicated or where there are policies in place to control the situation.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 Members concern at the level of local opposition to this application and reservations about supporting the Officers recommendation to grant planning permission is understandable. However, the Committee will know that local opposition (or support) is not in itself a reason for refusing planning permission (or granting permission) and that each application has to be judged on its individual merits.

7.2 In similar terms to the earlier report Officers conclusions on the main issues can be summarised as follows.

· Closure of a clearly unsatisfactory access and the formation of a new access with a new footway leading from the access point to the existing footway on this side of Main Road to the north of the site with adequate visibility has the support of the Area Highway Engineer and should be recognised as a planning gain.

· Loss of unattractive semi-derelict buildings which have a detrimental effect on the visual amenities of the area and their replacement with four purpose designed new homes does not conflict sufficiently with the allocation of part of the site as part of a much larger area of open space sufficient to justify refusing permission.

· In terms of any likely impact on the owners/occupiers of the neighbouring property (Little Cedars) arising from the development of the site the view is taken that mature landscaping along the boundary between their property and the application site means that they will not suffer a loss of amenity sufficient to warrant refusing permission.

· In light of the allocation on the remainder of the site and the Council’s ability to resist any further development, if Members so wish, the issue of precedent is not a sustainable reason for refusing permission.

8. Recommendation

Conditional permission (subject to reference to GOSE in accordance with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation) (Departures) Directions 1999 on the grounds that development of this site represents a departure from the approved development plan (Unitary Development Plan).

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	No development shall take place until a scheme for the drainage and disposal of surface water from the development hereby approved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme as approved shall be completed before any [residential] unit hereby permitted is first occupied. Reason: To ensure that surface water run-off is satisfactorily accommodated and to comply with policies G6 (Development in Areas Liable to Flooding) and G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	Development shall not commence until details of the facilities to be provided for the storage of refuse have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No building shall be occupied until the facilities have been provided in accordance with the approved details and the facilities shall thereafter be retained. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	No construction traffic shall enter the public highway during the site development unless their wheels and chassis have been cleaned to prevent the material being deposited on the highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in compliance with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	No highway works shall commence on the site until full stage 1 and 2 safety audits conducted under the parametres defined by HD 19/03 (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 5, Section 2, Part 2) have been undertaken and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any matters arising from such audits shall be suitably addressed and indicated on drawings to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and in compliance with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	Within 6 months of the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved a Stage 3 Road Safety Audit shall be conducted under parameters defined by HD 19/03 (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 5, Section 2 Part 2) and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any matters arising from such audits shall be suitably addressed at the developers cost and indicated on drawings to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in compliance with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	After 1 and 3 years of the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved a Stage 4 Road Safety Audit shall be conducted under parameters defined by HD 19/03 (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 5, Section 2 Part 2) and submitted to and approved as fit for purpose in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any highway safety matters arising from the audits shall be addressed unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, at the developers cost and any necessary revisions to the highway in the immediate vicinity of the site or new access road indicated on drawings to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in compliance with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	Development shall not begin until details of the design, surfacing and construction of any new roads, footways, accesses and car parking areas, together with details of the means of disposal of surface water drainage therefrom have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9	No dwelling shall be occupied until the parts of the service roads which provide access to it have been constructed, surfaced and drained in accordance with [the approved plans/details which have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority]. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	The development shall not be occupied until sight lines are provided in accordance with the visibility splay shown on the approved plan (reference number I/Bill/HS.1/4). Nothing that may cause an obstruction to visibility shall at any time be placed or be permitted to remain within that visibility splay. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
11	No later than one month after the day on which the dwellings hereby permitted are first occupied or the access hereby permitted is first used (whichever is the earlier) the existing access to the site from Main Road shall be permanently closed in accordance with the approved plans which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
12	No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site and drained and surfaced for ten cars to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
13	No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all trees, not previously agreed with the Local Planning Authority for removal, shall has been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier, Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: Barrier shall consist of a scaffold framework as shown in figure 2 of BS 5837 (2005). Comprising of vertical and horizontal framework braced to resist impact, with vertical tubes spaced at a maximum of 3 m intervals. Onto this weldmesh panels are to be securely fixed. Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site, during which period the following restrictions shall apply: (a)No placement or storage of material; (b)No placement or storage of fuels or chemicals. (c)No placement or storage of excavated soil. (d)No lighting of bonfires. (e)No physical damage to bark or branches. (f)No changes to natural ground drainage in the area. (g)No changes in ground levels. (h)No digging of trenches for services, drains or sewers. (i)Any trenches required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are left undamaged. Reason: To ensure that all general trees and shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of the amenity and to ensure the wooded southern boundary is retained as an important landscape feature which provides a valuable wildlife corridor, all in compliance with Policies D3 (Landscaping) and C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
14	In this condition “retained tree” means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs (a) and (b) below shall have effect until the expiration of (1 year) from (the date of the occupation of the building for its permitted use). (a)No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work); (b)lf any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, a replacement tree shall be planted in the same place, or place to be agreed and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the protection of the trees to be retained in the interests of the amenities of the area and in compliance with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
15	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
16	All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
17	No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings hereby permitted are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
18	In this condition "retained hedge or hedgerow" means an existing hedge or hedgerow which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. (a) No retained hedge or hedgerow shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained hedge or hedgerow be reduced in height other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. (b) If within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development the whole or any part of any retained hedge or hedgerow is removed, uprooted, is destroyed or dies, another hedge or hedgerow shall be planted at the same place and that hedge or hedgerow shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (c) The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained hedge or hedgerow shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and particulars before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any fenced area in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered nor shall any excavation be made or fire be lit, without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing hedges or hedgerows and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
19	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development within Class E of Part 1 or Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out [other than that expressly authorised by this permission]. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
20	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/01933/06 - TCP/27570/A

