Paper B1

Reference Number: P/00788/06 - TCP/21172/J

Parish/Name: Cowes - Ward/Name: Cowes Castle East

Registration Date: 03/05/2006 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss S Wilkinson Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Medina Estates Ltd

Residential development comprising 3 storey block of 29 flats with undercroft parking & courtyard parking; alterations to vehicular access

site of car park, Denmark Road, Cowes, PO31

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 Application seeks consent for residential development comprising three storey block of 29 flats with undercroft parking and courtyard parking with alterations to vehicular access.

1.2 This scheme represents phase two of the development of the former car park area within Denmark Road in which location extant consent exists for twelve town houses.

1.3 The proposed design is similar to that of phase one but sees the inclusion of a mansard roof for variation and the incorporation of an archway over the proposed access road.

1.4 The proposed development would appear three storey however has taken advantage of the varying ground levels and incorporated undercroft parking to reduce the number of car parking spaces required within the courtyard area to allow for amenity space for the residents.

1.5 The proposal is for all two bedroom apartments and has provision for 25 car parking spaces within the basement car parking area and four within the courtyard alongside the existing parking for phase one. The scheme also incorporates secure bicycle parking within the undercroft area.

1.6 The proposal did incorporate a roof terrace which has now been removed from the scheme, due to concerns raised in relation to overlooking and visual impact of associated paraphernalia.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 The site is located along Denmark Road and boundaries the existing Co-op car park with phase one of the development being sited on the corner of Denmark Road and Granville Bridge Road.

2.2 The site is irregularly shaped and has significantly varying ground levels with Admiral Gardens to the north, the current Co-op car park to the east with phase one of the development on the west with Denmark Road running along the south.

2.3 The surrounding area is of mixed character with large flatted blocks of phase one of this development and Admiral Gardens with smaller scale developments on the opposite side of Denmark Road and residential housing scale development to the west with Cowes town centre shopping district close.

3. Relevant History

3.1 TCP/10996/S - An application for residential development of twelve town houses two x three/four storey blocks of 68 flats with car parking and proposed road improvements was approved in March 1989.

3.2 TCP/10996/V - An application for residential development of 55 units in two/three and four storey blocks with car parking and pedestrian access onto Carvel Lane was approved in July 1991.

3.3 TCP/21172/E - An application for one six storey block comprising eleven two storey maisonettes and eleven four storey maisonettes, fourteen storey block of ten houses, three three storey houses, three bridging units (two units on two floors and one unit on single floor level) six three storey houses, four three storey houses, four four storey houses, block ten two storey houses (62 units in total), provision of private car park at upper level and public car park of 157 spaces, land rear of 10 –24 Granville Road, land south of Griffin House, site of car park, Denmark Road was refused in January 2001 and later dismissed at appeal in August 2001.

3.4 TCP/21172/G - An application for additional flat at first floor level within approved flat block (TCP/10996/S) was approved in March 2002.

3.5 TCP/21172/H - An application for residential development comprising eight flats, two maisonettes and sixteen houses in a three/four storey development, formation of vehicle access, parking and landscaping was withdrawn in June 2004.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance

· PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development

· PPG3 - Housing

· PPS Consultation Paper 3 relating to housing

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 High Standard of Design

· S7 – Provision of Housing Units on the Isle of Wight

4.3 The following Unitary Development Plan policies are applicable:

· G1 – Development Envelopes

· G4 – General Locational Criteria

· D1 – Standards of Design

· D2 – Standards for Development within the Site

· D3 – Landscaping

· B6 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

· H1 – New Development within Main Island Towns

· H4 – Unallocated Residential Development

· TR6 – Cycling and Walking

· 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

· Conservation and Design comments to follow.

5.2 External Consultees

· Southern Water have confirmed that there is adequate drainage and water supply for the proposed developments and therefore do not object but request that informatives are placed on the application in the event of an approval informing the agent of the need to make a formal application to Southern Water for connection to public sewage systems and water supply.

5.3 Others

Eighteen letters of objection have been received the contents of which can be summarised as follows:

· The road access is insufficient to allow for effective traffic flows

· Increased volumes of traffic

· Insufficient parking

· Scale, density, height and massing of the proposed flats

· Loss of light and privacy to neighbouring developments

· Too many flats within Cowes

· Apartments would not be affordable to Island residents

· Development is out of character with the surrounding area

· Proposal represents overdevelopment

· Inadequate infrastructure

· Concerns over possible flood risk

· Drainage

6. Evaluation

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

· Design and impact on the character of the area and adjacent Conservation Area

· Impact on neighbouring properties

· Highways

The design of the development is similar to that already approved within phase one of this wider site. It is considered that it would be necessary to position a building in this location that tied in with the design of the original phase in order that neither scheme sit uncomfortably alongside the other.

The proposed development respects the topography of the site with the scheme appearing three storey allowing for development to reduce in height while moving down the hill. Due to the land level differences between the site itself and the Co-op car park a retaining wall is proposed behind which the undercroft car parking area will be accommodated. This will allow for additional planting and reduces the massing of the development when viewed from within the car park. At the current height the proposal sits comfortably alongside phase one of the development that fronts Denmark Road and improves the current visual elevation when viewed from this position.

Design and conservation have not objected to the scheme and although do not fully support the design principle of the proposal accept that it is necessary to design and scheme similar to phase one of the development.

6.2 The proposal has been designed with a courtyard area to provide a small amount of parking as well as an area of amenity space for residents. This area provides an adequate buffer zone between developments and allows for existing space so that neither scheme has an impact of residents on another.

Concerns have been raised by residents of Admirals Gardens in respect of block D and the roof terrace element. As discussed earlier this roof terrace has been removed and it is considered that there is adequate distance between block D and the existing buildings of Admirals Gardens that the scheme does not have a significantly detrimental impact on their amenities. Especially when taking into consideration differing land levels.

6.3 At the time of writing the report no road safety audit had been received but subject to this being satisfactory no other highway issues are considered to have been created by the development. The site is located on a one-way road that affords access to the Co-op car park and St Mary’s Road car park. As such there is no current restriction on the usage of this road and it would be unreasonable to place one on it. The site itself also used to be a car park which would have generated a larger number of vehicle movement. The proposal provides one parking space per unit and as they are only two bedroom units this is considered to be acceptable with the site’s close proximity to the town centre.

6.4 A condition has been attached to the application in regards to a Section 106 Agreement for education, open space, transport infrastructure and affordable housing. The following totals are proposed as Heads of Terms:

· Education: £62,205

· Open Space: £16,530

· Transport Infrastructure: £21,750

· Affordable Housing: 8 on-site units = 30%

6.5 The principle of development within this area has been accepted as consent has been granted for twelve town houses. It is not considered that the positioning of flats on this site allowing for better use of brownfield land is unacceptable or leads to a significant impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or a detrimental impact on the character of the area.

