1.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT OTHER
THAN PART 1 SCHEDULE AND DECISIONS ARE DISCLOSED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.
2.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED ON THE DATE
INDICATED ABOVE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.
(In some circumstances, consideration of an item may be deferred to a
later meeting).
3.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED BY
THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO ALTERATION IN THE LIGHT
OF FURTHER INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE OFFICERS AND PRESENTED TO MEMBERS AT
MEETINGS.
4.
YOU ARE ADVISED TO CHECK WITH THE DIRECTORATE OF
ENVIRONMENT SERVICES (TEL: 821000) AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION HAS BEEN
TAKEN ON ANY ITEM BEFORE YOU TAKE ANY ACTION ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS
CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.
5.
THE COUNCIL CANNOT ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY ACTION TAKEN BY ANY PERSON ON ANY OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS.
The various documents, letters and other correspondence referred to in the Report in respect of each planning application or other item of business.
Members are
advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of
the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and, where necessary, consultations have taken
place with the Crime and Disorder Facilitator and Architectural Liaison
Officer. Any responses received prior to
publication are featured in the report under the heading Representations.
Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, following advice from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, in recognition of a duty to give reasons for a decision, each report will include a section explaining and giving a justification for the recommendation.
LIST
OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS
REPORT
TO COMMITTEE –
|
1. |
Ryde |
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 5 |
Site of former,
Scrap Yard, High Street, Oakfield, Ryde, Construction of
30 houses and 119 flats, access off High Street, Oakfield, associated
landscaping and parking areas |
|
|
|
2. |
Ryde |
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 21 |
Wight Motors
Ltd, Demolition of
petrol station and showroom;
construction of 2 storey block of 14 flats to include accommodation in
roofspace; alterations to vehicular
access |
|
|
|
3. |
Ryde |
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 28 |
Wight Motors
Ltd, Conservation
area consent for demolition of petrol station and showroom in connection with
construction of 2 storey block of 14 flats to include accommodation in
roofspace; alterations to vehicular access |
|
|
|
4. |
|
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 30 |
Friends' Meeting
House and Trafalgar Car Sales, Demolition of
garage; conversion of former Friends' Meeting House and single storey
extension to form 2 flats; construction of 2/3 storey block of 22 flats;
detached building to form bin store/bicycle store |
|
|
|
5. |
|
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 37 |
Friends' Meeting
House and Trafalgar Car Sales, Conservation
Area Consent for demolition of garage in connection with conversion of former
Friends' Meeting House and single storey extension to form 2 flats;
construction of 2/3 storey block of 22 flats; detached building to form bin
store/bicycle store |
|
|
|
6. |
Sandown |
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 40 |
Parklands
Holiday Apartments, Demolition of
building; construction of three storey block of 13 flats with roof terraces;
parking and alterations to vehicular access |
|
|
|
7. |
|
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 51 |
Site of Essex
House, Construction of
a terrace of 4 town houses fronting |
|
|
|
8. |
P/01840/06 TCP/16748/G (Joint) |
Sandown |
Refusal |
|
Page 62 |
Continued use of
property as hostel for vulnerable persons |
|
|
|
9. |
P/01841/06 TCP/13180/P (Joint) |
Shanklin |
Refusal |
|
Page 74 |
Brencliffe, Continued use of
property as hostel for vulnerable persons |
|
|
|
10. |
Bembridge |
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 76 |
Site of Partial
demolition of store; proposed terrace of 6 houses (revised scheme) (revised
plans) (re-advertised application) |
|
|
|
11. |
Shanklin |
Refusal |
|
|
Page 85 |
Alverstone
House, Removal of
condition no. 1 on TCP/11878/E which states that the use shall be
discontinued on or before |
|
|
|
12. |
Shanklin |
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 96 |
Highfield House
Residential Home, Alterations and
2 storey extension to form additional bedrooms and associated facilities to
include accommodation in roofspace;
alterations to vehicular access, (revised scheme) |
|
|
|
13. |
Niton
& Whitwell |
Refusal |
|
|
Page 112 |
Jolliffes
Farm, Alterations; 2
storey extension to farmhouse to provide additional living accommodation,
(revised scheme) |
|
|
|
14. |
Niton
& Whitwell |
Unconditional approval |
|
|
Page 117 |
Site of Niton
Garage and Ivy Cottage, Newport Road, Niton, Ventnor, Isle of Wight, PO38 2DF Variation of
Condition no. 15 on TCP/06487/M relating to visibility splays |
|
|
|
15. |
Niton
& Whitwell |
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 122 |
Site of Niton
Garage and Ivy Cottage, Newport Road, Niton, Ventnor, Isle of Wight, PO38 2DF Variation of
condition no. 20 on TCP/06487/M relating to pedestrian link between the
application site and the junction with |
|
|
|
16. |
Brading |
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 124 |
Land rear of Chalet bungalow
with access off |
|
|
|
01 |
Reference Number: P/02158/06 - TCP/10505/L Parish/Name: Ryde - Ward/Name: Ryde St Johns West Registration Date: 22/09/2006 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr D Long Tel: (01983) 823552 Applicant: Southern Housing Group Limited
Construction of 30 houses and 119 flats, access off High Street, Oakfield, associated landscaping and parking areas site of former, Scrap Yard, High Street,
Oakfield, Ryde, The application is recommended for Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This is a major application. By reason of its size and density decision should be made by the Development Control Sub Committee.
1. Details of
Application
1.1 This is a full
application.
1.2 Site
is 2.04 hectares allocated for residential development in accordance with
Unitary Development Plan allocations H3 (38). Density equates to 73 dwellings
per hectare.
1.3 Application
seeks consent for the construction of 30 houses and 119 flats with access from
High Street, Oakfield.
1.4 Proposal provides 30%
affordable housing, 36% shared ownership and remaining 34% for sale on open
market.
1.5 Development consists of
36 one bedroom and 83 two bedroom flats, 20 two bedroom, 7 three and 3 four
bedroom houses. Site accommodates 7 central main blocks following alignment of
main road. Distributor roads then access 4 houses to the south and 8 houses to
the north. Remaining built form is aligned along Home Zone to rear having a
mixture of houses and flats.
1.6 Road is designed with
engineered speed reducing plateaus and surface materials which aim to slow
traffic and create an aesthetically pleasing environment. Home zone aims to
introduce sensitively landscaped environments which are pedestrian friendly
creating informal amenity space for residents.
1.7 Main seven blocks at
entrance to site create mixture of two and three storey flatted units. Massing
and design of building aims to break building line with use of materials and
fluctuating roofscape.
1.8 Houses accommodate two,
three or four bedroom units. Each house has garden to rear and Home Zone to
front.
1.9 Flatted units and houses
to west of site on north/south axis follow building line of
1.10 Each unit has one
allocated parking space. Site also provides eighteen visitor spaces totalling
167 parking spaces.
1.11 Site proposes to landscape
with extensive grass and tree planting whilst utilising different hard surface
materials enabling a mix of landscaping.
1.12 Site aims to create
pedestrian access through to
1.13 Surface waters are drained
through adopted highways drains or percolate through SUDS system in all other
areas. Foul sewage will enter into combined sewerage system.
2. Location and Site
Characteristics
2.1 Site within larger
residential area of defined development envelope. There is vast array of
housing type ranging in character, having obvious periods of construction.
Houses in proximity are two storey formed in semi-detached pairings following
alignment of road frontage. Houses have reasonable gardens which extend to
rear.
2.2 Due to topography railway
track laid to west of site is at lowest level within natural bowl of area.
Topography makes site visually apparent from wider areas of the Ryde region.
Monktonmead Brook follows alignment of railway track.
2.3 Adjoining field forming
part of southern boundary provides open space for residents of Oakfield and
currently used for recreational purposes. Land further west is currently left
fallow having considerable amounts of knotweed.
2.4 Communal boundaries
attached to residential curtilage divided predominantly by 1.8 metre fences.
Houses along the High Street are inherently higher due to topography while
houses in
2.5 Site currently in
reasonably poor condition due to remedial contamination works. Extensive spread
of weeds make site of no visual merit. Temporary earth bund has been placed in
northern part of site for remedial contamination work. Lower part of site has
large retaining wall to stabilize site for its current purpose.
2.6 There are a number of
trees on communal boundaries, some of which are regarded to be of reasonable
visual amenity as they stand prominent in maturity, stature and position. These
are detailed within applicant’s tree report forming part of submission.
3. Relevant History
3.1 P/01418/00 – Outline for
71 houses (comprising terrace, semi-detached and detached) and 23 flats with
access off High Street, Oakfield; site of former scrap yard, High Street
Oakfield. Application granted conditional permission subject to future reserved
matters application.
3.2 P/01418/00 – Amendments
to approved amended scheme) increase in floor levels of 300 mm to 600 mm (for
71 houses and 23 flats (approved scheme dated 19 December 2001, amended 16
September 2002) site of former scrap yard, High Street, Oakfield. Application
granted conditional permission.
3.3 P/00048/02 – Three storey
block of 13 flats, 2/3 storey block of 10 flats, 71 houses in a mixed
development of detached, semi-detached and terrace units; formation of
vehicular access, estate roads and parking spaces (aorm), former scrap yard,
High Street, Oakfield. Application granted conditional permission, Approval of
Reserved Matters 4 March 2002.
3.4 P/01203/03 – Amendments
to planning permission P/00048/02 to provide two additional flats.
3.5 P/00354/06 – Renewal;
Outline for seven houses; vehicular access and parking; land rear of
3.6 P/00997/06 – Outline for
seven houses with access off High Street, land rear of
3.7 P/01032/02 – Outline for block
of 15 flats and a terrace of five houses with associated parking (revised
scheme); site off
4. Development Plan
Policy
4.1 National Policy Guidance
·
PPS1 – Creating Sustainable Communities. Encourages
residential development to incorporate sustainable mix of housing. Carefully
designed streets with appropriate landscaping and accessibility to alternative
transport is encouraged.
·
PPG3 – Housing. Sites to be developed at
appropriate density both to reflect local context and to reduce housing
pressures. It also encourages development on brownfield sites.
·
PPG13 – Transport. Recognises the need to focus on
sustainable transport, reducing reliance on motor vehicle.
4.2 Unitary Development Plan policies
|
· S1 |
- |
New
development will be concentrated within existing urban areas |
|
· S2 |
- |
Development
will be encouraged on land which has been previously developed (brownfield) |
|
· S3 |
- |
New
development of a large scale will be expected to be located in or adjacent to
defined boundaries such as Ryde |
|
· S6 |
- |
All
development will be expected to be of a high standard of design |
|
· S7 |
- |
Meeting
housing stock within plan period |
|
· G1 |
- |
Development
Envelopes |
|
· G4 |
- |
General
Location Criteria |
|
· G6 |
- |
Areas
Liable to Flooding |
|
· G7 |
- |
Unstable
Land |
|
· G10 |
- |
Existing
Surrounding Uses |
|
· D1 |
- |
Standards
of Design |
|
· D2 |
- |
Standards
for Development within the Site |
|
· D3 |
- |
Landscaping |
|
· H1 |
- |
New
Development within Main Island Towns |
|
· H2 |
- |
Variety
of House Sizes and Types |
|
· H3 |
- |
Allocation
of Residential Development Sites |
|
· H6 |
- |
High
Density Residential Development |
|
· H14 |
- |
Locally
Affordable Housing |
|
· C7 |
- |
River
Corridors and Estuaries |
|
· C8 |
- |
Nature
Conservation as a Material Consideration |
|
· C12 |
- |
Development
Affecting Trees and |
|
· P1 |
- |
Pollution
and Development |
|
· P2 |
- |
Minimised
Contamination from Development |
|
· P3 |
- |
Restoration
of Contaminated Land |
|
· TR3 |
- |
Locating
Development to Minimise the Need to Travel |
|
· TR6 |
- |
Cycling
and Walking |
|
· TR7 |
- |
Highway
Considerations for New Development |
|
· TR16 |
- |
Parking
Policies and Guidelines |
|
· U11 |
- |
Infrastructure
and Services Provision |
|
· L10 |
- |
Open
Space in Housing Developments |
4.3 Supplementary Planning
Guidance Note entitled ‘Residential Layouts’ encourages development sites to be
locally distinctive. It encourages mix of dwelling with provision for
affordable housing. Legible access and movement and promotion of designed
street layout is important. Guidance encourages energy conservation and natural
drainage through porous surfaces.
4.4 Supplementary Planning
Guidance Note entitled ‘Open Space Provision’ encourages outdoor play space to
be provided promoting recreational facilities. This is in accordance with
policy L10 (Open Space Provision).
5. Consultee and Third
Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
·
Highways Engineer recommends conditional
permission. There are no highway implications envisaged. Road Safety Audit has
been accepted and agreed. Main access is suitable for level of development.
Site provides appropriate infrastructure and parking facilities in accordance
with development plan policies.
·
Environment Health recommends conditional
permission subject to further remediation investigation to contaminants and
conditions relating to noise assessments with respect to adjacent railway.
·
Conservation and Design state that proposed
development has strong design theme with contemporary elements. The overall
concept appears to be well considered and would have a strong identity and
sense of place, although not relating particularly to local designed character.
Some concern has been raised over roof profile, type of materials and pockets
of landscaping.
·
Council’s Housing Officer recommends conditional
permission subject to the standard 30% provision of affordable housing.
·
Tree Officer raises concern over placement of built
sheds belonging to houses and potential root damage. Also potential shade will
occur to certain flatted blocks.
·
Council’s Geotechnical Engineer recognises site
implications and is satisfied that southern Housing Group Geotechnical
Consultants ‘URS Corporation Ltd’ are a recognised competent person in
accordance with PPG14 (Development of Unstable Land). Due to time constraints
to gain grant funding Council’s engineer is satisfied with initial screening.
Schedule and further Stability Report can be treated as a planning condition
for approval by the Local Planning Authority.
·
Planning Liaison Officer raises no objection to
proposal. There are no crime and disorder issues envisaged.
·
Ecology Officer recommends conditional permission
subject to protection of Monktonmead Brook.
5.2 External Consultees
·
The Environment Agency recommends conditional
permission.
·
Southern Water recommends approval. Foul sewer has
been constructed for previous approved development. Initial investigations
indicate that Southern Water can provide foul sewerage disposal. Surface waters
should be directed to soakaways. Standard conditions are recommended.
5.3 Others
The application has
attracted 22 letters of objection which can be summarised as follows:
·
Vehicular access from
·
Pedestrian access will create adverse danger to
residents.
·
High Street Oakfield could not accommodate traffic
volumes causing adverse danger to highway.
·
Over development of site with insufficient open
space.
·
Existing infrastructure and open space cannot
accommodate levels of housing.
·
Insufficient infrastructure and community
facilities including schools.
6. Evaluation
6.1 The
main issues in considering this proposal are:
·
Principle of development
·
Planning history and site constraints
·
Scale, mass and design
·
Highway implications
·
Consultee responses
·
Section 106 contribution and open space provision.
6.2 Allocations
(H3 (38)) defined by the Unitary Development Plan accepts principle of
development for residential purposes. Both National and Local Policies
recognise the importance of development on brownfield sites to provide large
proportion of housing stock within plan period.
6.3 Members
will observe that section 3 of this report details previous consents for large
scale residential scheme. Although acceptable the design was framed with
traditional estate roads and cul de sacs which in light of continuous and
updated design guidance does not make efficient use of land on important
brownfield land allocation.
6.4 Members’
attention should be drawn to project viability in relation to site constraints.
Site previously subject to major decontamination and stability works, both of
which are on-going and treated as a planning condition. Screening opinion by
geo-technical engineer has suggested that piled foundations would be required
due to underlying clay sub soil. Constraints have major cost implications and
so density has to equate to a project that can be developed viably. Section 1.2
details proposed current density to 73 dwelling per hectare.
6.5 Southern
Housing Group’s proposal is subject to grant funding from both the Isle of
Wight Council and Housing Corporation. Funding provides subsidy to enable
supply of enhanced levels of affordable rent and new build home by units. Grant
funding sets parameters that must be adhered to in order to obtain such monies.
Grant allocation requires over 60% of site is affordable housing. Southern
Housing Group indicate that 46 are for affordable rent, 53 for new build home
buyers (shared ownership sale) and the remaining 54 low cost market sale. A
condition of grant receipt is that scheme must be accompanied with an eco homes
performance. Scheme’s design specification meets eco homes ’very good’ standard
which should be encouraged for such sites.
6.6 Proposal
is of contemporary design using a mixture of timber, render and brick. There is
a strong theme with overall concept appearing to be well considered with strong
identity and sense of place. Size of site can accommodate design without
needing to follow traditional concept of locality as self identity is created.
When viewed from wider locality site will be viewed as a large designed concept
rather than isolated pockets of infill development which would need to follow
traditional approaches to Ryde character.
6.7 Main
distributor road moves through transition of raised plateaus to naturally calm
traffic. On-street parking promotes slow moving speeds through to distribution
roads, accessing small pockets of parking and home zones. PPG13 (Transport),
Supplementary Planning Guidance and Design Bulletin 32 encourages and promotes
home zones, creating pedestrian friendly environments where the car is the
guest. This appropriately landscaped scheme creates an attractive and unique
environment where vehicular parking is defined and restricted creating communal
amenity space for residents. Revised street layout to rear of units 109 to 141
has been re-configured to break up original terrace of car parking. Pergolas
and vegetation have been introduced to break up visual mass of parking to
create individual parking zones with cascading level changes. When looking onto
site eye will be attracted to green spaces and different surface materials
rather than parked vehicles.
6.8 Houses
have benefit of rear private curtilage, all of which have sufficient space for
domestic use. Flatted units have no designated amenity space. Members have to
balance comments made within section 6.4 of report with regard to site
constraints and viability against that of providing open space. Due to direct
relationship site has with neighbouring park to southwest there is little need
to provide extensive open space for recreational purposes. Land west of park is in poor condition and
not fit for purpose. Through S106 negotiations Southern Housing Group is
willing to upgrade proportion of this land to increase size of existing playing
fields and provide pedestrian links to
6.8 The
seven central blocks following alignment of main road are designed with slight
step in built frontage with defensible planting to soften elevation. Blocks are
reasonably tight but architect justifies concept to promote a positive
enclosure and sense of place. Although concerned with distribution and spatial
break between blocks on balance of all material considerations this is deemed
to be acceptable. Planning conditions will ensure that highest quality
materials are used.
6.9 Due
to topography buildings are able to increase in storey height without adverse
impact on communal boundaries through excessive scaling and dominance. Most
important transition on communal boundary is at site entrance whereby three
storey blocks meets residential curtilage belonging to two storey semi-detached
properties fronting High Street. By reason of the spatial break and change in
gradient a three storey block can sit comfortably without any adverse impacts.
Minimal window openings on elevations protect the reasonable privacy and living
enjoyment of existing occupants. Existing housing stock in northwest corner of
site (
6.10 Remaining
bounded parts of site adjoin open space or future development sites to gain a
consolidated and safe access arrangement. Site to north has outline consent for
seven dwellings while site to south has previous refusals due to technical
issues but will come forward at a later date. Planning Officer is in current
negotiations with such a proposal. The designed approach is accepted as it both
caters for the needs of current proposal and those coming forward at a later
date in accordance with land allocations.
6.11 Highways
Engineer regards proposal as acceptable and recommends conditional permission.
Road Safety Audit is accepted raising no highway implications. RSA has
highlighted that some minor improvements are needed at the junction of
6.12 Due
to previous remedial treatment to contaminated soil with its removal and
replacement including provision of desk top studies in accordance with BS
10175:2001 the Environmental Health Officer recommends conditional permission
subject to latter half of standard condition being issued on the decision
notice. Works involved a remediation scheme to deal with any contaminant
including implementation timetable, monitoring proposals and a remediation
verification methology. Construction of building shall not commence until the investigator
has provided a report which shall include confirmation that all remediation
measures have been fully carried out in accordance with the scheme.
6.13 Environment
Agency recommends conditional permission subject to conditions relating to
contamination. In accordance with comments made by the Agency and the Council’s
Ecology Officer particular attention, preservation and protection to
Monktonmead Brook is sought. Monktonmead Brook is known for water vole activity
which are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act and are a priority
within biodiversity action plans under Section 74 of the Countryside and Rights
of Way Act 2000. Recommended conditions have been placed to protect Monktonmead
Brook through construction and in perpetuity with a management framework to
ensure biodiversity for water voles is retained.
6.14 Council’s
Geotechnical Engineer is satisfied with Southern Housing Groups screening study
on land stability. Due to grant funding the engineer is satisfied that a
further stability report can be submitted which will satisfy the Council that
site can be developed in accordance with PPG14. Conditional permission is
reasonable for proposal as grant restrictions could be hindered by deferral or
refusal by this Committee. Southern Housing Group confirm that should works not
start in April 2007 difficulty will arise in gaining appropriate grant
allocations and lengthy negotiations would be needed to agree revised cash
planning targets. In light of this information and review of the competence by
URS Engineering a planning condition has been recommended and is the most
reasonable way forward.