Parish/Name: Shanklin - Ward/Name: Shanklin North

Registration Date: 31/07/2006 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr C Hougham Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Craven

Demolition of house; outline for 2/3 storey block of eight flats with parking and alterations to vehicular access (revised scheme)

6 Culver Road, Shanklin, PO376ER

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application has attracted a substantial number of representations objecting to the proposed redevelopment of the site.

1. Details of Application

1.1 Proposed demolition of existing property (6/6a Culver Road) and redevelopment of the site with a two/three storey block of eight self-contained flats with “on site” parking facilities. This is an outline application with detailed matters relating to siting and means of access to be dealt with at this stage; consequently elevational drawings and streetscene drawings are for illustrative purposes only.

1.2 Proposed replacement building will have a “T” shaped footprint in the form of three linked elements, two of which are three storey and the other two storey.

1.3 Property already has the benefit of existing vehicular access onto both Culver Road and St. Boniface Cliff Road and as part of this scheme there will be “on site” parking facilities for four vehicles off Culver Road and four vehicles off St. Boniface Cliff Road.

1.4 Proposed redevelopment will provide eight two bedroom self-contained flats.

1.5 In design terms the submitted details indicate a traditional approach which feature two or three storey bays to the respective elevations onto Culver Road and St. Boniface Cliff Road.

1.6 Application is supported by a design statement which indicates that there were pre-submission discussions and negotiations with members of the Major Submissions Team and this application is, he believes, the preferred solution. Agent also highlights pre-submission discussion with the Area Highway Engineer who has agreed engineered improvements to both access points onto Culver Road and St. Boniface Cliff Road.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 Site is located between Culver Road and St. Boniface Cliff Road off Arthurs Hill in Shanklin.

2.2 There is a fall though the site in a southerly direction and the existing building stands in a relatively elevated position in relation to Culver Road but below street level on the St Boniface road frontage.

2.3 Culver Road is an unmade private road which serves a number of hotel, guesthouse and residential premises including the application site. St. Boniface Cliff Road is a wide maintained street with the benefit of footways and adequate street lighting serving predominantly residential development on the northern side which is characterised by late Victorian Edwardian detached “villas” while on the southern side of the road there is a mixture of rear access facilities and later infill development which is generally not of the same quality in aesthetic terms.

2.4 Existing property is a mid to late Victorian detached dwelling house(s) which has been the subject of various additions/alterations over a considerable period of time which have proved to be largely unsympathetic to the original building in visual terms. This factor in combination with the need for some degree of renovation and maintenance means that the existing building does not make any significant contribution to the character and amenities of the immediate locality.

3. Relevant History

3.1 In February 2006 an application was submitted involving the demolition of the existing building and seeking outline permission for a two/three storey block of twelve flats with parking and alterations to the two vehicular access points. Case Officer prepared a detailed report on the application to be considered by the Development Control Sub Committee at the meeting held on 6 June 2006. The report contained a recommendation to refuse permission that can be summarised in the following terms.

Overdevelopment of the site likely to create conditions which could cause overlooking, loss of outlook and be of an overbearing nature to the detriment of perspective occupants as well as being out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding area.

In the circumstances the applicant’s agent chose to withdraw the application.

3.2 This amended application was the subject of pre-submission negotiations with members of the Major Submissions Team.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance

· PPG3 (Housing) and PPS Consultation Paper 3.

4.2 Strategic Policies

· S1	-	New Development will be Concentrated Within Existing Urban Areas
· S2	-	Development will be Encouraged on Land which has been Previously Developed (Brownfield Sites)
· S6	-	All Development will be Expected to be of a High Standard of Design
· S7	-	Provision of Housing Units on the Island

4.3 Local Planning Policies

· G4	-	General Locational Criteria
· D1	-	Standards of Design
· D2	-	Standards for Development within the Site
· D3	-	Landscaping
· H4	-	Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements
· H6	-	High Density Residential Development
· TR7	-	Highway Considerations for New Development
· TR16	-	Parking Policies and Guidelines
· U11	-	Infrastructure and Services Provision

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

Highway Engineer recommends standard conditions should consent be granted.

5.2 Parish/Town Council

Shanklin Town Council have raised no objection to the application.

5.3 Third Party Representations

Eighteen letters of objection have been received from local residents, predominantly from people living in St. Boniface Cliff Road but also Culver Road. Several of those making representations accept that the amended scheme, in their view, represents an “improvement” on the earlier application to redevelop the site with twelve flats but still maintain their objections to the redevelopment of the site. Reasons for opposing the scheme can be summarised in the following terms.

· Loss of existing dwellinghouse which is of a character and appearance appropriate to this particular area.

· Overdevelopment of the site due to the proposed “high density”.

· Impact on neighbouring properties.

