01

Reference Number: P/02481/03 - TCP/05746/N Parish/Name: Ryde - Ward/Name: Ryde South East Registration Date: 12/12/2003 - Outline Planning Permission Officer: Mr J Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823552 Applicant: Wadham College Outline for residential development (additional information regarding suitability of junction of Woodland View/Ashey Road to serve proposed development) part OS parcels 1238, 0135 and 0952, land between Weeks Road and, Ashey Road, Ryde, PO33

This application was due to be considered at the Development Control Committee on 12 July 2005 but following the late receipt of letters of representation which raised specific concerns regarding access issues with particular reference to traffic visibility, your officers requested a deferral of the determination of the application. This was on the grounds that there was insufficient time for the Highway Engineers to respond. The applicants’ have commissioned highway consultants to carry out an appropriate investigation as to the suitability of the junction of Woodland View with Ashey Road and have submitted a detailed report. The content of this report has been the subject of a readvertisement procedure involving letters to all objectors, the display of site notices and advertisement in the local press. The report has been updated accordingly as follows.

Application is recommended for Conditional Permission subject to a 106 Agreement and referral to the Government Office for the South East.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a major application of strategic significance relating to a residentially allocated site.

1 Details of Application

1.1 This is an outline application for residential development on 4.67 hectare area of land. All matters, i.e. means of access, siting, design, external appearance and landscaping, are reserved for subsequent approval. However the application is accompanied by a location plan outlining the site in red and including both the road, Woodlands View, off Ashey Road and this will therefore be the access to the site and the extension of that road through land which abuts the main site to it south west. Members are advised that although the number of units proposed or the density is not known or specified, there area other factors, primarily highway issues, which will limit the scale of the development.

1.2 The application is accompanied by detailed Ecological Report, Flood Risk Assessment, Drainage Statement, and Site Investigation Report. These consultants’ reports can be summarised as follows:

1.2.1 Drainage

Foul Drainage

· Existing local foul sewer has inadequate capacity. Southern Water have accepted they therefore have a duty to provide satisfactory foul sewer in accordance with appropriate legislation.

· Appropriate studies by Southern Water have been funded to identify works needed to serve the site.

· Southern Water have carried out a capacity study and provided a plan showing the route of the new sewer works. (See attached plan).

· Statement acknowledges possible route of new sewer is of considerable length but is generally within existing roads or within existing easement strips dedicated as access for the construction, repair or maintenance of existing sewers. Only departure from existing sewer route is through an open grassed recreation ground.

· Two areas of potential impact being through the allotments but there appears to be three route options which are available to minimise disturbance and within the vicinity of cul de sac off Monkton Street with disturbance being minimise by using remote “boring no dig” techniques.

· Report acknowledges existing system has inadequate capacity and reinforcement work along the route of this sewer will be needed in any event.

1.2.2 Surface Water Drainage

· No surface water discharged directly into existing water course if liable to increase risk of off site flooding.

· Flow should be controlled at source either by infiltration into sub soil or by way of attenuation to reduce rate of run off to that equal to or less than existing run off rate. Excess flow to be retained and released slowly.

· Sub soils unsuitable for extensive infiltration systems, i.e. soakaways.

· Control mechanism designed to ensure rate of discharge does not exceed that of undeveloped site over the full range of return periods from four events per year to one in hundred year event.

· Topography of site results in two natural catchment areas in north eastern and south eastern corners of the site.

· Control mechanisms and ponds will be developed at the detail design stage in compliance with Council and Environment Agency requirements although some preliminary design work has identified approximate volumes therefore corresponding areas have also been identified.

· Permitted rate of discharge 7 litres per second per hectare has been in compliance with standard run off rates from greenfield sites.

· Provided the design principals are adhered to, there should be no risk of environmental or amenity impact in respect of southern water course leading from the site to Monkton Mead Brook.

1.2.3 Flood Risk Assessment

· This is a detailed report prepared by appropriate competent persons using format recommended in PPG25- Development and Flood Risk.

· Report concludes there will be no flood risk generated by the development proposals.

· There is no risk of flooding on the development site caused by Monkton Mead Brook.

· Balancing pond and attenuation controls will prevent increased flood risk on the Monkton Mead Brook.

· Sustainable urban drainage systems and surface water flow rate controls can provide mitigation to ameliorate potential impacts on the small water courses running between the site and Monkton Mead Brook.

· Minor risk of on site flooding caused by on site ground water seepages and ditch flows can be mitigated by sensible design of flood levels and the construction of an over head flood route along the line of the existing ditch.

1.2.4 Site Investigation Report (Geology)

· Application accompanied by a report prepared by consultancy and structural engineers in 1991.

· Report concludes that augured piled foundation would be most economical given the clay sub soil strata and any proximity to nearby trees.

· Report acknowledges natural drainage of the site is not good given the clay strata and that surface water soakaways may not prove to be sufficiently effective.

· Report advise the potential purchasers of any properties be informed that the houses are founded on shrinkable soils and therefore should only plant trees and shrubs with low water demand rates.

· This report was assessed by another consulting engineer in 1998 who agreed with its findings.

1.2.5 Ecological Report

Report prepared by appropriate competent persons and describes the habitats present on land of proposed development and concludes as follows:

· There is a designated site (Swanmore Meadows SINC) adjacent to development site interesting habitat is present in the development site (in particular grassland habitats) and recommendations for mitigation have been made in the report.

· Habitats suitable for badgers, bats, and breeding birds are present on the site or in the immediate surroundings but no evidence of badgers or bats have been found in the field survey on the site.

· Further survey works has been recommended for bats and badgers in order to be able to determine the impact that redevelopment might have on theses species. Survey works and the findings of such surveys would not inhibit the development of the site. It is proposed that further survey work will be carried out before the detailed design stage of the development in the appropriate season in order to inform the design of the scheme where appropriate.

· On the basis of this study there is no overriding ecological reason why development of the site should not take place, however to ensure the effect of any development on ecology and natural conservation are minimized the recommendations outlined above should be adopted.

1.2.6 Transport Report – Vehicular Access Considerations.

Following deferral in July 2005 additional information, prepared by highway consultant commissioned by the applicants, was received in October 2005. prepared by highway consultant engineers commissioned by the applicants. The report has been carried out in accordance with appropriate codes of practice and covers a number of issues relating to planning background, existing junction visibility, existing traffic flows, junction capacity, accident records and an evaluation and conclusion. Report encompasses a significant level of technical information and a summary of its findings are as follows.

· Recognition that the Woodland View junction with Ashey Road subject of original approvals serves a development which totals 45 dwellings (27 units completed, 16 units under construction, 2 units recently approved). Required visibility splays in respect of those consents related to 4.5 metres x 66 metres northwards and 4.5 metres x 35 metres southwards onto Ashey Road have been constructed in accordance with those planning consents.

· Detailed measurements of existing visibility confirms that the junction complies with the above-mentioned visibility measurements but also indicates that if the x distance is 2.4 metres then there is an increase of visibility to the north of 101 metres and to the south minimum of 215 metres.

· Fresh traffic survey has been undertaken establishing current speeds and volume of traffic in Ashey Road with counters being in place for the period 4-13 September 2005 with that particular week being chosen to ensure conditions were monitored during school term time when traffic is generally heavier.

· The resultant data has been subject of a robust assessment using approved computer programme modelling. It should be noted that existing traffic flows in Ashey Road have been factored up to 2010 figures. The analysis is based on development of 250 additional houses, again in accordance with recognised analysis processes.

· Accident records have also been checked with there being a record of 9 accidents occurring in Ashey Road in a 3 year period with none of these accidents occurring in the near vicinity of Woodlands View and could not be attributable to the construction and use of that junction.

· The evaluation section of the report makes a number of references to various national guidance documents i.e. PPG13 and the document “Places, Streets and Movements” which is the companion document to the original Design Bulletin 32.

· Reference is also made to the appeal decision of November 1999 allowing effectively the development of the 16 units now currently under construction with the visibility at the junction with Ashey Road being one of the main issues in dispute in respect of that appeal. The result of the evaluation indicates that the junction would operate at less than 30% of its capacity when development is complete making specific reference to the fact that percentile speeds in Ashey Road some 3 mph lower than in 1998 being around 30 mph outside the school and 31 mph past Rosemary Lane.

· Reference to the conclusions of the consulting engineers report will be made in the evaluation.

2 Location and Site Characteristics

2.1.1 Site lies on the southern outskirts of Ryde, west of Weeks Road and east of properties which front Ashey Road and the development known as Leighwood Close.

2.1.2 The main area of the overall development site is in the form of two open fields being semi improved grassland. The larger field to the south slopes from west to east with the upper field having a slope again from west to north east. The boundary between the two fields is in the form of continuous scrubby hedgerow within which is a water course. The upper field has extensive scrub interspersed with broad leafed trees abutting its western boundary with further scrubby hedgerows along the northern boundary. The lower large field again has scrubby hedgerows to its west whilst its southern boundary is in the form of hedgerow interspersed with trees. The eastern boundary where it abuts Weeks Road is in the form of extensive hedgerows with substantial trees along the whole of that boundary.

2.1.3 Weeks Road itself is wooded bridle way which is an extension to Weeks Road from the north which serves established residential dwellings. It then continues in a southerly direction joining Rosemary Lane to the south which is also a bridleway which runs in a west east direction off Ashey Road further to the west.

2.1.4 Abutting the northern boundary are statutory allotments whilst abutting the southern boundary of the larger field is an area known as Swanmore Meadows which is a substantial Village Green and stretches through to Rosemary Lane. Swanmore Meadows also extends to the south east of the site and east of Weeks Road through to the railway line.

2.1.5 Abutting the western boundary are areas of semi-cultivated land with evidence of former allotment use terminating on the rear boundary of properties which front Ashey Road and in part the rear boundaries and garage courtyards of the development known as Leighwood Close.