6.15 Southern
Water confirm that proposal will be able to provide foul sewage disposal
without capacity problems for local network. This is subject to surface waters
being disposed into ground and water courses. Verification of the suitability
to take surface waters through natural filtration will be provided through the
contamination report ascertaining whether it is suitable. Initial investigation
has indicated that surface waters would be appropriate to discharge in this
fashion but is subject to formal consent and investigation through
contamination reports and approval by the Environment Agency.
6.16 Tree
Officer raises concern over the placement of built sheds in the rear of
properties in close proximity to some established trees. There could be
perceived threat to occupants due to the relationship trees have with proposed
buildings causing excessive shading. Members will appreciate that the scheme
has been designed so that all spaces have been used and so revision to
buildings would have effect on open space, parking, landscaping and sufficient
space for emergency vehicles to turn and leave the site in accordance within
Design Bulletin 32. Placement of sheds can be treated as a planning condition
as they can be sited within domestic curtilage in appropriate position.
Applicants’ tree report details that careful management to existing trees can
be undertaken to reduce tree coverage in order to stop excessive shade
covering. In light of this information and the provision of extensive
landscaping throughout site this is reasonable for planning purposes.
Landscaping condition compliance will ensure that appropriate tree species are
used to gain visual improvement to current barren site.
6.17 Proposed
development will attract the following contributions through a Section 106
Agreement:
·
Education 113 x £2145 = £242,385
·
30% affordable housing provision on site
6.18 Section 106 term shall include the upgrade of neighbouring playing field as discussed within section 6.7 of this report. Due to high importance of creating pedestrian links through to Meaders Road Section 106 Agreement is needed to facilitate works to ensure that this provision is made. Site is not subject to transport infrastructure payments as it lies within Zone 3 of parking allocations.
7. Conclusion and Justification for
Recommendation
7.1 Consent has been granted for 101 units which is considered not to make efficient use of land on this historic brownfield site. Site is subject to constraints which effect development viability. Density needs to equate to realistic terms. In light of upgrade to recreation ground, open space provision can be offset. This will obtain a density that is workable to meet site costs.
7.2 Proposal has strong identity and concept using modern design practice encouraged by national and local policies. The efficient use of land provides over 60% affordable housing and reaches an eco standard of very good having material benefit to the environment and social housing provision. Although there is concern over the spatial distribution of blocks the architect has demonstrated that all outside spaces will be sensitively landscaped and softened to give an attractive and inviting sense of place. On balance of the material benefits and in light of all material considerations the proposal is deemed to be in accordance with guidance contained at national level and policies contained within the Isle of Wight 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 |
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: 6. provide
for contributions to education 7. make
provision for on-site affordable housing 8. provision
of a pedestrian link (as shown on approved plan) linking site to 9. stipulate
works required to the neighbouring sports field to provide a pedestrian link
from site to Arc car park and upgrade of land to a standard agreed with the
Local Planning Authority including mitigations works and required
landscaping. 10. To
provide long term management plans and responsibilities of all hard and soft
landscaping on site Reason: To
ensure educational facilities, open space and transport provision is made in
accordance with policies U2 (Ensuring Adequate Educational, Social
Communities for Future Population), L10 (Open Space and Housing Developments)
of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
No
development shall take place until 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. |
|
4 |
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. |
|
5 |
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. |
|
6 |
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 Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
7 |
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. |
|
8 |
Development
shall not be occupied and carriageway opened until the RSA process has been
carried out in accordance with the Isle of Wight Council's Road Safety Plan,
Road Safety Audit Policy and procedures set out within Appendix 3 of the Isle
of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Reason:
To ensure development provides a safe and suitable access to ensure
highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New
Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
The
agreed recommendations of the RSA process must be completed to the
satisfaction of the Isle of Wight Council as highway authority before the
public road is adopted. Reason:
To ensure adequate highway safety is provided and the roads are
capable of adoption and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Consideration for
New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
All
construction traffic related to the approved development shall deliver, load
and unload on a route and in a location and at times approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Traffic Section of
Engineering Services before development commences 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 |
Steps,
including the installation and use of wheel cleaning facilities in accordance
with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority, shall be taken to prevent material being deposited on the highway
as a result of any operation on the site.
Any deposit of material from the site on the highway shall be removed
as soon as practicable by the site operator. 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. |
|
12 |
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. |
|
13 |
No
building shall be occupied until the means of access thereto for pedestrians
and/or 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 |
Development
shall not begin until details of traffic calming measures to restrict vehicle
speeds and of a programme for their implementation have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details, and the measures shall be completed
before the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with
the agreed programme. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
15 |
No
dwelling/building hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been
laid out within the site and drained and surfaced in accordance with drawing
number 0514-PL100 Rev J for 167 cars and 119 cycles 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. |
|
16 |
A
Habitat Management Plan for the buffer strip running along the entire length
of the western boundary of site between the existing lock crib wall and
Monktonmead Brook including long term objectives, management responsibilities
and maintenance schedules shall be submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning authority. Such Management Plan shall be submitted before occupation
of any of the approved dwellings and shall be carried out as approved in
accordance with the long term objectives and management responsibilities. Reason:
In the interests of local habitat and bio-diversity and to comply with
policy C7 (Corridors and Estuaries) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
17 |
No
development approved by this permission should commence until a scheme has
been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to restrict
public access to the riverine corridor. This should be through the creation
of a buffer zone or through a barrier planting scheme. Promoting access in
alternative areas (i.e. public footpath/cycle path on an area away from the
river's edge) should also be considered. Reason:
Water voles are know to be present within the Monktonmead Brook
catchment and are sensitive to disturbance, particularly from dogs. Water
voles are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (which was
strengthened by the CRoW Act), making it an offence to cause damage or
disturbance through recklessness (rather than having to prove intent). Water
voles are a priority Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species, of which the
Environment Agency is lead competent authority to ensure the delivery of
these targets. Under Section 74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
local authorities have a statutory duty to have regard to the successful
delivery of the UK BAP when determining this application. |
|
18 |
Planting
schemes should be in accordance with landscaping conditions and where
possible include native trees and shrubs appropriate to the area, ideally
using seed or stock of local provenance along the length of Monktonmead
Brook. Reason:
To ensure that non-native species are not introduced into the area. |
|
19 |
Prior
to commencement of any works on site, the buffer strip noted within condition
16 shall be secured by fencing or other agreed barrier along line to be
agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any such fencing shall be
maintained throughout the course of the construction works on site during the
period which 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 physical damage to bark or branches. (e)
No changes to natural ground drainage in the area. (f)
No changes in ground levels. (g)
No digging of trenches for services, drains or sewers unless agreed with the
Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason:
To ensure the buffer strip and the trees within it are adequately
protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction
period in the interests of the amenities and in compliance with Policy C12
(Development Affecting Trees and |
|
20 |
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 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. |
|
21 |
The
recommendations of tree works suggested within MJC Tree Report forming part
of this submission shall be adhered to, the parameters of which shall be
agreed including a timetable of works with the Local Planning Authority
before development commences on site. Reason:
To ensure trees are protected to perpetuity and to comply with policy
C12 (Development Affecting Trees and |
|
22 |
Notwithstanding
the placement of sheds shown on Drawing 0514-PL100 Rev J details of the
precise positioning shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority in accordance with MJC Tree Report thereafter implemented in
accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing with
the Local Planning Authority. Reason:
To ensure the longevity and protection of trees and to comply with
policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and |
|
23 |
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 and flatted
units that fronts onto a road or footpath other than that approved through
landscaping conditions. Reason: To
retain an open plan development site and to comply with policies S6 (High
Standards of Design) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
24 |
No
part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until there has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: 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 decontamination and an appropriately qualified
person shall oversee the implementation of all remediation. 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 IIA of the Environmental Protection Act
1990 |
|
25 |
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 the 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 IIA of the Environmental Protection Act
1990 |
|
26 |
No
development shall take place until a detailed scheme (including calculations
of capacity studies) for foul and surface water drainage from the site and
any proposed soakaways and sustainable drainage systems have been submitted
to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing. Any such agreed
foul and surface water disposal system shall indicate connections at points
on the system where adequate capacity exists to ensure any additional flow
should not cause flooding or over load the existing system, if necessary on
alternative system for the disposal of surface water shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To
ensure an adequate system of foul and surface water drainage is provided for
the development incompliance with policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services
Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
27 |
No
infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other
than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which
may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that
there is no resultant risk to controlled waters. Reason:
To protect the minor aquifer beneath the site and the Monktonmead
Brook adjacent to the site and in accordance with policies G6 (Areas Liable
to Flooding) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
28 |
Floor
levels should be set no lower than 9.5 OAD as shown on the approved plans. Reason:
To protect development from flooding and to comply with policy G6
(Areas Liable to Flooding) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
29 |
Before
development commences on site a full geotechnical site investigation report
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The approved details shall be implemented on site unless otherwise
agreed in writing for an alternative scheme. Reason:
To ensure that the site is capable of construction to be in accordance
with PPG14 (Development on |
|
30 |
Piling
or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods will not be
permitted other than with express written consent of the Local Planning
Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been
demonstrated that there is no resultant risk to ground water and shall be
included within the geotechnical site investigation report. Reason:
the minor aquifer beneath the
site and Monktonmead Brook and to comply with policy G6 (Areas Liable to
Flooding) and G7 ( |
|
31 |
The
dwellings along the western boundary of the proposed development shall be
constructed so as to provide sound attenuation against external noise from
the adjacent railway with windows shut and other means of ventilation
provided. A scheme detailing this shall be submitted to the Local Planning
Authority for approval. The scheme shall include proposals for ensuring that
the guideline levels set out in British Standard 8233 1999 for residential
accommodation are complied with, that all necessary works are supervised by a
competent person and that upon completion of all works, testing is carried
out and a report submitted to the Local Planning Authority to verify the
schemes effectiveness. The scheme approved by the local planning authority
shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details before the
use commences. Reason:
To prevent annoyance and disturbance, in particular sleep disturbance
from noise emissions from the premises. |
|
02 |
Reference
Number: P/02404/06 - TCP/28004 Parish/Name: Ryde - Ward/Name: Ryde Registration
Date: 03/10/2006 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Miss S Wilkinson Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: Ncink Ltd Demolition of
petrol station & showroom; construction of 2 storey block of 14 flats to
include accommodation in roofspace; alterations to vehicular access Wight Motors
Ltd, This is a joint
report with P/02406/06 – CAC/28004/A These
applications are recommended for Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This is a major development involving a no parking scheme.
1. Details of
Application
1.1 The proposed development
is for the demolition of the petrol station and showroom and construction of a
two storey block of 14 flats to include accommodation in the roofspace.
1.2 Due
to the town centre location of the site developers propose a no parking scheme,
with three car parks in close proximity to the development.
1.3 Proposal comprises eight
1 bedroom flats and six 2 bedroom flats over three floors of accommodation.
1.4 The proposal has been
designed in consultation with planning and conservation officers resulting in a
design that is no higher than the neighbouring properties and sees the incorporation
of features from the local area while combining more contemporary material to
provide some variation to the streetscene.
2. Location and Site
Characteristics
2.1 The site is located on
the northern side of
2.2 Land is available from
2.3 The buildings currently
on site are in a poor state of repair and are of detriment to the character of
the streetscene. The streetscene is relatively varied with semi-detached
properties neighbouring the site and a landmark church and hall to the west.
3. Relevant History
3.1 Not applicable.
4. Development Plan
Policy
4.1 National Policy Guidance
·
PPG3 – Housing and PPS Consultation 3 relating to
housing are applicable.
·
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 |
|
·S11 |
- |
Reducing Reliance
on the Private Car |
4.3 The following Unitary
Development Plan Policies are applicable:
|
· G1 |
- |
Development
envelopes |
|
· G4 |
- |
General
Locational Criteria |
|
· G10 |
- |
Existing
Surrounding Uses |
|
· D1 |
- |
Standard of
Design |
|
· D2 |
- |
Standards of
Development within the site |
|
· D11 |
- |
Crime and Design |
|
· B6 |
- |
Protection and
Enhancement of Conservation Areas |
|
· 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 are discussed in
the evaluation of this report.
·
The Council’s Crime Design Advisor has raised no
objections but has requested that appropriate fencing/railings/gates are
erected. This has been dealt with in the conditions.
·
The Highway Engineer has recommended conditional
approval.
·
Environmental Health have raised no objections to
the proposed scheme in respect of noise/odours and fumes but conditions have
been requested in regards to possible land contamination and are included
accordingly.
5.2 External Consultees
·
Southern Water have highlighted a need to remove
surface water discharge from the existing consolidated system. This has been
dealt with via a condition requiring a Capacity Study and attenuation.
6.1
Others
·
Ten letters of objection have been received the
contents of which can be summarised as follows:
o
Parking
o
Loss of light
o
Contamination
o
Overlooking
o
Residential development within a commercial area.
·
Objection has also been received from the Isle of
Wight Society with regards to the demolition of the warehouse to the rear of
the site. However, there is at this stage no application for the demolition of
this building as it is situated on the neighbouring parcel of land.
6. Evaluation
6.1
Determining factors in considering this proposal
are considered to be as follows:
·
Impact on the character of the area
·
Impact on neighbouring properties
·
Parking/Highways
6.2 Impact on the
character of the area.
The
proposal has been developed in consultation with planning and conservation
officers and as such a design has been developed that sits comfortably within
the streetscene relating well to adjacent buildings and contributing to the
character of the area thus making an enhancement to the Conservation Area.
6.3 Conservation and Design
have commented on the proposal and are generally supportive. The overall scale
and form is considered to be similar to properties in this area and the
improvement to the street scene by way of the ‘filling in of the gap’ currently
created by the forecourt is recognised. Some concerns have been raised in
regards to the roof form and the use of dormer windows. However, when considering
the mix of buildings within the area and design concept behind the proposal it
is considered, by officers, that on balance the application design is
acceptable and undoubtedly represents an enhancement of the conservation area
6.4 Impact on neighbouring
properties.
Concerns
have been raised by neighbouring properties that the proposal could lead to
overlooking and loss of light. However, all side facing windows will be
obscured glazed and therefore would not overlook any neighbouring properties.
The proposed building is located 9 metres from the nearest residential
property. When taking into consideration the previous use and the buildings and
containers currently on site, the proposal would result in a significant
improvement. The distances between buildings are similar to those experienced
within this area of Ryde and it is therefore not considered that any over
dominance or unacceptable loss of light is created.
6.5 The application is to be
suitably condition to ensure that any contamination created from the previous
use on site is dealt with accordingly.
6.6 Parking/Highways
Highways
have recommended conditional permission to the application and have commented
that no Road Safety Audit was required in this instance as there is to be a
removal of traffic from the site, especially when considering the previous
usage. Additionally, the reinstatement of the pavement across the front of the
site is a considerable safety gain.
6.7 The scheme is one of no
parking and as such has seen objections in this regard. A sustainability plan
has been submitted with the application and the design and access statement
details the suitability of the site with no parking, due to the town centre
location and close links to both transportation links as well as a number of
car parks and facilities. A contribution for transport infrastructure is
required from this development due to its location within Parking Zone 2. This
contribution can be targeted at an improvement of these car parks. Highways
have not raised concerns in regards to a no parking scheme in this location and
are satisfied that there is capacity in the surrounding car parks if some of
the residents were to have cars. Additional information in regards to the
levels of capacity will be presented at the meeting.
6.4 Heads of Terms
Transport
Infrastructure: 750 x 14 = £10,500
Education:
2145 x 6 = £12,870
Open
Space: 290 x 14 = £4,060
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 proposed development makes a positive contribution to
the Conservation Area and sees compatible development within a mix use area
with good transportation links, car parking facilities and services.
8. Recommendation
8.1 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 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 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 hereby permitted is 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. |
|
4 |
The
windows to be constructed in the side elevations shall be obscure glazed, and
shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring
property and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
All
construction traffic related to the approved development shall deliver, load
and unload on a route, in a location and at times to be approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with policies TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
Steps,
including the installation and use of wheel cleaning facilities in accordance
with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority, shall be taken to prevent material being deposited on the highway
as a result of any operation on the site.
Any deposit of material from the site on the highway shall be removed
as soon as practicable by the site operator. 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) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
7 |
The building
hereby approved shall not be occupied until means of access thereto for
pedestrians and cyclists has been constructed in accordance with plans to be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to
include the reinstatement of the footway across the frontage of the site with
a 125 mm maximum kerb face. 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. |
|
8 |
No
building hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out
within the site in accordance with details that have been submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing for 14 bicycles to be
parked. 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. |
|
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 (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. |
|
10 |
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. |
|
11 |
No
development shall take place until a detailed scheme (including calculations
of capacity studies) for foul and surface water drainage from the site have
been submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing.
Any such agreed foul and surface water disposal system shall indicate
connections at points on the system where adequate capacity exists to ensure
any additional flow should not cause flooding or over load the existing
system, if necessary on alternative system for the disposal of surface water
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Reason: To
ensure an adequate system of foul and surface water drainage is provided for
the development incompliance with policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services
Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
12 |
No
part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until there has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: a) A
desk-top study documenting all previous and existing land uses of the site
and adjacent land in accordance with national guidance as set out in
Contaminated Land Research Report Nos. 2 & 3 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
desk-top study in accordance with BS10175: 2001 – “Investigation of
Potentially Contaminated Sites – 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
decontamination and an appropriately qualified person shall oversee the
implementation of all 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 the 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 IIA of the Environmental Protection Act
1990. |
|
03 |
Reference
Number: P/02406/06 - CAC/28004/A Parish/Name: Ryde - Ward/Name: Ryde Registration
Date: 05/10/2006 -
Conservation Area Consent Officer: Miss S Wilkinson Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: Ncink Ltd Conservation
area consent for demolition of petrol station & showroom in connection
with construction of 2 storey block of 14 flats to include accommodation in
roofspace; alterations to vehicular access Wight Motors
Ltd, This is a joint
report with P/02404/06 - TCP/28004 |
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 Section 18 Planning ( |
|
2 |
No
development shall take place until samples of materials 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 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 hereby permitted is 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. |
|
04 |
Reference
Number: P/02550/06 - TCP/04990/J Parish/Name: Registration
Date: 11/10/2006 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Miss S Wilkinson Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: Garth Homes Demolition of
garage; conversion of former Friends' Meeting House & single storey
extension to form 2 flats; construction of 2/3 storey block of 22 flats;
detached building to form bin store/bicycle store Friends' Meeting
House and Trafalgar Car Sales, This is a joint
report with P/02850/06 – CAC/04990/K These
applications are recommended for Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This is a
major application within the Conservation Area of
1. Details of Application
1.1 This is a joint report for
both a planning application and conservation area consent for the demolition of
the existing garage, known as Trafalgar Car Sales (3C–Cars), and the
construction of 22 flats as well as the conversion of the former Friends
Meeting House and single storey extension to form two flats.
1.2 The
proposed development is a no parking scheme due to the town centre location of
the site and the close proximity of transport networks. The application has
been submitted with a parking assessment in justification of zero parking
provision.
1.3 The proposed scheme
comprises a total of 24 units consisting of a mix of 21 one bedroomed and 3 two
bedroomed.
1.4 The proposal has been
submitted following a number of pre-application meetings between both planning
officer and conservation and design.
1.5 The proposal involves the
retention of the former meeting room and its conversion to two self-contained
units as it was considered to be in a fair state of repair and architecturally
worthy of retention during the contextual analysis and site assessment.
2. Location and Site
Characteristics
2.1 The site is located on
the corner of
2.2 The surrounding area is
of mixed appearance with a combination of traditional vernacular and more
modern buildings. Opposite the northern corner of the proposed site is the
2.3 The area displays a mix
of two and three storey developments constructed of mainly red and grey brick.
3. Relevant History
3.1 Not applicable.
4. Development Plan
Policy
4.1 National Policy Guidance
·
PPG3 – Housing and PPS – Consultation Paper 3,
relating to housing are applicable.
·
PPG13 – Transport is applicable.
4.2 Strategic Policies.
The following strategic policies of
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. |
|
· D3 |
- |
All Development
will be expected to be of a High Standard of Design |
|
· S7 |
- |
Provision of
Housing Units on the |
4.3 The following Unitary Development Plan
policies are applicable.
|
· G1 |
- |
Development
Envelopes |
|
· G4 |
- |
General
Locational Criteria |
|
· D1 |
- |
Standards of
Design |
|
· D2 |
- |
Standards of
Development within the site |
|
· D3 |
- |
Landscaping |
|
· H4 |
- |
Unallocated
Residential Development |
|
· TR6 |
- |
Cycling and
Walking |
|
· U11 |
- |
Infrastructure
and Services Provision |
5. Consultee and Third
Party Comments
5.1
External Consultees
·
Southern Water have highlighted that there is
currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul disposal.