· Effect on the general visual amenities of the area by the introduction of a “modern” block of flats.

· Increase in level of congestion in St. Boniface Cliff Road and Culver Road.

· Pressure on “on street” parking.

· Likely exacerbation of existing foul and surface water drainage problems.

These representations also include a number of other observations and comments which are not material planning considerations.

5.4 Others

Solicitors acting on behalf of an individual who has “an interest in properties in the vicinity” has objected to the application on grounds not dissimilar to those expressed by the third parties.

6. Evaluation

6.1 Prior to examining this outline application in detail there are some fundamental issues which need to be addressed.

· Existing building is an example of the predominating style of development prevalent in the locality in the latter part of the ninetheenth century. However, the building is of no particular architectural or historic merit and, in visual terms, later alterations/additions have detracted from the appearance of the building. Building is not listed or within a designated conservation area and therefore there is no sustainable objection to its demolition providing it is part of a redevelopment scheme.

· Site is in the built up area within the development envelope boundary and therefore in terms of broad principle there is no sustainable objection to its redevelopment for residential purposes.

6.2 Having dealt with these two fundamental points the main issues can be summarised in the following terms.

· Interpretation and application of relevant national, strategic and local planning policies.

· Character of the area and considerations of a visual nature.

· Scale, size and position of proposed replacement building.

· Traffic generation, access and parking.

6.3 Redevelopment of a brownfield site at an increased density is consistent with both existing and developing national policy to provide more homes in sustainable locations without further encroachment into the countryside.

6.4 Site is capable of physically accommodating a building of this size with a footprint which is not entirely dissimilar from the footprint of the existing building, similar in size terms to a number of other properties in the vicinity which (were or) continue to be used for tourist related purposes and can still make adequate provision for (communal) amenity space and “on site” parking facilities for future occupants by utilising both Culver Road and St. Boniface Cliff Road. Eight units on a site of this size in this particular location does not represent overdevelopment of the site and any arguments advanced on this point would be very difficult to sustain at a possible later stage.

6.5 In terms of the proposed “spilt” access using both roads to serve small parking areas, four vehicles each, there is an obvious contrast in the characteristics of the two road which needs to be given due regard and appropriate weight.

· Culver Road is an unmade private road which already provides access for a number of properties including hotels/guesthouses. Although unmade the road is of an adequate width to permit “on street” parking without obstructing traffic and also has reasonable visibility at the junction with Arthurs Hill.

· St. Boniface Cliff Road is a wide maintained road with footways on either side and adequate width to allow “on street” parking on either side without obstructing traffic and also has adequate visibility onto Arthurs Hill.

Amended scheme effectively offers a sensible solution by “splitting” the vehicular traffic likely to be generated by the proposed development by providing two small car parking areas of just four vehicles served off each road. If the “on site” parking facilities for the proposed flats were provided solely from St. Boniface Cliff Road it would still be difficult to sustain an argument that this would be likely to cause a potential traffic hazard and/or congestion sufficient to withhold permission. Site is in Zone 2 location in terms of policy TR16 and the associated guidelines, and one parking space per one unit ratio is acceptable.

6.6 Having established that there is no objection to the redevelopment of the site for this number of units in terms of principle, application of local planning policies and highways/parking related issues the remaining aspect that needs to be addressed is the relationship with neighbouring properties. Obviously this is an important consideration but it has to be remembered that this is an outline application with only matters relating to siting, layout and means of access to be addressed at this stage with all other detailed matters reserved for subsequent approval. This particular consideration can be broken down into two constituent parts.

· Likely impact of proposed development in either street scene (i.e. Culver Road and St. Boniface Cliff Road)

· Likely effect on the current level of amenity enjoyed by owners/occupiers of the two neighbouring properties (nos. 1 and 3 St. Boniface Cliff Road)

6.7 The 50% reduction in the number of units when compared with the initial submission has enabled the agent to reduce the overall scale, mass and height of the proposed building when viewed from St. Boniface Cliff Road. He has produced illustrative street plans which show the existing street scene and the proposed street scene with the two/three storey block replacing the existing property. Three storey element is on the upper (eastern) side of the site and shows a eaves and ridge height not dissimilar from the neighbouring house (no. 3), whereas on the lower (western) side adjacent to a low profile bungalow he is showing a reduced two storey element. Due regard should also be given to the fact that the site falls away from St. Boniface Cliff Road in a southerly direction further reducing the impact of the proposed building. In terms of street scene on Culver Road the view is taken that there will only be a negligible impact particularly if the distance is taken into account and if the majority of trees/shrubs along the site frontage are retained in combination with a landscaping/planting programme should the application be approved. Findings on this particular issue can be summarised in the following terms.

· Two neighbouring properties are of no particular architectural merit and are largely typical of the period when they were built as well as displaying a poor choice in materials.

· Above factor in combination with the appearance of the existing building leads to the conclusion that with careful attention at the detailed design stage the replacement building will actually enhance the character of the area.