2.1.6 Application also include part of the smaller development site to the south west. The area of land included relates to that which would be required for the access road with that narrow strip continuing to the southern boundary to that development site. The application site then extends into the new road known as Woodlands View which serves a total of 27 units and terminates at a junction with Ashey Road on its eastern side. This road is virtually completed to adoption standards.

3 Relevant History

3.1 (TCP/5746/H) Most significant planning history relates to an outline application for residential development on this site which was refused in December 2002 for the following reasons:

1. There is insufficient capacity within the existing sewage to take this development satisfactorily and it is therefore likely that conditions would be created that would adversely affect the amenities of other users of the existing system and it is therefore contrary to Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

2. A scheme of alternative means of treatment or the upgrading of the existing sewer has not been submitted and in its absence it is not clear whether the surrounding area will have to b utilized at the expense of the Nature Conservation interests and therefore the development is likely to create conditions that are contrary to Policies C8 (Nature Conservation As A Material Consideration) and C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodlands) of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

Whilst an appeal was lodged following that decision due to the fact that incorrect documentation was submitted in support of that appeal no further action was taken and effectively the appeal was abandoned.

3.2 (TCP/5746/F) Outline application which included siting, landscape and access for ten semi detached and six terraced dwellings was refused in February 1999. A subsequent appeal was allowed in November 1999 subject to conditions. That appeal decision also included a unilateral undertaking regarding pro-rata payments towards cumulative facilities and traffic calming measures.

3.3 Outline consent was effectively not implemented with a further outline application being submitted seeking a revised scheme for the residential development on the site for the same number of units (TCP/5746/L) which was granted consent in February 2003 subject of a Section 106 Agreement which replaced the original unilateral undertaking referred to above. Reserved matter approval has recently been granted in May 2005

3.4 Outline application for 21 detached and 6 terraced dwellings approved August 1999 (TCP/8746/E) subject to a Section 106 Agreement covering payment of £17,194 towards community facilities and £3,450 towards traffic calming in Ashey Road. A subsequent reserved matter application was approved in October 1999 following which development is now virtually completed being the development Woodland View off Ashey Road.

3.5 Members attention is also drawn to a very recent approval granted May 2005 for two detached house within the rear garden of property 35 Ashey Road accessed of the proposed extension of Woodlands View.

4 Development Plan Policy

4.1 National policies covered in PPG3-Housing with relevant considerations itemized as follows:

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

· There should be a regular review of housing requirements through the mechanism of a local housing needs assessment.

· In providing sufficient housing land, priorities should be given to reusing previously developed land within urban areas in preference to the development of green field sites.

· Provide a wider housing opportunity and choice, better mix and size, type and location of housing.

· Local plan policies should seek to achieve as an element of housing scheme appropriate level of affordable housing having identified through the housing needs survey what the Authority considers to be affordable in the local planned area. It should be related to lower income levels and house prices or rents for different types of households.

· The amount and types of affordable housing to be provided should reflect local housing need and individual sites suitability and be a matter for agreement between the parties.

· Planning authorities should ensure maintenance of supply of housing by

· Concentrating most additional housing development within urban areas.

· Making more efficient use of land, particularly previously developed land.

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

· Adopting a sequential approach to the allocation of land for housing development.

· Managing the release of housing land.

· Reviewing existing allocations of housing land in plans.

· Criteria for allocation should be based on:

· Availability of previously developed sites.

· Location and accessibility

· Capacity of existing and potential infrastructure

· Ability to build communities

· Physical and environmental constraints on the development of land.

Members are advised that a housing need survey was carried out in the period 2001 which sought to identify the extent, distribution and type of housing needed over and above homelessness. This was a robust lengthy document which concluded that the greatest need was for rented accommodation. It also identified Newport, Ryde, Shanklin and Sandown as areas where there were particular problems with the greatest need being for single person accommodation although there continues to be on going demand for two/three bedroomed homes to meet the statutory homeless requirements.

4.2 The whole of the site is within the development envelope boundary with that boundary running down the edge of Weeks Road and along the southern boundary of the main site.

The application site forms part of a slightly larger area including land abutting the western boundary through to the rear boundaries of properties which front Ashey Road and including the land to the south west all of which have been specifically allocated as housing development land within the statutory Unitary Development Plan.

This allocation brings it under the auspices of Policy H3 – Allocation for residential development sites – Planning proposals for residential development will be acceptable in principle on the sites listed in Appendix A, subject to any specific guidance as detailed. The site is identified as H3 (38) and the following specific policy applies:

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

4.3 Other relevant housing policies within the Unitary Development Plan are itemized as follows:

· H1 – Major New Residential Developments to be located within the main Island towns.

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

· H14 – Locally Affordable Housing as an element of a housing scheme.

For Members information over the Unitary Development Plan Period (1996-2011) there is a development potential for approximately 8,000 units which assumes that the development of allocated sites which will make a contribution. In terms of regional policies in respect of the south and south east, the targets for the Isle of Wight are in the region of 500+ units a year which up to the present time is being achieved on a year by year basis. Obviously these figures may be revisited during the local development framework process however; the Unitary Development Plan is the statutory policy document which should apply to this site. Finally in terms of housing policies Members are advised that the above calculations are based on a density figure of 30 dwellings per hectare.

4.4 Other local Unitary Development Plan policies are itemised as follows:

· G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

· G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development

· G6 – Development in Areas Liable to Flooding

· G7 – Development on unstable land

· C8 – Nature Conservation as a material consideration

· C11 – Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation

· C12 – Development Affecting Trees and Woodland

· C13 – Hedgerow

· TR6 – Cycling and Walking

· TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

· TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines

· U2 – Insuring Adequate Educational, Social and Community Facilities for the future population.

· U11 – Infrastructure and Services Provision

· L10 – Open Space in Housing Development

4.5 Site is within Zone 3 of the Council’s parking policy thus requiring parking provision that shall not exceed 0-75% of parking guidelines.

4.6 Relevant strategic policies within the Unitary Development Plan are listed as follows:

· S1 – New Development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

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

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

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

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

4.7 Reference is also made to National document, Residential Roads and Footpaths Layout Considerations – Design Bulletin 32 second edition dated April 1992 and its companion guide, Places, Streets and Movement dated September 1998. This document provides advice on the main considerations that should be taken into account in the design of residential roads and footpath layouts. Takes into account initiatives on matters such as road safety with particular reference to the contribution of roads and footpaths can make to the creation of the visually attractive safe convenient nuisance free and secure development.

4.8 Members’ attention is also drawn to Supplementary Planning Guidance in respect of affordable housing which now seeks a 30% contribution from developers on those qualifying sites.

5 Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· Highway Engineer recommends appropriate conditions should application be approved. In terms of the additional information contained in the highway consultants report Highway Engineer is fully satisfied that the information provided including the analysis has been carried out in accordance with codes of practice and has no Reason to question the conclusions of that report.

· For Members information a detailed assessment of the access issue was undertaken by the Highways department in respect of the previous refused scheme of December 2002 with those comments being summarised as follows:

o Comparison made with other single access developments serving substantial number of dwellings 250+ throughout the island with particular reference to Sandham Gardens, Lake and Carter Avenue, Shanklin.

o Reference made to Design Bulletin 32 which makes specific reference to up to 300 dwellings being served off one access point providing there is an internal loop arrangement within the internal estate road layout.

o Some concern was expressed that 300 dwelling served off Ashey Road through Woodland View may be slightly excessive, it does not believe that there would be valid grounds to refuse the application, should that number be reached.

o Whilst reference is made to a second road access into the site, he quite rightly suggested that this application has to be considered on its merits with the single access.

o Any layout should both accord with Design Bulletin 32 and its companion guide, Places, Streets and Movement.

On the basis that there is no change in circumstances since that application and therefore the Highway Engineer is recommending conditions should the application be approved.

· Council’s Archaeological Officer recommends appropriate conditions should application be approved.

· Council’s Technical Engineer confirms that the foul sewage drainage system has to be agreed with Southern Water, and whilst agreeing with the principle of balancing ponds the issue of adoption of those balancing ponds still remains to be resolved.

· Ecology Officer comments as follows:

o Housing allocation negates any Nature Conservation interest.

o He recognizes the importance of the adjacent SINCs.

o Need to protect natural boundary features.

o Ensure there is no uncontrolled access to adjacent SINC sites.

o Any layout should provide controlled access points (stiles or kissing-gates) to provide access along these boundaries.

o Importance of the construction design and maintenance of the balancing ponds should be made a feature of the development site with particular reference to their landscaping.

o Considerable potential for the balancing pond in the south eastern corner of the site to be more natural feature linking it with the adjoining Woodland SINC.

o Any landscaping scheme submitted should ensure use of native species.

o Recognition of pressure that will be placed on the adjoining SINC by any development including drainage impact however, this SINC should be seen as an asset to the development providing the layout is designed accordingly and that the adjoining SINC is adequately managed.

o Any development should contribute towards the management and upkeep of the adjoining SINC given the benefits that will accrue to that development by its relative location.

o Ecology Officer identified a number of improvements which could benefit from monies received including improvements and repair to Weeks Road providing gates or stiles setting up footpaths with suitable surfacing through the wooded area. Such monies could be obtained under the auspices of a Section 106 Agreement.

5.2 External Consultees

· Southern Water confirm that applicants have applied to them for a new requisition sewer with a sewer arrangement as described representing a suitable solution. Southern Water cannot object to the principle of development but suggest conditions be applied requiring the submission of design detail and that no property be occupied until the new foul sewer has been constructed.

· The Environment Agency initially placed a holding objection on the proposal on the grounds of insufficient information effectively requiring further hydrological information in order to assess the adequacy and suitability of the surface water drainage scheme. Following submission of the Flood Risk Assessment and the Ecological Report, the Environment Agency is now satisfied that the detailed design of the water courses and surface water control can be addressed through conditions and the agencies land drainage consenting procedure.