However, as the system is combined they have confirmed that an appropriate
method of attenuation can be conditioned to overcome their concerns.
·
English Heritage have raised concerns in regards to
the design of the proposed scheme. Some of the issues raised have been overcome
with an amended design. They did not wish to be re-consulted and were happy for
Conservation and Design to comment on any revised plans. Comments of which are
summarised in the evaluation of this report.
5.2 Internal Consultees
·
Highways recommend conditional approval.
·
Archaeology recommend conditions if approved.
·
The Council’s Crime Prevention Design Advisor has
commented on the open nature of development to the rear and requested that
lockable gates be incorporated into the scheme to ensure the use of this area
can be more carefully controlled. This has been incorporated within the
conditions.
5.3 Others
·
An objection has been received from Island Watch on
the grounds that the proposal would be large and dominant to the locality.
·
Newport Town Management Committee have confirmed
that they are satisfied with the overall design however, are concerned by the
size of some of the units, lack of allocated parking spaces and that the
development would result in an overdevelopment of the site.
·
Three letters of objection have been received, one
of which contains four signatures from residents of neighbouring flatted
development. The comments contained within the letters can be summarised as
follows:
o
Overdevelopment
o
Height
o
Sewerage/drainage
o
Mix of accommodation
o
Parking/highways
o
Employment issues
o
Overlooking
o
Location of bin store
o
Loss of light.
6. Evaluation
6.1 The
determining factors in considering proposal are considered to be as follows:
·
Impact on character of the area.
·
Impact of the development on neighbouring
properties
·
Parking
6.2 Impact on character of the area
The
proposed development is located on the boundary of the revised Newport
Conservation Area although the development can still be considered as having an
impact upon the setting. Conservation Area Consent is still required with the
application and forms part of this joint report as the revision to the
Conservation Area still being in consultation.
The
application involves the reinstatement of built form within the street scene,
which would provide an enhancement of the Conservation Area. The development
has been carefully designed with a curved wall to the corner block providing
for a focal point as well as helping to break the massing of the development as
a whole. Either side of the curved section see breaks in the roof line and the
development dropping down to two storey to better integrate the development
into the scale of the existing buildings that neighbour the site resulting in
development that sits comfortably within the streetscene.
Concerns
raised by English Heritage have been partly overcome with the amended plans,
which see the removal of artificial stone from the elevations for a more
characteristic red brick, which can be submitted under a condition to ensure
quality of materials and the removal of a projecting gable on the curved section
of the building that served no practical purpose. The windows were also
increased in size in order that they were better proportioned and provided a
vertical emphasis as with other buildings within the area. Although the
amendments do not fully overcome all the issues raised by English Heritage it
is considered by your officers that the design on balance is now acceptable and
makes a more positive contribution to the boundary of the Conservation Area.
6.3 Impact of the
development on neighbouring properties.
The
proposal has been carefully designed to sit on the front of the site close to
the pavement edge to both respect the character and form of development in the
area as well as allowing for the land to the rear to be available for amenity
space. This area also allows for a suitable distance to be achieved between the
proposal and the flats to the rear (known as Newport House). A distance between
the buildings is also achieved due to the interceding Former Meeting House.
Concerns have been raised in regards to the conversion of the Former Meeting
House and possible overlooking created from the bedroom on the ground floor
into a flat within Newport House. It is however considered by officers that, as
the window is existing and the level of disturbance from a Meeting Hall (the
current use of the site, that could commence without requiring any planning
permission) is likely to be far greater than a bedroom. In this regard it is
considered that it would be unreasonable to require the blocking up or obscuring
of the window. It is not considered the
conversion of the Meeting House would result in any greater overlooking than
that which would be experienced if the House were bought back into its current
lawful use. However, if Members consider this to be unacceptable a condition
could be placed on the application requiring the said window to be obscure
glazed and fixed shut.
6.4 The distance between the
proposal and neighbouring buildings discussed above created by the amenity area
and the concentration of the new build to the front of the site, together with
the angle of the building and the use of the rooms as bedroom accommodation is
considered to provide acceptable mitigation against any unacceptable
overlooking into surrounding properties. These factors are also considered to
reduce any loss of light caused by the development.
6.5 Concerns have been raised
in regards to the distance between the proposed bin store and existing kitchen
windows. Environmental Health has not objected in this regard and it is
considered that a distance of 4.5 meters to acceptable, especially taking into
consideration that the bins store will be domestic. Issues such as the
collection of rubbish will be dictated by the Councils ‘pick up’ service
however; details can be conditioned if of concern to Members.
6.6 Parking
The
proposed development is located within the centre of
The
development is primarily one bedroom accommodation, when taking this, the
proximity of car parks in the area and the sustainability of the site for other
means of travel and services and the provision for bicycle parking on site into
consideration it is considered that a no parking scheme is acceptable in this
location.
6.7 Heads of Terms
The
following contribution will be sort from the development by way of a 106
Agreement.
Education:
3 x 2145 = £6,435
Open
Space: 24 x 290 = £6,960
Transport
Infrastructure: 24 x 750 = £18,000
7. Conclusion and
Justification for Recommendation
7.1 Having given due regard
and appropriate weight to all material consideration referred to in this report
it is considered that the application would on balance make a positive
contribution to the Conservation Area and provide low cost market housing in a
sustainable location.
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 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 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 hereby permitted is 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. |
|
4 |
No development shall take place until the applicant or their agents has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved by the planning authority in writing To
facilitate monitoring of the on-site archaeological works, notification of
the start date and appointed archaeological contractor should be given in
writing to the address below not less than 14 days before the commencement of
any works:- The
Planning Archaeologist, County
Archaeological Centre, PO30
1NZ. Reason: In
order that information of architectural or historic interest may be recorded
and to comply with Policy B9 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
No
development shall take place until a detailed scheme (including calculations
of capacity studies) for foul and surface water drainage from the site have
been submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing.
Any such agreed foul and surface water disposal system shall indicate
connections at points on the system where adequate capacity exists to ensure
any additional flow should not cause flooding or over load the existing
system, if necessary on alternative system for the disposal of surface water
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Reason: To
ensure an adequate system of foul and surface water drainage is provided for
the development incompliance with policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services
Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
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 and transport provision 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. |
|
7 |
Notwithstanding
the details on the submitted plans comprehensive details of the windows to be
used in the development hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site. These details shall include dimensions,
size of sections, materials, configuration and opening mechanisms. Reason: In the interests
of the character of the area designated as a Conservation Area in compliance
with policies D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of
Conservation Area) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
No
building hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out
within the site for 24 bicycles to be parked. 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. |
|
9 |
All
construction traffic related to the approved development shall deliver, load
and unload on a route, in a location and at times to be approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with policies TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
Steps,
including the installation and use of wheel cleaning facilities in accordance
with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority, shall be taken to prevent material being deposited on the highway
as a result of any operation on the site.
Any deposit of material from the site on the highway shall be removed
as soon as practicable by the site operator. 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) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
11 |
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; other 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. |
|
12 |
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 and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
05 |
Reference
Number: P/02850/06 - CAC/04990/K Parish/Name: Registration
Date: 10/11/2006 -
Conservation Area Consent Officer: Miss S Wilkinson Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: Garth Homes Conservation
Area Consent for demolition of garage in connection with conversion of former
Friends' Meeting House and single storey extension to form 2 flats;
construction of 2/3 storey block of 22 flats; detached building to form bin
store/bicycle store Friends' Meeting
House and Trafalgar Car Sales, This is a joint
report with P/02550/06 – TCP/04990/J |
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 Section 18 Planning ( |
|
2 |
No
development shall take place until samples of materials 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 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 hereby permitted is 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. |
|
4 |
No
development shall take place until the applicant or their agents has secured
the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with
a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved by
the planning authority in writing. To facilitate
monitoring of the on-site archaeological works, notification of the start
date and appointed archaeological contractor should be given in writing to
the address below not less than 14 days before the commencement of any works: The
Planning Archaeologist County
Archaeological Centre Isle
of Wight PO30 1NZ Reason:
In order that information of architectural or historic interest may be
recorded and to comply with policy B9 of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
5 |
Notwithstanding
the details on the submitted plans comprehensive details of the windows to be
used in the development hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site.
These details shall include dimensions, size of sections, materials,
configuration and opening mechanisms. Reason:
In the interests of the character of the area designated as a
Conservation Area in compliance with policies D1 (Standards of Design) and B6
(Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Area) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
06 |
Reference
Number: P/02559/06 - TCP/02329/G Parish/Name: Sandown - Ward/Name: Sandown North Registration
Date: 11/10/2006 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr J Mackenzie Tel: (01983)
823552 Applicant: Mr J
Caplan Demolition of
building; construction of three storey block of 13 flats with roof terraces;
parking & alterations to vehicular access Parklands
Holiday Apartments, The application
is recommended for Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This is a major application with a contentious history with conflicting and policy considerations. It follows two previous refusals and represents a resubmission and further revised scheme.
1. Details of
Application
1.1 This is a full
application with all matters to be considered.
1.2 The
proposal comprises the demolition of existing buildings and the redevelopment
of the site with a block of 13 flats to a maximum height of three storeys.
Flats are to be used for permanent residential accommodation and plans show a
roughly ‘L’ shaped footprint with the proposed building almost abutting points
on the Fitzroy Street and Winchester Park Road frontage. The development
comprises three no. two bedroom flats and one no. one bedroom flat on ground
floor with five no. two bedroom flats on first floor and four no. two bedroom
flats on second floor with areas of between 47 and 76 sq. metres.
1.3 Car parking is shown to
be off an existing vehicular access from
1.4 There are two pedestrian
accesses to the flats one fronting Winchester Park Road, this gives access to
flats 1, 2 and 3 on ground floor and flats 4 to 8 on first floor. Flat 9 is
accessed from beneath the oversailing first and second floors beneath the
access to flats 10 to 13 which is located on the
1.5 The roof plan indicates
top flats to have roof terraces except for those top flats which front
1.6 In design terms the
elevations in this second revised application show the building to be of a
traditional design throughout, constructed
mostly in brick work but with rendered infill panels with half timbered
features on both
1.7 The elevation onto
1.8 Part of the roof is flat
but the design gives the appearance of pitches all round; it also incorporates
an escape route and roof level at conventional gable features fronting both
roads.
2. Location and Site
Characteristics
2.1 The site has an area of
0.07 hectares with overall dimensions of 38.6 metres on its frontage onto
2.2 Located on a corner
site, the property relates mainly to two other buildings, one fronting
2.3 The property to the north
again, is of similar style but finished in red brick and pebble dash on first
floor. However, this property is about 20 metres from the boundary of the
application site in roughly a northerly direction and therefore does not relate
so closely.
2.4 The area generally is
categorized by fairly large building masses in comparatively substantial sites;
strict building lines with a distinct character although it is acknowledge that
some properties have modern additions.
2.5 The area is predominantly
of residential use but does contain some hotels, guest houses and holiday
flats.
3. Relevant History
3.1 Permission granted for
alterations and extension in 1963 for the three storey extension located on the
rear – no conditions were imposed regarding occupation.
3.2 In October of last year a
scheme for redevelopment of the site with 14 flats was refused on grounds of
size and design, position and mass and lack of space around the building. The
scheme was an Art Deco style and covered more of the site.
3.3 In June of this year
planning permission was refused contrary to the recommendation for a three
storey block of 13 flats on grounds of design. Essentially this refusal related
to the incorporation of a semi-circular tower feature at the corner of the
junction of
4. Development Plan
Policy
4.1 National Policy Guidance
PPG1 (General Policy
and Principle) – states that the appearance of proposed development and its
relationship to surrounding are material considerations in determining planning
applications and appeals and, in particular, paragraph 15 states that good
design should be the aim of all of those involved in the development process
and should be encouraged everywhere and, in addition, in paragraph 17 advises
that local planning authorities should reject poor designs which may include
those inappropriate to their context, e.g. those clearly out of scale or
incompatible with their surroundings.
4.2 UDP policy D1 applies
which states that development will be permitted only where it maintains or
wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment.
Planning applications will be expected to show a good quality of design and
should conform to the following criteria:
·
Respect the visual integrity of the site and the
distinctiveness of the surrounding area.
·
Be sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting,
layout and detail.
·
Be of a height, mass and density which is
compatible with the surrounding building and uses.
·
Provide for safe, convenient access and circulation
for the public including the disabled.
·
Provide adequate daylight, sunlight and open aspect
for the development and the adjoining uses.
·
Respect historic street and footpath plans.
·
Do not constitute overdevelopment leading to cramped
appearance and obtrusiveness but include appropriate spacing between
properties.
·
Do not detract from the reasonable use and
enjoyment of properties.
·
Do not adversely affect the visual amenity of the
occupiers of the same building or site.
·
Retain, maintain, enhance or create open spaces,
views or other features which significantly contribute to the area.
4.3 Site is not within a Conservation Area or
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
4.4 Policy TR7 - Highway
Considerations for New Development applies seeking to provide safe and
satisfactory access, parking and turning facilities.
5. Consultee and Third
Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
·
Highways Engineer confirms no objection to access,
parking and turning, recommending conditions if approved.
·
Conservation and Design Team consider shortcomings
of the previous scheme have now been overcome, are satisfied with the resultant
re-design of the corner feature.
5.2 Town Council comments
·
Sandown Town Council does not support this
application; considers it to be overdevelopment, with insufficient parking and
infringes building line in
5.3 External Consultees
·
Southern Water advise that currently there is
inadequate capacity in the local sewers but suggests the imposition of the usual
condition to require reduction of surface water in the combined sewer and the
submission of details and calculations to show that there is no net increase in
flow; alternatively the carrying out of off-site sewerage works to improve
capacity. Accordingly, recommends the condition be imposed.
5.4 Neighbours
·
Three letters of objection from neighbouring
property owner and local residents stating that they are pleased with the
revised design but pointing out that the building still projects forward of the
main building line in Winchester Park Road and is accordingly an overbearing
development with inadequate parking and accordingly suggests a reduction in the
scale and number of units which would thereby overcome lack of parking
facilities.
5.5 Architectural Liaison
Officer raises no objection but comments on shortfall of parking, advises
access control system and lighting and points out that entrance to unit 3
should be made private for improved security.
6. Evaluation
6.1 Main
issues relating to this application are considered to be:
·
Policy and principle
·
Density (i.e. the number of units on site)
·
Mass, scale and site coverage
·
The design, style and materials.
·
The effect on adjoining properties.
·
Matters relating to access and parking.
6.2 Members will appreciate
that this is a resubmission of the application refused earlier in the year on
grounds of design only. At that time the Committee felt overall the design of
the proposal was acceptable with the exception of the round tower feature at
the junction of
6.3 Policy and Principle.
The existing building contains 12 flats, originally used as holiday flats with
uncontrolled occupancy is understood that the flats have been used for the last
few years as residential units and therefore, can be used for purely
residential purposes as opposed to holiday use. Building is not listed and the
site is not within a Conservation Area and therefore residential redevelopment
is acceptable in principle.
6.4 Density. As
mentioned above there are presently 12 but comparatively small residential
units within the building and the application seeks consent for 13 units
comprising 12 no. two bedroom flats and one single bedroom flat. The building
is still shown as three storeys in height, the only variation occurring in the
building where access is gained to the roof terraces and their enclosure which
comprises the area fronting
6.5 Mass, scale and Site
Coverage. The existing building has a footprint of approximately 282 sq
metres and the proposed building has a footprint of 310 sq metres which is
clearly a fairly marginal increase. However, this excludes that area which
oversails the access and the true plan site coverage is approximately 400 sq.
metres which represents an increase of approximately 41%. It should also be
borne in mind that some parts of the existing footprint are single storey,
although the majority is either two or three storeys in height. Members
considered the previous scheme to be acceptable in terms of mass, scale and
site coverage, refusing the previous application purely on design grounds only.
Accordingly, mass, scale and site coverage is felt to be appropriate in this
resubmission.
6.6 Design, Style and
Materials. The previously proposed
building had been reduced by 4.7 metres back from the boundary and is
approximately 6 metres distant from the western boundary at its furthers point
although, at its closest point, the building has been drawn back from the
common boundary by approximately one metre. The building still oversails the
access to the car parking area but, at the southern end of the building the
former semi-circular feature at the junction of
6.7 The most controversial
part of the previous applications was the design and external appearance and
the current submission is of much more traditional design still incorporating
more vertical emphasis in its proportions including fenestration and the main
elements of the building. The elevation to Winchester Park Road incorporates
gables, some half timbering features and omits the former half round tower
which Members felt was inappropriate, replacing it with another gable and a
building which is ‘squared off’. The now squared feature at the corner is
slightly closer to the boundary of the site due to its footprint and although
only two metres from the front boundary wall echoes a feature on the building
directly opposite, on the southern side of Winchester Park Road, a feature of a
building which is in close proximity to its boundary with Winchester Park Road.
Together these building blocks “squeeze” the vista when looking eastwards down
6.8 As with the previous
scheme, the
6.9 The area is characterised
by late Victorian/Edwardian style although many of the buildings in the
locality have been painted, altered and extended but many of the structures
contain original design features and proportions. This latest submission is
felt to introduce a modern interpretation of that style with features of
similar proportions of properties in the vicinity and although most of the
properties are two storeys in height, they are of greater storey height due to
their era and, indeed, there are other instances of three storey accommodation
in the vicinity.
6.10 Following the previous
refusal and Members identification of the semi-circular feature which was out
of character, the scheme has only been changed by the redesign of that feature
which is now considered to be in keeping with the rest of the project.
Accordingly, design of the proposal is considered acceptable.
6.11 Affect on Adjoining
Properties. In the previous scheme, direct effects were considered limited
to the adjoining property to the west since, in this corner location,
intervening highway separate the site from other development. In addition, to
the north, the property located on the corner of Fitzroy Street and Grove Road
is approximately 10 metres from the common boundary and the reduction in the
scheme increases the distance between buildings to about 25 metres. Bearing in
mind the details of the elevation fronting the adjoining property to the north
contains only four windows which serve toilets and kitchens on first and second
floors, these windows can be glazed in obscure glass to ensure overlooking does
not occur but the inclusion of the windows in that elevation is felt necessary
to punctuate the otherwise plain appearance.
6.12 The adjoining property to
the west is used as a dwelling at the front and holiday flats towards the rear.
It incorporates a small swimming pool and amenity area to the rear of the
property and it has been claimed that the development would create a situation
of overlooking and loss of privacy. The wing of the proposed building,
projecting in a northerly direction projects beyond the further projection of
the adjoining property and contains two flats on the first and second floors.
Both of these flats contain bedroom windows but the plan shows the bottom of
those bedroom windows to be glazed in obscured glass to prevent any
overlooking. Some of the other flats further to the front of the site also
contain bedroom windows where more oblique view may be gained. However it
should be accepted that, in any urban situation, some overlooking will always
occur due to the intimate nature of development. There is also an external fire
escape located at the rear of the existing building but it should also be noted
that these adjoining property has a raised patio/balcony which, in turn
overlooks the rear of the application site.
6.13 It should be remembered
that in any urban situation, unless substantial distances exist between
properties or a very substantial and high boundary screening is in existence
and maintainable, that there will always be a degree of overlooking between
neighbouring properties. Bearing in mind the existing situation and that
proposed the degree of overlooking is inevitable but is felt not to be
sufficient to warrant a refusal in its own right. The mass of the new building
will have an enclosing impact on the adjoining property but due to reduction in
length achieved in the previous application and brought forward in the current
submission, it is now only about four metres longer than the existing building
any enclosing effect or domination is significantly reduced.
6.14 Access and Parking.
The existing property comprises 12 flats and has nine car parking spaces. The
proposal is to increase the number of flats to 13 and provide ten car parking
spaces which means an increase in one unit and an increase in one car parking
space. A similar shortfall to the existing situation will result. It should
also be borne in mind that the previous application was refused purely on
design grounds and not on inadequate parking and therefore it would be
inappropriate to raise an objection to that shortfall at this stage.
6.15 Site is located within
parking zone 3 where 0-75% maximum of non-operational vehicle parking provision
would be allowed on site therefore, of the 25 bedrooms proposed within the
development between 0 and 19 car parking spaces would be appropriate according to
current policy.
6.16 The proposal also involves
the widening of the existing access which presently serves one vehicle off
6.17 As with the previous
proposal, Highway engineer considers the details regarding access, parking and
turning, cycle parking and refuse facilities to be acceptable therefore raises
no objection but points out the visibility of the access needs to be improved
ensuring that the boundary wall to the north east of the Fitzroy Street access
does not exceed one metre thereby improving visibility.
6.18 As the development is a
major one and in excess of ten units, contributions towards educational facilities
and towards open space provision and/or maintenance are appropriate.