6.8 It is not considered that the “footprint” shown on the plan is going to have any significant impact on the current level of amenity enjoyed by owners/occupiers of the two neighbouring properties in terms of over dominance or significant loss of daylight/sunlight or overshadowing largely because on the St Boniface Cliff Road frontage the ‘footprint’ is similar to the existing building. Inevitably the intensification of use on the site with habitable rooms at upper floor level means that due regard has to be given to the possibility of overlooking of neighbouring properties which can lead to loss of privacy and amenity. In this particular context the agent has taken particular care with the illustrative internal layout with the result that the only overlooking windows in the three storey element “down” the site are bedrooms or bathrooms and, in my view, the distance between this element of the block and neighbouring properties, existing natural screening and existing/proposed boundary treatment means that any loss of privacy or amenity will not be sufficient to sustain an objection to the application.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 This application has come about through an earlier submission and negotiations in order to achieve a redevelopment which makes the best possible use of the site while protecting and enhancing the character and appearance of the area and minimising any adverse effects on the level of amenity currently enjoyed by the owners/occupiers of neighbouring properties. Decision to “split” the two small parking areas will mean that the development will have only a very minimal impact in terms of traffic generation in either St. Boniface Cliff Road or Culver Road.

8. Recommendation

Approve.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this planning permission. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.
2	Before any works or development hereby approved is commenced on site details relating to the design, external appearance of any building(s) to be erected and the landscaping of the site shall be submitted to, and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall comprise the ‘reserved matters’ and shall be submitted within the time constraints referred to in condition 1 above before any development is commenced. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail and to comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
3	Development shall not commence until details of the facilities to be provided for the storage of refuse have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No building shall be occupied until the facilities have been provided in accordance with the approved details and the facilities shall thereafter be retained. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	Development shall not begin until details of the design, surfacing and construction of any new roads, footways, accesses and car parking areas, together with details of the means of disposal of surface water drainage therefrom have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	No dwelling shall be occupied until the parts of the service roads which provide access to it have been constructed, surfaced and drained in accordance with [the approved plans/details which have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority]. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	Development shall not begin until details of the sight lines to be provided at the site's junction with St Boniface Cliff Road and Culver Road and the highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be occupied until those sight lines have been provided in accordance with the approved details. Nothing that may cause an obstruction to visibility shall at any time be placed or be permitted to remain within the visibility splay shown in the approved sight lines. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	None of the units hereby approved shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site and drained and surfaced in accordance with details that have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing for eight cars and bicycles to be parked on the site in two separate locations off St. Boniface Cliff Road and Culver Road. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9	No development shall take place until a schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of five years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schedule shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule. Reason: To ensure satisfactory long-term maintenance of the landscaping of the [site/ development] and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before any of the residential units hereby permitted are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
11	No development shall take place until details of the materials and finishes to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
12	Development shall not begin until drainage works have been carried out in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate drainage system is provided for the development and to comply with policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
13	Notwithstanding the provisions of any Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no gates shall be erected without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/01961/06 - TCPL/14974/K

Parish/Name: Ventnor - Ward/Name: Ventnor East

Registration Date: 18/08/2006 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr S Wiltshire Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Mr G Collins

Conversion of shop, storage area and 2 flats into four flats to include alterations to roof (revised scheme)

147 High Street, Ventnor, PO381LZ

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Local Member has requested that these applications are referred to the Development Control Committee for consideration for the reasons that these proposals constitute overdevelopment of the site and provide no car parking.

1. Details of Application

1.1 These applications for full planning permission and listed building consent propose the change of use of No. 147 High Street, Ventnor from a retail shop / storeroom (Use Class A1) and 2 existing flats into 4 flats. To prevent duplication, both the applications have been incorporated into a single report for consideration by the Committee.

1.2 The submitted plans show that the proposal would provide a studio flat within the vacant shop whilst retaining the existing shopfront and utilising the shop entrance. The single storey storeroom to the rear of the shop unit is proposed to be converted into a 1 bedroom flat, incorporating a lounge area on a mezzanine floor within the unit. This flat would have a small private amenity area served via a shared access to the side of the property. The room arrangements of the existing 2 flats on the first and second floor are to be changed creating a single bedroom flat on each floor sharing a common access.

1.3. The only alteration proposed to the external appearance of the building is the replacement of a single modern UPVC window in the side elevation of the rear storeroom with a pair of windows. Plans indicate new slate roof and repair to rendered walls.

1.4. The glazed verandah which runs across the front of the building is to be retained.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 The application site constitutes a 3 storey mid terraced property, which is currently vacant. The building was formerly occupied as a retail shop with rear storeroom to the ground floor, with a 1 bedroom flat to both the first and second floors. At ground floor the building has a glazed shopfront with glass canopy above, and a separate doorway in the front elevation leading to the upper floors.

2.2 A shared access beneath No. 145 High Street leads to a yard adjacent to the storeroom, as well as to No. 147A High Street which is a two storey cottage in separate ownership attached to the rear of the storeroom. No. 145 High Street is a two storey terraced dwelling adjoining the application site to the west, with a retail shop with residential accommodation to the first floor situated to the east.

2.3 The general condition of the building is poor.

3. Relevant History

3.1 The following applications are relevant to the consideration of these applications;

P/00061/06 LBC/14974/H	LBC for conversion of shop and flats into 3 flats and 1 cottage to include alterations to part of roof and construction of 2 dormer windows.	Withdrawn
P/022361/05 TCP/14974/G	Conversion of shop and flats into 3 flats and 1 cottage to include alterations to part of roof and construction of 2 dormer widows.	Refused 18.1.2006
TCP/14974/C	Conversion of dwelling into 2 living units approved 1981.	Approved 6.10.81
TCP/14974/E	Change of use of restaurant to antique shop	Approved 11.3.1982

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 The Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan (UDP) identifies the application site as being within the Development Envelope boundary for Ventnor.