· The Environment Agency has also commented on conservation issues, with particular reference to the Ecological Report, and are suggesting a specific condition requiring all the recommendations contained within the submitted Ecological Report to be upheld within any detailed development scheme, with the reason being to minimize any adverse impact on the adjoining SINC (Swanmore Meadows) and the river corridor to compensate for the loss of species rich grassland under the built footprint. They also advise on a number of ecological issues covering the retention of hedgerows, trees, grassland and any drainage ditches where appropriate, erection of signage to draw residents’ attention to the need to respect the adjoining SINC, provisions to deter littering and tipping, the need to provide additional bat surveys, and the need for the balancing ponds to be laid out to encourage local wildlife.

5.3 Third Party Representation

The Application has been the subject of a total of 65 letters of objection, 13 from residents of Woodland View, 11 from residents of Alfred Street, 7 from residents of Leighwood Close, 6 from residents of Weeks Road and 6 from residents of Ashey Road, 4 from residents of Hazelwood Close, 3 from residents of Swanmore Avenue, 2 each from residents of Rosemary Lane, St Michaels Road and Osborne Road, and 1 each from residents of Quarry Road, Aldermere Close, West Street, Osborne Close, Reed Street, Wray Street and Bettesworth Road. Single letters of objection have also been received from the Woodlands View Residents Association, the South Ryde Residents Association, the Ramblers Association and the Isle of Wight Animal Preservation and Action Group. Points raised are summarized as follows:

· Single access (Woodlands View) incapable of serving level of traffic likely to be generated from this development.

· Development would be likely to cause hazards to local residents, with particular reference to children and elderly, caused by significant increase in traffic using Ashey Road, the junction of Woodlands View with Ashey Road.

· No development should take place on this site unless a second access off Ashey Road is created.

· A general concern regarding the ability of existing sewer systems to accept discharge from any development on the site.

· Level of surface water discharge likely to create flooding problems with particular reference to Monkton Mead Brook.

· Some concern regarding general ground stability issues with reference to the information accompanying the application on this issue being out of date.

· Objectors consider the site as significant ecological value and proposal would result in loss of this value with reference to loss of wildlife habitat and potential loss of hedgerows and trees.

· Proposal will put pressures on local schools, health facilities.

· There may be access problems for emergency vehicles with particular reference to the fire appliance.

· There is a lack of local shops to service a development of this size.

· Concern that the development will alter the character of Weeks Road (public bridleway) with added concerns regarding the pressures that such a development may have on the local public footpath system as a whole.

· Reference is made to the level of on-street parking in Ashey Road and the impact on free flow of traffic that may be caused by the additional traffic generated by this development.

· Local allotment association and individual allotment holders concerned regarding the impact of this development on those allotments, with particular regard to security issues and specifically to the disturbance that will be caused by the laying of the new sewer through those allotments.

· Concern expressed regarding the effect that a development of this size and nature will have on the natural springs which run through the site.

· Concern regarding construction traffic disturbance and the overall length of time it will take for such a major development to take place.

· Residents of Woodland View express particular concerns, stating that there is already congestion at the junction of Woodland View with Ashey Road, with that congestion being exacerbated by parents dropping off and picking up children attending Swanmore School in Ashey Road. Their concerns are summarised within their representation as follows:

“The additional dangers created for drivers, pedestrians and local children are obvious. The increased traffic parking issues and single lane access that exists along Ashey Road would create extensive delays and noise to local residents.”

5.3.1 Immediately prior to the deferral of the determination of the application in July 2005, 22 additional letters of objection were received from immediate residents and Ryde residents. Included in those letters were letters received from Woodlands View Residents Association. In general the letters reiterated the concerns itemised above relating to traffic and use of Woodlands View access onto Ashey Road and school access point. Contained in the letters are a number of additional points which are itemised as follows:

· Emphasis on the level of parked vehicles in Woodlands View thus reducing usable carriageway width.

· Concern about possible obstruction for emergency vehicle access.

· Increased pressures on health and police services.

· Concern regarding the processing procedures do not allow sufficient public access to all information.

· Development may impact on existing geology damaging existing properties.

· Questions the basis of the Flood Risk Assessment which should be revisited as a result of the Boscastle event.

· Level of disturbance caused by construction traffic.

· Management of the attenuation pond should be by the Council through a payment of a commuted sum by the developer.

· One objector questions the cost of the foul sewer which he considers will be much greater.

· The proposed ponds will attract insects and smells.

· One objector questions whether or not the Environment Agency and Southern Water have been involved in the processing.

It was the letter from the Woodland View Residents Association who had carried out a thorough investigation of the access point in Ashey Road which resulted in your officers requesting a deferral to enable the highway consultants’ assessment to be carried out. There were concerns within that letter relating to the inevitability that waiting restrictions will be introduced in the vicinity of this development and they also express concerns regarding large vehicles entering and leaving Woodland View.

Following receipt of the concerns, the Environment Agency were further consulted regarding their comments of August 2004 and they confirm that these comments are still applicable reiterating that conditions need to be applied as requested. They confirm that PPG25 still continues to be the national guidance document at this time and although the agency are nationally involved in redrafting this guidance it is unknown at this time how it will change and therefore PPG25 is the best available guidance at this time.

5.3.2 Following the recent readvertisement procedure inviting comments on the consultants report no comments have been received. Any comments which are received prior to consideration of this application will be reported to Members.

6 Evaluation

6.1 The most important material consideration in respect of this proposal is whether or not the information accompanying this application has adequately addressed the two reasons for refusal of outline planning permission in December 2002. Those two reasons related exclusively to drainage issues and therefore not surprisingly the application has been accompanied by a significant level of information in the form of Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Statement. Also the application is accompanied by an Ecological Report all of which more than adequately addresses reason no. 2 in respect of that refusal. Members are advised that the principle of residential development is not at issue given the site’s allocation in the UDP and the more recent grants of planning permission for residential development on adjacent land. Members are advised that if the site were developed at a density consistent with PPG3 it could accommodate 140 to 234 dwellings at 30-50 dwellings/hectare gross.

6.2 Foul Drainage

· The fact that the foul drainage solution being proposed involves the laying of a substantial length of new foul sewer (approximately 1,300 metres) from the site’s north eastern corner connecting to an existing manhole located at the Esplanade/North Walk junction is an indicator as to the thoroughness of the assessment in arriving at an appropriate strategy to achieve foul sewage capacity to serve the site.

· It is important to appreciate that Southern Water have a duty to provide a satisfactory foul sewer to serve the site in accordance with the relevant legislation which controls that service provider. However, it is the applicant who funds the feasibility studies carried out by Southern Water, and any future developer would have to bear the cost of the foul sewage works which I am advised would be in the region of a figure which would exceed £800,000.

· Adequate controls would need to be applied under the auspices of conditions to both ensure that the foul sewer solution is carried out to service any development on the site and that, prior to any other works commencing, a fully calculated foul sewer scheme should be submitted and approved. Such a requirement is essential to ensure that the sewer being laid is of a sufficient size, depth and of an appropriate gradient to service development on the site. This cannot be provided at this stage given the outline nature of the application.

· In terms of likely land uptake which will be in the form of easements and other detail issues relating to procedures, these are outlined below.

o Easement widths will be approximately 6 metres although precise width of works are usually a matter for negotiations between the various parties once the developer has formally requisitioned the sewer.

o Two clear stages involved in sewer requisitions, the first being the detailed design stage where the concept agreed at planning stage is worked up and costings agreed. The second stage being the completion of a formal agreement between the parties.

o Once agreed Southern Water would aim to commence works within six months, although in more complicated cases involving various landowners or sensitive wildlife or countryside sites, that timescale can be extended. This is to ensure minimum disruption and disturbance to wildlife on landscapes.

o Statutory period for the service of notice on landowners along the proposed route is 28 days, however in such cases as this Southern Water would commence negotiations well in advance and owners would usually know months in advance the timing of the work. It is anticipated that such works would take place in the autumn or early spring.

o All the above would be subject of negotiations.

· Whilst the laying of such a length of sewer will inevitably cause disturbance and disruption, I am however satisfied from the information received that all those involved will be given every consideration, with all reasonable concerns being addressed at the negotiation stage. It should be emphasized that this is an allocated residential site and Southern Water have a duty to provide a sewer through the requisition process to serve the site. I therefore have no hesitation but to suggest that in terms of the foul sewage proposal, this proposal more than adequately addresses the previous reasons for refusal

6.3 Surface Water Drainage

· Again the application has been accompanied by extensive information prepared by appropriate competent drainage engineers, with that information both being in the form of a drainage statement and an extensive PPG25 Flood Risk Assessment. One of the delays in bringing this application to Members for determination has been the requirement of the Environment Agency to be provided with additional hydrological information to assess the adequacy and suitability of the surface water drainage scheme. Members will note that that Agency is now recommending appropriate conditions should the application be approved, and by implication this indicates that they are now satisfied that the site is capable of being developed providing the attenuation methods are introduced.

· In recommending approval the Environment Agency have made general comments which are itemized as follows:

o Two catchment areas have been identified; one to the north and one to the south, and run-off areas have been assessed through recognized methods of calculation.

o The greenfield run-off (undeveloped) from both these catchment areas is approximately 40 litres per second per hectare, which is considerably higher than the normal rate of run-off of 7 litres per second per hectare. This higher figure reflects the function of the site’s slope and soil type which is relatively steep, underlain with clay, giving a potentially high run-off rate.

o Submitted Flood Risk Assessment identifies a number of ordinary water courses that flow throughout the site. Whilst these do not appear to form rationalised drainage routes, the Environment Agency considers that it would be “pertinent to create ditches to accommodate the flow”

o The Environment Agency makes reference to a requirement for land drainage consent to be obtained to secure long term maintenance of opened channels. This would be a matter that would need to be considered when the overall layout has been produced at the detail stage. At that stage any developer would need to undertake to establish land ownership rights for either existing ditches or relocated water courses and implement an appropriate management company to undertake such maintenance.

o In terms of the attenuation ponds, the Environment Agency notes that pond A (south eastern corner) has a capacity of 900 cubic metres, whilst pond B (north eastern corner) has a capacity of 600 cubic metres. The Agency confirms that this would provide a volume that appears to be satisfactory to accommodate an attenuated discharge from the site to that of the previous greenfield run-off rate.

o The Agency stresses that at the detail stage they would be willing to hold further discussions in order to agree the rate of discharge, overall storage volume and specifics of the engineering design.