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 proposal on balance would not have a significantly detrimental impact on the wider character of the area and sits comfortably in relation the existing development on site in respect of phase one.

8. Recommendation

Conditional Permission – Subject to a Road Safety Audit.

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 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 (eg. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg. 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.
4	No development shall take place until a scheme of landscape implementation and maintenance for a minimum period of 5 years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved design and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	A landscape management plan, including long-term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than privately owned, domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development or any phase of the development, whichever is the sooner. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To ensure 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.
6	The roof areas of the development hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area at any time and shall only be accessible for the purposes of maintenance. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining properties and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/01156/06 - TCP/20677/U

Parish/Name: Newchurch - Ward/Name: Newchurch

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

Officer: Mr J Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Mr R Steele & Mr C Williams

Construction of 10 holiday units with areas for aircraft parking

land at, Sandown Airport, Newport Road, Sandown, PO36

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a major application and is contentious due to conflicting policy considerations.

1. Details of Application

1.1 This is a full application with all matters to be considered at this stage including principle.

1.2 The proposal comprises the erection of ten log cabins for use as holiday accommodation with associated aircraft parking as part of the airport activities.

1.3 The plans show the site to be located to the east of the complex of airport buildings which, in turn, are situated on the south side of the runway of Sandown airport just off Newport Road. The holiday chalets are shown to be sited in a single ribbon with the associated aircraft parking areas located between the chalets and running in an east to west direction abutting a hedgerow boundary between 100 and 140 metres south of the runway.

1.4 The chalets are shown to be single storey, overall dimensions of 13.5 metres by 10 metres and comprising two bedrooms, bathroom and a lounge/dining/kitchen with an associated aircraft parking area 15 metres squared.

1.5 Constructed in timber, the buildings are shown to be finished in log paneling under a profiled sheet roof resembling tiles.

1.6 The taxiway situated forward of the buildings is proposed to be retained in grass and it is understood that the operating procedures are that following an aircraft landing, it would taxi to its respective aircraft parking area where the engine would be stopped and the aircraft pulled manually into the park facing outwards onto the taxi way. When leaving an aircraft will taxi out to the airstrip where all pre-flight checks would take place.

In terms of safety the occupied areas (chalet and front/rear garden areas) would be enclosed with a 1.2 metre high fence located only at the front with the taxi way located as far from the log cabins as possible.

Accompanying application is detail of the proposed taxiway crossover where it crosses an existing watercourse. This is proposed to be in the concrete plank bridge to enable the crossing of the ditch without culverting.

1.7 The application plans show the public right of way SS22A to pass between the cabins towards the north eastern end of the row.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 The site is a grassed area situated to the southeast of the runway to the east of the airport complex; its southeastern boundary to be marked by a very substantial tree and hedge screen.

2.2 A drainage ditch runs between the site and the runway but otherwise the area has few other features. It is situated in relatively open, flat countryside with the exception of the existing airport buildings.

3. Relevant History

3.1 Construction of six buildings to form clubhouse, office accommodation, hanger and three industrial units approved in March 2004. This permission was granted subject to conditions which required the clubhouse and restaurant to operate as part of the airport facilities and only whilst the airport is open and operational; required that the associated bed and breakfast accommodation could be used only in connection with the clubhouse as guest accommodation during the time the clubhouse and airfield are operational and also restricting the length of stay of any person; restricted the light industrial buildings to be used solely for aircraft related industrial use except for the first five years following completion which allowed for it to be used for light industrial purposes; required that before the light industrial buildings were brought into use that the junction of Scotchells Brook lane with the A3056 Newport Road be improved in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance in the form of:

· PPG7 (The Countryside Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development) is applicable.

· PPG17 (Sport and Recreation) also applicable.

4.2 Unitary Development Plan policies:

· TR19 refers supporting and encouraging the retention and improvement of (a) Sandown Airport for leisure flight activities; - planning applications for the improvements of the facilities will be approved only where there is no significant adverse effects on the environment, in particular noise, which may affect neighbouring properties.

· Policy T3 – Criteria for the development of holiday accommodation affords limited support in as much that it relates to self-catering accommodation reliant on an existing use.

· Policy C1 – Protection of Landscape Character

4.3 The site is not within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty nor is it the subject of any annotation regarding nature conservation.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved. Points out, that in practical terms, pedestrian routes should be segregated from aeroplane taxiways and suggests a risk assessment be carried out. Observations are based on the understanding that visitors would be arriving by aircraft and it is they alone who would occupy the cabins such that the vehicle trips will be limited.

· Environmental Health department advised conditions be attached regarding possible contamination of land.

5.2 External Consultees

· Environment Agency have now withdrawn original objection (which was based upon the detrimental effects of culverting watercourses. Since it is now proposed to bridge a watercourse and accordingly the Agency recommend conditions.

5.3 Parish Council Comments

Newchurch Parish Council object to the proposals on the grounds of undesirable impact on the visual amenity of the area, increased noise levels and the proposal represents unwelcome development in the countryside.

5.4 Neighbours/Local Residents

Two letters of representation from local residents are one objecting to generation of increased aircraft traffic and therefore noise, the second questioning whether or not there would be any adverse effect on the local footpath network.

5.5 Others

Ramblers Association point out that rights of way are not shown on the plans which are well used footpaths and that vehicle access to the proposed development has no separation between walks and vehicles; no details of security fencing along the southwest boundary which would, if installed, detract from the pleasant open nature and aspect to the northwest; that the site conflicts with the footpath which crosses the runway and a possible crossover point may also conflict with this footpath; that the development would form a barrier to the green open aspect of the northwest as viewed from the right of way.

6. Evaluation

6.1 Main issues relating to this application are:

· Policy and principle.

· Access and highway implications

· Impact of the proposal on the countryside

· The type of accommodation and how occupation should be controlled.

6.2 This site, being part of the Sandown airport limits is outside the designated development envelope and its annotation is that of airfield and policy TR19 states that the Council will support and encourage the retention and improvement of Sandown Airport for leisure flying activities and that planning applications for the improvement of facilities will be approved where there is no significant adverse effects on the environment, in particular noise, which may effect neighbouring properties. The principle of airport related activities is therefore supported but the provision of accommodation is not an essential activity connected with the running of the airfield. Accommodation has been approved on the north side of the runway at the specialist flying school where bed and breakfast units have been included due to the close relationship with the flying clubs activities. The occupation of the flying schools accommodation is strictly controlled, limiting occupation to persons undergoing flying tuition. Given the close relationship with the airport and the occupation of these cabins strictly in connection with leisure flying activities at the airfield, it can be argued that their occupation is airport related facilities and, under those circumstances, support can be justified.