4.2 The application site is also a Grade II listed building, and within Ventnor Conservation Area.

4.3 Relevant policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:

· S1 – New development will be concentrated within existing areas

· S10 – Conserve or enhance the features of special character of these areas

· G1 – Development envelopes for towns and villages

· G4 - General Locational Criteria

· B1 – Alterations and extensions to Listed Buildings

· B6 – Protection and enhancement of Conservation Areas

· D1 - Standards of Design

· D2 - Standards of Development within the site

· H4 – Unallocated residential development to be restricted to defined settlements

· H6 – High density residential development

· R2 – New retail development

· TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

· TR16 – Parking policies and guidelines

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· Conservation & Design Officer

· The revised details have simplified the internal alterations and reduced the impact on the historic fabric of the building. The additional information confirms that the proposal would not harm any features of special interest. No objection to the scheme subject to the imposition of conditions (revised scheme)

· Highways Engineer – The site falls within Parking Zone 3 as such the maximum parking requirements 50-75% of 4 which equals maximum 2 – 3 parking spaces. Site borders town centre location and has four public car parks within short walking distance. If occupiers of 1 bed flats have a car they will be able to find a space in one of these car parks.

· Environmental Health – No adverse comments to make. An advisory note, is suggested in relation to sound insulation.

5.2 External Consultees

· NATS – Has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.

5.3 Town or Parish Council Comments

· Ventnor Town Council – Object to this application on grounds that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.

5.4 Neighbours

· Two letters of objection have been received from local residents. These letters raise the following planning issues;

· Exacerbate existing parking problems

· Structural impact to listed building

· Residential density too high

· Storeroom should not be converted

6. Evaluation

6.1 Principle of Development - The application site is a retail shop located within the Development Envelope for Ventnor, but outside the identified retail Town Centre boundary. The principle of the conversion of this building to a residential use is in accordance with Policies S1, G1 and H4 of the UDP which seek to locate new residential development within defined settlements. In addition, Policy H6 seeks to promote high density residential development in locations close to public transport services and town centre facilities.

6.2 Policy R2 of the UDP seeks to resist the loss of local shops where this would have a damaging impact on the local community. The application site is located approximately 200 metres from the boundary to Ventnor Town Centre, with other local shops in the vicinity of the site. It is considered that the loss of this shop unit would not have a damaging impact on the availability of shopping facilities for the local community. Therefore the proposal does not conflict with the aims of Policy R2.

6.3 Listed Building / Ventnor Conservation Area - No. 147 High Street is a Grade Listed Building, thus the impact on the proposal on the features of special character of this building must be assessed against Policy B1 of the UDP, as well as Government advice contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment (PPG15). The application site is also within Ventnor Conservation Area, therefore needs to be assessed against Policy B6 of the UDP.

6.4 The scheme, as originally submitted, proposed to subdivide the existing shop area with a new stud wall abutting a glazing bar within the shop window, to provide a separate bedroom area. In addition, new openings and infillings were proposed to the walls within the flats to the first and second floors, and new timber windows proposed to replace an existing uPVC window in the storeroom. The Conservation and Design Officer objected to this scheme on the basis that it subdivided the historic plan form of the building, as well as the alterations to doors and internal openings.

6.5 In light of the concerns expressed by the Conservation and Design Officer revised plans and a technical specification for the works have been submitted. These revised plans delete the internal partition within the shop, providing a studio flat accessed through the existing shop entrance. In addition, the alterations to the upper floors have been simplified though the introduction partitions within the stairwells to provided new entrances. The Conservation and Design Officer has confirmed that the revised details have simplified the internal alterations and reduced the impact on the historic fabric of the building. The additional specification has clarified the extent of previous alterations, and that the proposed works would not harm any features of historical interest. On this basis the revised details are considered to be acceptable in terms of their impact on the listed building.

6.6 The applications do not propose any alterations to the front elevation of the building. The revisions to the application would utilise the shop entrance, and remove an internal wall abutting a glazing bar within the shop window. It has been confirmed the glazed verandah will be retained. The Conservation and Design Officer has confirmed that the proposal will be acceptable in terms of impact on the character of the Conservation Area.

6.7 Residential Amenity - The application site is situated within an area of mixed land uses, with residential properties to the west and north, and a shop having residential accommodation above to the east. Residential use of this building would accord with the character of the area.

6.8 Concern has been expressed by the Town Council and local residents that the proposal would constitute over-development of the site. The existing building has an established use as shop to the ground floor, with 2 flats to the floors above. The application proposes minor alterations to the upper floors which would not result in any increase in the use of this part of the building. The ground floor would be subdivided from a shop and storeroom to a studio flat, and a single bedroom flat. The proposed residential units are considered to be of an acceptable size and layout, and the increase in use of the ground floor above its existing use is not considered to have an adverse impact on the on the amenity of occupiers of the neighbouring properties. No extensions to the building are proposed. It is noted that Policy H6 seeks to promote high density development in locations close to public transport services and town centre facilities, in line with Government advice contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing.