7. Conclusion and Justification for
Recommendation
7.1 This is a redevelopment for residential purposes on a site situated in a residential area, surrounded by other residential uses even though some of the uses in the area include holiday accommodation. The introduction of a sympathetic architectural style now does not contrast with the general style of development in the location especially as the round tower feature at the corner of the site has been substituted for a more conventional square gable end of similar design to the remainder of the building. This is a prominent corner site and it is now felt that the development as submitted does not clash nor impose on the character of the area and accordingly the proposal is consistent with policy D1, D2, TR7, H4, H6 of the Isle of Wight 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
development hereby permitted by this planning permission shall not be
initiated by the undertaking of any material operation as defined in Section
56 (4) (a) - (d) of the town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the
development, until a planning obligation 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 notified the persons
submitting the same that it is to the Local Planning Authority's approval.
The said Planning Obligation will provide for the payment of a sum set out at
the current contribution rate for the purpose of provision of education
facilities and the provision or maintenance of open space facilities in the
area. Reason:
To ensure that the development does not put undue pressure on the
education and open space provisions within the area in accordance with policy
U2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
Notwithstanding
the approved plans and the materials shown thereon, no development shall take
place until details of materials and finishes and detailing of the facades
and roofs including water colour to be used in the construction of the
external surfaces of the development hereby approved have been submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning authority. Development
thereafter shall be carried out strictly in accordance with those approved
details Reason:
In the interests of the amenities of the area and too comply with
policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
4 |
No
development shall take place until details of finished floor levels relative
to the adjoining pavements and the adjoining property have been submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development
shall thereafter be carried out strictly in accordance with those 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. |
|
5 |
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. 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. |
|
6 |
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 hereby permitted is 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. |
|
7 |
No
development shall take place on site until a scheme for the disposal of foul
and storm water/surface water has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall not be
occupied until the agreed scheme of foul and storm/surface water disposal has
been implemented and is fully operational to the reasonable satisfaction of
the Local Planning Authority. Reason:
To ensure that foul water/surface water/storm water run off is satisfactorily
accommodated to comply with policy P1 (Pollution and Development) and policy
G6 (Development in Areas Liable to Flooding) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
8 |
No
dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out
within the site and drained and surfaced in accordance with Drawing No.
1148/01 Rev L for 10 cars and 13 bicycles 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 interest of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7
(Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
No
construction traffic shall enter the public highway during the site
development unless their wheels and chassis have been cleaned to prevent
material being deposited on the highway. Reason:
In the interests of highway safety and to prevent mud and dust from
getting on the highway and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations)
of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
No
building shall be occupied until the means of vehicular access thereto 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. |
|
11 |
Notwithstanding
condition 6 above and the approved drawings, the brick boundary wall on the
Fitzroy Street frontage forward of the bin store shall be erected and
maintained at a height to facilitate visibility to the left for drivers and
pedestrians crossing the access/egress. The wall shall be a maximum of one
metre in height across the frontage in accordance with a scheme to be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason:
In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 of
the |
|
12 |
Development
shall not begin until details of the sight lines to be provided at the
junction between the access of the proposal 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 splays 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. |
|
13 |
The
bottom half of the bedroom windows on first and second floors in the western
elevation of flats 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall be glazed and shall be thereafter
be maintained in obscured glass to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority. Reason:
In the interest of the privacy and amenity of the adjoining
residential property and in accordance with policy D1 (Standards of Design)
of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
14 |
The
windows to be installed in the northern elevation on both first and second
floors shall be obscure glazed and shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring
property and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
15 |
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. |
|
07 |
Reference
Number: P/02595/06 - TCP/18349/V Parish/Name: Registration
Date: 24/10/2006 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr J Mackenzie Tel: (01983)
823552 Applicant: Baring Developments ( Construction of
a terrace of 4 town houses fronting site of, Essex
House, The application
is recommended for Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This is a major application which has proved contentious and due to its contentious history.
1. Details of
Application
1.1 This is a full
application with all matters to be considered at this time. It follows on from
two previous applications one allowed on appeal and the later application refused
on design grounds and represents a further change in design.
1.2 The
proposals comprises the demolition of an existing property which was known as
Essex House and for its replacement with a terrace of four townhouses with
integral garages off Cliff Road and a three to six storey building to provide
ten flats fronting Baring Road. The development has commenced under the
original approval granted at appeal and the proposal represents a change in the
design.
1.3 The site plan indicates
two blocks, the flatted block being situated on a similar depth of frontage to
adjoining properties, about 5.5 metres back from the front boundary of the site
with the front boundary comprising steel railings punctuated almost centrally
by a pedestrian access with a bridge link to the front door of the flats. To
the rear of the flatted block which has an overall depth of almost 15 metres is
the intervening space between the flatted block and the houses, a distance of
between 18 and 20 metres of landscaping. A lay by is included in the frontage
of the site to
1.4 The houses are shown to
be sited about four metres back from the frontage with Cliff Road, a terrace of
four, close to the eastern boundary, with vehicular access adjoining the
western boundary of Cliff Road and serving the basement parking of the flatted
block. Access to each of the houses is directly off
1.5 The design of both houses
fronting
1.6 The design of the houses
is as proposed in the previous application, constructed and finished in a
similar manner to the flats but with flat metal sheet roofs punctuated by
parapet walls, a design scheme which has already received planning permission
on the adjoining but separate site to the west.
1.7 As with the previous
scheme, plans show typical flats as being three bedroomed, one en suite,
bathroom and large lounge and kitchen, bedrooms fronting
1.8 As before, the townhouses
comprise entrance hall, utility room, games room and garage on ground floor
with three bedrooms, a shower room and bathroom on first floor with a further
bathroom and master bedroom on second floor with access onto the balcony.
Houses have a gross floor area of approximately 165 sq. metres including the
integral garage. Each has a small private courtyard to the rear, each again
with access to the communal open space behind.
1.9 Again, as before, the
elevations to the flatted building to Baring Road is shown in the part
streetscene to be similar in height to the adjoining property to the east but
have a higher roof line than the adjoining properties to the west by
approximately five metres. The width of the elevation almost fills the site but
leaves a gap between the buildings of about four metres on the eastern side
with approximately two metres on the western side.
2. Location and Site
Characteristics
2.1 The site has already been
cleared of the original buildings and work has commenced authorized under a
previous permission but, in the main, works have been carried out to retaining
structures as part of the original development.
2.2 Site has an area of
approximately 0.12 hectares and is located on the north side of
2.3 Development has commenced
on site and as Members will recall from the history, work is authorized under a
previous permission. To the east of the site on the
2.4 The area is almost
exclusively residential in use.
3. Relevant History
3.1 Pair of semi-detached
houses with integral garages was approved on the adjoining site to the west
fronting
3.2 In November 2003 planning
permission was refused for the demolition of Essex House and the construction
of a terrace of four townhouse fronting Cliff road and a three/six storey
building to provide ten flats with access off Cliff Road. This application was
refused on the grounds that the proposal by reason of its scale, mass, height
and width would have been an intrusive and over dominant effect when viewed
from both
3.3 The Inspector concluded
that PPG3 supports the principle of infill housing as did policy G4 of the
Unitary Development Plan he considered that despite the fact that the design
would be wholly different in character from the existing buildings in the
street and would occupy the whole frontage of the site, the scale and massing
would not be out of place. In terms of design, he considered that the existing
mixture of styles and periods ranging from small scale modern building to large
Victoriana had resulted in an interesting and eclectic townscape and that there
is no particular delicate or balanced pattern of development here and he felt
that proposed building could be integrated without harm to the built
environment or conflict with the design criteria of the development plan. He
also felt that density was appropriate.
3.4 At the meeting on 19
September this year Members considered an application for an alternative design
scheme for the construction of a terrace of four townhouses with integral garages
fronting Cliff Road and for the three/six storey building to provide ten flats
and for vehicular access. The scheme was refused on design grounds as follows:
“The
proposed development of the block of ten flats, by reason of its design and
external appearance, with specific reference to the roof shape and its finish,
would be an intrusive development, out of character with the prevailing pattern
of development in the locality and due to its position adjacent to the
Conservation Area, the proposal fails to enhance or preserve the current
amenity value and accordingly is contrary to policies S10 (If it will conserve
or enhance the features of special character of these areas), B6 (Protection
and Enhancement of Conservation Areas), S6 (To be of a High Standard of Design)
and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.”
3.5 To reiterate, Members
were unhappy with the shape and finish of the roof but accepted that,
otherwise, the development was very similar to that which had been granted
planning permission on appeal. Accordingly, the sole reason for refusal was the
design and finish of the roof.
4. Development Plan
Policy
4.1 National Policy Guidance
PPG3/PPS3 gives support
for redevelopment of brownfield sites, increased densities and integration of
design styles.
4.2 UDP Plan Policy
The following policies
are considered to apply:
|
·G1 |
- |
Development
envelope for Towns and Villages |
|
·G4 |
- |
General
Locational Criteria for Development |
|
·G7 |
- |
Unstable Land |
|
·D1 |
- |
Standards of
Design |
|
·D2 |
- |
Standards for
Development within the Site |
|
·D3 |
- |
Landscaping |
|
·D11 |
- |
Crime and Design |
|
·D12 |
- |
Access |
|
·B6 |
- |
Protection and
Enhancement of Conservation Areas |
|
·H1 |
- |
New Development
within main Island Towns |
|
·H4 |
- |
Unallocated
Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements |
|
·H5 |
- |
Infill
Development |
|
·H6 |
- |
High Density
Residential Development |
4.3 The site is located
within the designated development envelope and adjoining the Cowes Conservation
Area.
5. Consultee and Third
Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
·
Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved.
·
Conservation and Design Team point out that the
design of the houses is almost identical to that approved on the adjoining site
and acknowledge the changes made in the current scheme from that which was
refused in September pointing out that the design is now more traditional in
its appearance and fairly similar to that which was allowed on appeal.
5.2 External Consultees
Southern Water point
out that there is currently inadequate capacity in local sewer and recommend
usual condition to provide details of drainage for approval.
5.3 Town Council Comments
Cowes Town Council
object to the design of the flats on grounds of over dominance lacking
architectural merit and being out of keeping. No objection to the town
houses.
5.4 Neighbours
Two letters of
objection from neighbours/local residents on ground of overbearing development,
loss of privacy, inappropriate design especially the roof, inadequate amenity
space and landscaping, discrepancy in drawings and suggesting some windows be
obscured glass.
5.5 Others
Isle of Wight Society
(Cowes Group) object to the development on grounds of inappropriate design out
of keeping with the area and question ground stability. Also querying why development is being
carried out in advance of permission being granted.
6. Evaluation
6.1 The
main issues relating to this application are considered to be:
·
Policy and principle
·
Design
·
Land stability
·
Drainage
·
Access/parking/highway considerations
·
Effect on adjoining properties
·
Whether or not the changes made to the scheme
refused in September are sufficient and appropriate in their nature to allow
permission to be granted.
It should be remembered at this point that all of the above determining factors have to be considered in light of the appeal decision dated 15 September 2004 which granted consent for an essentially similar development of ten apartments and four town houses fronting Cliff Road and the differences between the schemes and, furthermore, that since the refusal in September, which was on grounds of inappropriate design with specific reference to the shape and finish of the roof, that this application has been submitted in an identical form to that refused except for the substitution of a differently designed roof. Accordingly this application should be determined solely on whether or not the current proposed roof design and finish meets with Members approval and if the reason for the previous refusal has been overcome.
6.2 Policy
and Principle
Again, the appeal decision in September 2004 established that residential development of this site with ten apartments and four town houses was acceptable. It also established that development of the mass and scale proposed was appropriate and as the current scheme is of similar proportions and policies and circumstances have not altered since the appeal decision nor the refusal in September or there are no material differences in policy in principle that would warrant refusal. Accordingly policy and principle are considered satisfactory.
6.3 Design
The design of the current scheme is the pivotal determining factor. Members were unhappy with the curved roof as proposed in the application refused in September and, accordingly, the roof has been redesigned in a form incorporating gables and pitches, although it is accepted that would be flat topped. (Similar to that, the subject of the successful appeal.) In addition, the roof materials are now proposed in natural slate as opposed to the metal sheeting on the previous scheme. Otherwise the elevations and materials used in their construction are unchanged.
The
reason for refusal in September was based on the shape and finish of the roof
and accordingly it is clear that Members accepted the other factors involved in
the design of the development. The dormers included in the front (
6.4 Land
Stability
Land stability was an issue which the Inspector considered in his determination of the appeal and indeed in granting permission the need to carry out substantial stabilisation works has been put in hand, authorised by the previous permission.
6.5 Drainage
The scheme allowed at appeal September 2004 includes proposals for the attenuation of surface water and those implications are still felt to be appropriately controlled by condition.
6.6 Access/Parking/Highway
Considerations
As
with the scheme allowed at appeal, that scheme could be implemented at this
time and the fourteen additional units accessed off
6.7 Effect
on Adjoining Properties
As with both the appeal scheme and the last scheme refused in September while the gable end walls of both blocks are blank, containing only obscure glazed windows or window blanks to reduce the plainness of the area of brickwork. The masses of the blocks are essentially the same as those already with planning permission granted at appeal therefore increased levels of dominance or overlooking are little different from the approved scheme.
6.8 In
summary determination of this application is dependent upon the design and
finishes proposed to the roof as that was the only reason for refusal in
September. The scheme now incorporates pitched planes to the roof which are
proposed to be clad in natural slate, a material which is widely found in the
area and the similarities between the scheme allowed at appeal and the latest
submission are extensive.
6.9 In
conclusion this latest scheme is felt appropriate in terms of design and finish
of the roof and felt to be an appropriate addition to this area of varied
architecture.
7. Conclusion
and Justification for Recommendation
7.1 The latest scheme is very similar to that which was allowed on appeal in September 2004 and there are only slight design changes to the elevations and comparatively minor details varying from that scheme. Matters relating to land stability, drainage, scale, mass and potential impact on adjoining properties have been addressed in this revised scheme are little different from those matters which were considered by the Inspector during the appeal. That permission at appeal could now be completed if consent was withheld in this instance but, bearing in mind the reason for refusal in September was purely on the design and finish to the roof, I now consider the changes which have been made to that scheme to be closer to the original appeal decision. Accordingly it is felt that the alternative roof design and finish now proposed is consistent with development in the area and policies contained within the Unitary Development Plan it is recommended for approval accordingly.
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
further development shall take place until 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 (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. |
|
4 |
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. |
|
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 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. |
|
6 |
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 |
|
7 |
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. |
|
8 |
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: In the interests
of the amenities of adjoining properties and in accordance with policy D1
(Standards of Design) 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 windows/dormer windows (other than those
expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed. Reason: In the interests
of the amenities of adjoining properties and in accordance with policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
The
construction of dwellings hereby permitted shall not commence until a
detailed specification (including design, materials, opening mechanisms and
colour) of the doors (including garage doors) and windows has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall
be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Subsequent changes to
the approved specification shall only be carried out with the written
approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason:
To reflect the requirements of Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and to protect the character and appearance
of the Conservation Area and to comply with policy B6 (Protection and
Enhancement of Conservation Areas) and in the interests of highway safety to
comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
11 |
No
dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until 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
10 cars and 10 bicycles 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. |
|
12 |
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. |
|
13 |
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. |
|
14 |
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. |
|
15 |
Steps,
including the installation and use of wheel cleaning facilities in accordance
with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority, shall be taken to prevent material being deposited on the highway
as a result of any operation on the site.
Any deposit of material from the site on the highway shall be removed
as soon as practicable by the site operator. 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. |
|
16 |
The
development shall not be occupied until sight lines have been provided in
accordance with the visibility splay shown on the approved plan. 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. |
|
17 |
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 5 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. |
|
18 |
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. |
|
19 |
Development
shall not begin until details of the screening required to protect the
privacy of neighbours have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The balcony
shall not be brought into use until the works of screening have been carried
out in accordance with the approved details and the screening shall be
retained hereafter. Reason: In the interests of the privacy and
amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining property and to comply with
policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
08 |
Reference
Number: P/01840/06 - TCP/16748/G Parish/Name: Sandown - Ward/Name: Sandown South Registration
Date: 24/07/2006 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr C Hougham Tel: (01983)
823552 Applicant: Dr M
Sallam Continued use of
property as hostel for vulnerable persons This is a joint
report with P/01841/06 – TCP/13180/P These
applications are recommended for Refusal |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
These are two separate retrospective planning applications submitted by the same applicant for identical, or very similar, use which have proved to be relatively contentious locally and the local Ward Members support the view that the applications be determined by this Committee.
1. Details of
Application
1.1 Brencliffe,
1.2 In addition to a crude
location and site plan the applicants’ agent has submitted a covering letter in
which he says on his clients’ behalf:
…with
the request that it be for a limited period of say two to three years as my
client has future proposals to demolish the existing building and seek planning
permission to erect seven dwellings with parking facilities on the site.
….,
during his ownership of the property my client has received no complaints as to
the use as a home for vulnerable persons.
1.3 The applicants’ agents
has been given the opportunity to provide additional information on behalf of
his client.
1.4 The Case Officer has
carried out an accompanied pre-arranged internal inspection of the premises.
Case Officer made the following observations:
·
Premises is quite well-maintained providing a
reasonable standard of accommodation.
·
Applicant (and his family) purport to live on the
premises in order to manage the use as a hostel.
·
Applicant confirmed that some rooms are currently
not occupied but there are presently five residents who are all on bail.
·
Residents do not have access to communal facilities
but have the benefit of limited cooking facilities (i.e. kettle and microwave)
in individual rooms.
1.5
1.6 In addition to a crude
location and site plan the applicants’ agent has submitted a covering letter
which confirms that his client purchased the premises in 1999 and prior to his
client acquiring the property it had been used as a residential home for the
elderly. He states:
My client wished me to emphasise that persons living in a residential home are of a higher vulnerability category (requiring all facilities, i.e. feeding frequent attention, administration of medicines etc.) whereas, using the premises as a home for vulnerable persons is of a lower category as these people only require accommodation (i.e. producing there own food etc.) and only require assistance and advice to deal with their varying problems.
During
the time of his ownership my client has personally received no complaints as to
the use of the premises. Accusations as to the presence of rats (reported to
Environmental Health) and unauthorised building works (reported to Building
Control) within the last two weeks have been found to be without foundation
have resulted in a complete waste of valuable officer time.
1.7 The applicants’ agents
has been given the opportunity to provide additional information on behalf of
his client.
1.8 The Case Officer has carried
out an accompanied pre-arranged internal inspection of the premises. Case
Officer made the following observations:
·
Premises is quite well-maintained providing a
reasonable standard of accommodation.
·
Warden lives on site in a large chalet in the rear
garden area.
·
Warden confirms that placements are taken from
various sources but, at this moment in time, none of the residents are on bail.
·
Residents have access to communal facilities in the
form of a sitting room and large kitchen.
1.9 Agent has submitted a
copy of ‘house rules’ for both premises which he advises are prominently
displayed and signed by each tenant. He confirms that all potential residents
are thoroughly vetted and references taken up before they are offered
accommodation.
2. Location and Site
Characteristics
2.1 Premises in Shanklin is
an older style large detached property situated in a relatively prominent
location on the corner at the junction of
2.2 Members familiar with
this particular area will note that it is characterised by large properties
many of which continue to be used as hotels and guest houses. This is a
sustainable location close to the town centre and other associated facilities
including the cliff walk and access to the Esplanade and beach.
2.3 Premises in Sandown is
one of a pair of semi-detached properties situated on the western side of
Grafton Street about thirty metres away from the junction with
2.4 Although there are larger
premises in the immediate locality which continue to be used for hotel/guest
houses or have been converted to various forms of residential accommodation.
This is now a predominantly residential area in a sustainable location within
easy walking distance of the town centre.
3. Relevant History
3.1 Members should note that
these two retrospective applications have been precipitated by enforcement
investigations but there has been previous planning history relevant to the
latest submissions.
3.2 2 Park Road, Shanklin
Application for change of use of the premises for a home for the rehabilitation
of mentally ill persons was refused permission by the Council, as Local
Planning Authority, and a subsequent appeal in respect of an Enforcement Notice
was dismissed and a refusal of planning permission for the change of use of the
premises to a private dwellinghouse which was allowed for a temporary period of
three years; both appeal decisions were dated 17 March 1997.
3.3 An application for the
removal of the temporary condition imposed by the Inspector an appeal was
approved in 2000.
3.4 It has been explained to
the applicant in correspondence prior to the submission of the application of
the authorised and lawful use of the premises is as a private dwellinghouse for
himself and his family and for no other purpose without the benefit of a
further planning permission. In this context he was invited to take due regard
of the advice that he was given at the time of the application for the removal
of the temporary condition.
3.5
3.6 When the Case Officer
became involved with this matter prior to the submission of this retrospective
application he set out precise advice for the applicant in the following form:
·
Present use of the premises is unauthorised and
requires the benefit of planning permission.