6.3 In terms of access, there is an existing vehicular access which services the extreme south western end of the application site, reached off Scotchells Brook Lane via the airport complex. However, it is anticipated that the prospective occupants of the cabins will arrive at the airfield in their light aircraft, rather than by car and although upon leaving the airport by road this may be by other means of transport, perhaps a hire car, the usage of the access for these ten cabins is not considered to be significant in this instance.

6.4 It is understood that the proposal is to let the cabins to visiting pilots and passengers of their light aircraft. The aircraft will land, taxi to the taxiway and outside of the aircraft parking area, the light aircraft will be pulled manually onto the parking area rather than being driven under power. Upon leaving the parking space, the light aircraft will taxi to the relevant end of the runway where flight checks would be carried out before take off (rather than outside of the cabins).

6.5 The plan shows the cabins to be constructed of timber with a tile like profiled steel clad roof (e.g. Decra); to be single storey with an overall ridge height of 4.2 metres and to be situated approximately 10 metres from the very substantial tree line which forms the boundary between the operating airfield and the agricultural land to the south. Along this boundary is the public footpath running close to the boundary with the airfield. Whilst not easily visible from the south west due to the dense and tall boundary screening, the buildings would be easily visible from vantage points from the east, through north to the west. However, the materials proposed, i.e. log paneling walls and “tile” profiled sheeting to the roofs will minimise as far as possible the visual impact of the buildings.

6.6 The use of the site for holiday accommodation for anything other than aircraft and airport related occupation would be unacceptable other than given the close relationship between the proposal and the existing airport activities under only those circumstances would the proposal be appropriate. The occupation of the cabins must be limited to persons who have arrived at this airfield by aeroplane and not for general holiday use and as these are self-contained accommodation, they could, theoretically, be occupied completely independently from the airport. However, bearing in mind the buildings are proposed to be log paneling walls with profiled sheet roofing, the buildings could be demountable and removed from the site in the event that the airport closed. This would avoid the potential residential use of buildings in an area where residential uses would not normally be approved to safeguard the occupation to airport related accommodation only.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 This site is outside the development envelope but the proposal is to provide holiday accommodation for pilots and their passengers flying light aircraft into Sandown Airport and the occupation of the cabins would be closely linked with the expansion of the airport for leisure flying activities. There are concerns over the possible occupation of the cabins, especially in the event that the venture is unsuccessful in relation to the airport activities. This is easily remedied by the cabins being demountable structures which, in the event of changing circumstances, could be demounted and removed from the site for erection elsewhere. Whilst on site their occupation should be conditioned to ensure they remain for the primary purpose of providing holiday accommodation for pilots and their passengers of light aircraft and therefore, broadly, the proposals are consistent with policy T3 and TR19 of the Unitary Development Plan.

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	The cabins hereby approved shall be of timber frame construction with dark stained timber cladding and the roof shall be of profiled steel cladding of a type which resembles conventional tiling and a complete schedule of colours and textures of the finishes to be used in the construction of the cabins hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of works on site. 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	The occupation of the cabins hereby approved shall be limited to pilots and passengers of light aircraft flying into Sandown Airport for holidays or in connection with leisure flying activities at the airfield and by no other persons. Reason: The site is in an area where residential use would not normally be permitted or holiday accommodation would be permitted without a link to an associated leisure development and in accordance with Policies T3 and T6 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The cabins hereby approved shall be occupied for leisure purposes only in accordance with condition 3 above. In the event that the Airport ceased to function as an operational airfield or is separated from the site as one entity, the cabins shall be removed from the site permanently. Reason: The site is in an area where residential use would not normally be permitted or holiday accommodation would be permitted without a link to an associated leisure development and in accordance with Policies T3 and T6 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	No development shall be commenced until a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailing the provision of a surface water regulation system, designed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and supported by detailed calculations. The run off generated from the proposed development must not increase the risk of flooding of site and the scheme must include a maintenance programme and established ownership of the drainage system. The agreed scheme shall be implemented before the development hereby approved is completed and shall be retained thereafter. Reason: To prevent flooding and ensure the future maintenance.
6	No development approved by this planning permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the foul drainage of the cabins hereby approved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the agreed scheme shall be implemented and operational prior to the occupation of the cabins hereby approved. Reason: In order to prevent discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the site into either ground water or any surface water, whether direct or via soakaways to ensure the prevention of pollution of controlled waters and in accordance with policy P2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	Any crossing of the ditch or watercourse shall be carried out in accordance with a detailed scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of works on site. Reason: In order to prevent flooding and in accordance with policy G6 of the Unitary Development Plan.
8	No development hereby permitted shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: (a) a desktop study documenting all previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with national guidance as set out in C Contaminated Land Research Report CLR11 "Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination" and BS10175: 2001; and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, (b) a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as appropriate by the desktop study in accordance with BS 10175: 2001 - "Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Site - Code of Practice", and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (c) a remediation scheme to deal with any contaminant including an implementation timetable, monitoring proposals and a remediation verification methodology. The verification methodology shall include a sampling and analysis programme to confirm the adequacy of the decontamination and an appropriately qualified person shall oversee the implementation or remediation. The construction of buildings shall not commence until the investigator has provided a report, which shall include confirmation that all remediation measures have been carried out fully in accordance with the scheme. The report shall also include results of a verification programme of post remediation sampling and monitoring in order to demonstrate that the required remediation has been fully met. Future monitoring proposals and reporting shall also be detailed in the report. Reason: To protect the environment and prevent harm to human health by ensuring that where necessary the land is remediated to an appropriate standard in order to comply with Part 2a of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and in accordance with policy P2 of the Unitary Development Plan.
9	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 (eg. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg. 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 IW Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/01233/06 - TCP/27732/B

Parish/Name: Gurnard - Ward/Name: Gurnard

Registration Date: 11/05/2006 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss S Wilkinson Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Gurnard Pines Holding Company Ltd

Demolition of chalets; 38 replacement chalets

Gurnard Pines Holiday Village, Cockleton Lane, Cowes, PO318QE

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Local Member, Councillor John Hobart, requested Committee consideration due to concerns in regards to generation of construction traffic from the proposed development.