6.9 Highways and Parking - The application does not make provision for any on-site car parking space for residents of the proposed flats. The UDP identifies the application site as within Parking Zone 3, where 0 – 75% of the maximum non-operational vehicle parking provision will be allowed on site. In relation to 4 no. 1 bedroom units this amounts to a maximum provision of 0 to 3 car parking spaces.

6.10 The Highway Engineer has expressed the view that given the short walking distance to a number of public car parks within the vicinity that no parking provision on site is acceptable. I would also suggest that Members give weight to the fact that with two flats already occupying the building and that clearly the shop facility must have generated a certain amount of traffic (admittedly during daylight hours rather than the evenings) that the overall impact of the proposal on the demand for on-street car parking in the vicinity is not significant. Should a space not be found on the street, then the Highway Engineer is of the opinion that space would be found in one of the public car park. Accordingly, there is not considered to be a sustainable objection on highway grounds.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 Having given due regard to the material considerations set out in the above report, it is considered that the proposed conversion of 147 High Street, Ventnor from a retail shop, store and 2 flats, into 4 residential flats would not have any detrimental impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties and would accord with the provisions of the development plan which seek to direct new residential development towards locations within existing settlements.

7.2 The proposal (as revised) would have and acceptable impact on the historic fabric of the listed building as well as character of Ventnor Conservation Area. The proposal would see an improvement to the condition of the building bringing it back into a beneficial use.

7.3 With the availability of a long stay car park close to the site, the proximity to Ventnor Town Centre for facilities and public transport, and the existing use of the building, it is considered that a development with zero parking provision is acceptable in this instance. Accordingly, it is considered that the scheme can be supported subject to appropriate conditions.

8. Recommendations

8.1 P/01961/06 - Conditional approval.

8.2 P/01962/06 – Conditional approval.

Conditions/Reasons:

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on drawing number GC/NC/02 – Revision A, attached to and forming part of this planning permission.

Reason – In the interests of the amenities of the area and to protect the character and appearance of this listed building and to comply with Policies B1 (Alterations and extensions to listed buildings) and D1 (Standards of design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Conversion of the building hereby permitted shall not commence until a full specification of the new / replacement timber windows (including cross sections showing the glazing bars, sills, heads and the painted finish) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to protect the character and appearance of this listed building and to comply with Policies B1 (Alterations and extensions to listed buildings) and D1 (Standards of design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/01962/06 - LBC/14974/J

Parish/Name: Ventnor - Ward/Name: Ventnor East

Registration Date: 02/08/2006 - Listed Building Consent

Officer: Mr S Wiltshire Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Mr G Collins

LBC for conversion of shop, storage area and 2 flats into four flats to include alterations to roof (revised scheme)

147 High Street, Ventnor, PO381LZ

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

This is a joint report with application P/01961/06 – TCPL/14974/K.

Conditions/Reasons:

The works hereby authorised shall be begun not later than 3 years from the date of this consent.

Reason – As required by S18 Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Reason – To reflect the requirements of Section 16 (2) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and to protect the character and appearance of this listed building and to comply with policy B1 (Alterations and extensions to listed buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/01868/06 - TCP/13119/C

Parish/Name: Sandown - Ward/Name: Sandown North

Registration Date: 26/07/2006 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr R Chick Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Mr R Maryon

Demolition of extensions; alterations; single storey and two storey extensions to provide additional living accommodation to include conservatory and balcony on rear elevation at 1st floor level

Rose Cottage, Yaverland Road, Sandown, PO368QW

The application is recommended for Refusal

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The report has been requested by the Local Member, Councillor H Humby on the grounds that she has no objection to the application. The Local Member notes that Sandown Town Council has no objection if the application is ‘downsized’. Site not overlooked; none of the surrounding residents have any objection. Refers to Supplementary Planning Guidance being shown on appeal to be guideline and should only be applied where there is an unacceptable impact on the landscape. Should be determined by committee due to fact that proposal does not impact on the landscape and design concern is purely subjective. Similar scale extensions have been taken to Committee and approved contrary to officer recommendation. If any doubt suggest a site inspection appropriate.

1. Details of Application

1.1 This is a full planning application for the extension of an existing property. The proposal involves the extension of the building on the side and rear elevations, presently a detached two-storey dwelling located adjacent to Yaverland Road, Sandown.

1.2 The proposed extension on the side (west) elevation of the property would involve the demolition of an existing single storey element and its replacement with a large conservatory, with a brick link to the main dwelling. The roof would comprise a mix of glazed and clay tiled sections. The extension would extend 7.7 m from the side elevation of the property, being 6.8m deep and 4.5 m in height to the ridge tiles.

1.3 The proposal would also involve the construction of a two-storey extension on the rear (north) elevation of the property, with a gabled roof, set down slightly from the existing roof. The extension would comprise a large covered first floor balcony on the rear elevation and ground floor bay windows on the side elevation with a large brick chimney positioned centrally between the bays. The extension would be 9.8 m in length, 6.0 m wide and would be 7.6 m in height to the ridge tiles.

1.4 In addition, two large bay windows are proposed on the front elevation of the building that would extend into the roof space of the property with gabled roofs set down slightly from the existing roof.

1.5 The elevation plans indicate that the proposed works would fundamentally alter the external appearance of the building, with mock Tudor cladding at first floor level and replacement windows.