·
Our assessment of the present position in that the
current use is either as a hostel, which is sui generis or C2
(residential institutions); in either scenario he is in breach of the approved
and/or lawful use of the premises and consequently there is a breach of
planning control. When giving due regard to the time that had elapsed since
this was first brought to his attention, if he wished to continue using the
premises as a hostel he should make a retrospective application immediately.
·
If he was able to provide documentary evidence to
prove that he has used the premises for this particular purpose continuously
for a period in excess of ten years he had the option to submit an application
for a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC).
·
He was advised that if he failed to respond within
the timescale he would be served with a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) with
a view to using our discretionary powers to serve an Enforcement Notice (EN)
with the intention of bringing about a cessation of the unauthorised use.
3.7 Shortly after the receipt
of the abovementioned advice the applicant appointed a local agent who
subsequently revealed that his client was not in a position to make an
application for an LDC as he had only purchased the premises in 1999.
4. Development Plan
Policy
4.1 Strategic Policies
S1, S5, S6 and S7.
4.2 Local Planning Policies
|
· G4 |
- |
General
Locational Criteria for Development |
|
· D1 |
- |
Standards
of Design |
|
· D2 |
- |
Standards
for Development within the Site |
|
· H6 |
- |
High
Density Residential Development |
|
· H11 |
- |
Houses
in Multiple Occupation (HMO’s) |
|
· T4 |
- |
Designation
of Hotel Areas |
|
· TR3 |
- |
Locating
Development to Minimise the Need to Travel |
|
· TR7 |
- |
Highway
Considerations for New Development |
|
· TR16 |
- |
Parking
Policies and Guidelines |
5. Consultee and Third
Party Comments
5.1 On a general point
Members are asked to note that in addition to the initial round of statutory
and non-statutory consultations (and responses) there was a further round of
consultations providing the various consultees with additional information and
the nature of third party representations. Those asked to submit (further)
detailed observations were as follows:
·
Chief Officer of the National Probation Service
(Hampshire Area)
·
Area Business Manager (Southampton and
·
Service Manager for Adult and Community Services
(IWC)
·
Crime Liaison Officer
5.2 The reason for consulting
with the National Probation Service and Stonhams, which is a local housing
association that deals with placements, will become apparent in the remainder
of this report. The reason for consulting with our own Adult and Community
Service and the Crime and Liaison Officer is relatively clear, although
regrettably there has not been a response from the latter at time of preparing
report.
5.3 Initial response from the
Service Manager for Adult and Community Services includes the following
observations:
I am
aware of the current use of the properties, and am aware of some disquiet among
the neighbours, particularly in
I am
aware that in 2005, following concern over the material service provided to
tenants at Brencliffe, the supporting people programme withdrew its financial
support for (the applicant) and his supported housing service, leaving him as
landlord only.
As
Commissioner of Adult Mental Services, I took steps to remove our residents
from the residential care home at Firdale (
While
the Council’s adult mental health services have not directly supported any
placements at Brencliffe or 16 Grafton Street, I believe that other
organisations including Stonham Housing Association and probation and drug and
alcohol services have been involved in supporting people who have moved there.
If a
service user makes a person-centre choice to move into these rental properties,
funding arrangements and their right to do so make it unrealistic to prevent
them becoming tenants. In addition, there is a shortage of rental accommodation
on the
5.4 Following the additional round of consultation the Service Manager has advised me that he is sharing the detailed information provided by the Case Officer with colleagues in the NHS Trust and the Council’s Drug and Alcohol Services.
5.5 The Crime Liaison Officer
advises that the Hampshire Constabulary have no objection to these planning
applications.
5.6 Parish/Town Councils
Shanklin Town Council opposes the application on the grounds that to continue its use as a hostel is out of keeping with the area and could lead to social disturbance.
Sandown
Town Council have submitted the following observation:
…notes this application is in a residential area opposite the youth club and they raise the question if the building meets the fire safety requirements for a building with multiple occupancy and subject to any views the police may have.
If approved the Council would like to see a limit of the number of
residents.
5.7 Third
Party Representations
Seven
e-mails have been received from local residents living in
·
Inappropriate use in an area frequented by
tourists/visitors to the
·
Various alleged public order offences requiring
police attendance.
·
Alleged drug abuse.
·
Deteriorating condition of the building.
·
Inappropriate management/supervision.
·
Continuous breaches of planning control at this
premises going back over a period of many years.
Representations objecting to the application from local people in this particular case, mostly take the form of a standard stereotyped letter and for this reason it is important to firstly examine the detailed comments and supporting information provided by the owner/occupier of the neighbouring property (no. 14). This individual has had correspondence with Stonham (see above) and has also got copy correspondence between the MP and the Chief Officer for the Hampshire Probation Area. Respective parties have been advised that this correspondence has been placed on the public file and can be viewed on the Council’s website as well as being invited to make (further) detailed observations prior to the determination of the application.
The
Chief Officer for the Hampshire Probation Area writing to the MP’s office earlier
this year’s just prior to the submission of this retrospective application
said:
This address is one of the accommodation facilities used by the Probation Service to house offenders. There is no formal arrangement with the landlord who lets the accommodation privately. On occasions an offender is placed at this address through the Stonham Housing Association, which can provide floating support and assistance.
There
are other accommodation facilities that are used, although not on the
Clearly,
however, it is possible that (the neighbour) may experience
anti-social behaviour from offenders or any other neighbours within the house,
in which case I would encourage her to contact the police to deal with this.
…use of
these premises is not seen as an ideal solution by the Probation Service.
However, there is a particular problem in finding an appropriate accommodation
for offenders on the
Notwithstanding the information provided by the Hampshire Probation Area, Stonhams, in a letter to the objector, state that the property does not belong to them and that they are not in any discussions and/or negotiations to take on the premises; they also state:
On
speaking to my staff on the
Owner of neighbouring property, in addition to providing the aforementioned copy correspondence, objects to the application on the following grounds:
·
No weight should be given to the applicants’
agents’ comparison between the present unauthorised use and the former use as a
residential home for the elderly.
·
Former use of the premises as a residential home
for the elderly was a “perfectly satisfactory neighbour”.
·
She insists that there have been complaints about
the use of the premises since it was acquired by the applicant.
The objector
produced a stereotype letter which she circulated locally, based on the
following allegation.
I have written evidence that no.
Fifteen copies of this letter have
been received from local residents mostly living in
6. Evaluation
6.1 Prior
to examining the merits or otherwise of both submissions it is important to
clarify the relatively minor operational/management differences between the two
premises.
6.2 Premises
in Shanklin, by the admission of the applicant when interviewed on site, is to
provide accommodation for individuals on bail and that the occupiers do not
have access to any communal facilities within the building. Conversely, the
premises at Sandown have been (or could presumably be used again) as
accommodation for people on bail but, at this moment in time, according to the
resident warden, has no occupants that are on bail and the residents have
access to communal facilities within the building.
6.3 Prior
to 1994 use of premises as a hostel fell into the same use class as a hotel or
a boarding/guest house. However, the Use Classes Order was amended in April
1994 by the exclusion of hostels which is now a sui generis use, except
where a significant element of care is involved, in which case it falls within
Class C2 (Use for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people
in need of care).
6.4 The reason for the amendment to the Use Class Order given by the former Minister at the time was that there was a real threat to the amenity of tourist areas from the establishment of hostels, which had been attracting large numbers of benefits claimants, in traditional hotel areas.
6.5 On a
point of clarification, considerable contention has surrounded the correct
classification of bail or probation hostels, and classification in C1, C2 or as
sui generis has been postulated. With the removal of hostels from Class
C1 this option has been removed and the weight of opinion now lies with such
uses being sui generis.
6.6 It
seems inevitable that a continuation of current government policy will have the
effect of further increasing the number of proposals for (care) hostel uses
within established residential areas which is likely to increase the number of
planning applications. Government policy would suggest that a normal test of an
application for hostels is simply to ask whether the (proposed) use would cause
such a diminution of residential character and amenity in the area as a whole
that it would justify refusing planning permission.
6.7 In
these type of cases there is invariably the fear of crime and whether this can
be a material consideration where it is clearly an issue for local residents
but there is little of no substantive evidence. Courts have held the public
fear and apprehension about the impact of the development is capable of being a
land use related material consideration even when not rational of fact based.
This means that such fears must be taken on board in the balance of decision
making. However, the actual weight that the decision maker may give to public
apprehension is a matter of judgment having regard to all the facts of a
particular case. Local authorities find it extremely hard to sustain such
objections because of the lack of evidence and problems that would actually
occur. The fact that “care in the community” is government policy and paragraph
92 of Circular 11/95 states that the identity of occupiers of property is
irrelevant to planning control, strongly mitigates against refusals based on
fears that residents of hostels would indulge in a legal or disorderly
activities.
6.8 Hopefully
Members will find the background information contained in the preceding
paragraphs helpful in the determination of these two applications.
6.10 In this particular context Members are invited to consider an appeal against an Enforcement Notice served more than ten years ago in respect of this particular property which alleged a breach of planning control as a result of the unauthorised change of use of the premises from residential to a home for the rehabilitation of mentally ill persons. The Inspector dismissed the appeal, upheld the Enforcement Notice and refused to grant planning permission, stating:
In my opinion, it would be inconsistent with that objective to grant permission for what would amount to a form of long term institutional use which is unlikely to contribute to the facilities being sought by holiday visitors seeking short stay accommodation in Shanklin.
6.11 Although the approved or lawful use of the premises at that time was as a guest house those observations in combination with ministerial views expressed at the time of the amendment to the UCO and the third party representations claiming that the unauthorised has led to antisocial behaviour would seem to amount to a sustainable reason for withholding permission. In my view the possibility of the grant of a short term temporary planning permission in this case would not be consistent with the advice contained in Circular 11/95 on the use of temporary consents, particularly as this is a retrospective application and the Council, as Local Planning Authority will not need to opportunity to review the matter at a later date since the premises has been in this particular use, or a similar use, for a considerable period of time. Recommendation is to refuse permission with appropriate enforcement action with a compliance period of six months.
Inevitably there are a number of similarities between the two cases but due regard and appropriate weight has to be given to identifiable differences.
·
This premises is located in a predominantly
residential area as opposed to a tourist area.
·
This is a semi-detached property.
·
There is a higher number of residents who have
access to communal facilities within the premises.
·
Warden alleges that, at this moment in time, none
of the residents are on bail.
6.13 Although a semi-detached property this is quite a substantial premises which has been used for multiple occupancy purposes for a considerable period of time having been used as a residential home for the elderly prior to the property being acquired by the applicant. The internal inspection of the premises, admittedly pre-arranged and accompanied, revealed that the accommodation for “vulnerable persons” fell between what would generally be recognised as a conventional hostel use and what is commonly known as bedsit accommodation. It is apparent that the premises has been used to provide accommodation for persons on bail as opposed to a bail hostel and, based on the representations made by the owner of the immediate neighbouring property, has been the scene of some antisocial behaviour and disputes with the applicant over the operation of the premises.
6.14 Hostels, or bedsit accommodation, for “vulnerable persons” are traditionally located within residential areas throughout the country and in certain circumstances there may be an inclination to support the application subject to a significant degree of control over the operation and use of the premises. However, in fairness, the Council and local residents would need to be satisfied on a number of points.
·
Hostels should be properly managed with residents,
wherever possible, actively seeking employment or obtaining training to
reintegrate into the workplace in order to lessen any (perceived) risk to the
local community.
·
Residents would be housed following a referral and
will have undergone a full police check with the same procedure being
undertaken by those who enter through the direct access route (i.e. without
referral).
·
Acceptance to the hostel would be for the purposes
of maintaining employment or rehabilitation/assistance to find employment and
self-financed accommodation.
6.15 It is important not to stray into areas covered by other legislation which may not necessarily be material planning considerations. However, the present use of this premises does not satisfy the criteria outlined above and, on this basis, it is difficult to support the application particularly as any likely controlling conditions may be viewed as unenforceable.
6.16 Notwithstanding the decision not to support the application does not necessarily mean that permission would be withheld on well evidenced policy grounds if the Council was dealing with a proposed use. In this case, however, we are looking at a continued use where there is (disputed) evidence of disturbances and antisocial behaviour in combination with poor management which has resulted in a loss of amenity for the owners/occupiers of the neighbouring property and other local residents. In theory, there may be a negotiable solution which would see the premises used for some form of relatively intensive (multiple occupancy) residential use but on the basis of the information available to the Council at this present time the only appropriate recommendation is to refuse permission and serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the unauthorised use within a period of six months.
7. Conclusion and Justification for
Recommendation
7.1 Having due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations it is considered that the continued use of either of these premises as a hostel for “vulnerable persons” is likely to have a continuing damaging effect on tourist and residential amenity sufficient to justify refusing planning permission which should be followed by the service of Enforcement Notices in order to bring about cessation of the unauthorised uses allowing a minimum of six months for compliance when taking into account that we are dealing with residential accommodation.
8. Recommendation -
P/01841-06 – TCP/13180/P –
1. Refuse permission.
2. That an Enforcement Notice be served requiring the cessation of the use of the premises as a hostel allowing a compliance period of six months.
Recommendation - P/01840-06 –
TCP/16748/G –
1. Refuse permission.
2. That an Enforcement Notice be served requiring the cessation of the use of the premises as a hostel allowing a compliance period of six months.
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The
continued use of the premises as a hostel for vulnerable persons by reason of
its location within a comparatively lower residential density area, has a
serious and adverse effect on the level of amenities enjoyed by residents of
that area, particularly the owners/occupiers of the neighbouring
semi-detached property, by reason of noise disturbance and general
vehicular/pedestrian activity within the immediate vicinity of the premises
contrary to Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and H11 (Houses in Multiple
Occupation) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2 |
The
information accompanying this application is inadequate and deficient in
detail in respect of the operation and management of the premises as a hostel
so that the Local Planning Authority is unable to consider fully the effects
of the proposed continued use on the immediate locality and in the absence of
further details it is considered that the continued use is likely to be
contrary to policy S6 (All development will be expected to be of a High
Standard of Design) and policy G4 (General Locational Criteria for
Development) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
09 |
Reference
Number: P/01841/06 - TCP/13180/P Parish/Name: Shanklin - Ward/Name: Shanklin South Registration Date: 24/07/2006
- Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr C Hougham Tel: (01983)
823552 Applicant: Dr M
Sallam Continued use of
property as hostel for vulnerable persons Brencliffe, This is a joint
report with P/01840/06 – TCP/16748/G |
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The
proposal seeks to continue using premises within the designated hotel area
for inappropriate purposes not associated with holiday uses in a tourist area
where it has a detrimental effect on the overall character and health of the
tourist industry in conflict with policy S5 and policy T1 (Promotion of
Tourism and the Extension of the Season) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
2 |
The
continued use of the premises as a hostel for vulnerable persons by reason of
its location within a predominantly
low density tourist area has a serious and adverse effect on the
amenities enjoyed by residents and visitors to the area, by reason of noise
disturbance and general activity including vehicular/pedestrian activity on
and within the vicinity of the premises contrary to policies D1 (Standards of
Design) and H11 (Houses in Multiple Occupation) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
3 |
The
information accompanying this application is inadequate and deficient in
detail in respect of the operation and management of the premises as a hostel
so that the Local Planning Authority is unable to consider fully the effects
of the proposed continued use on the immediate locality and in the absence of
further details it is considered that the continued use is likely to be
contrary to policy S6 (All development will be expected to be of a high
standard of design) and policy G4 (General Locational Criteria for
Development) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
10 |
Reference
Number: P/01888/06 - TCP/25181/C Parish/Name: Bembridge - Ward/Name: Bembridge North Registration
Date: 27/07/2006 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr C Hougham Tel: (01983)
823552 Applicant: Mr S
R Hall Partial
demolition of store; proposed terrace of 6 houses (revised scheme)(revised
plans)(re-advertised application) site of, The application
is recommended for Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Local Ward Member has asked that this application be determined by the Committee, on the basis, that she is of the opinion that the proposal for six houses is overdevelopment of the site.
1. Details of
Application
1.1 This is a revised submission
to develop the site with a single terrace of six houses to be positioned
adjacent and parallel to the rear (south eastern) boundary of the site facing
in a north westerly direction through the existing access way towards the High
Street (B3395).
1.2 The
revised scheme also makes provision for a residents store to be sited in the
northern corner of the site to the rear of nos. 15 to 21 (odd inclusive) High
Street with on site provision for six car parking spaces on a “one for one”
basis for the proposed units plus two additional car parking spaces for the
adjacent chemist shop (no. 25 High Street).
1.3 Revised details show a
predominantly two storey block with the central four units having the benefit
of second floor accommodation within the roof space. Proposed terrace will be
of traditional construction employing a design approach appropriate for the
location with external materials to be to local authority approval.
1.4 Revised proposals have been the subject of extensive negotiations with the applicant and his agent (see below) and have been readvertised. Application is supported by a Design and Access Statement and a report on contamination, in the context of the former use, with appropriate conclusions/recommendations.
2. Location and Site
Characteristics
2.1 An irregularly shaped
flat backland site situated to the rear of commercial/residential premises
fronting onto Bembridge High Street and
2.2 There is an existing
vehicular/pedestrian access off the High Street between nos. 19/21 and 25.
3. Relevant History
3.1 In February 2003 an
application involving the demolition the former garage/workshop and outline for
a terrace of five houses with car parking was granted conditional permission.
This consent was renewed in February 2006 and remains extant today.
3.2 In February 2006 a
detailed application was submitted seeking approval for a terrace of four
houses and a pair of semi-detached houses in the form of an “L” shape at the
rear of the site, with the proposed terrace of four houses backing onto a private
access drive between nos. 11 and
·
Intrusive development, out of character with the
prevailing pattern of development in the locality adversely affecting and
failing to enhance the character and amenities of the area.
·
Overdevelopment of the site which would be likely
to provide a poor standard environment for future occupants and also create
conditions likely to give rise to overlooking, loss of outlook and be of an
overbearing nature to occupants of neighbouring and nearby properties.
Following
consultation with his client the agent decided to withdraw the application in
April 2006.
3.3 Negotiations with the
agent and his client then followed and a letter from the Case Officer to the
agent highlighted specific concerns about the proposed development.
Layout has obviously been designed, quite rightly, to avoid any serious impact on the rear of properties fronting onto the High Street but I feel you should give further consideration to the apparent close proximity of the end of terrace to properties in Foreland Road, the size of the private rear garden areas other than unit 3, which has a disproportionately large garden, and positioning the residents store away from the boundary in order to facilitate/assist with building and future maintenance and also to minimise any impacts on the occupants of the neighbouring property.
In very simple terms this should be loss complicated and I would suggest that you move away from the “up and down” eaves/ridge heights towards something more traditional, delete from the scheme the second floor dormer windows which look out of the site, rather than into the site, and revisit the scale and proportion of the main facades of the proposed building(s).
3.4 A suggestion that there may be a better solution based on a “mews style” development which ideally should be predominantly two storey with some garaging/car ports at ground floor level which would leave space within the courtyard area for a larger footprint, some landscaping or even additional car parking was declined by the applicant.
3.5 The agent provided some revised drawings prior to the submission of a second application which attempted to address the specific concerns. He was offered further advice in the following terms:
…I remain concerned about the level and standard of accommodation that you are attempting to provide within a relatively small “shell” which, in my view, is creating difficulties in terms of the overall depth of the proposed buildings. ……, and the provision of an additional bedroom with dressing room and en-suite facility within the roofspace for six units leading to an excessive number of openings which in terms of position, size and proportion detract from the traditional cottage style design concept which you are trying to develop.
Agent
was invited to revisit the overall layout in terms of the juxta-position with
the neighbouring properties; reduce the level of accommodation proposed for
each individual unit (or the number of units); give further regard to the
overall depth of the individual units and ensure that there is limited
overlooking of neighbouring properties.
3.6 Second application, the
submission now under consideration was received in late July 2006 and was
supported by a Design and Access Statement and a contamination report because
of the previous use of the site for motor vehicle repair work (see above). It
was hoped that the application could be dealt with under the delegated
procedure but the local Ward Member maintained her view that the scheme, in its
revised form, still represented overdevelopment of the site. Officers do not
share this view but nevertheless continued to have specific reservations about
the scheme and were of the view that the agent had not overcome the objections
to the initial application. These views were conveyed to the applicants’ agent
several weeks ago and since that date there have been quite intensive
negotiations with the applicant and his agent leading to the submission of
further revised drawings which make quite significant amendments to the scheme
as submitted several months ago. Prior to the formal submission of the revised
drawings, now under consideration, the agent was given appropriate advice in
the following terms:
We agreed that when giving due regard and appropriate weight to the extant permission and, more importantly, the various points highlighted in the aforementioned recent correspondence, that the latest amended proposals largely overcome the concern and objections to the original submitted application for a terrace of four houses and a pair of semi-detached houses in a somewhat awkward configuration towards the rear of the site.
This
advice was, of course, given on a “without prejudice” basis.