1. Details of Application

1.1 The application seeks consent for the demolition of 38 chalets and replacement with the same number. The existing thirty eight chalets are located to the east of the site and provide one and two bedroom accommodation which are proving not to be as popular as more family sized accommodation. Therefore, the proposal is to remove the wooden chalets and build three bedroom bungalows. The units are of a single-storey construction of a buff brick and concrete tiled roof, similar to other buildings within the Gurnard Pines complex. The buildings will have glazing to the rear elevation with a decking area to provide some private space for guests. These units are currently under the ownership of Gurnard Pines; however, following completion of the replacement chalets, they will be sold off individually.

1.2 Five applications were originally submitted representing a masterplan for various developments throughout the site which included a hotel, a sports centre, eight apartments and a new access road. These applications have been withdrawn following objections and lack of information in regards to trees. The current application under consideration was not withdrawn as the objections did not apply.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 The application relates to Gurnard Pines Holiday Village lying on the west side of Cockleton Lane to the south of Gurnard village. The surrounding area is primarily rural with some woodland to the south west. The overall site accommodates over 250 brick built chalets and log cabins. The facilities are supported by a central club, ballroom, dining room, office buildings, outdoor and indoor swimming pools and tennis courts. All facilities within the site are open to non-residents. The replacement chalets are positioned at the eastern boundary of the site, within the confines of the existing holiday village.

3. Relevant History

3.1 The site has an extensive planning history dating back to 1952, however, this is not all relevant to the current application. The following reference history dates from the adoption of the Unitary Development Plan and schemes considered relevant to the current schemes.

· An application for thirty log cabins and new access road, demolition of toilet block, construction of pond landscaping area adjacent Cockleton Lane (revised plans) was approved in April 1997.

· An application for use of fifty seven chalets for holiday purposes only over a 52 week period per annum (the period of occupation for any one person shall be limited to six weeks per annum, was approved in January 1998).

· An application for ten log cabins and a cleaning store was approved in January 1999.

· An outline application for thirty holiday chalets was approved in July 2000.

· An application for thirty five holiday chalets, retention of one holiday chalet was approved in July 2002.

· An application for forty two holiday chalets and replacement forty four caravans was approved August 2003.

· An application for two single-storey extensions to swimming pool and associated facilities was approved in February 2004.

· An application for variation of Condition 2 on TCP/19380/M to retain holiday occupancy restriction but to remove six week limit to that occupancy was refused in March 2004 and later allowed on appeal in November 2004.

· An application for demolition of twelve holiday chalets; erection of three-storey, sixty bedroom hotel with staff accommodation on ground floor, and glazed link to existing entertainment complex was withdrawn in May 2004.

· An application for construction of twenty chalets approved under TCP/19380/M as three bedroom accommodation rather than approved two bedroom was approved in October 2004.

· An application for alterations and extension to main indoor pool to form indoor children’s swimming pool with balcony/terrace over was approved in November 2005.

· An application for Certificate of Lawfulness for proposed alterations to existing swimming pool was approved in December 2005.

· An application for extension to form plant room was approved in December 2005. The above stated applications in relation to the swimming pool and plant room facilities represented Phase 1 and 2 of the master plan.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance

· PPS1 – Delivering sustainable development.

· PPG21 – Tourism

4.2 The following strategic policies within the Unitary Development Plan are applicable.

· S4 – The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

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

4.3 The following Unitary Development Plan policies are applicable.

· G4 – General Locational Criteria.

· G5 – Development Outside Defined Settlements.

· D1 – Standards of Design.

· D2 – Standards for Development Within The Site.

· D3 – Landscaping

· D12 - Access

· B8 – Employment in the Countryside

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

· T2 – Tourism Related Development

· T3 – Criteria for the Development of Holiday Accommodation

· T5 – Development Outside a Defined Hotel Area

· T6 – Permanent Accommodation Sites

· T8 – Ancillary Development Associated with Tourism Uses

· C1 – Protection of Landscape Character.

· C12 – Development Affecting Trees and Woodland

· TR6 – Cycling and Walking.

· TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development.

· TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

The Council’s Crime Prevention Design Adviser raises no objection to the planning application, as security as such, has not changed because of the development. He does, however, propose to contact the agent directly to discuss general management of risk and detailed security issues that are not part of the planning system.

Tree Officer has not objected to the replacement chalets but has requested a condition be placed on the application if it is to be approved.

Highway Engineer has not objected as the proposal sees a like for like replacement that is unlikely to generate significant increase in traffic to or from the site.

5.2 External Consultees

· The Environment Agency raises no objection to the applications and recommends conditions. These are detailed within the conditions at the end of the report.

· Southern Water have confirmed that they do not object to the scheme and that there is adequate water supply and drainage capacity for the proposal and request that, if the application should be approved, information be attached highlighting the need to submit a formal application form for connection to Southern Water.

5.3 Town or Parish Council Comments

The Parish Council raises no objection.

5.4 Neighbours

Eight letters of objection have been received, six letters objecting to all five applications, four of which have been withdrawn; one letter objecting to the application for the apartments and one letter objecting to the application for the hotel.

5.4 Others

· Objections raised can be summarised as follows:

o Over development

o Light pollution

o Hazards to highway users caused by generation of traffic from construction vehicles and additional cars as well as the existing construction and width of Cockleton Lane

o Inadequate visibility splays

o Insufficient infrastructure

o Out of keeping with present environment

o Possible damage to trees

· The Isle of Wight Society makes the following comments:

‘We have carefully studied the above applications and our only relevant comment is that we would like to ensure the final colour scheme will blend in with the surrounding landscape.’

6. Evaluation

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

· Impact of the developments on the character of the area from within and outside the site

· Highways

6.2 The proposed replacement chalets will be of a more permanent construction suitable for all year round usage and will see these chalets become more in line with other development within the site. This element of the proposal will also allow for a greater mix of accommodation on site providing varying bedroom numbers. The chalets sit within the area of those that they are replacing and would retain an area of open green space within the site. The proposed bungalow style chalets are not considered to have any less or greater impact than the existing chalets on site and therefore the impacts of this element of the proposal on the wider character of the area and existing residents is not considered to be significant.

6.3 Highways have not raised objection to the use of the existing access for the replacement chalets in regards to either construction or visitor traffic. Visitor traffic is considered to be relatively unchanged as the units are being replaced like for like. In regards to construction traffic it is felt that this entrance is currently used and it would be unreasonable to not allow access for replacement of these units as there is presently no restriction which might stop larger vehicles using this access. A suitable management plan can be conditioned.

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 proposal on balance would not have a significantly detrimental impact on the wider character of the area and would provide a significant improvement to existing facilities available leading to an extension of the holiday season.