1.6 The planning and design statement accompanying the application states that the floor area of the property would be extended by 50%. The Supplementary Planning Guidance suggests that extensions would be more acceptable if they do not exceed 35% of the volume of the original dwelling. However, the design statement argues that the extension would not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding landscape.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 The site is located on the west side of Yaverland Road, Sandown, which is outside of the development envelope and within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The area is predominantly rural in character, with a mixture of open countryside and woodland. The locality comprises a variety of building types, including rural cottages and larger detached properties. The prevailing materials of the properties are brick and natural stone. The application property is located on a raised area of land adjacent to a highway.

2.2 The application property is a two-storey detached dwelling house, constructed of red brick with pebbledash render at first floor level and a clay-tiled roof. The property is a pair of semi-detached workers cottages, which have been converted into a single dwelling set within a generous curtilage, which appears to have been extended into a nearby field without prior planning consent.

2.3 The property is partially screened from the adjacent highway by a high bank and trees. However, the western boundary of the site does not benefit from screening, therefore the site is visually prominent from the AONB.

3. Relevant History

3.1 P/1196/05 – LDC/13119/B – Lawful Development Certificate issued for proposed alterations to convert the two cottages into a single dwelling. August 2005.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 The site is located outside of the development envelope as defined by the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and within an AONB. The relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:

· S6 – All development will be of a high standard of design

· S10 – Areas of designated or defined landscape value

· G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development

· D1 – Standards of Design

· H7 – Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties

· C1 – Protection of Landscape Character

· C2 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

· C12 – Development Affecting Trees and Woodland

· Supplementary Planning Guidance (Extending your Home)

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

The Tree Officer has confirmed that the development would have little direct impact on the high amenity trees within the site, although there is a high probability that they could be damaged indirectly during the construction process. Conditions advised require a method statement indicating how the impact on trees will be minimised during construction and the erection of protective fencing during construction.

The Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Partnership has objected to the scheme as it would neither conserve or enhance the area. The AONB officer comments that the dwelling is proposed to be extended and altered with changes to the external façade together with a considerable increase in development on the site. The dwellings in this rural area are characterized by being of modest sizes and with the use of local materials. They consider the additions and external design would be an alien an incongruous feature of the area being excessively large and out of character with the area.

5.2 External Consultees

None

5.3 Town/ Parish Council comments

Sandown Town Council support the application, provided it is scaled down to meet the 35% limit advised within the Supplementary Planning Guidance.

5.4 Others

None

5.5 Neighbours

One letter of support from a neighbouring property on grounds of:

· The proposal would enhance the area and add to the character of the village

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main issues relating to the application are:

· Policy and principle, size, design and layout in relation to original property

· Impact on the prevailing street scene

· Impact on neighbouring properties

· Impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

· Impact on surrounding trees and hedgerows

6.2 The site is located outside of the development envelope, within An Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There is a mix of properties spread sparsely in the locality, although the proposal would not affect the amenities of these properties.

6.3 The proposed conservatory is considered to be an inappropriate size and scale in relation to the existing property, by reason of the length that it would project from the western elevation of the building giving the property an unbalanced appearance, being visible from the adjacent highway and surrounding AONB.

6.4 The proposed rear extension, by reason of its depth and size, is considered to be an excessive addition to the existing property and although the roof would be slightly set down from the roof height of the existing property, the extension would fail to appear as a subservient addition by reason of its overall size and scale instead appearing overbearing in relation to the existing modest cottage. It is accepted that the level of screening afforded to the rear of the property by a high bank and trees would minimise the visual impact of the extension on the surrounding dwellings and adjacent highway, although the site is prominent when viewed from the AONB to the west.

6.5 The combination of the proposed rear extension and conservatory would result in cumulative additions that would be inappropriate in size and scale in relation to the existing property, appearing overbearing and detrimental to the character of the surrounding AONB. Therefore the proposed extensions fail to comply with policies H7 (Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties), which requires extensions to be an appropriate size and scale in relation to the existing property, C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), which states that development will only be approved where it does not have a detrimental impact on the landscape and the SPG (Extending your Home), which requires extensions to be of a scale and character appropriate to the locality.

6.6 The re-designing of the external surfaces of the building, including the bay windows proposed for the front elevation of the property, would give the building a mock Tudor appearance, which would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding properties, which are simplistic and rustic in appearance. As a result it is considered that the building would appear as an incongruous feature within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Therefore the proposal is contrary to policy D1 (Standards of Design), which requires development to respect the distinctiveness of the surrounding area and Policy C1 (Protection of Landscape Character), which requires development to take account of landscape character and local distinctiveness of the area.

6.7 The SPG (Extending Your Home) states that extensions to properties located within open countryside are more likely to be acceptable if they do not exceed 35% of the volume of the original dwelling. The planning and design statement accompanying this application states that the floor area of the property would be increased by 50%. However, the proposal would result in a volume increase of 90%. It is accepted that the 35% rule is a guideline and that this has been stated in recent planning appeals and referred to by the Local Member. However it is considered that the impact of the extension on landscape character and the existing building are the overriding issues relating to this application. In this case it is considered that the cumulative impact of the proposed extensions and alterations would be excessive and as a result would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding landscape.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations, it is considered that the proposed extension and alteration of this property is an excessive and inappropriate size and scale in relation to the existing property and out of character with the surrounding AONB. In particular, it is considered that the design of the proposed extensions would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the landscape character and distinctiveness of the area.