4. Development Plan
Policy
4.1 National Policy Guidance
·
PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development
·
PPG3 – Housing (2000)
4.2 Strategic Planning 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) |
|
·S5 |
- |
Proposals
for Development which on Balance will be for the Overall Benefit of the |
|
·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 housing units over
the plan period |
4.3 Local Planning Policies
|
· G4 |
- |
General
Locational Criteria for Development |
|
· D1 |
- |
Standards
of Design |
|
· D2 |
- |
Standards
for Development within the Site |
|
· H4 |
- |
Unallocated
Residential Development |
|
· H5 |
- |
Infill
Development |
|
· TR7 |
- |
Highway
Considerations for New Development |
|
· TR16 |
- |
Parking
Policies and Guidelines |
5. Consultee and Third
Party Comments
5.1 Parish Council Comments
Bembridge Parish
Council objects to the application on grounds of overdevelopment of the site.
5.2 Third Party Representations
CPRE object to the application describing the scheme as “gross overdevelopment”, claiming that the earlier application was withdrawn “presumably because of vigorous local opposition” and refers to the amended scheme as an “urban-style backland development”. His view is that the extant permission for five dwellings “already represents the limit of acceptability”.
Owner/occupier
of one of the two properties that flank the existing driveway to the site
object to the application on the following grounds:
· Concern
for the local community and the likely effect that the development will have
during the construction period and on completion of the development (i.e.
delivery of materials, removal of waste etc.)
· Six
units is overdevelopment of the site.
· Inadequate
“on site” parking facilities.
· Difficulties
over access arrangements*.
* This
does not appear to be a material planning consideration but rather an issue
between the respective parties.
Owner/occupier of another property flanking the access, in the same building, have written to confirm they have no objection to the proposed development.
6. Evaluation
6.1 Prior
to examining the revised details of the proposed scheme it is important to
highlight some fundamental points.
·
Site is within the built up area inside the
development envelope boundary.
·
This is a particularly sustainable location close
to the centre of the village and associated facilities.
·
There is an extant outline planning permission to
develop the site with a terrace of five houses.
6.2 This
detailed application seeks to increase the density by one additional unit in
the form of a terrace of six houses. Notwithstanding the views of the local
Parish Council and third parties (see above) there is no sustainable objection
to this modest increase in density as the site is clearly capable of
accommodating six units in this size and form. The existence of an extant
permission to develop the site with five dwellings is a material consideration
but should not be regarded as a fixed benchmark for any alternative schemes to
develop the site as each individual application should be judged on its merits.
6.3 In
similar terms there are no adverse comments from the Area Highway Engineer so
there is no sustainable objection to the relatively small increase in the
projected use of the access when compared with the extant permission; it should
be remembered that the site was until recently used for commercial purposes as
a garage/workshop for a local car franchise.
6.4 Consequently
the application, in its revised form, needs to be determined on the various
detailed aspects against a background of local planning policy principally the
criteria based policies D1 and D2.
6.5 Initially
the applicants’ agent attempted to address the points of concern highlighted by
officers by making a number of design/layout amendments in consultation with
the Case Officer. However, the view was taken that, despite these negotiations,
officers would not be able to support the application while the agent persisted
with the layout which comprised two detached but adjacent buildings set at
right angles to each other comprising a terrace of four houses and a pair of
semi-detached houses. As a result of further negotiations the agent has amended
the design concept in terms of the overall layout by adopting a simpler
approach which involves a single terrace of six units across the site facing
down the existing access way towards the High Street. He has also reduced the
scheme in terms of the overall accommodation by designing two end of terrace
two storey units with no accommodation at second floor level within the
roofspace; which means that the revised proposals now under consideration are
for two two bedroom end of terrace units and four three bedroom mid terrace
units where the additional third en-suite bedroom is within the roofspace. A
design feature of the revised scheme is the four dormer windows on the mid
terrace unit but these face into the site looking towards the aforementioned
access way; although there will be openings on the rear (south east) elevation
to provide light/ventilation to the second floor accommodation these will be in
the form of rooflights thereby eliminating any likelihood of overlooking with
associated loss of privacy for existing properties in Foreland Road.
6.6 The
view is now that the latest revised proposal satisfied the criteria based
design related policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan and that in
terms of number, layout, height, scale, mass and external appearance there is
no sustainable objection to the proposed development. Furthermore, the more
conventional approach in layout terms minimises any potential overlooking with
associated loss of privacy for properties in the High Street while providing
adequate rear amenity areas for the proposed units and maintaining adequate
parking facilities, one space per unit, which is considered to be satisfactory
when applying the appropriate policy and relevant guidelines and giving due
regard and appropriate weight to the very sustainable location in the centre of
the village. Officers are now comfortable with a recommendation for conditional
permission.
7. Conclusion and Justification for
Recommendation
7.1 In handling this application due regard has been given to the previous non-conforming use of the site, the extant outline approval for a terrace of five dwellings, the overarching objectives of government policy, local planning policies and the likely degree of impact on the owners/occupiers of any neighbouring or nearby residential properties. Discussion and negotiations on this particular application have stretched out over a considerable period of time but Officers involved with the case are now satisfied that the submitted scheme adequately demonstrates that the site is capable of accommodating six two and three bedroom units and although it is a backland site there is no demonstrable harm to matters relating to general amenity and the current level of amenity enjoyed by owners/occupiers of neighbouring properties in the High Street or Foreland Road. Proposed development, if approved, will protect and enhance the character and amenities of the area providing new homes in a sustainable location which will contribute to the viability of retail and associated facilities in the centre of Bembridge.
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 |
Development
shall not begin until details of the design, surfacing and construction of
the improved driveway and forecourt area, including parking, 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 of the
proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of
the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
None
of the dwellings, hereby approved, shall be occupied until the access,
forecourt and parking area have been constructed, surfaced and drained in
accordance with the details required by condition no. 2. Reason:
To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage of the
proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of
the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
None
of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until space has been laid
out within the site in accordance with drawing no. 84-2003.10 for the parking
of eight vehicles, two to be retained in connection with the use of the
neighbouring retail premises, together with turning facilities so they may
enter and leave the site in a 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. |
|
5 |
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 garages shall be erected. 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. |
|
6 |
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. |
|
7 |
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 protect the
amenities of surrounding residential occupiers and to comply with policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
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 protect the
amenities of surrounding residential occupiers and to comply with policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
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. |
|
10 |
No
part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until there has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: a) a
desk-top study documenting all previous and existing land uses of the site
and adjacent land in accordance with national guidance as set out in
Contaminated Land Research Report No. 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
desk-top study in accordance with BS10175:2001 - "Investigation of
Potentially Contaminated Sites - 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 implantation timetable monitoring proposals and a
remediation verification methodology. The verification methodology shall
include a sampling and analysis programme to confirm the adequacy of
decontamination and an appropriately qualified person shall oversee the
implementation of all 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 the 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 re mediated to an appropriate
standard in order to comply with Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act
1990. |
|
11 |
Reference
Number: P/02067/06 - TCP/11878/F Parish/Name: Shanklin - Ward/Name: Shanklin South Registration
Date: 10/08/2006 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr D Long Tel: (01983)
823552 Applicant: Removal of
condition no. 1 on TCP/11878/E which states that the use shall be
discontinued on or before 31 July 2007 Alverstone
House, The application
is recommended for Refusal |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This is a contentious application on a site with a background of public concern. Members of the Development Control Committee granted temporary consent contrary to officer advice. Current application brought before Members seeks permanent consent.
1. Details of
Application
1.1 This is a full
application.
1.2 Proposal
seeks to remove condition 1 on TCP/11878/E which relates to a temporary time
limit for the previous consent which permitted continued use until 31 July
2007.
2. Location and Site Characteristics
2.1 There is no material
change to location and site characteristics when reviewed for previous
Committee consideration. School has however implemented turning facility
involving excavation of bank and removal of some trees in accordance with
conditions of the temporary planning permission granted on 20 September 2005.
Specification is in accordance with approved details and is laid to gravel
surface and landscaped. Remainder of section 2 gives an overview for Members on
locality and site characteristics.
2.2 Site located outside the
development boundary allocated as countryside in accordance with the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan. Area consists of variety of land uses including
hotel, flats, small bungalows and large detached properties. Properties are in
transitional zone whereby built form becomes less dense from that of
neighbouring development boundary creating a sporadic pattern of development
when entering more traditional type countryside.
2.3 Properties are set back
off road frontage with majority being screened by vegetation or natural stone
walls.
2.4 Alverstone Manor is a
substantial three storey detached property within large curtilage. Due to
natural topography and gradient premises sits at lower elevation than that of
2.5 Northern boundary of site
has extensive vegetative boundary of mixed species and trees. Neighbouring
property no. 30 Luccombe Road is located at a lower gradient and screened by
vegetation and earth bank. Rear boundary is relatively open facing towards
cliff beach frontage. Trees along frontage are regarded as high visual amenity
and are protected through a Tree Preservation Order made in 1949.
3. Relevant History
3.1 TCP/11878/D – Continued
use from dwelling to private school; vehicular access and parking. Application refused
18 April 2005 for the following reasons;
·
Development likely to generate significant increase
in traffic entering and leaving public highway to the detriment of highway
safety.
·
Development is likely to attract standing vehicles
on highway which will interrupt free flow of traffic and thereby adding to
hazards of road users.
·
Formation and use of additional access to adjoining
highway is at a point which would add unduly to hazards of highway users by
virtue of generated activity detrimental to the free flow of both vehicular and
pedestrian traffic.
·
Access is unsatisfactory to serve development by
reason of unacceptable visibility.
·
Application not accompanied by a School Travel Plan
so Local Planning Authority is unable to accurately assess issues relating to
sustainability and in the absence of further details it is considered that the
proposal is likely to increase the car usage.
·
Proposal seeks to remove trees which are of
significant feature in the local landscape which are a significant feature in
the local landscape worthy of retention which appear to be in a sound or
healthy condition.
3.2 TCP/11878/E – Continued
use of dwelling as private school; vehicular access and parking. Application
recommended for refusal but granted temporary permission by Members at
meeting held on 20 September 2005.
Due to
an administrative oversight the reason for taking such a decision contrary to
officer advice was not formally minuted. As a result the matter was considered
at the following meeting held on 1 November 20056 when the following resolution
was agreed:
·
Members felt that additional information submitted
since earlier meetings and decisions that the officers’ advice met some of
their originally recommended reasons for refusal. Whilst acknowledging that the
access was and would remain substandard in terms of visibility given the
revised scheme within the site and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions to further improve the access and enforce the Travel Plan that on
balance the proposal was acceptable for a trial period of two academic years.
During this period the school should be encouraged to look for a more suitable
location.
4. Development Plan
Policy
4.1 Planning Policy Guidance
Note 13 (Transport) encourages use of sustainable transport modes, reducing
reliance on the motor vehicle.
4.2 Unitary Development Plan
policies to be considered within the application are as follows:
|
·
S4 |
- |
Countryside
Protected from Inappropriate Development |
|
·
S6 |
- |
High Standards
of Design |
|
·
G4 |
- |
General
Locational Criteria |
|
·
G10 |
- |
Potential
Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses |
|
·
D1 |
- |
Standards of
Design |
|
·
C1 |
- |
Protection of
Landscape Character |
|
·
C12 |
- |
Development
Affecting Trees and |
|
·
P1 |
- |
Pollution and
Development |
|
·
P5 |
- |
Reducing the
Impact of Noise |
|
·
TR3 |
- |
Locating
Development to Minimise the Need to Travel |
|
·
TR7 |
- |
Highway
Considerations for New Development |
|
·
TR16 |
- |
Parking Policies
and Guidelines |
4.3 There is no Supplementary Planning
Guidance Note relevant to the determination of this application.
5. Consultee and Third
Party Comments
5.1
Internal Consultees
·
Highway Engineer offers the following detailed
comments.
I have
visited the above site, perused the submitted plans, checked the relevant
history and considered it along with the supporting information submitted.
As you
will recall DC committee’s main reason for allowing the temporary consent
referenced TCP/11878/E was to give the owners of the school time to find
alternative premises and to monitor the effectiveness of the School Travel
Plan. In my view this temporary permission does not remove the highway
departments initial objection to the access on the grounds of inadequate
visibility. As such I feel that there are three main issues to consider. They
are the school travel plan, the inadequacy of the access and whether the school
use has an adverse impact on the highway network in the surrounding area.
It appears that the School Travel Plan and results submitted are acceptable in terms of the guidance laid out by the DfT and the DfES and as such has been signed off by both Helen Stichbury (School Travel Plan Advisor) and Stephen Matthews (Head of Engineering Services) A School Travel Plan should be submitted for any new school and any school proposing to increase the use of its site, whether that be through additional classrooms indicating more pupils, extra after school activities or crèche facilities.
By way
of background, a school travel plan is a document produced by a school in
conjunction with the Local Authority. It encompasses all the issues relevant to
journeys to and from school.
It is a means to bring together the ideas and contributions of different
groups of people, to help to solve problems.
The 'Road Safety Strategy for
''school travel plans aim to encourage schools to
identify and solve problems associated with the school journey (especially
those related to safety). The plans are produced by the schools themselves and
do not have to include physical measures to improve routes but instead are a
'way of living and learning'.''
The STP is a basis for measuring change, and, when
approved by the governing body it can become a formal statement of school
policy. School travel plans have attracted government support as they are seen
as a way to help reduce the number of unnecessary car journeys.
As can
be seen by the above information the School Travel Plan process relies on a
school setting its own targets and then reporting back to the Local Authority
on a regular basis as to whether it has achieved these targets. As such if you
set a very low target (i.e – get 5% of pupils to cycle to school within a year)
then achieving the targets is made easier. I am not suggesting that this is the
case here; clearly the school has made a concerted effort to encourage parents
and children to think before they travel and have provided a number of
alternatives to the private car journey, such as the walking bus from the
Although
the travel plan itself has been a success in terms of satisfying the relevant
guidance for such plans, the scheme fails in terms of this application as it is
not compulsory, nor is it enforceable through the Town and Country Planning
Act. As such if the school fails to meet their voluntary targets in the future
the Planning Authority will not have any means of controlling the trips arising
from the use. The school travel plan
does not overcome the highways department’s initial concern pertaining to the
inadequacy of the visibility splays at the access point and in any event is not
the purpose of such a plan.
During
the consideration of this application my colleagues and I have visited the site
on a number of occasions to observe the effectiveness of the schools travel
plan in terms of its day to day operation and its impact on the surrounding
highway network. Observations from these visits are as follows:
·
Parents tend to drop off pupils within
·
That due to the lack of any turning facilities
within
·
The combination of the above trends means that
congestion occurs at peak times at the junction of
·
That during inclement whether the incidence of pick
up and drop off in
·
That the walking bus does continue to operate in
inclement weather.
·
That during all visits only one cyclist was
observed, pushing their bike up
·
That two private mini bus services appear to serve
the school.
In
essence it appears that the operation of the school is having an adverse impact
on the both
I am
cognisant of the fact that the school has a wide catchment area for pupils and
it is not possible to completely eliminate the private car journey to the site.
However this underlines the highways department assertion that this use
represents an unavoidable increase in the use of a substandard access point.
Additionally it appears that the School Travel Plan that was considered by many
to be a tool to overcome this problem has effectively transferred this traffic
to the surrounding surface streets creating a further highway safety
issue.
This
also raises an additional issue as to whether this is a suitable sustainable
location for a school. All approaches to the site are on a steep uphill
gradient that undoubtedly discourages cycling and to a lesser extent walking.
The
final point that requires some specific discussion and consideration is that of
the inadequacy of the visibility splays at the access point. The applicant’s
agent states in a recent letter that this should not be a material
consideration in the deliberations on this application. This is simply not the
case. As I recall the Temporary Consent was granted on the proviso that the
schools owners had adequate time to consider alternative premises and so that
the local planning authority could consider the effects of the school on the
area. This was due to the highways departments’ dissatisfaction with the access
to the school and as such this is still a key issue in the acceptability or
other wise of an application for full permission.
In essence the visibility splays from the access
are still inadequate, and I would refer to my detailed memorandum on the
subject referenced in respect of the previous application. My only further
comment on this subject is that since Temporary consent was granted signs have
been erected stating that the southern end of Luccombe road is a “Twenties
Plenty” area. It should first be made clear that these signs are purely
advisory and this is not a speed limit. The police will only prosecute drivers
exceeding 30 mph.
Secondly during the implementation and
consideration of the erection of these signs a speed survey was undertaken in
In conclusion the Highway Department recommends
refusal of this application on the grounds of increased use of an access
substandard in terms of traffic generation, visibility, standing vehicles and
that the site is not a sustainable location for a school.
·
Highways therefore recommend refusal of the
application for the following reasons:
·
The use of the proposed access to adjoining highway
at this point would add unduly to the hazards of highway users by virtue of
generated activity detrimental to the free flow of both vehicular and
pedestrian traffic.
·
The access is unsatisfactory to serve the proposed
development by reason of unacceptable visibility.
·
The development is likely to attract standing
vehicles on the highway which will interrupt the free flow of traffic and
thereby add to hazards of road users.
·
Site is in an unsustainable location and is not
suitable for an educational facility.
§
School Travel Plan Advisor advises that the
§
Environmental Health department suggest that the
use of the school grounds causes disturbance to neighbouring properties by
reason of generated noise and activity and so conditions are recommend to
restrict outside playtimes to specific timescale.
5.2 External Consultees
No comments received to
date.
5.3 Third Party Comments
Application
has attracted six letters of objection which can be summarised as follows;
·
Increases danger to Priory and
·
Unsustainable location for a school.
·
Excessive traffic congestion. School Travel Plan is
not working.
·
Excessive noise through generated activity from
children.
·
Excessive traffic speeds, actually higher than
designated 30 mph.
·
Inadequate sewage capacity.
·
Road alignment and camber is dangerous and not
sufficient.
·
Insufficient play facility for school children.
Application
has attracted three letters of support which can be summarised as follows;
·
Parents and pupils have been active within the
implementation of School Travel Plan.
·
Peaceful and relaxed location for school.
·
Traffic volumes due to construction traffic of ‘The
Reach’ and further developments up
·
No problems have been encountered from traffic
generation from school.
·
Majority of parents park further down road and walk
into school so road remains clear with no problem to traffic flow.
5.4 Parish Council Comments
None received to date.
6. Evaluation
6.1 The
main determining factors relating to this application are considered to be:
·
Highway implications.
·
Effectiveness of School Travel Plan and
enforcement.
·
Impact on third parties and locality.
6.2 It
is clear from planning history that the Local Planning Authority accepted in
principle the use of Alverstone House as a school. Subject to acceptance in
principle, main issues therefore relate to detailed considerations, i.e.
whether location of school is appropriate in terms of highway implications and
impact on surrounding areas. It was considered on balance that school was not
in a suitable location due to inadequacy of
6.3 When
Members granted temporary permission it was noted that the access was
substandard in terms of visibility but given the improvements made by the
applicant in creating a turning area within site and creation of School Travel
Plan that the reasons for refusal were not sufficient to recommend absolute
refusal. I highlight the resolution established by the Development Control Sub
Committee minutes of 1 November 2005 which stated that temporary permission for
two academic years was granted enabling school to find a more suitable
location.
6.4 To
date Head teacher has approached planning officer once with respect the
above-mentioned matter. Basis of discussion resolved that planning officers
would offer professional opinion to specific sites or premises should the
school come forward with them. To date no specific premises or sites have been
submitted for informal or formal discussion.
6.5 Original
application determined on 18 April 2005 was partly refused due to the lack of School
Travel Plan with no assessment as to whether school was in a sustainable
location thus likely to increase car usage. Other reasons for refusal included
inadequate highway visibility and standing vehicles. Perception has grown with
a view that the School Travel Plan has been adopted to remove quantifiable
dangers and impact to highway safety. Highway Engineer comments that School
Travel Plan may have been seen as a tool to overcome the inadequacies of the
access but this is not the purpose of such a document. School Travel Plan is
aimed to encompass all issues relevant to journeys to and from school but do
not have to include physical measures to improve routes but instead are a way
of living and learning.
6.6 It
would seem that the school has met targets within their School Travel Plan. The
scheme fails in terms of application as it is not compulsory, nor is it
enforceable through the Town and Country Planning Act. As such if the school
fails to meet their voluntary targets in the future the Planning Authority will
not have any means of controlling the trips arising from the use. The issue of
enforceability is extremely pertinent to any decision as the Local Planning
Authority would not be able to enforce or restrict the use of
6.7 Contradictory
third party evidence suggests that the school has not met targets within the
school travel plan. This raises question of reliability of data, as data for
Travel Plan records is collected from the children, when a child walks up due
to parents dropping children off. It would seem that school does comply with
travel plan to a certain degree but main mode of transport appears to be the
motor vehicle. Method of data collection creates conflicting opinions
particularly when it appears contradicting evidence is supplied by third
parties. In the fullest sense Priory School does not comply with their travel
plan as main mode of travel is by car and not from walking, cycling or shared
journeys.