· From the above the level of hydraulic engineering input in designing the surface water system to service this site has been significant, which was essential for initially the Environment Agency were not satisfied with the information and were suggesting that the application would be refused on those grounds.

· I consider that there is considerable comfort in the fact that the Environment Agency is now satisfied that the proposals have taken full account of the circumstances of the site, and clearly those issues raised in respect of details can be covered by way of condition.

· In terms of adoption of surface water drainage, it is significant that the report is suggesting that infiltration systems can be introduced on the upper area of the site where gravel outcrops exist. Where such strata do not exist, ditches and swales and filtration systems can be introduced in the lower areas. All these can be features within the designed layout stage. The report suggests that the balancing ponds could be dry detention ponds but with a more permanent water body and reed bed in one corner. It certainly would be anticipated that the two attenuation ponds would be used as specific features in any future layout. Indeed the ponds themselves can become valuable ecological features attracting appropriate wildlife providing they are laid out appropriately.

· In terms of adoption of the ponds, the applicants have been advised that it is not the Council’s policy to adopt such features, a factor which they have taken on board, and any future developer would need to address this issue by ensuring that they are adopted by an acceptable management company, a factor which would be included in any Section 106 Agreement.

6.4 Ecological Issues

· The application has been accompanied by a detailed Ecological Report prepared by an appropriate competent company which provides a description of all the habitats present identifies any potential ecological constraints and lists mitigation measures to alleviate these potential constraints. In preparing this Report particular importance has been placed on the effect any development may have on the adjoining Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (Swanmore Meadows SINC) to the west and south of the application site.

· The methodology of the study was in the form of a desktop study and walkover field survey, being carried out in accordance with appropriate codes of practice. A précis of the resulting impacts of the development of the site are as follows:

o Application for fields relatively species rich, but contain no species which are protected by law. The same habitat is represented in the adjacent SINC and indeed similar habitat may be present in other fields in the locality.

o Any mitigation for the loss of grassland habitat could be in the form of habitat retention where appropriate within proposed open space areas contained within the new development and/or a contribution to the nature conservation management of the adjacent SINC areas.

o Important that trees and hedgerows should be retained, an issue that could be covered by condition. Similarly the surface water ditches on the site should be retained with scope to enhance those ditches for wildlife.

o Site unsuitable for many protected species such as reptiles and great crested newts. Site does have habitat for breeding birds, badgers and bats and any detailed development will need to take the potential impact on these species into account in the design

o Further surveys are recommended to determine existence of bats and/or badgers; however the findings of such surveys would not prevent development as there are many measures available for mitigating effects on these species. Such surveys should be carried out in the appropriate seasons.

o Any site clearance should avoid bird breeding seasons from March to July.

· With regard to any impact on the adjoining SINC sites, these are covered as follows:

o Proposal will have no impact on Monkton Mead Brook further to the east on the grounds that if anything there will be a reduction in flood risk to that brook due to the attenuation measures being suggested and therefore there is no requirement for any improvement works to the existing surface water courses within the SINC areas.

o There would only be negligible impact on Monkton Mead Brook from the works required for the new foul sewer where it abuts that brook.

o Where the new foul sewer passes through Swanmore Meadows there would be a temporary loss of habitat, however that habitat would return over a number of years. By ensuring the new sewer runs within the same easement any disturbance would be restricted to habitat that has already been disturbed.

· Like the surface water proposals this Ecological Report has been thoroughly vetted by the Environment Agency, who are suggesting that an all covering condition requiring all recommendations proposed within the Ecological Report be adhered to within any detailed development scheme. They concur with the recommendations contained in that report as follows:

o Retention of natural features in order to integrate the new development with the surrounding countryside and lessen pressures on the adjoining SINC.

o Provision of interpretation signs highlighting the importance of the SINC in the formalisation of entrances to the SINC. This is required to enable new residents to adopt a sense of ownership over the adjoining natural resource and promote sympathetic treatment and enjoyment of the area. Long term management proposals should be outlined indicating how the integrity of the SINC will be maintained further to increased visitor pressure.

o Provision of measures to deter littering and tipping on the boundaries of the SINC which could lower the amenity value of that area.

o Concurrence that further survey work is required in respect of protected species such as bats.

o Balancing ponds should be integrated as a feature of the development in order to encourage local wildlife, provision of a wildlife rich water body will create ideal bat feeding habitats. The Environment Agency stresses the importance of ongoing management and supervision of these features.

· Finally the Environment Agency recognises that development of this site will result in a net loss of species rich habitat and therefore any detail development scheme should address this loss and make measures to offset the potential decline of nature conservation interest.

6.5 Drainage/Ecological Matters

From the above I am satisfied that all issues referred to in the two previous reasons for refusal have more than adequately been addressed by the submissions which have accompanied the application, and because of this it would be unsustainable to continue to refuse this proposal on those issues.

6.6 Highway Issues

Whilst the applicants were obviously disappointed that their application was not determined in July 2005 they clearly recognise the importance of establishing once and for all that the access of Woodland View onto Ashey Road was capable of servicing the development of this allocated land and that the visibility standards were within the recognised parameters contained within the various advisory documents. The summary of the applicants’ consultants report indicates that appropriate procedures were undertaken with that report concluding as follows:

· The speed of traffic in Ashey Road has reduced by around 10% since the 1998 ATC survey probably as a result of the Pelican crossing and pinch points being installed.

· Very little if any queuing will occur as a result of the development, even when general traffic growth is taken into account.

· There is no evidence that any accidents have been associated with the junction to date and no Reason to suppose that the proposed development would materially worsen that situation.

· The existing visibility splays have been shown to be adequate for the measured traffic speeds in Ashey Road.

· In the light of these factors there is nothing (either in basic design principles or in the observed situation to suggest that any undue traffic hazard would result from approving the current application.

Given that your highway engineers are both in agreement with the methodology used in the production of this report and more significantly its conclusions your officers can do no more than concur and reiterate the view that despite the level of concerns by local residents in respect of this issue it would be very difficult indeed to justify refusal of this application on the grounds of inadequacy of the junction of Woodland View with Ashey Road as an appropriate access to serve this site. This is particularly the case given that it was not cited as a Reason for refusal in respect of the December 2002 decision were the Council to go down this line then the applicants would almost certainly appeal such a decision. Members are reminded that the previous appeal in respect of the modest 16 units now currently under construction resulted in the appeal being allowed and costs against the planning authority.

Members are also reminded that there are comparative examples of single access developments serving a substantial number of dwellings 250+ throughout the Island as follows:

· Merrie Gardens/Whitecross Lane junction - Lake

· Carter Avenue/Brooks Road junction – Shanklin

· Arthur Moody Drive – Forest Hills – Broadwood Lane/Gunville Road junction, Newport

All these are examples of single access developments which do not appear to have caused any major problems in terms of traffic movements. However, national guidance is that only 300 units should be served off a single access and it would be for the applicants to show why they consider that a greater number could be constructed and still retain a safe means of access into and out of the site. Given that the access already serves 45 existing and proposed units this suggests that a highway “cap” of 255 units on the applications site would be inappropriate.

6.6.1 Your officers’ attention has been drawn to local residents being advised that consideration is being given to the provision of a second access being provided onto Ashey Road further to the north.

It is important to stress that no planning application has been received for such an access and even had one been received no weight could be given it in the determination of the current application. This application has to be considered on its individual merits and must be determined on the basis of the information that has been provided, not on speculation or “what if?”

Unless there are fundamental issues identifying that this site cannot be served off a single point of access, with those issues representing sound Reasons for refusal, then the possibility of provision of a second access should not be a material consideration. Clearly given the thorough assessment of the access of Woodland View onto Ashey Road there are no such fundamental issues and therefore Members are strongly advised not to give any weight to this potential proposal for a second access.

6.7 106 Agreement Issues

Members are advised that officers have been negotiating regarding Section 106 benefits which can be reasonably achieved from development of this site. Heads of terms have been discussed and draft agreements have been exchanged. Members are also advised that the various departmental recipients of contribution have been involved. As with most negotiations, it has not been possible to achieve all the levels of benefits desired to assist in funding specific projects. Account has always to be taken of any exceptional development costs which are necessary in order to enable a viable development to take place and in this case there is the significant cost of the foul sewer (in excess of £800,000) is such a cost factor. That however is neither a reason to grant or withhold permission or to accept sub-optimal contributions to public realm requirements. This is a matter for the applicants to consider in determining the financial viability of their proposal.

6.8 The contribution figures, which are considered to be reasonable in this case, are as follows:

· Education

Following consultation with the Council’s Education Officer a sum of £231,000 has been negotiated which is based on a density development of 30 units per hectare and the requirement of £1,650 per unit.

· Village Green Contribution

A contribution of £30,000 towards the maintenance of the adjoining village green abutting the southern boundary.

· Open Space Maintenance contribution of £28,000 based on a 0.3 hectare open space provision on site.

· Highway and Community contributions

A total of £80,000 which is envisaged to assist in funding householder access to local facilities, provision of off-site play equipment, footway and cycleway improvements providing linkages to public play areas and contributing to safe routes to school schemes.

· The resultant total figure is £369,000 which would be in the form of phased payments.

6.9 Affordable Housing

· Members will note that under Supplementary Planning Guidance affordable housing provision has increased from 20% to 30%. However as this application was received prior to the production of that Supplementary Planning Guidance it was considered unreasonable to seek the full 30%. In discussions with the applicant a compromise has been reached whereby provision of affordable housing will be at 25%, with that percentage being broken down to 20% rented accommodation and 5% shared ownership. Therefore included in the 106 Agreement will be a requirement to provide this level of affordable housing in conjunction with a registered social landlord (Housing Association) with the method of provision being either to sell to a registered social landlord or to transfer land at nil cost to a registered social landlord. Such affordable housing will be provided in phases to link in with any overall phasing of development on the site.