8. Recommendation

Conditional permission.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	A10	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	S03	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 IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	UN1	No development shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of a surface water regulation system is designed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority and supported by detailed calculations. Such a drainage system for the site must be capable of delivering an estimated 1% probability storm run-off to storage. The system must be capable of storing the run-off from the 1% event restricting the outflow to that which would have occurred had the site been a grass field. The scheme shall include a maintenance programme to establish ownership of the storage system for the future. Reason: To prevent flooding and to ensure future maintenance in accordance with policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan
4	UN2	No development approved by this planning permission shall be completed until a scheme for foul drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: There should be no discharge of foul or combined drainage from the site into either ground water or any surface water, whether direct or via soakaways, to protect controlled waters in accordance with policies P1 (Pollution) and U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	M11	Soft landscape works shall include [planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities; an implementation programme]. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	M12	No development shall take place until a scheme of landscape implementation and maintenance for a minimum period of 5 years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved design and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	UN3	No works or development shall take place until a scheme for the protection of the retained trees (section 7, BS59837, the Tree Protection Plan) has been agreed in writing with the LPA. This scheme shall include: a) a plan to a scale and level of accuracy appropriate to the proposal that shows the position, crown spread and Root Protection Area (para. 5.2.2 of BS5837) of every retained tree on site and on neighbouring or nearby ground to the site in relation to the approved plans and particulars. The positions of any trees to be removed shall be indicated on this plan. b) the details of each retained tree as required at para. 4.2.6 of BS5837 in a separate schedule. c) a schedule of tree works for all the retained trees in paragraphs (a) and (b) above, specifying pruning and other remedial or preventative work, whether for physiological, hazard abatement, aesthetic or operational reasons. All tree works shall be carried out in accordance with BS3998, 1989, Recommendations for tree work. d) written proof of the credentials of the arboricultural contractor authorised to carry out the scheduled tree works. e) the details and positions (shown on the plan at paragraph (a) above) of the Ground Protection Zones (section 9.3 of BS5837). f) the details and positions (shown on the plan at paragraph (a) above) of the Tree Protection Barriers (section 9.2 of BS5837), identified separately where required for different phases of construction work (e.g. demolition, construction, hard landscaping). The Tree Protection Barriers must be erected prior to each construction phase commencing and remain in place, and undamaged for the duration of that phase. No works shall take place on the next phase until the Tree Protection Barriers are repositioned for that phase. g) the details and positions (shown on the plan at paragraph (a) above) of the Construction Exclusion Zones (section 9 of BS5837). h) the details and positions (shown on the plan at paragraph (a) above) of the underground service runs (section11.7 of BS5837). i) the details of any changes in levels or the position of any proposed excavations within 5 metres of the Root Protection Area (para. 5.2.2 of BS5837) of any retained tree, including those on neighbouring or nearby ground. j) the details of any special engineering required to accommodate the protection of retained trees (section10 of BS5837), (e.g. in connection with foundations, bridging, water features, surfacing) k) the details of the working methods to be employed with the demolition of buildings, structures and surfacing within or adjacent to the RPAs of retained trees. l) the details of the working methods to be employed for the installation of drives and paths within the RPAs of retained trees in accordance with the principles of “No-Dig” construction. m) the details of the working methods to be employed with regard to the access for and use of heavy, large, difficult to manoeuvre plant (including cranes and their loads, dredging machinery, concrete pumps, piling rigs, etc) on site. n) the details of the working methods to be employed with regard to site logistics and storage, including an allowance for slopes, water courses and enclosures, with particular regard to ground compaction and phytotoxicity. o) the details of tree protection measures for the hard landscaping phase (sections 13 and 14 of BS5837). F Notice of Tree Works and Major Operations The applicant shall give written notice to the LPA of 14 days prior to carrying out the approved tree works and any operations that present a particular risk to trees (e.g. demolition within or close to a RPA, excavations within or close to a RPA, piling, carnage). Reason: In order to ensure that the development does not have an impact on the existing trees on site, in accordance with Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/00855/06 - TCP/27239/A

Parish/Name: Shalfleet - Ward/Name: Shalfleet and Yarmouth

Registration Date: 06/04/2006 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mrs J Penney Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Mr Capon

Proposed single storey extension to provide additional living accommodation (revised scheme)

Shalcombe Holding, Main Road, Shalcombe, Yarmouth, PO410UG

The application is recommended for Refusal

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The report has been requested by the Local Member, Councillor W Burt, on the grounds that the additional accommodation is required in the interest of animal welfare.

1. Details of Application

1.1 Full planning permission is sought for what is described as single storey living accommodation on the western side of the existing property which is a three bedroom bungalow with a lounge, bathroom, kitchen, utility room and porch. The submitted plans detail the extension measuring 11.9 metres in depth by 6.7 metres width. Calculations indicate a 77% increase in volume.

1.2 The new build will provide two bedrooms, bathroom and combined lounge and kitchen area. Plans show intention to “take” an additional bedroom from the original property and incorporate this into the living area created by the extension. The extension is accessed through the main dwelling and has an external double door on the rear elevation opening out into the rear garden area.

1.3 The proposed siting is flush with the front wall of the property extending 3.9 metres beyond the rear wall. The design is in keeping with the original property continuing the ridge at the same level as existing. Materials are shown to be artificial stone walls and plain concrete roofing tiles to match existing.

1.4 The agent has submitted a Planning and Design Statement highlighting the difference between this and the previous scheme refused in October 2005:

· This is an extension rather than annex

· There is a common access and therefore an annex is not being created.

· Further building operations would be needed to allow for subdivision of the property.

· He has quoted other cases, legislation and decisions in locality and refutes previous refusal reasons.

· Asserts that the proposed extension provides logical enlargement and therefore arrangement of accommodation is not a planning matter.

· There is no agricultural tie on the property.

· The farm is currently jointly run by the applicant and son; the son lives in Freshwater.

· The nature of the farming operation means that a permanent presence is essential and the need for the son to move close to the farm is caused by the fact he is essential to the running of the farm particularly as his father moves towards retirement.

· The son’s commitment and numerous journeys between his home (Freshwater) and the holding are demanding on time and disruptive to family life.

· Information relating to functional need asserts there is a strong case for a separate agricultural dwelling and that the proposal is a better solution to a new dwelling.

· The farm has been established for 50 years, holds 160 dairy cattle and is one of a few surviving dairy farms on the Island.

· There are two full time workers and occasional part time assistance.

· There is a requirement for on site presence day and night.

· There would be no additional traffic generation as a result of proposal.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 The existing property is of modest scale in a good sized plot set at a lower level to the road. There is limited boundary hedging and fields surrounding the property.

2.2 The site is in a visually prominent junction with Broad Lane on the main Carisbrooke to Freshwater road with one other domestic property sited to the east.