6.8 During
consideration of this application officers have visited the site on a number of
occasions to observe the effectiveness of the School Travel Plan in terms of
its day to day operation and its impact on the surrounding highway network.
Observations from these visits are summarised in Highways Engineers comments.
6.9 It
is apparent that school has a wide catchment area and so it is not possible to
completely eliminate private car journeys. However, this compounds the Highways
department concern that this use represents an unavoidable increase in the use
of a substandard access point. The School Travel Plan should not be used as a
mechanism to overcome problems within the highway so Highways Engineer is
consistent in his approach to recommend refusal on that basis.
6.10 This
raises additional issue as to whether this is a suitable sustainable location
for a school. All approaches to the school are on a steep uphill gradient that
undoubtedly discourages cycling and to a lesser extent walking.
6.11 Applicants’ agents indicate that the visibility splay is not a material consideration within application. Temporary consent was granted on the proviso that the schools owner had adequate time to consider alternative premises so that the Local Planning Authority could consider the effects of the school on the surrounding area. Noted visibility splays on the ‘y’ distance is 54 metres. This is below the recommended standard within Design Bulletin 32 which requires a ‘y’ distance of 90 metres. Original applications undertook speed surveys which established that 85th percentile 29 mph. This reduced the Y distance requirement although it was still not achievable. Through later inspection by the Highways department the relevant speed measure was 33.6 mph. The visibility splay is completely inadequate and use of this access forms a highway danger particularly considering this particular use. This is a dangerous and inadequate visibility and is contrary to all recommended guidance and on that basis Members are recommended to refuse this application. Health and safety of school children is extremely important and approving this application will inherently cause danger to all users, including school children.
6.12 Environmental
Health Officer indicates that from further site visit there is perceived noise
nuisance from generated activity especially at playtime although not be
regarded as a statutory noise nuisance. Request that conditions be applied that
require playtime be restricted to one hour per day within a timeframe of 9 am
to 6 pm. This brings into question whether the site is suitable for its location.
On balance this is not a reason for refusal given that such a matter can be
mitigated by way of appropriate conditions.
7. Conclusion and Justification for
Recommendation
7.1 As seen from the evaluation school has
not come up with any alternative site premises in accordance with resolution
made by Members previously. It is evident that the School Travel Plan should
not be used as a mechanism to reduce or justify insufficient visibility or
inadequacies of the access into
8. Recommendation
Refusal.
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The
Local Planning Authority is not satisfied on the evidence available that the
continued operation of the school represents a sustainable use in this
location and would therefore be contrary to the aims and objectives continued
within both Planning Policy Statement No. 1. (Delivering Sustainable
Development) and Planning Policy Guidance 13 (Transport) and Policies S11
(Reduce Reliance on the Private Car) and TR3 (Locating Development to
Minimise the Need to Travel) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2 |
The
development generates a significant increase in vehicular traffic entering
and leaving the public highway to the detriment of highway safety adding
unduly to the hazards of highways users and is therefore contrary to policy
TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
3 |
The
development attracts standing vehicles on the highway which interrupts the
free flow of traffic and thereby adds to the hazards of road users at this
point and is therefore contrary to policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New
Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
The
formation and use of the additional access to the adjoining highway at this
point adds unduly to the hazards of highway users by virtue of generated
activity detrimental to the free flow of both vehicular and pedestrian
traffic and is therefore contrary to policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for
New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
12 |
Reference
Number: P/02231/06 - TCP/01500/C Parish/Name: Shanklin - Ward/Name: Shanklin South Registration
Date: 06/09/2006 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr C Hougham Tel: (01983)
823552 Applicant: Highfield Residential Care Home Alterations
& 2 storey extension to form additional bedrooms & associated
facilities to include accommodation in roofspace; alterations to vehicular
access, (revised scheme) Highfield House
Residential Home, The application
is recommended for Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Substantial extension to established residential home
which has attracted a large number of representations objecting to the proposed
development.
1. Details of
Application
1.1 This is an amended
detailed submission seeking approval for the construction of a substantial
two/three storey extension at the rear of the building in order to provide
additional accommodation in connection with the present use of the premises as
a residential home.
1.2 In
dimensional terms the proposed extension increases the overall depth of the
property by approximately 13 metres with a maximum width of 30 metres;
effectively increasing the existing “footprint” by something approaching 100%
taking up a large part of the landscape garden area to the rear of the existing
building.
1.3 Applicant’s agent
describes the proposed development as a new annex wing for the development of a
nursing care facility for older people with dementia. The new accommodation
comprises:
·
Ground floor, an entrance hall, large lounge,
kitchen and eight bedrooms all with wc facilities.
·
First floor a client’s lounge, hair salon,
treatment room, separate wc and ten bedrooms all with wc facilities.
·
Second floor (within the roofspace) comprising a
visitors area, interview lounge, staff accommodation, assisted bathroom and six
bedrooms all with wc facilities.
This
gives a total of 24 rooms.
1.4 In the Design and Access
Statement accompanying the application the agent states:
………presently
has approximately 20 beds, and the proposal is to provide a purpose built
extension wing of 24 bedrooms with en suite facilities, together with an
additional lift, lounge areas, visitors seating areas and staff facilities.
Overall the total number of actual bed spaces will be 38-40, as some of the
existing bedrooms will be lost, to accommodate the connection to the new wing
and upgrading of some smaller rooms into one room or used for other ancillary
purposes.
1.5 There is a good deal of
supporting information accompanying the application:
·
Design and Access Statement prepared by the agent
·
Report prepared by the applicants, Island Health
Care Limited, in support of the proposed development (Appendix)
·
Detailed Tree Report prepared by a local
arboriculturist.
·
Traffic and Parking Assessment prepared by local
consultant engineers.
·
Letter from the Deputy Director of Commissioning
and Partnerships for the
·
Letter from Acting Director of Social Services.
·
Letter from Associate Director for Mental Health
and Learning Disabilities of the
·
Letter from Senior Joint Commissioning Manager for
Older People, Physical Disability and Long Term Conditions of the Isle of Wight
NHS Primary Care Trust.
1.5 Detailed layout plans
submitted as part of the application comprises an existing survey and a
detailed site plan which identifies the position and “footprint” of the
proposed extension, trees to be removed and those to be retained, new
(extended) parking facilities and relationship with neighbouring and nearby
properties.
1.6 Elevational drawings show
a predominantly two storey building, with accommodation within the roofspace,
of traditional construction designed to be in keeping with the existing
property.
2. Location and Site
Characteristics
2.1 Highfield Road is a quite
lightly trafficked thoroughfare between
2.2 The road is characterised
by large Victorian properties which are, or were previously, used as hotel and
guesthouses interspersed with more recent infill development, predominantly
detached bungalows.
2.3 This is a large detached
property, now used as a residential home for the elderly, positioned on the
back edge of the footway with an inward facing aspect over landscaped gardens.
There is a vehicular access onto
3. Relevant History
3.1 In December 2005 a
detailed application was submitted for a sizeable extension to the existing
premises to provide additional bedrooms and associated facilities. The
application was supported by various accreditations, justifications and letters
of support from persons involved with the provision of residential nursing care
for the elderly on the
3.2 Proposed extension was to
be ‘L’ shaped, larger than the existing property and extending towards the rear
boundary of the site.
3.3 At the time the Case
Officer took the view that although there was no objection to an appropriately
sized extension to this property to provide additional bed spaces and improved
facilities, the scheme represented overdevelopment of the site and should be
refused permission. The decision was taken under the delegated procedure and
the reasons for withholding permission can be summarised in the following
terms:
·
By reason of scale and size this would be an
intrusive development resulting in overdevelopment of the site contrary to
policy S6 and U9.
·
Insufficient information in respect of
existing/proposed traffic generation and parking requirements contrary to
policy TR7.
·
Insufficient information in respect of
loss/retention (protected) trees contrary to policy S10 and C12.
3.3 Perhaps not surprisingly
given the authoritive support for the proposed development, the decision to
refuse permission triggered a series of meetings with the agent and his clients
and he was provided with detailed written advice in a letter which outlined how
the Case Officer viewed the present situation and the options available to the
applicants should they wish to pursue the matter.
·
Lodge an appeal against the decision
·
Resubmit the application and request that the
matter is considered by the Development Control Sub Committee
·
Negotiate amendments to the scheme with the aim of
overcoming the objections with a view to submitting an amended application.
He was
also given relevant advice/guidance which was summarised in the following
terms.
·
There is more than adequate detailed documented
support in connection with the need for this kind of facility contained in the
application.
·
Need to employ a local highway/traffic consultant
to deal with issues relating to current levels of traffic generated by the
present use and the projected levels which may be anticipated in connection
with a substantial increase in the level of accommodation offered at the home.
·
Appoint a local arboriculturist to provide a
statement/report on the condition, health and amenity value of the protected
trees and other mature trees on the site to be removed or likely to be affected
by the proposed development.
·
Revisit the overall size of the proposed extension
in terms of the footprint and the relationship with site boundaries in order to
reduce the overall impact, eliminate (or reduce) any potential impact on the
current level of amenity enjoyed by owners/occupiers of any neighbouring
properties which may arise from a significant change in character, loss of
trees/shrubbery, overlooking resulting in loss of privacy and amenity, etc.
3.4 Agent and his clients
decided the only appropriate way forward was to negotiate with Officers with a
view to submitting an amended application.
4. Development Plan
Policy
4.1 Strategic Policies
S1, S3, S5 and S6
4.2 Local Planning Policies
|
· G4 |
- |
General
Locational Criteria for Development |
|
· D1 |
- |
Standards of
Design |
|
· D2 |
- |
Standards for
Development within the site |
|
· C12 |
- |
Development
Affecting Trees and |
|
· TR7 |
- |
Highway
Considerations for New Development |
|
· TR16 |
- |
Parking Policies
and Guidelines |
|
· U9 |
- |
Residential Care
and Nursing Home Accommodation |
5. Consultee and Third
Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
·
Area Highway Engineer raises no objection to the
amended submission subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions relating
to access improvements and parking provision if Members are minded to grant
permission.
·
Tree Officer has been able to give detailed
consideration to the arboricultural report submitted with the application and
made observations/recommendations which can be summarised in the following
terms:
o
Loss of trees will predominantly be those
categorised as “C” Grade which should not be seen “as a material constraint to
a planning application” and “B” Grade where the assessment shows it is possible
to remove those shown necessary in the report and have them replaced; this is
because the replants will soon obtain the level of amenity and screening
offered at the present time.
o
It is important that only the trees necessary for
removal to construct the building and car parking area are felled and as many
trees to the east and north of the site are retained to maintain an arboreal
screen of the new development. This will also help to maintain an arboreal
character particular to the area.
o
It is possible to develop the site as long as the
advice contained in the arboriculturist’s assessment is followed. This could be
ensured by placing a condition that an arboricultural method statement of how
they intended to minimise any disturbance and impact to the trees around the
site during and after its development is submitted.
o
It is also important that a planting programme is
devised as part of the landscaping of the site to compensate for the loss of
trees and amenities and screening they offer at the present time; this scheme
should be agreed before any development commences on site.
5.2 Third Party Representations
Application
has attracted a number of third party representations objecting to the proposed
development from residents living in
·
Unjustified massive extension…………..
overdevelopment of the site.
·
Proposed extension appears to be designed as a
standalone unit that is rudely bolted on to the existing building.
·
Absence of levels making interpretation in respect
of the relationship of his client’s property difficult.
·
Loss of trees.
·
Doubts about the adequacy of the foul
sewage/surface water drainage arrangements.
The
above adequately summarises the various points raised by other third parties
objecting to the proposed development. However, it is important to give due
regard and appropriate weight to the views expressed by the owners/occupier of
the property most likely to be affected by the proposed development which, in
my view, is number 4A Highfield Road, the neighbouring detached bungalow to the
south of the application site. The objector cites the principal reason for
refusing planning permission on the initial scheme and states:
I can
see nothing in the revised proposals which should anyway alter this reason for
refusal. In fact size and scale has hardly altered, just changed position. Now
instead of the original plan where the extension went lengthways to our
boundary it goes sideways and is therefore considerably closer to my northern
boundary, and the first floor windows are more especially the windows in the
roof space would most certainly create conditions likely to give rise to
overlooking, loss of outlook and be overbearing to my property. This windows
would look straight into the bedroom and living room at the rear of my bungalow
and there would be nowhere in the garden which was not overlooked. There does
not appear to be any provision for planting trees on the southern boundary to
shield my property from this building.
She has
asked, on the assumption that this application would be determined by this
Committee, that elected Members visit her property when inspecting the site.
6. Evaluation
6.1 Site
is within a residential area quite close to the town centre within the
development envelope boundary. Consequently in terms of broad principle there
is no sustainable objection to the proposal to extend the building for
residential purposes.
6.2 Principle
determining factors in this case can be summarised in the following terms:
·
Interpretation and application of policy U9.
·
Usual development control considerations in terms
of scale, size and appearance of the proposed extension covered largely by
policies G4, D1 and D2.
·
Traffic generation in terms of the application of
policy TR7.
·
Loss of trees/proposed landscaping covered by
policy C12.
·
Comparison with the original scheme and assess
where the amendments and additional information overcomes the reasons for
withholding permission.
6.3 In my opinion there is
sufficient documented evidence included in the submission to establish that
there is a need for additional nursing beds to provide accommodation for
elderly persons. Furthermore, the application relates to premises already
providing residential care in an appropriate location.
6.4 A closer examination of
the details of the application in terms of scale, size, appearance and impact
on the immediate locality can be addressed by the application of the criteria
contained in Policy U9, particularly U9(a) which states that extensions of this
nature will not be approved if they are not of a size which can be
assimilated into the locality. When examining the detail of the application
within the context of other aforementioned policies in assessing the likely
impact of a significant increase in the overall size of the existing building,
as well as giving due regard to the level of local opposition, it is clear that
this has to be addressed as an issue as well as U9(d) which relates to
“on-site” parking provision for both staff and visitors’ vehicles.
6.5 In this context
development which takes place will be expected to maintain or positively
contribute to the environment and fit in with its surroundings. A view has to
be taken as to whether an extension of this scale and size, substantially
reducing the existing landscaped garden area, conflicts efficiently with Policy
G4 to sustain a decision to refuse permission on the grounds that it fails to
harmonise with the surroundings and is unsympathetic to the character and
amenities of the immediate locality.
6.6 On the initial submission
the view was taken that the proposed extension would conflict with the
objectives of policy D1 as it failed to conform with the following criteria:
a) Visual integrity of
the site;
b) Sympathetic in
scale, siting and layout;
c) Mass and density
compatible surrounding buildings and uses;
d) Does not constitute
overdevelopment of the site.
6.7 Notwithstanding a number
of the assertions contained in the third party representations it is clear that
the agent and his clients took on board the advice given after the decision to
refuse the initial application (see Relevant History). The amended submission
is not only supported by Design and Access Statement prepared by himself, a
justification prepared by the applicants and authoritive support from the NHS
Trust and this Council but is also supported, as required, by detailed reports,
analysis and recommendations from a local arboriculturist and a consultant
highway engineer. The latter overcomes the objection raised to the initial
submission (see Relevant History) and consequently, in my view, this latest
application has to be determined on the merits, or otherwise, of the overall
scale and mass of the proposed extension and whether it would have an impact on
the character of the immediate locality sufficient to outweigh the obvious need
for this type of accommodation.
6.8 The latest submission is
different from the initial application inasmuch as the position, shape (or configuration)
and overall ground coverage or “footprint” of the proposed extension is
significantly different from the larger “L” shaped extension featured in the
first application. This has been achieved by the applicant and the agent
reviewing the particular requirements and producing a scheme for a moderately
reduced extension in terms of overall ground coverage, scale and mass by
accommodating second floor accommodation within the roofspace which has been
achieved by taking advantage of the moderate fall towards the rear of the site
and lowering the respective floor levels with the result that the finished
eaves and ridge height of the proposed extension will be no higher than the
corresponding heights of the existing building. It is considered that the
scale, mass and design of the external appearance of the proposed extension is
in keeping with the existing building and is most unlikely to have any impact
at all on the character and amenities of the area in terms of the streetscene
as the position of the existing building, the position of the proposed
extension and the relatively heavy landscaped gardens (even after the felling
of trees to facilitate the proposed development, means that only part of the
proposed extension (west elevation), close to the existing main entrance, will
be viewed from any public vantage points (i.e. Highfield Road).
6.9 Consequently, the
determination of the application, outside matters relating to access/parking,
in my opinion, rests with the likely affect of the proposed extension on
neighbouring properties in
·
Likely affect on neighbouring (and nearby
properties in
·
Likely impact on immediate neighbouring property in
6.10 Providing the advice and
recommendations contained in the Tree Report and the requirements of our Tree
Officer are strictly adhered to in terms of protecting trees to be retained and
further landscaping in combination with existing landscaping within the
curtilage of neighbouring premises, the proposed extension will not
sufficiently impact on the current level of amenity enjoyed by the
owners/occupiers of these properties sufficient to sustain a refusal of
planning permission.
6.11 Relationship with the
immediate neighbouring property (4A
·
No. 4A is a relatively modern infill development
which is significantly different in terms of position, scale, size and design
when compared with the application property.
·
Owners/occupiers of no. 4A are already overlooked
to some degree by upper floors of the neighbouring property.
·
No. 4A is immediately to the south of the
application site and, as such, will not suffer from loss of daylight/sunlight
or overshadowing as a result of the proposed extension.
·
Agent has given particular care and attention to
the internal layout and external openings at upper floor level(s) on the south
facing elevation with the result that the only potentially overlooking windows
serve a client’s lounge, a treatment
room and a bedroom at first floor level and a bathroom at second floor level.
·
There is a two metre high fence along this boundary
but the owner/occupier has correctly identified that the application includes
no landscaping proposals in this particular area.
On this
particular issue a balanced judgement has to be taken on the level of amenity
currently enjoyed by the owner/occupiers of this particular property; the
degree to which this will be increased or exacerbated by the construction of
the proposed extension and controlled mitigation that can be introduced in
order to minimise any adverse affects. In my opinion the relationship and
orientation of the two properties and the fact that the rear garden is already
overlooked to some degree should not be discounted and if this factor is taken
in conjunction with the requirement or ability to obscure glaze and fix shut
the lower part of any overlooking windows with planting inside the boundary
then the application can be approved.
6.12 Existing
vehicular/pedestrian access onto
6.13 In similar terms, the Tree
Officer has been satisfied that, on balance, those trees to be removed as part
of the overall development can be replaced and that providing there is a
relatively intensive landscaping programme following the completion of the
extension, he is prepared to support the application.
6.14 The one remaining point
relates to the representations made by the consultant on behalf of a local
resident in respect of levels thro’ the site to be extended to include
neighbouring properties. Having visited the site on a number of occasions this
is not considered to be a determining factor but nevertheless the agent should
be required to provide this information so that, if approved, Officers will be
able to monitor construction work giving particular attention to existing
ground and floor levels and the finished ground level and the finished floor
levels within the proposed extension.
7. Conclusion and Justification for
Recommendation
7.1 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in detail in this report it is considered that the proposed two/three storey extension will meet an identified need in terms of specialised accommodation without compromising the character and appearance of the area or impacting on the current level of amenity enjoyed by owner/occupiers of neighbouring properties sufficiently to justify withholding permission.
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 |
The
development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete
accordance with the details shown on the approved drawings (Drawing Nos.
15-2004.1, 15-2004.2, 15-2004.4 and 15-2004.5) together with detailed cross
section(s) which identifies existing ground/floor levels and finished
ground/floor levels in relation to neighbouring properties in both Paddock
Road and Florence Road to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority before any work commences 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
windows on the upper floors of the south facing elevation shall, as a minimum
requirement, in respect of the lower half of the window, be non-opening and
obscure glazed and shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason:
To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property 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 sight lines to be provided at the
junction between the access of the proposal 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. |
|
5 |
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. |
|
6 |
Notwithstanding
the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development Order) 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order),
no gate should 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. |
|
7 |
The
building hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until space has been
laid out within the site in accordance with details that have been submitted
to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing for a maximum of
13 cars to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and
leave the site in a forward gear. This 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 |
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. New accommodation, hereby permitted, shall not be
occupied until these works have been carried out in accordance with the approved
details and the approved work shall be retained thereafter. These details
shall include, provision to restrict parking on-site to 13 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 and to
comply with policies TR7 (Highway Considerations) and TR16 (Parking Policies
and Guidelines) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
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. |
|
10 |
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. |
|
11 |
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. |
|
12 |
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. |
|
13 |
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)
If 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. |
|
14 |
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 |
Reference
Number: P/02402/06 - TCP/14543/E Parish/Name: Niton & Whitwell - Ward/Name: Chale
Niton and Whitwell Registration
Date: 25/09/2006 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mrs J Penney Tel: (01983)
823552 Applicant: Mr
& Mrs J Morris Alterations; 2
storey extension to farmhouse to provide additional living accommodation,
(revised scheme) Jolliffes Farm, The application
is recommended for Refusal |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The report has been requested by the Local Member,
Councillor W Arnold for the following reasons:
“The proposed extension, to the rear of the existing
building, appears to extend the width of the building and is some 2.4 metres in
depth. It includes a first floor
level. This would seem to increase the
building area and volume by no more than one third. There are other buildings in the vicinity
which are of a similar size, or larger.