· In terms of the number of affordable housing units which is likely to be generated, it is difficult to give an exact number. However if the site was developed at an average density of 40 units per hectare then the likely resultant affordable housing provision would be in the region of 40+ units. It is important to appreciate that this is an approximate figure.

· Other Issues which are likely to be included in the legal agreement would be the need to ensure a management company is set up to ensure the future management of maintenance of the attenuation ponds. This is considered essential as recent experience suggests that whilst the Environment Agency encourages the introduction of such ponds they are not prepared to adopt them. More significantly, the Council’s view on this matter is that they have reservations regarding adoption, maintenance and upkeep, and would be likely to be placing either a high contribution figure if they are persuaded to adopt. Therefore the most logical step would be for an appropriate management company experienced in maintaining such features to be appointed and, more significantly, funded by any developer, with residents being brought on board to ensure the maintenance of these drainage features.

· In summary, it is considered that the benefits and contributions which have been negotiated have been set at a level which takes due account of the circumstances of the site, with particular reference to the cost factor in providing the foul sewer. Whilst obviously the foul sewer will enable the site to be serviced, it will also be likely to make available foul sewage capacity to any brownfield sites within close proximity to it, thus enabling those sites to be brought forward.

· Secondly, Members are advised that the monies received from the adjoining developments have been spent either on the traffic calming in Ashey Road and providing improvements to communal facilities within the area, with reference to the communal facilities provided by the local schools. It is important to appreciate that all monies received from a development have to satisfy the test of being reasonable and related to the development, and therefore need to be spent locally on targeted projects. Secondly, although the sums are not great from an individual point of view they may enable match funding to be obtained through other sources.

· Other Issues

Whilst continuing to remind Members that the test in respect of this application is whether or not the applicants have satisfactorily addressed the previous reasons for refusal, in view of the number of objections which have been received reflecting a high level of concern regarding this site, then I consider it is appropriate to address the issues raised.

· Policy Position

This is a site allocated for residential development within the statutory Unitary Development Plan, and indeed a major part of the site was allocated as such within the previous North East Wight Local Plan. Therefore the principle of its development is accepted, and Members are reminded that under the Planning Act all applications should be determined on the basis of statutory policies unless other material considerations suggest otherwise. The fact that the site is now coming forward results in the need to apply current National and Local Plan policies to its development.

· Whilst this is a greenfield site its status as allocated land within the development envelope makes it appropriate for it to come forward at this time to meet housing requirements as set out in the Unitary Development Plan and, more importantly, as identified in the Urban Capacity Study. This study identifies the need for both identified brownfield and greenfield sites and windfall sites to come forward in order for housing requirements to be met. Supplementary Planning Guidance on phasing in respect of release of greenfield sites anticipated that this site would have been brought forward earlier.

· Given the major status of this site it is accepted that the rate of release should be controlled, and in any event a site of this size is likely to be developed out over a number of years. The Urban Capacity Study and Phasing Report would allow major sites to “trickle feed” new housing into the marketplace as opposed to one site being dependent on another site being built out. This should also sustain competition between housing developers and impact on house prices.

· In view of this and on the assumption Members are mindful to approve the application, a suggested condition will be applied requiring both a master plan and phasing programme to be submitted in order to enable the Planning Authority to exercise appropriate controls. Finally, because of the sheer size of the site it affords the ideal opportunity to provide a significant level of affordable housing for which there is a clear and recognised demand, with that demand being difficult to satisfy through the development of the much smaller brownfield sites which in many cases don’t generate any affordable housing whatever.

6.10 Density/Access

· While siting and therefore density is not a matter for Members to determine at this stage, consideration has to be given to whether or not controls need to be put in place to limit numbers of units on this site. If a density limit condition is to be applied it needs to be justified, and the one issue which is the determining factor in this case is the capacity of the junction of Woodland View with Ashey Road in terms of traffic movement.

· Design Bulletin 32 in theory accepts up to 300 dwellings off one access providing there is an internal loop arrangement within the internal road layout. Highway Engineer has in the past considered that this number could be deemed to be excessive, and in any event that number would need to include the existing development, both completed and about to commence abutting the south west (43 units) and would also need to take into account future development on the remaining allocated land which abuts the western boundary.

· Therefore whilst I would not normally advocate placing a density limit condition, in view of the circumstances of the single access and following the density parameters set at in PPG3 it is considered it could be justified in this case. The maximum density figure of 42 units per hectare would result in an approximate overall density, including undeveloped allocated land and the existing developments, of 275 units. Members are advised that the site area identified includes the highway access which could not reasonably be included in an overall density calculation, and hence the application site should be conditioned to a maximum of 230 units which is consistent with PPG3.

· This density limitation would also need to be supported by a further condition relating to the internal road layout being in the form of a circuit, with there being the shortest practical connection between this circuit and the point of access.

6.11 Slope Stability and Geotechnics

Whilst the application has not been accompanied by up-to-date information relating to ground conditions, the information that is available is sufficient for this issue to have been adequately addressed. Ground stability is a material consideration, with the test being whether or not the site is capable of supporting the development proposed. In this case the ground conditions will need to be taken into account when designing the foundation details, for those ground conditions vary even within the site. I am satisfied that this is essentially a Building Control matter, with the Building Regulations providing the legislation to control this issue. The Building Control Officer recognised that the site’s subsoil is likely to make it unsuitable for soakaways and that strip foundations are likely to be unsuitable where clay subsoil exists and high water demand from trees is present. I consider an advisory letter attached to any approval pointing out the need to consider this issue of foundation design would be sufficient to cover this matter.

6.12 Open Space

Open space provision has been the subject of negotiation with the fact that the site abuts the substantial area of village green to the south playing an important role. Part of the monies being raised through the Section 106 Agreement are aimed at future maintenance of that village green, for clearly residents of this development will put greater pressures on the village green and will use it as a valuable facility. On site open space provision has therefore been agreed at 0.3 hectares (0.75 of an acre) and it is suggested that this space should be provided to the north of the site, the greatest distance from the village green. Added to this will be a requirement to provide at least two small children’s play space areas to be suitable located and planned into the overall design of the layout. This calculation excludes the two attenuation ponds and the inevitable space around those ponds.

7 Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 The length of this report indicated the complexity of the issues which have been involved in assessing the merits of this outline application for residential development. The application provides an opportunity to put in place all the controlling mechanisms which will dictate and inform any future urban designer as to what are the constraints and opportunities of the site. The conditions which are suggested to be attached are of particular importance, as is the Section 106 Agreement. I consider that appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the Report has been given and that the site is appropriate for residential development subject to the controls being suggested, and therefore approval is recommended.

7.2 Members will appreciate the level of investigation which has taken place both by the applicants and your officers to ensure the access concerns of local residents have been given the due weight they deserve. Whilst it is appreciated that despite the additional evidence which has been submitted these concerns will remain. Your officers however can do no more than concur with the positive advice of the highways engineers in respect of this issue.

7.3 Should Members be minded to approve this application then it will have to be referred to GOSE (Government Office South East) under the Town and Country Planning (Residential Development on Greenfield Land) (England) Directions 2000. This is required to enable the Secretary of State to ensure that the national policies are being complied with, with particular reference to those policies within PPG3 – Housing.

8 Recommendation

Approval subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement covering the following:

· Provision of 25% affordable housing (20% rented, 5% shared ownership) to be transferred to a registered social landlord.

· An education contribution of £232,000.

· Highway, community, open space maintenance, and village green contribution £138,000.

· Setting up of a registered management company to adopt and maintain the two balancing ponds and retained ditches.