3. Relevant History

3.1 P/01620/05 - TCP/27239 - Alterations and single storey extension to provide annexed living accommodation. Refused October 2005 on grounds of capability of occupation as a separate unit of living accommodation. Impact on visual amenity of locality and landscape character. Increase in vehicular traffic.

3.2 P/00854/06 – TCP/27239/B - Proposed two-storey extension to provide additional living accommodation. Refused June 2006 on grounds of capability of occupation as separate unit of living accommodation. Increase in size, siting and design having adverse effect on visual amenity of locality and landscape character.

3.3 The application under 3.2 above was submitted as a parallel application to the scheme currently under consideration.

3.4 The only difference in the scheme refused under 3.1 above compared to the current proposal is the description.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development
PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

PPS1 advocates sustainable development, good design including sustainability, integration into urban and natural environment, responding to local distinctiveness and appropriate landscaping.

PPS7 seeks to raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas. Paragraph 10 of PPS7 and Annex A requires special justification for planning permission to be granted for new dwellings in the countryside. A demonstration of both a functional and financial need for new dwellings is required where the need could not be fulfilled by another existing dwelling on the unit or any other existing accommodation in the area for the workers concerned.

4.2 Local Policies

The site is shown as being outside the development envelope boundary and is therefore in an area designated as countryside.

Relevant policies are as follows:

· S1 New development will be constructed in existing urban areas.

· S4 The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development

· S6 All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design.

· G4 General locational criteria for development

· G5 Development outside defined settlements

· D1 Standards of Design

· D2 Standards for development within the site

· H7 Extensions and alteration of existing residential properties

· C1 Protection of landscape character

· Isle of Wight Council Supplementary Planning Guidance – Extending Your Home

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· None

5.2 External Consultees

· Shalfleet Parish Council has no objection.

5.3 Others

· Letter of support from adjacent property: Extension enhances bungalow and visual impact improved. Advantageous for community to have another family. No increased traffic use.

6. Evaluation

6.1 To summarise this proposal, it is intended to create sufficient living accommodation to be occupied by the farmer’s son and family as the father is moving towards semi-retirement and the son currently has to travel from Freshwater. Whilst the applicant claims not to be creating two households it is clear from the facilities to be provided that arrangement could easily be achieved.

6.2 The main issues relating to this application are:

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

· Capability of separate occupation

· Impact on surrounding rural area

· Impact on neighbours

6.3 The site lies in open countryside. The principle of a general extension to an existing residential property is acceptable. However, it is clear from the nature of the proposal under consideration that there are other issues that should be taken into consideration in the determination of this application.

6.4 The footprint of the proposed extension represents a significant increase compared to the original dwelling. Calculations indicate a 77% volume increase in size. Extensions are generally acceptable where of appropriate size, scale and design compared to the original and where a separate unit is not created. Supplementary Planning Guidance advises that an increase in the size of a dwelling in the countryside in excess of 35% will be assessed primarily on their impact.

6.5 Given the simple design of the existing property and proposed extension, I am of the opinion that from an external appearance the design reflects the original property. Given the siting of the proposal and topography there is a very limited impact on the landscape character and this would not be a reason in itself to withhold consent. Accordingly, when viewed as a basic ‘shell’, I consider on balance, there is no objection to a general extension of this size.

6.6 The fundamental concern with regards to the proposal is the capability of the proposed extension becoming a separate unit of accommodation. The connection to the original property could easily be severed creating a two bed unit and a three bed unit. As both the existing property and the extension have their own kitchen, lounge and bathroom facilities, such a concern has genuine merit. Reference has been made to them sharing the same access but I note there is an independent doorway from the kitchen/lounge area of the extension to the outside.

6.7 In support of the Local Planning Authority’s concerns, I would draw Members attention to an appeal decision from January 2002 relating to a similar proposal at Noke Common Dairy, 45 Noke Common, Newport. The application for a single storey extension to the side of the property to form an annex was refused and then dismissed on appeal. In the Inspector’s decision letter, he makes the following point:

“One of the Council’s principle objections to the proposal is that the accommodation because of its size and layout could be offered a separate dwelling. Though the plans show an interconnecting door with the main house the annex would also have its own independent entrance. In addition, I consider that there would be sufficient land about the property for separate gardens. The applicant has pointed out that he and his family intend to occupy the dwelling for a long time in the future. Nevertheless, circumstances may change and I agree with the Council that it would be difficult for it to resist future applications to occupy the annex as a separate living unit…..”

He then concluded stating:

“Since it could lead to the provision of an additional dwelling in the countryside in the long term, I consider that the proposal is in conflict with Policy H7 of the UDP, and strategic and detailed policies to protect the countryside. As such I conclude that the proposal would be seriously harmful to the character of the surrounding countryside area.”

This concern over the ease through which the units could be separated also featured in the rejection of an appeal at Ivy Cottage, Station Road, Ningwood in December 2004.

6.8 During the determination of this application, officers have made suggestions that would involve a reduction in the footprint of the proposal and create a more integrated addition to the existing property with shared facilities that would overcome the concerns referred to in this report. Unfortunately, the applicant has not responded positively to these suggestions.

6.9 Based on the planning and design statement, Members may interpret some of the information as a request to take into account the personal circumstances of the applicant. Whilst the statement is made that there is a clear functional need and considered to be strong case for justifying a separate agricultural workers dwelling for the son in addition to the current dwelling occupied by the father, Members should note that no agricultural justification has been submitted in support of this statement nor has the situation been evaluated by the Council’s Agricultural Consultant. Clearly, there are certain advantages of the son living on site but in the absence of a full evaluation Members should not place significant weight on this fact.

6.10 With regards to the weight given to the personal circumstances generally Members should note that personal circumstances can be given weight and may, when other issues are finely balanced, be used as part of the determination. However, Members should also be aware that any decision to support the proposal will result in an arrangement that will outlive all the parties concerned. Accordingly, it is the officer’s view that the policy context is so clear and weighed against the proposal that the use of personal circumstances to tip a finely balanced argument does not apply in this instance.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 Having given due regard and appropriate to all material considerations, it considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy due to the extent of the footprint and layout of the accommodation in relation to the original property and the resultant capability of creating a new building in the countryside.