8. Recommendation

Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

The proposed extensions and conservatory, by reason of their design and excessive size and scale would be intrusive and dominant additions, out of scale and character with the existing property and general character of the area and would have a serious and adverse effect on the visual amenities of the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies S6 (Be of a High Standard of Design), and S10 (If it Will Conserve or Enhance The Features of Special Character of These Areas) G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design), H7 (Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties) and C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and advice contained with Isle of Wight Council Supplementary Planning Guidance – Extending Your Home.

The proposal would be detrimental to the rural character of the area by reason of the physical impact it would cause and would therefore conflict with the intention of the Local Planning Authority to protect the natural beauty of the landscape and would therefore be contrary to policy S10 (If It Will Conserve or Enhance The Features of Special Character of These Areas) and Policy C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The proposal fails to protect and enhance the special quality of the landscape designated by the National Parks Commission under Section 87 of the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949 as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the proposal would therefore be contrary to policy S10 (If it Will Conserve or Enhance The Features of Special Character of These Areas) and Policy C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

1.	P/01030/06 TCP/27752	St. Helens	Conditional Permission
Page 5	part of access channel, Bembridge Harbour off, Embankment Road, Bembridge Continued engineering operation works to maintain access channel to Bembridge Harbour
2.	P/01520/06 TCP/24035/A	Ryde	Conditional Permission
Page 12	land between 25 and 27 and, rear of 27, Ashey Road, Ryde Partial demolition of no. 25; access road off Ashey Road (revised scheme)
3.	P/01905/06 TCPL/10397/Z (Joint)	Newport	Conditional Permission
Page 23	Post Office Counters Ltd, Newport Post Office, 99 High Street, Newport, PO30 1AB Demolition of buildings at rear; conversion of 1st and 2nd floors of existing post office into two flats; 1/2/3 storey extension to provide additional retail area and staff facilities at ground floor and ten flats at 1st and 2nd floors; alterations to pedestrian access
4.	P/01906/06 LBC/27885 (Joint)	Newport	Conditional Permission
Page 31	Post Office Counters Ltd, Newport Post Office, 99 High Street, Newport, PO30 1AB LBC for demolition of buildings at rear; conversion of 1st and 2nd floors of existing post office into two flats; 1/2/3 storey extension to provide additional retail area and staff facilities at ground floor and ten flats at 1st and 2nd floors; alterations to pedestrian access
5.	P/00058/05 TCP/26502/A	Ryde	Conditional Permission
Page 34	Smallbrook Stadium, Ashey Road, Ryde, PO33 4BH Variation of condition no.1 on TCP/2170/X to increase the number of race meetings, cup and tournament events from thirty to thirty-five occasions in any calendar year
6.	P/01693/06 TCP/22670/E	Nettlestone & Seaview	Conditional Permission
Page 43	land adjacent, Westridge Leisure Centre, Brading Road, Ryde Continued use of land for outdoor go-kart track and associated buildings
7.	P/01727/06 TCP/02459/H	Brading	Conditional Permission
Page 54	70 and 71, High Street, Brading, Sandown, PO36 0DG Demolition of single storey extension & outbuilding; conversion of dwelling into 3 separate living units; residential development of 4 terraced houses with parking & alterations to vehicular access, (revised scheme)
8.	P/01756/06 TCP/10017/P	Bembridge	Conditional Permission
Page 63	land adjacent, The Orchard, Swains Road, Bembridge Demolition of garage & store; construction of 3 detached houses with parking/garages; alterations to vehicular access off Swains Road & landscaping, (revised scheme)
9.	P/01850/06 TCP/27238/B	Havenstreet & Ashey	Conditional Permission
Page 75	land adjacent, Sans Souci, Main Road, Havenstreet, Ryde Demolition of workshop buildings; residential development of 2 detached houses & a pair of semi-detached houses with parking & new access drive off Main Road; closure of existing access; proposed footpath, (revised scheme)
10.	P/01933/06 TCP/27570/A	Shanklin	Conditional Permission
Page 93	6 Culver Road, Shanklin, PO37 6ER Demolition of house; outline for 2/3 storey block of eight flats with parking and alterations to vehicular access (revised scheme)
11.	P/01961/06 TCPL/14974/K (Joint)	Ventnor	Conditional Permission
Page 102	147 High Street, Ventnor, PO38 1LZ Conversion of shop, storage area and 2 flats into four flats to include alterations to roof (revised scheme)
12.	P/01962/06 LBC/14974/J (Joint)	Ventnor	Conditional Permission
Page 108	147 High Street, Ventnor, PO38 1LZ LBC for conversion of shop, storage area and 2 flats into four flats to include alterations to roof (revised scheme)
13.	P/01868/06 TCP/13119/C	Sandown	Refusal
Page 110	Rose Cottage, Yaverland Road, Sandown, PO36 8QW Demolition of extensions; alterations; single storey and two storey extensions to provide additional living accommodation to include conservatory and balcony on rear elevation at 1st floor level

PAPER B

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB COMMITTEE -

TUESDAY 17 OCTOBER 2006

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES

WARNING

Background Papers