(Subject to reference to GOSE under the Town and Country Planning (Residential Development on Greenfield Land) (England) Directions 2000.) (Site likely to generate in excess of 150 units.)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3	Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory development and be in accordance with policies S6 (Standards of Design), D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards of Development Within the Site), D3 (Landscaping), TR7 (Highway Consideration for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	No development shall take place until an overall master plan has been submitted for the site indicating the following: internal road layout which shall accord with the advice contained in Design Bulletin 32 and places streets and movement; location of on site open space area/areas min. 0.3 ha; location of minimum 2 no. children's play areas; footpath/cycleway links to Weeks Road in the north eastern corner and footpath link to the south eastern corner providing links to Weeks Road and the adjoining village green; retention of ditches/boundary hedgerows/trees. Such master plan shall be approved in writing and no work shall commence until such approval has been granted. Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with an overall design strategy in accordance with policy G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) and D2 (Standards for Development within the Site) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	The sequence of operations during the implementation of the permission hereby granted shall be as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority and a phasing programme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before any operations are commenced, and none of the operations hereby approved shall be commenced in advance of any such further approval. Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in a properly phased manner in compliance with policy G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) and D2 (Standards for Development within the Site) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The submitted scheme shall ensure retention of all natural features including retention of all boundary hedgerows, trees, grassland (within on site open space) and drainage ditches. Reason: In order to integrate the new development with the surrounding countryside in accordance with policies D1 (Standards of Design) and D2 (Standards for Development within the Site) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Any development on site shall accord with the recommendations contained within the Ecological Report (WSP Developments Limited dated July 2004 ref: 12070592). Reason: To minimise any adverse impact on the development of the adjoining SINC (Swanmore Meadows) and river corridor and to compensate for the net loss of species rich grassland under the built footprint in compliance with policies C11 (Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Prior to occupation of any dwellings on this site provision shall be made for interpretation signs highlighting the importance of the adjoining SINC and the formalisation of entrances to the SINC long term management proposals shall also be submitted outlining how the integrity of the SINC shall be maintained further to cater for increased visitor pressure. Reason: To minimise any adverse impact of the development on the adjoining SINC (Swanmore Meadows) in compliance with policy C11 (Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	Any submitted detail layout shall ensure integration of the proposed balancing ponds as a feature of the development and shall indicate how the design will encourage local wildlife. Reason: In order to integrate new development with the surrounding countryside in compliance with policy C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	No dwelling shall be occupied until a scheme has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority indicating measures to deter littering and tipping on the boundaries of the adjoining SINC. Such measures shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: To minimise any adverse impact of the development on the adjoining SINC in compliance with policy C11 (Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	No site clearance shall take place during the bird breeding season between March and July. Reason: In compliance with policy C1 (Protection of the Landscape Character) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	All material excavated as a result of general ground works including site leveling, installation of services or the digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the area identified in red on the submitted plans. The material shall be removed from the site as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular. In compliance with policies G4 (General Locational Criteria), D2 (Standards of Development within the Site) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13	No development shall take place until detailed calculations have been submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority indicating the details of the foul water discharge rate. No dwelling shall be occupied until the new foul sewer has been constructed and is operational in accordance with the details contained in WSP Developments Ltd Drainage Statement, Project Ref: 11010174 dated December 2003. Reason: To ensure adequate system of foul water drainage is provided for the development in compliance with policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
14	No development shall take place until exact surface water discharge flows and cubic capacity of the two balancing ponds have been calculated and submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until the balancing ponds in the south eastern and north eastern corners of the site have been constructed and are operational to service the surface water discharge from the site. Such balancing ponds and surface water drainage system shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of surface water drainage is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
15	None of the existing retained ditches on the site shall be culverted. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation in compliance with policy C1 (Protection of the Landscape Character) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
16	In this condition "retained hedge or hedgerow" means an existing hedge or hedgerow which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. No retained hedge or hedgerow shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained hedge or hedgerow be reduced in height other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. If within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development the whole or any part of any retained hedge or hedgerow is removed, uprooted, is destroyed or dies, another hedge or hedgerow shall be planted at the same place and that hedge or hedgerow shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained hedge or hedgerow shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and particulars before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any fenced area in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered nor shall any excavation be made or fire be lit, without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing hedges or hedgerows and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
17	No vehicular or pedestrian access shall be made directly from any individual dwelling to Weeks Road, the only access being public footpath or cycleway, as referred to in condition 4. Reason: In order to protect and control access to public right of way in compliance with policy TR17 (Public Rights of Way) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
18	No development shall take place until there have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: A plan showing the location of, and allocating a reference number to, each existing tree on the site which has a stem with a diameter, measured over the bark at a point 1.5 metres above ground level, exceeding 75mm, showing the species, girth or stem diameter, height, crown spread, state of health and stability of each tree, together with details of those trees that are to be retained and details of any proposed topping or lopping; Details of any proposed topping or lopping of any tree on land adjacent to the site; A plan showing existing ground levels and details of any proposed alterations thereto and of any proposed excavations; A plan showing the location, spread, height, species and state of health of all existing hedgerows, hedges and other areas of vegetation on the site, together with details of those that are to be retained and details of any that are proposed to be cut back or removed, wholly or partially; A plan showing the location, levels and dimensions of all existing watercourses, drainage channels and other aquatic features on the site, together with details of those that are to be retained and details of any works proposed thereto; Details of all existing boundary features and means of enclosure at the site, together with details of those that are to be retained and details of any works proposed thereto; Details of the specification, position and programme of implementation of any measures to be taken before or during the course of development for the protection from damage of anything to be retained; The erection of fencing for the protection of anything to be retained shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and ground levels within those areas shall not be altered nor shall any excavation be made or fire be lit, without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans, particulars and details approved pursuant to this condition. Reason: To allow the proper consideration of the impact of the proposed development on the amenity value of the existing site and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
19	No retained boundary hedgerow or trees shall be indicated to be within privately owned domestic gardens and shall be retained as a public amenity in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure long term retention of these landscape features in the interests of nature conservation in compliance with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
20	Any proposed development layout shall ensure a road access is provided to the site's western boundary in a location to be agreed and to a standard equivalent to that required for adoption by the Highway Authority. Reason: In the interests of future planning of the adjoining allocated land which abuts the western boundary in compliance with policy H3 (Allocation of Residential Development Sites) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
21	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, designs, materials and type of boundary treatments to be erected. Such plans shall include the provision of security fencing where the development either abuts or is in close proximity to adjoining allotments in the northern area of the site. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the dwellings are occupied and development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area in compliance with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
22	The density of development on this site shall not exceed 230 units and shall contain a variety of house sizes and types. Reason: In compliance with policy H2 (To ensure that large residential developments contain a variety of house sizes and types) of the IW Unitary Development Plan and to ensure development on this site will not exceed the recommended density of development to be served off one access as advised in Design Bulletin 32 and its companion guide Places, Streets and Movement.
23	Overall parking provision on this site shall ensure minimum 1 parking space per unit and shall not exceed an average of 1.5 parking spaces per unit. Reason: In compliance with policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the IW Unitary Development Plan and advice contained in PPG3 - Housing.
24	No dwelling shall be occupied until the parts of the service roads which provide access to it have been constructed, surfaced and drained in accordance with [the approved plans/details which have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority]. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
25	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 IW Unitary Development Plan.
26	No construction traffic shall use Rosemary Lane or Weeks Road other than vehicle movements directly associated with work taking place within those highways. Reason: In the interest of highway safety in compliance with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
27	No construction vehicle shall enter the public highway 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 getting on the highway.
28	The surfaces of the existing site road and access roads shall be maintained in good state of repair and kept clean and free of mud and other debris at all times during construction works and until completion of construction works. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and safeguarding the local environment.
29	The developer shall afford access at all reasonable times to any archaeologists nominated by the Local Planning Authority and shall allow them to observe all groundwork and to record [items/features] of archaeological significance and finds. Notification of the opening up and information as to whom the archaeologist should contact on site shall be given in writing to the address below (or to any alternative address notified to the developer by the Local Planning Authority) not less than 14 days before the commencement of any work: County Archaeologist County Archaeological Centre 61 Clatterford Road Carisbrooke Newport Isle of Wight PO30 1NZ Reason: In order to ensure access by specified archaeologists during the permitted operations and to comply with policies B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) and B10 (Parks and Gardens and Landscapes of Historic Interest) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIONS FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF A REPORT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

TUESDAY 29 NOVEMBER 2005

1.

P/02481/03 – TCP/05746/N

Outline for residential development part OS Parcel 1238, 0135 and 0952, land between Weeks Road and Ashey Road, Ryde

Nature of Representation

Background

The following update of representations relates to the response from local residents in respect of the re-advertisement procedure referred to in the report which was considered necessary following the receipt of a highway consultant’s report covering the suitability of the junction with Woodland View/Ashey Road to serve the proposed development. Re-advertisement procedure required comments to be submitted by the 25 November although any comments raising any new issues received after that date will be duly reported to Members prior to determining the application.

Following that re-advertisement procedure 14 letters of objection have been received. Four from residents of Woodland View, three from residents of Ashey Road, two from residents of Aldermere Close and one each from residents of Binstead Road, Hazlewood Close, Leighwood Close and Alfred Street one from the Woodland View/Aldermere Close residents association. Points raised in many cases reiterate the points already summarised in the report under Third Party Representations however, in the interests of clarity these are summarised as follows:

· Disruption caused to Ryde residents generally by the laying of the extensive length of foul sewer from the site through to Ryde Esplanade.

· Estimated cost of £800,000 considered to be insufficient. Concerns are being expressed that Council may have to pay the difference should it be higher.

· Concerns that the level of development will have an adverse impact on local services with particular reference to health facilities and schools.

· Reiteration of the concerns relating to flooding and whether the Environment Agency advice is up to date and has taken account of the recent Boscastle incident.

Concern that the proposed additional density of development will completely negate the safety traffic calming measures in Ashey Road which were put in place in 1999 following the allowance of the appeal for the additional 16 units. It is considered that unless similar conditions are imposed to reinforce safety measures, than the application should be refused.

Letter writers from Hazlewood Close and Leighwood Close appear to be making references to concerns regarding detail matters relating to potential impact on their property; however the application site itself does not abut either of these developments although the land which does abut is zoned for residential development.

In general the contents of the letters concentrate on the Woodland View access onto Ashey Road and in this regard Members will have received copies of correspondence which has taken place relating to a number of detailed issues raised by a local resident concerning the information and data contained in the report. The package of papers sent to Members covers a number of technical issues.

The following represents a flavour of the concerns being expressed by other residents.

· Ashey Road is inadequate in width particularly where it passes Woodland View.

· Woodland View subject to a degree of on-street parking which causes traffic hazards with this situation being considerably exacerbated should a development of up to 300 houses take place.

· One objector questions the speed figures in the report suggesting they are misleading and only relates to average speed with car speeds being faster than those of larger vehicles.

· The increased traffic flows in Woodland View will lead to increased dangers to pedestrians when residents are reversing into Woodland View.

· Some concern that potential parking restrictions will be placed on vehicles parking opposite Woodland View in Ashey Road.

· Criticism of the failure of the report to make reference to any dangers that may occur to school children either travelling to or from local school.

· Current level of on-street parking restricts carriageway width with any additional on-street parking having obvious impact on the ability of emergency vehicles to access the site with particular reference to fire appliances.

Apart from specific references to the advertised report, much of the contents of these letters reiterate the points already summarised in the report under reference 5.3 and 5.3.1.

Planning Officer’s comments

· Any building or engineering works will cause an element of disruption however; this would not be a reason to refuse any planning applications for in this case the works are required to address a shortfall in infrastructure and are short term in nature. Detailed reference is made to the foul drainage issue under 6.2 in the officer’s report emphasising the procedures which will be put into place with any disturbance and disruption being kept to the minimum.

· Recognised that health facilities will be put under increased pressure, however this site along with adjoining land has a residential allocation and therefore the residential development for these sites would be factored into any future planning in respect of increasing health facilities. In terms of impact on the school, Members will note that the proposal provides for an educational contribution of £232,000.