Clearly, scale is not an issue.
Previous developments of this site have been carried out
by the applicant and are generally considered to be sympathetic
improvements. There are no reasons to
suppose that the applicant would not intend a similar outcome with the proposed
development and this is reflected in the details of the proposed
development. Clearly, character is not
an issue.
The applicant is a working farmer who has successfully
diversified into tourist accommodation.
Health issues make the proposed development a necessity for the
continuation of this aspect of the farm.
1. Details of
Application
1.1 This is a full planning
application following a previous refusal for a two storey extension to a rural
property located at the end of
1.2 The proposal extension
projects 3.7 metres off the rear wall, sited flush with the existing
walls. The layout provides office,
utility room, lobby, cloaks and shower room at ground floor with bedroom,
bathroom and toilet/shower room at first floor.
The extended roof line comes off virtually the same height as the
existing ridge and incorporates a dormer window to the rear.
1.3 The proposed materials
are shown to be slate roof to match existing with natural stone walls and
brickwork quoins.
1.4 The agent submitted a
letter with the application referring to pre-application advice and reiterated
the fact that if approval is given, the applicant will be particularly careful
with the usage and choice of wall and roofing materials referring to other
development the applicant has carried out.
Also requests it be noted that the proposal has been sited to the rear
of the property and is fairly well concealed below higher ground levels,
although it is considered that the design does not require concealment, due to
the fact that it blends with the existing structure.
2. Location and Site
Characteristics
2.1 The site is located on
the northern side at the end of
2.2 The dwelling is elevated
above road level with a large area of land in the same ownership. Behind the immediate domestic curtilage there
are ancillary buildings and the land rises to the rear.
2.3 The existing dwelling is
an attractive stone cottage, with red brick quoins and a slate roof. The property has a modest conservatory on the
eastern elevation.
3. Relevant History
3.1 P/1164/06 - Alterations 2
storey extension to farm house to provide additional living accommodation – refused
June 2006 on grounds of scale, mass, siting and design being an intrusive
addition and adversely impacting on the visual amenity of the locality,
landscape character and distinctiveness.
4. Development Plan
Policy
4.1 The site is located
outside of the development envelope boundary for Whitwell within an AONB. Relevant policies 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
·
Supplementary Planning Guidance (Extending Your Home).
5. Consultee and Third
Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
No AONB comment on current scheme
but AONB officer did not object to previous similar scheme.
5.2 External Consultees
NATS raise no
safeguarding objection to proposal.
Niton and Whitwell
Parish Council recommend approval of application but have not given reasons in
support of this.
5.3 No third party
representations received.
6. Evaluation
6.1 The
main issues relating to the application are:
·
Policy and principle
·
The impact of the proposal in terms of size design,
materials and siting in relation to the character of the existing
dwelling.
·
The impact of the proposal on the rural character
of the area.
6.2 Following
the previously refused scheme, negotiations took place and advice was given
suggesting a set in of the extensions and revised roof configuration. Unfortunately this advice has not been taken
on board. The only difference in the
current submission is a minor reduction in the size of the dormer which aligns
better with the rear windows and additional stone quoin detailing.
6.3 The
principle of extending a rural dwelling is not an issue. The property is an attractive rural
traditional cottage with an asymmetrical roof design and is of simple proportions. The front elevation is unchanged. However, the side elevation is partially
visible from the highway and the proposal will be visible from the highway and
nearby bridleway.
6.4 The
SPG – Extending Your Home gives advice on good design and basic principles in
particular the importance of creating a subordinate development i.e. setting
back and setting down a proposal where exact match in materials cannot be
achieved and where trying to blend in old with new as well as avoiding awkward
roof junctions. With regard the 35%
volume increase guidance, although the proposal exceeds this it is the scale
and character of the proposal in relation to the original dwelling and its
inappropriateness to the locality that is of prime concern.
6.5 The
6.6 The
Local Member’s comments are noted. The
extensions projects 3.7 metres not 2.4 metres.
The fact that other developments have been carried out by the applicant
sympathetically does not lend weight to this scheme. With regard health issues, there has been no
health information submitted with the application; personal circumstances are
rarely a material consideration and do not outweigh the planning merits.
6.7 It
is accepted that there is no adverse impact on neighbouring privacy and that
the AONB officer raised no objection to the original scheme. However,
the proposal detracts from the rural character of this traditional cottage and surrounding countryside and the
revised scheme has not overcome the previous refusal.
7. Conclusion
and Justification for Recommendation
7.1 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all materials considerations, the proposal by reason of the overall size, siting, design and roof mass results in the loss of a traditional cottage in this rural location adversely impacting on the integrity of the original property and surrounding area.
8. Recommendation
Refusal
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The
proposal by reason of scale, mass, siting and design, would be an intrusive
addition out of scale and character with the existing dwelling and have a
serious and adverse effect on the visual amenity of the locality, landscape
character and distinctiveness. The
proposal would therefore be contrary to policies D1 (Standards of Design), G4
(General Locational Criteria for Development), H7 (Extension and Alteration
of Existing Properties) and C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and advice contained within
Supplementary Planning Guidance - Extending Your Home. |
|
14 |
Reference
Number: P/02498/06 -
TCP/06487/S Parish/Name: Niton & Whitwell - Ward/Name: Chale
Niton and Whitwell Registration
Date: 24/11/2006 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr S Wiltshire Tel: (01983)
823552 Applicant: Mr T
Benton Variation of
Condition no. 15 on TCP/06487/M relating to visibility splays site of, Niton
Garage and Ivy Cottage, Newport Road, Niton, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO382DF This is a joint
report with P/02499/06 – TCP/06487/T |
It is
recommended to vary the wording of Conditions 15 and 20 on TCP/06487/M, as set
out in this report.
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
These applications have been referred to the Development
Control Committee for consideration due to their contentious nature within the
Parish.
1. Details of
Application
1.1 These two applications
propose the variation of 2 conditions which were imposed on planning permission
TCP/06487/M, dated 18.7.2003, in relation to a reserved matters application for
the provision of 5 houses with parking and alterations to the vehicular access
on the site of Niton Garage and Ivy Cottage,
1.2 Condition 15 attached to
the approval of reserved matters consent states; “Visibility splays of x =
2.4 m and y = 70 m dimension shall be constructed prior to the commencement of
the development hereby approved and shall be maintained hereafter”. The applicant is seeking to reduce the
visibility splay “y” requirement in a northerly direction to 26 m, the position
currently achieved within his site.
1.3.
Condition 20 attached to the consent states; “None
of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until such time as the
pedestrian link between the application site and the junction with Church
Street / Rectory Road has been provided in accordance with the details shown on
the approved plan (drawing no. 58-2000-RC) or otherwise agreed in writing with
the Local Planning Authority”. The
applicant has submitted that the provision of this pedestrian link has been
audited and deemed to be unsafe, and is proposing to make a financial
contribution to fund other road safety measures in the area.
1.4.
Members should be aware that this development has
largely been completed and 3 of the houses are occupied, without complying with
these planning conditions. These two
applications have been made in an attempt to overcome ongoing planning
enforcement action.
2. Location and Site
Characteristics
2.1 The application site
constitutes the site of the former Niton Garage, and garden area to Ivy
Cottage, which has been redeveloped to provide 5 houses that are largely
complete. These houses are served via a
new access which has been provided onto
2.2
1 and 2 Alma Cottages are a pair of semi-detached
houses with relatively small front gardens situated to the north of the
application site. The provision of the
visibility splay required within Condition 15 would require the applicant to
obtain the agreement of the owners of these dwellings to reduce the height of
the vegetation with part of the garden areas and for the area to be kept clear
hereafter.
2.3
3. Relevant History
3.1 The following
applications are relevant to the consideration of these applications;
|
TCP/06487/L |
Demolition of
garage/workshops; outline for 5 dwellings and alterations to existing access |
Approved 4.2.2003 |
|
TCP/06487/M |
5 houses with
parking and alterations to form vehicular access (aorm) |
Approved 21.7.2003 |
4. Development Plan
Policy
4.1 The
4.2 The
relevant policy of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan is considered to
be as follows:
·
TR7 - Highway Considerations
for New Development
5. Consultee and Third
Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
·
Highways Engineer – Recommends refusal to vary
Condition 15 (visibility splays) and suggests that Condition 20 (pedestrian
link) is varied to incorporate a financial contribution towards alternative
road safety measures for pedestrians.
These comments are discussed in more detail within this report.
5.2 External Consultees
·
None
5.3 Town or Parish Council
Comments
·
Niton and Whitwell Parish Council – P/02498/06 (visibility
splay) – Recommend refusal on the grounds that the original condition should be
retained for reasons of pedestrian and highway safety and to comply with Policy
TR7 (Highway considerations) of the UDP.
Any change in the original conditions sets a dangerous precedent.
P/02499/06
(pedestrian link) – Recommend refusal on the grounds that the original
condition should be retained for reasons of pedestrian and highway safety and
to comply with Policies TR6 (Walking and cycling) and TR7 (Highway considerations)
of the UDP. Any change in the original
conditions sets a dangerous precedent.
It was noted that dwellings had been occupied in contravention of this
condition.
5.4 Neighbours
·
Three letters of objection have been received from
local residents. These letters raise the
following planning issues;
· Approval
would compromise pedestrian and highway safety;
· Highway
safety improvements should be funded by the developer.
·
One letter in support of this development has also
been received.
6.
Evaluation
6.1
Principle of Development - The
principle of residential development has been established through the grant of
planning permissions on this site.
Therefore the key issue in the consideration of these applications is
whether highway safety considerations would be compromised through approval of
the proposed variation to the original conditions. The highway considerations of each of these
applications are discussed in detail below.
6.2
Condition 15 (Visibility Splays) – The
applicant is seeking to vary condition 15 through a proposed reduction in the
2.4 m x 70 m visibility splay to the north of the site. There is no issue that the required
visibility splay has not been achieved to the south. The applicant is proposing that a 2.4 m x 26
m visibility splay, as currently provided, is acceptable in a northerly
direction. Provision of the full 70 m
splay would require acquiring or gaining control over a section of the front
garden areas serving 1 and 2 Ivy Cottages.
6.3
The applicant has undertaken a traffic monitoring
survey with a view to establishing vehicle speeds as they approach the
application site from the north. This
data shows that the southbound 85th percentile speeds in the
vicinity of the application site are around 23 mph, which the applicant
suggests that under current guidance indicates that a “y” dimension of 40
metres to the north would be appropriate.
The applicant then makes reference to a draft document entitled “Manual
for Streets” whereby “y” dimensions are measured from a point 1 metre from the kerb,
which using this practice would suggest that a sightline of around 30 metres
would be appropriate in this case. The
applicant contends that this shortfall to the 26 metres currently achieved does
not constitute an unacceptable safety hazard.
6.4
The Highways Engineer has confirmed that typical
southbound vehicle speeds in the vicinity of the application site are in the
region of 24 mph, whereby an absolute minimum visibility splay length of 41
metres is required to the north. The
proposed visibility splay length of 26 metres is considered to be unacceptably
short.
6.5
The draft Manual for Streets document referred to
by the applicant is currently a consultation document which may become an
accepted highway design document in Spring 2007. However, since this document has not been
adopted, either in its current or revised format, the Highways Engineer has
confirmed that the design standards contained with “Places, Streets and
Movement” and “Design Bulletin 32” are current best practice when assessing highway
standards at the present time.
6.6
It is therefore considered that the proposal to
vary the visibility splay in a northerly direction to 26 metres is unacceptable
in Highway safety terms. However, it is
accepted that a reduction in the splay to 41 m in a northerly direction would
be appropriate, and it is recommended that the wording of Condition 15 is
varied to take account of this new data.
6.7
Condition 20 (Pedestrian link) - The
original outline planning permission contained a condition requiring a detailed
design for a footway (or other suitable safety measures), to provide a
satisfactory pedestrian route between the application site and the junction
with Church Street / Rectory Road, to enable residents of the new dwellings to
safely access facilities within the centre of the village.
6.8
This condition was effectively superceded by
Condition 20 of the reserved matters application which required a pedestrian
link to be provided in accordance with details indicated on drawing number
58-2000-RC. These details show a footway
and informal pedestrian crossing indicated by coloured road markings.
6.9
The applicant has contended that the details shown
on drawing 58-2000-RC do not meet any normally accepted highway standards, with
pedestrians emerging blind from behind a high boundary wall, which is not in
the best interests of highway safety. It
is also understood that the Council’s road safety auditors do not consider this
design to be safe. The applicant is
proposing to regularise the situation by making a financial contribution to the
Council, of equivalent value to the works indicated on drawing 58-2000-RC,
which the Council can then use to fund appropriate safety measures in this
locality.
6.10 The
Highways Engineer has concurred with the applicant that the virtual footway
indicated on drawing 58-2000-RC is not safe and thus should not be
implemented. Therefore a pragmatic
approach would be to accept the applicant’s suggestion that a financial
contribution is made to the Council which can then be used to fund suitable
road safety works in the immediate area.
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 proposal to vary condition 15 attached to planning permission
TCP/06487/M to the dimensions requested by the applicant is unacceptable and
would have an adverse impact on highway safety.
However, it is considered that the “y” dimension in a northerly
direction could be altered to a figure of 41 metres and it has been recommended
that the wording of this condition is varied accordingly.
7.2 Having
given due regard to the material considerations set out in the above report, it
is considered that the proposal to vary condition 20 attached to planning permission
TCP/06487/M to require the applicant to enter into a planning obligation with
the Council to secure a financial contribution towards suitable road safety
works in the immediate area and it has been recommended that the wording of
this condition is varied accordingly
8. Recommendations
8.1
P/02498/06 – Vary Condition 15 on TCP/06487/M as
set out below.
8.2
P/02499/06 – Vary Condition 20 on TCP/06487/M as
set out below.
Conditions/Reasons:
|
15 |
Visibility
splays of x = 2.4 metres and y = 70 m (to the south) / 41 m (to the north)
shall be constructed within 2 months of the date of this decision notice and
shall be maintained hereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
15 |
Reference
Number: P/02499/06 - TCP/06487/T Parish/Name: Niton & Whitwell - Ward/Name: Chale
Niton and Whitwell Registration
Date: 24/11/2006 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr S Wiltshire Tel: (01983)
823552 Applicant: Mr T
Benton Variation of
condition no. 20 on TCP/06487/M relating to pedestrian link between the
application site and the junction with site of, Niton
Garage and Ivy Cottage, Newport Road, Niton, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO382DF |
This is a joint report with P/02498/06 – TCP/06487/S
Conditions/Reasons:
|
20 |
Within
3 months of the date of this decision notice a planning obligation pursuant
to S. 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 shall be made and lodged
with the Local Planning Authority. The
Local Planning Authority shall agree in writing that the planning obligation
is acceptable. The said planning
obligation will secure a financial contribution from the applicant to the
Isle of Wight Council which shall be used to improve road safety in the
vicinity of the application site. Reason:
In the interests of highway
safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New
Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
16 |
Reference
Number: P/02581/06 - TCP/27695/A Parish/Name: Brading - Ward/Name: Brading and Registration
Date: 13/10/2006 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Miss L Scovell Tel: (01983)
823552 Applicant: Mr
Saunders Chalet bungalow
with access off land rear of, The application
is recommended for Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Whilst not the applicant, the owner of the land is a
member of staff within the department and therefore under Standing Orders it
requires determination by full Committee.
1. Details of
Application
1.1 Detailed application
seeks consent for construction of dwelling (chalet bungalow) on land fronting
1.2 As
existing site levels are higher than road level and rise to rear (south of
site) property is shown to be dug in with the benefit of retaining wall around
the proposed building and amenity area and incorporating parking and turning
area served off neutral kerb. Site will be enclosed by a 1.8 metre high close
boarded fencing. In terms of design building is a traditional chalet bungalow
having a gable end feature on the front elevation and cropped gables with front
facing dormer providing light to bedroom. With regards to rear facing first
floor windows, proposal will incorporate two velux type rooflights again
providing light to bedrooms with central dormer feature comprising obscure
glazing providing light to bathroom. External finish of building would comprise
brick finish at ground floor level underneath tile hanging and concrete tile
roof.
2. Location and Site
Characteristics
2.1 Plot which has maximum
size dimensions of some 19 metres width by similar distance in depth currently
comprises rear garden to a two storey semi-detached property fronting
2.2 Site is elevated above
carriageway level in
3. Relevant History
3.1 Application P/01013/06 –
TCP/27695 – Chalet bungalow with access and parking and turning area granted
conditional approval by the Development Control Committee on 6 June 2006.
4. Development Plan
Policy
4.1 National Policy Guidance
Relevant National
policies are considered to be PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development and
PPG3 – Housing (March 2000). PPG3 underlines need to provide range and mix of
houses using brownfield sites and supporting the efficient use of land.
4.2 Relevant strategic
policies:
|
·S1 |
- |
New
development concentrated within existing urban areas |
|
·S2 |
- |
Brownfield
site encouragement |
|
·S7 |
- |
Housing
targets |
4.3 Relevant
local planning policies:
|
· G1 |
- |
Development
Envelopes |
|
· G4 |
- |
General
Locational Criteria for Development |
|
· D1 |
- |
Standards
of Design |
|
· D2 |
- |
Standards
for Development Within the Site |
|
· H4 |
- |
Unallocated
Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements |
|
· H5 |
- |
Infill
Development |
|
· TR7 |
- |
Highway
Considerations for New Development |
|
· SPG |
- |
Residential
Infill |
5. Consultee and Third
Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
·
Highway Engineer recommends conditions.
5.2 Town/Parish Council
Brading Town Council has
commented as follows:
·
Materials should match adjoining properties
·
Overlooking from velux window
·
Height of property, i.e. increase in roof line
5.3 Neighbours
None
received at time of report preparation.
6. Evaluation
6.1 Site
lies within development envelope boundary for Brading and therefore there is no
objection in principle to residential development.
6.2 As
Members will recall, the principle for residential development upon this site
in connection with a similar scheme was established under the previous
application P/01013/06 – TCP/27695. This seeks to amend that scheme and I shall
summarise those amendments in the following paragraphs.
6.3 The
front gable element has been increased in height by approximately 650 mm to
provide headroom in the front section of the first floor bedroom thus providing
habitable and not just storage space. Along with the height, the gable has been
widened to approximately 1400 mm with a new window to the front entrance porch.
These alterations are considered to result in an improved design to the front
elevation and are unlikely to have any adverse impact upon the street scene.
6.4 A
velux window has been introduced into the west elevation roof pitch over the
stairwell on the front elevation. Whilst this velux window faces the property
known as 1a
6.5 The
introduction of a side door in the eastern elevation which given the proposed
boundary fencing is unlikely to cause any adverse impact.
6.6 An
additional pair of french doors to be added on the rear (southern) elevation
and this is unlikely to have any impact upon the adjoining properties or visual
appearance of the building.
6.7 The
retaining wall within the rear garden has been pushed back to the rear boundary
which enables a more useable rear amenity space with level access from the
house. This is unlikely to cause any adverse impact on the adjoining
properties. If such a retaining feature was to de-stabilise adjoining land, it
would be the responsibility of the developer to take account of this during the
development on site and remedy at their own cost.
6.8 Finally
the retaining wall in the front of the site has been altered to be sited
further away from the front of the property however this is unlikely to impact
upon the access parking and turning area or be of detriment to the street
scene.
7. Conclusion and Justification for
Recommendation
7.1 Having due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations outlined in this report I am of the opinion that the proposal represents acceptable infill within the development envelope. The revisions to the originally approved scheme are unlikely to cause any adverse impact upon the adjoining residential properties or the street scene. Proposal is therefore considered to be in conformance with relevant national and local policies and can be supported in this instance.
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 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. |
|
3 |
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:
In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to
comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
4 |
The
boundary fencing shown on drawing number 88-06.3 Revision 1.3 shall be
constructed in full prior to occupation of the dwelling hereby approved and
shall be maintained thereafter. Reason:
In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to
comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
5 |
The
development shall not be occupied until sight lines have been provided in
accordance with the visibility splay shown on the approved plan (reference
number 22-06.2 dated April 2006).
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. |
|
6 |
No
dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within
the site and in accordance with drawing number 22-06.2 for 1 car 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. |
|
7 |
Prior
to commencement of the development hereby approved, the roadside boundary of
the site shall be lowered to a maximum of 1 metre in height above existing
road level over the whole frontage 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. |
|
8 |
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. |