8. Recommendation

Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

The proposed development is located outside of the designated development envelope boundary and would due to its size and internal layout in relation to the host dwelling be capable of occupation as a separate unit of living accommodation, which by reason of the location of the site in the countryside would be contrary to Policy S1 (New Development will be constructed within Existing urban areas) and Policies G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements), and H7 (Extension and Alterations of Existing Properties) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/01469/06 - TCP/27503/A

Parish/Name: Newchurch - Ward/Name: Newchurch

Registration Date: 13/06/2006 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr D Long Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Mr A Hyder

Conversion of barn into dwelling to include accommodation within roofspace, (revised scheme)

barn adjoining, Apsewood Cottage, Apse Manor Road, Shanklin, PO37

The application is recommended for Refusal

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Local Member, Councillor Mosdell has requested that the application go before the committee due to previous consents granted for barn conversions within the locality.

1. Details of Application

1.1 This is a full application.

1.2 The proposal comprises the conversion of a garage and store belonging to Apsewood Cottage into a three bedroom residential dwelling with associated kitchen, lounge and dining room. The conversion is over two floors having the second and third bedroom at first floor.

1.3 Proposal makes use of existing front opening infilled with a glass façade while the rear east elevation has six additional openings to serve the accommodation internally.

1.4 Parking for both Apsewood Cottage and the conversion is to the frontage of the barn. Excavations are required into existing garden of Apsewood Cottage to make this available and to provide sufficient space.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 The barn is located within countryside outside defined development envelope as indicated on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan allocations.

2.2 The local area consists of a number of residential dwellings all being of historic merit and character. The majority of dwellings are constructed of natural stone, some being listed for their historic character. Most of the dwellings are set back from the road frontage, having good defensible space and curtilage aiding to the setting of these buildings. A number of barns have been converted for residential purposes to the north of the site and determined under the (then) Development Plan, ie. South East Wight Local Plan policies.

2.3 All the dwellings are accessed off Apse Manor Road which is an unclassified de-restricted road. Although being de-restricted, traffic movements are generally slow due to the changing gradient, condition and alignment of the road.

2.4 The barn itself is located at the southern most point in the line of buildings. It is sited on a reasonably level plateau but the land does slope steeply to the rear of the building in an easterly direction.

3. Relevant History

3.1 P/00052/06 – Application refused for the conversion of barn into dwelling; barn adjoining Apsewood Cottage, Apse Manor Road, Shanklin for the following reasons:

· The site lies outside the defined development envelope and no justification has been established to show why the proposal should be permitted as acceptable development in the countryside.

· Insufficient information has been submitted to show that every reasonable attempt has been made to secure a suitable employment, recreational or tourism use for the building and the residential use proposal would be contrary to policy.

· The proposal by reason of the amount, type and insensitivity of the alterations would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the building and thereby would not serve to preserve the character of the building and its surroundings.

· The information accompanying this application is inadequate and efficient in detail in respect of existing and proposed traffic generation so that the Local Planning Authority is unable to consider fully the effects of the proposal on Apse Manor Road and in the absence of further details it is considered the proposal represents an increase in the use of an access substandard in terms of visibility.

· The access is unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of unacceptable visibility.

· The proposal does not provide adequate facilities for vehicles to turn on the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave the highway in a forward gear and therefore in the interests of road safety are compromised.

· The information accompanying this application is inadequate and deficient in detail in respect of a bat survey, the Local Planning Authority is therefore unable to consider fully the effect of the proposal on a protected species.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance – PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Area)

4.2 The Unitary Development Plan Policies relevant to this determination are as follows:

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

· S4 - Protection of Countryside

· S6 - All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design

· G1 - Development Envelopes

· G4 - General Locational Criteria

· G5 - Outside Development Boundaries

· D1 - Standards of Design

· B2 - Settings of Listed Buildings

· H1 - Development envelopes

· H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Define Settlements

· H9 - Outside Development Envelopes

· C8 - Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration

· C17 - Conversion of Barns and other rural buildings

· TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

4.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance Note entitled “Conversion of Rural Buildings” indicates that the building must be structurally capable of conversion without significant alteration. It indicates that the traditional features of the barn should be kept, making use of existing openings.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· The Highway Engineer recommends conditional approval as the application has resolved the previous issues for refusal. Access improvements have been achieved and taking into consideration the prevailing speeds in the area, there will be no significant highway implications from an additional dwelling.

· Conservation and Design Team appreciate that this is a traditional barn with some historic merit. The building is of a simple appearance with plain walls and roof with a large opening to the frontage. There is concern that the conversion would require significant alterations including the insertion of domestic casement style windows on the side and rear elevations and roof lights to the front and rear roof slopes and the hipped ends. This would change the character of the building giving it a domestic appearance. There is concern that the building is not structurally capable of conversion without significant alterations or major reconstruction and so this should be proven via detailed structural report in order to comply with Policy C17.

· The Ecology Officer’s comments that bat survey report has been submitted and discharges any requirement for a licence or bat related conditions.

5.2 External Consultees

No comments received.

5.3 Town Council

No comments received.

5.4 Neighbours

There have been no letters of objection or support through the consultation period but 11 letters of support were submitted as part of the application. The points raised in those letters are summarised as follows:

· The use of the converted barn for a residential use would be better suited to the area rather than a tourism use.

· Other barns have been converted for residential uses by the Local Planning Authority.

· Tourism would not be appropriate for this area.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main issues relating to this application (as with previous submission) are:

· Principle of conversion to residential use

· Planning history of the local area

· Conservation and Design matters

· Highway considerations

· Ecological considerations

6.2 Members will note that the barn is located within the countryside and not within the development envelope as defined by the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Therefore consideration has to be given to Policies H9 (Outside Development Boundaries), H5 (Infill Development) and C17 (Conversion of Barns and other Rural Buildings). Policy H9 indicates that planning applications for residential development outside the development boundaries will only be permitted if they are for replacement of a similar scale and mass to the existing dwelling, essential dwelling for an agricultural unit, the conversion of a rural building provided no other alternative uses feasible or essential to the operation of an approved tourist use. Policy C17 indicates that planning applications for the use and adaptation of a rural building for employment, recreational or tourism purposes will be approved provided that they are structurally capable of reuse and adaptation without major or complete reconstruction, that they respect the local character, building styles and materials, would not entail any loss of significant character to the buildings, and would not generate excessive amount of traffic to the site. The policy also indicates that planning applications for reuse and adaptation for residential use must comply with all the above and will be refused unless every reasonable attempt has been made to secure a suitable employment, recreation or tourism use for the building.

6.3 Policy clearly indicates that the conversion of barns and rural buildings will be approved for appropriate employment, recreation or tourism purposes. Further policy within the UDP, G1 (Development Envelopes) indicates that residential development should be confined to development envelopes within existing urban centres. This is not an existing urban centre being designated open countryside and therefore no residential conversion is justified in this location. Only in exceptional circumstances will the Local Planning Authority accept residential use if they are satisfied a rigorous and well documented case has been made to show that no demand exists for alternative suitable employment, recreation or tourism use for the building. The applicant has not detailed any of the above to outweigh the principle policy issue of the conversion. The application should therefore be refused.