· Concerns relating to flooding are noted with particular reference whether or the Environment Agency advice is up to date. Members attention is drawn to 5.3.1 in which reference is made to a more recent consultation with the Environment Agency in July 2005 at which time they confirmed that although some redrafting of the PPG25 document – Development and Flood Risk it still continues to be the national guidance document in respect of this issue. Members are reminded that the application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment which the Environment Agency is fully satisfied is acceptable, subject to conditions being applied.

Most of the issues of concern regarding Woodland View and Ashey Road junction are covered in the information contained in the package of papers which Members already have in their possession and, more importantly, the explanations being given by the applicants consulting engineer being fully support by the Council’s own highway engineers. Other general highway issues are commented upon as follows:

· With regard to on-street parking, my records indicate that the Woodland View Development of 27 units provides at least two of street car parking spaces per unit and also provides for a lay-by, the intention of which was to provide parking for properties in Ashey Road. A similar level of parking provision is provided for in respect of the 16 units currently under construction. This level of parking is in excess of that now being advised under PPG3 and should be adequate to ensure that there is no greater need for on street parking to take place.

· The standard width for a distribution road is 5.5metres; Woodland View has an actual width of 6.2 metres which should be more than adequate to accommodate emergency vehicles.

The traffic calming measure which have been introduced into Ashey Road have had the desired effect in as much that traffic speeds have been reduced as indicated from the data which has been gathered as part of the Highway Consultants report. The actual speed rate in any road is a major contributing factor to the suitability of visibility in respect of junctions and in this case the Highway Consultant has identified this as a contributing factor to the proposed visibility splay being acceptable.

Finally, Members attention is drawn to para. 6.6 with particular reference to the final word in the final paragraph which should read appropriate as opposed to inappropriate.

No change to recommendation.

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE –

TUESDAY 29 NOVEMBER 2005

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES

Joint Reports - Reference Numbers: P/00870/03 - TCP/24809/C

P/00884/03 – TCP/24809/D

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

Registration Date: 29/04/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr J Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Buchanan Land Holdings Ltd

Demolition of existing buildings; construction of 3/4/5 storey block of 69 flats (33 one-bed, 36 two-bed); basement car parking (38 spaces); access off Pyle Street (revised scheme)

1, 1A, 1B, 2 and 4 Pyle Street, 12 and 14 East Street and The Publican PH and 71, South Street, Newport, Isle of Wight, PO30

Demolition of existing buildings; construction of 3/4 storey block of 19 flats (8 one-bed, 11 two-bed) with retail unit at ground floor level; pedestrian access off South Street (revised scheme)

Auto Windscreens, 52 South Street, Newport, Isle of Wight, PO30 1JQ

Both applications are recommended for Conditional Permission subject to Section 106 Agreement.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

These are major applications of some importance having significant policy implications and were both considered at the Development Control Sub Committee on 4 October 2005 at which time they were deferred to allow officers to negotiate on solely design issues as follows:

Give further consideration to external appearance of the buildings in order to create a scheme which reflects the prevailing pattern of development in Newport.

1 Details of Application

1.1 P/00870/03 – TCP/24809/C

1.1.1 Members are reminded that application is for residential development in the form of total of 69 flats (33 one bedroom, 36 two bedroom) with basement car parking with 38 spaces accessed off Pyle Street.

1.1.2 Plan form the proposal indicates a lengthy terrace following the line of back of footpath to South Street terminating adjacent the fire station with the other end of the terrace returning along Pyle Street terminating adjacent the clinic in Pyle Street. In its form the terrace block follows a gentle curve with a rounded corner element on the corner of the junction of Pyle Street with East Street. Proposal provides for a mix of storey heights ranging from three storey in the vicinity of Pyle Street with East Street and along Pyle Street itself rising to four storey and five storey and then reducing to three storey where the block directly abuts the fire station. The short elevation onto Pyle Street consists of entirely three storey elements with varying styles of roof finish.

1.1.3 Roof finishes are in the main in the form of stopped gabled roofs but does include a hipped roof feature over the element of the terrace which abuts the fire station, a parapet curved feature where the block curves round the junction of Pyle Street with East Street and in the case of the block over the entrance of Pyle Street the roof is in the form of a mansard roof.

1.1.4 Following the deferral of the application applicants have reconsidered the elevational treatments with the alterations being itemised as follows:

· Brickwork

Revised proposal indicates mainly red facing brick with elements of grey and buff facing brick. Proposal includes for brick dressings and soldier courses around the window with stone cills. Narrow vertical brick piers indicated separating each pair of dwellings within the terrace.

Brick detailing and eaves level indicates that traditional corbelling of the brickwork terminating in the traditional fascia.

The only exception to the eaves treatment as described above is one element having a parapet termination at third floor level with the parapet being capped off with a coping stone. This treatment is to be applied in respect of the rounded corner element on the junction of Pyle Street and East Street with the parapet being in a stepped form.

Other brick features include contrasting brick quoins contrasting brick corbelling at eaves level and contrasting waiting brick string courses at first floor level.

One of the pair of units has a rendered feature at ground floor.

· Windows

The projecting bay window features which are either in the form of single projecting bay or vertical double bays to be constructed in white painted timber with appropriate panels between floors. Each bay feature to be finished in a slated hipped pitched roof feature with traditional eaves treatment. All other windows are in the form of traditional timber sash windows painted white.

The dormer windows similarly are to be in timber casement windows painted white under a flat roof finished in a lead style cladding.

1.1.5 Each unit to be provided with ground floor protectable space being finished in steel railings on dwarf brick walls.

1.1.6 In general the flats to be served in pairs by communal staircase accessed off South Street through a timber stained double entrance doors.

1.2 P/00884/03 – TCP/24809/D

1.2.1 This application relates to the smaller site on the western side of the fire station and seeks detailed consent for an elongated building providing retail with residential on the ground floor with further residential accommodation through first, second and third floors.

1.2.2 Plans indicate retail frontages onto South Street and returning partially along the west and east facing elevations. Remaining ground floor elevations relate to the residential use with the main entrances to the two ground floor flats being via the eastern passage way. In terms of elevational treatments these are itemised as follows:

· Retail units to be provided with shop fronts consisting of central pilasters where appropriate stall risers and fascias set within brick surrounds in the form of brick dressings and string courses.

· To be finished in similar specification as indicated in respect of the main site providing for the use of mainly buff facing brickwork with red brick features in the form of quoins brick dressings around the windows with soldier course arches and terminating at third floor level in the form of a corbelled parapet finish capped off with a coping stone.

· Third floor to be set back both to the front and sides and to be finished in a grey facing brick again with a corbelled parapet finish as previously described.

1.2.3 Block occupies a width of approximately 12.5 metres by overall depth of 35.5 metres which results in a two metre gap on its western side and a 3 metre gap on its eastern side. Block is set back approximately 2.5 metres from back of footpath on the south street frontage. Apart from the flats proposal also indicated bin stores to serve the flats accessed off the western side.

1.2.4 Overall the proposal seeks consent for the demolition of the existing buildings and provides for a total of 19 flats (9 one bed and 11 two bed) along with the ground floor retail units providing a total retail floor space of approximately 265 m². Finally proposal indicates that the third floor element of this proposal is set some 6 metres back from the rear elevation and therefore the height of block immediately adjacent the rear boundary is restricted to three storey only.

2 Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 P/00870/03 - TCP/24809/C

2.1.1 Application relates to an irregular shaped site on the north-western side of South Street virtually opposite the multiplex cinema and the junction of Furrlongs with South Street. Site has a short frontage onto Pyle Street close to its junction with East Street. Site currently accommodates a group of residential dwellings, four of which front Pyle Street and two of which front South Street.

2.1.2 Site also accommodates redundant public house (formerly Shoulder of Mutton) and redundant commercial buildings. Abutting western boundary on the Pyle Street frontage is a Healthcare Clinic whilst abutting western boundary on South Street frontage is the Fire Station. Site slopes towards the junction of East Street with Pyle Street and Coppins Bridge Roundabout.

2.2 P/00884/03 - TCP/24809/D

2.2.1 Rectangular shaped site which currently accommodates commercial premises (52 South Street) located opposite the goods entrance to Morrison's Supermarket. Abutting eastern boundary is the Fire Station whilst abutting western boundary is the ATS premises. Abutting to the north are rear boundaries which serve a group of terraced dwellings numbers 18,19, 20, 21 and 22 Pyle Street. The site is virtually level.

3 Relevant History

3.1 None in respect of any previous consents on the site.

4 Development Plan Policy

4.1 Relevant national policy documents relate to PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development, and PPG3 – Housing.

4.1.1 PPS1 emphasises the aim of sustainability for development proposals with reference being made in terms of design issues to the following:

Good design plays important role in ensuring attractive, usable, durable and adaptable places emphasising that:

· There should be an avoidance of unnecessary prescription of detail

· A concentration on overall scale, density, massing and height

· Layout and access of new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area

· Should not attempt to impose architectural styles or stifle innovation, originality or initiatives

· Promote or reinforce local distinctiveness where appropriate.

4.1.2 PPG3 emphasises the need to:

· Make efficient use of urban land to take pressures off greenfield sites but not at the expense of cramped development

· Provide wider housing opportunity and choice through better mix and size and type and location of housing

· Ensure housing schemes where appropriate provide an element of affordable housing the need for which should be identified through a Housing Needs Survey.

· Create a more sustainable pattern of development ensuring accessibility to public transport

· Ensure the achievement of densities within 30 – 50 units per hectare range with even greater intensity of development being appropriate where good public transport accessibility such as town centre sites

· More than 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling not likely to reflect the government’s emphasis on sustainable residential development.

4.2 Local Plan Policies

4.2.1 In terms of Unitary Development Plan both sites are situated within Newport town centre boundary and within a larger area of land retail allocated (known as the fire station site). The allocation includes the fire station ATS premises and other commercial and residential properties which front Pyle Street. Allocation recognising that any redevelopment proposal could only take place following the relocation of the fire station.

4.2.2 Neither of the two sites are within the Newport Conservation Area although both are in close proximity.

4.3 Relevant Strategic Policies are as follows:

S1 - Development concentrated within existing urban areas.