6.4 The structural report accompanying the application indicates that the barn is of substantial construction and could be reused but further designs and details will be needed to substantiate the strength and structural capability of the roof construction, purlins, trust support, inner leaf wall, ground floor construction and foundations. Although I accept that the building does appear to be of substantial construction and could be reused for an appropriate use, further details are required to substantiate whether this building can actually be reused without major or complete reconstruction. Members must note that should any part of the building have to be completely reconstructed in order to take the loadings of the proposed residential use, this would not fall within the parameters of C17. It would seem from the plans that the development would remove the existing truss roof in its entirety, replacing it with a number of purlins to support the first floor, not complying with Policy C17. The barn should be capable of reuse without significant alteration or should be strengthened sympathetically to keep the existing character and historic merit of the building. Should the existing roof not be capable of reuse for first floor accommodation it should remain as existing simply using the ground floor for appropriate purposes.

6.5 Reference has been made to the number of barns have been converted into residential use within the local area. However, these barns were converted under the (then) relevant South East Wight Local Plan policies which allowed for such a conversion to take place. Policy C17 seeks to ensure that appropriate buildings are used for such a use. The role of the conversion for tourism use plays an important function within the rural economy for the Isle of Wight and therefore every reasonable attempt must be made to secure such a use unless material considerations outweigh that policy. Members should have regard to current planning policies and not to historic decisions made under now superseded local plan policies. An application approved in 2002 for a residential conversion of a barn the case officer justified that it was an infilling, being closely grouped with other residential units, justified through policy H9, current proposal does not constitute infilling and therefore that particular policy is not relevant.

6.6 It is apparent that the Highway Engineer has negotiated on the previous reasons for refusal and has sought access improvements to cater for the new development. By reason of these improvements and the prevailing speeds along Apse Manor Road there will be no significant impact to the highway, therefore he now recommends conditional approval.

6.7 The initial application was refused due to insufficient information with regard to a bat survey which Members will appreciate is a protected species. The current application has a detailed bat survey which the Council’s Ecology Officer is in support of overcoming the previous reason for refusal.

6.8 The main issues relating to this application is whether this current application has overcome the previous reasons for refusal to secure appropriate residential use with the designated countryside. It is clear that there has been no reasonable attempt to establish appropriate employment, recreation or tourism use within this building and therefore residential occupation should not be accepted until this has been fully justified. The principal of development should not be accepted by Members and on this basis refusal is recommended.

6.9 Conservation and Design Team comment that the current building is of a simple. The character of this building is encased by the simplicity which should be respected within any future conversion. Although the Local Planning Authority accepts some minor alterations to serve the internal accommodation, the extent and type of alterations on this proposal does not gain support of the Conservation Officer. Members will appreciate that a barn for non-residential purposes would usually require far less alterations and openings. A residential use would be likely to generate a higher usage and requirement for adequate light and amenities to serve the accommodation, therefore leaving a building that has been significantly altered. Therefore notwithstanding the policy objections to residential use, the proposal is also contrary to policy in terms of detail.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 The application has not demonstrated that other appropriate uses under policy C17 have been investigated. Residential uses should be concentrated within existing development boundaries. The amount and extent of alterations adversely affects the character and appearance of the building and does not gain support of the Conservation and Design Team. It is also apparent that the structural report accompanying the application is insufficient in details to make a proper and sound judgement on whether the building can be converted without major or complete reconstruction. In addition major alterations contravene policy on barn conversions. The applicant needs to fully detail these issues via a proper and sound structural report in order to resolve this issue. Members should also appreciate that any grant of consent would weaken the consistent approach of the Local Planning Authority in resisting unjustified residential use in the countryside. In review of all material considerations the application is recommended for refusal.

8. Recommendation

The application is recommended for refusal.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The site lies outside the defined development envelope and no justification has been established to show why the proposal should be permitted as acceptable development in the countryside as defined in Policy G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) and is therefore contrary to Strategic Policies S1 (Concentrated Within Existing Urban Areas) and S4 (Countryside Will Be Protected from Inappropriate Development) and G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
2	Insufficient information has been submitted to show that every reasonable attempt has been made to secure a suitable employment, recreation or tourism use of the building and the residential use proposed would therefore be contrary to Policy C17 (Conversion of Barns and Other Rural Buildings) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	The proposed by reason of the amount, type and insensitivity of the alterations would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the building and thereby would not serve to preserve the character of the building and its surroundings and would therefore be contrary to Policy S6 (Be of a High Standard of Design), Policy S10 ( If it will Conserve or Enhance the Features of Special Character of these Areas), Policy C17 (Conversion of Barns and other Rural Buildings) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	On the basis of the information supplied, the Local Planning Authority are not satisfied that the barn is structurally capable of adaptation and reuse without major alteration or reconstruction therefore being contrary to Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and C17 (Conversion of Barns and other Rural Buildings) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	The proposal would create an undesirable precedent which would make it more difficult for the Local Planning Authority to resist further similar proposals, the cumulative effect of which would create conditions likely to adversely effect the character of the area and would be contrary to Policy H9 (Outside Development envelopes) and C17 (Conversion of Barns and other Rural Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Derek Rowell

STRATEGIC DIRECTOR FOR

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & REGENERATION

1.	P/00788/06 TCP/21172/J	Cowes	Conditional Permission
	Site of car park Denmark Road, Cowes Residential development comprising 3 storey block of 29 flats with undercroft parking and courtyard parking; alterations to vehicular access		Page 3
2.	P/01156/06 TCP/20677/U	Newchurch	Conditional Permission
	Land at Sandown Airport, Newport Road, Sandown Construction of 10 holiday units with areas for aircraft parking		Page 10
3.	P/01233/06 TCP/27732/B	Gurnard	Conditional Permission
	Gurnard Pines Holiday Village, Cockleton Lane, Cowes, PO31 8QE Demolition of chalets; 38 replacement chalets		Page 18
4.	P/00855/06 TCP/27239/A	Shalfleet	Refusal
	Shalcombe Holding, Main Road, Shalcombe, Yarmouth, PO41 0UG Proposed single storey extension to provide additional living accommodation (revised scheme)		Page 26
5.	P/01469/06 TCP/27503/A	Newchurch	Refusal
	Barn adjoining Apsewood Cottage Apse Manor Road, Shanklin Conversion of barn into dwelling to include accommodation within roofspace, (revised scheme)		Page 32

PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB COMMITTEE -

TUESDAY 18 JULY 2006

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES

WARNING

Background Papers