S2 - Development encouraged on land which has been previously developed (brownfield sites).

S3 - New developments of large scale located in defined development envelopes.

S5 - Proposals should be for the overall benefit of the Island.

S6 - Development should be of a high standard of design.

S7 - The need to provide for the development of at least 8,000 housing units over the planned period.

S11 - Council will aim to encourage development of an effective efficient and integrated transport network.

S14 - New retail development will be expected to locate within existing town centres.

4.4 Local plan policies are listed as follows.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

G6 - Areas Liable to Flooding

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards for Development within the Site

D5 - Shop Fronts and Signs

D11 - Crime and Design

B6 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

B9 - Protection of Archaeological Heritage

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements

H6 - High Density Residential Development

H14 - Locally Affordable Housing as an Element of Housing Schemes

TR6 - Cycling and Walking

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

R3 - Sites for Retail Development

U2 - Ensuring Adequate Educational, Social and Community Facilities for the Future Population

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision

L10 - Open Space and Housing Developments

5 Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· Highway Engineer, Council’s Contaminated Land Officer, Council’s Housing Development and Initiatives Officer and the Council’s Archaeological Officer have all commented suggesting appropriate conditions. With regard to the Archaeological Officer in view of the sensitive location of the site predetermination archaeological investigations have taken place on the South Street site with result of those investigation indicating the need for conditions to ensure preservation by record of highly sensitive remains.

· Council’s Housing Development Initiative Officer has concluded that affordable housing is not deliverable in the traditional form and following negotiations was supportive of the proposal for affordable housing at sub market sale levels aimed at key workers in respect of 10 of the units on the South Street scheme.

· Architects Panel recognise the extreme importance of the site in Newport and the need for high quality proposals.

· Following the deferral it should note that the redesign process has heavily involved the Conservation and Design Team who have appraised the revised proposed and are satisfied that it reflects more readily the historic and traditional character of Newport. They emphasise the importance of ensuring that the details of both the joinery particularly the bay windows and the decorative brick features are carefully considered with particular reference to construction methods. Their only concern relates to the range of brickwork colours being presented. They do not object in principle of introducing contrasting brickwork colours within the overall terrace but consider a more structured approach would result in a less fussy appearance and therefore would be preferable. They certainly consider the ground floor elevations required to be treated in a contrasting material with a greater use of the render finish particularly where the flats have protectable space behind the back of footpath. This would enable the ground floor to appear as a solid plinth to the main block and also reduce the vertical impact of the terrace. They are satisfied that these detailed elements can be dealt with under the auspices of conditions.

5.2 External Consultees

Southern Water and Environment Agency commented accordingly with the Environment Agency recommending appropriate conditions.

In view of the sites proximity to nearby Newport Conservation Area English Heritage were requested to comment and raised a number of detailed design issues in respect of the initial advertised scheme with result that a number of changes took place in respect of both sites with those changes being reflected in the schemes placed before Members on the 4 October 2005.

5.3 Third Party Representations

5.3.1 Members will recall that proposals were the subject of a number of representations from local residents identifying a number of points of concern.

5.3.2 P/00884/03 – TCP/24809/D

Following the deferral further letter of concern has been received from Pyle Street resident making particular reference to elements of the proposal on the Auto Windscreens site (P/00884/03 – TCP/24809/D) with these comments being summarised as follows:

· Concern at the closeness of the development to the rear boundary causing loss of sunlight and having an overbearing and obtrusive effect.

· Concern that the overall height will have an obtrusive impact on the nearby buildings which are in a conservation area.

· Concern that the development will encroach on an existing boundary wall which forms the rear boundary of properties fronting Pyle Street.

· Concern that this development does not provide any car parking with the result that further pressures will be placed on on-street parking facilities in the area.

· Writer states that the commercial units back directly onto the properties with a fear that this will lead to noise and pollution problems from delivery vehicles etc. (In this case the commercial units are set to the front of the building with residential being adjacent to the Pyle Street properties.)

· Concern that the demolition works will have health and safety implications on nearby properties with particular reference to possible removal of asbestos.

· Some concern regarding potential for overlooking from the proposed development on the properties in Pyle Street. There have been particular concerns regarding the impact of overlooking on the doctors surgery as a number of consulting rooms could be overlooked thus affecting privacy and confidentiality.

· Suggestion that bats may occupy the existing building.

6 Evaluation

6.1 Background

Members will recall that these applications were deferred with that deferral following an extensive debate which covered a number of issues relating to scale, impact on the townscape and the methodology of providing affordable housing. The result of that debate was a deferral of the application essentially relating to design issues and the view of the Committee was that the scheme did not reflect the general character of Newport and the applicants were therefore being requested to revisit the scheme solely on this basis.

6.2 Revised Elevation

· I am now in receipt of revised elevations which indicate a traditional approach which the architects consider are more reflective of the vernacular of Newport.

· Prior to meeting the architects following the deferral the Conservation and Design Team carried out an assessment of characteristics of the area immediately around the site but also wider areas of Newport in order to assist in advising as to what would be the best approach in this case. The architects themselves also carried out a further assessment and a number of alternative approaches were discussed.

· Result is the scheme now before Members which has altered the tone of the building with the fenestration now being of a more domestic scale. The main alteration has been to the proposed bay windows with particular reference to the use of timber sash windows and the provision of a roofing element which provides a visual stop to those bay windows. This is in contrast to the more contemporary approach in respect of the original bay features which included the use of reconstructed stone. My interpretation of Members concerns was that this was an example of the introduction of a feature which neither reflected the character of Newport or reflected the more traditional architectural approach of the remainder of the building.

· Similarly with regard to the eaves treatment which again have now been carefully considered in a more simple and traditional form using corbelling in most cases and where parapetting is to be used again corbelling with coping stone.

· Proposal also has reviewed the window proportions generally with the result being that the voids and solids relationships are better proportioned.

· Finally the use of contrasting decorative brick features such as dressings around windows and quoins along with corbelling at eaves level are all reflective of similar details on older buildings in Newport and again represents an important improvement on the original submitted scheme.

· One issue which will need to be carefully considered is the choice of brickwork with particular reference to texture, shape and colour however I am satisfied that there is a level of choice on the market which should ensure an appropriate quality of brickwork is provided for this important scheme.

6.3 General Issues (P/00884/03 – TCP/24809/D)

I would comment as follows on the concerns being expressed:

· Proposal indicates reduction in height of building to the rear with that reduction being purposely introduced to reduce the impact than neighbouring properties. The three storey element which does abut the rear boundaries of properties in Pyle Street is in the form of a flat roofed parapetted three storey element. Obviously the three storey element will have a greater impact on the existing scale of buildings on the site however your officers do not consider that this impact is sufficient to warrant a refusal of the application particularly as the north facing elevation is devoid of any windows.

· Because of the shape and location of the site your officers can do no more than suggest that any development on this site would be difficult to achieve if parking were to be required in whatever form. This is essentially because such parking would require a vehicular access directly off South Street which would seriously sterilise the important frontage and would present an architectural problem for which there would be some difficulty in achieving a solution.

· There is no doubt that this building will have an impact because of its overall scale and also because it stands between building which contribute little or nothing to the street scene and are generally of poor quality design. The question is whether or not the scale of building is of sufficient quality to set the standards and act as the catalyst for future developments on this side of South Street. Given the changes that have now been introduced your officers consider that a high standard will be set albeit of a traditional architectural style.

· Issues relating to impact of demolition works and possible asbestos content in the building are outside the remit of planning with other legislation controlling these matters.

· Reference to the possible occupation of the existing building by bats is being investigated and the outcome of those investigations will be reported to Committee accordingly.

· In terms of any specific overlooking issues of adjoining garden areas to the properties which front Pyle Street with particular reference to overlooking of the doctors surgery these have been addressed as follows:

o Ensuring that the north facing elevation is devoid of any windows and applying an appropriate condition removing permitted development rights to insert such windows.

o The appliance of a suggested condition ensuring that the flat roofed area of the northern end of the block at third floor level will not be used as a terrace or balcony with any access to this area being for emergency or maintenance purposes only.

o A requirement that the projecting bay windows on the western facing elevation towards the rear of the building will have no side windows thus preventing any opportunity to overlook in the northerly direction.

6.4 Other Issues Relating to Background/Policy

General scale, parking, traffic implications, environmental impact, financial contributions and the provision of affordable housing were referred to in some detail within the previous report and in a number of cases were discussed during the debate on the determination of this application. Therefore this report has concentrated solely on the design issue being the reason for deferral.

7 Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the matters discussed both in the evaluation section forming part of this report and the previous report dated 4 October 2005 your officers are satisfied that this revised proposal is acceptable with particular reference to the amended elevational treatments. Both the sites are of particular importance being visually prominent and clearly being in need of regeneration which is important to the Isle of Wight generally but in particular to Newport.

7.2 The deferral by Members at the October meeting has, in the opinion of your officers, had the desired effect with the architects going the extra mile to ensure the incorporation of changes to the design following a further comprehensive look at the existing characteristics and context of the town centre. These changes do reflect more readily the character of Newport and this additional appraisal when linked with the input of the Council’s Conservation and Design Team and English Heritage has resulted in a scheme which does justice to this visually prominent sites.

7.3 Your officers therefore consider the proposal continues to be acceptable having achieved a satisfactory affordable housing package conducive to the circumstances of the site and therefore both applications are recommended for conditional approval subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

8. Recommendation

To grant Conditional Permission to both applications subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

· Financial contribution of £72,600 towards education (both applications)

· Financial contribution of £25,000 towards transport infrastructure (both applications).

· Provision of 10 affordable housing units in the form of discounted properties to sell at between 70 – 80% open market value as proposed in the report prepared by Adams Integra dated August 2005 (P/00870/03 – TCP/24809/C)

Conditions for P/00870/03 – TCP/24809/C

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	The development shall not be occupied until sight lines have been provided in accordance with the visibility splay shown at the proposed access junction onto Pyle Street as indicated on the approved plan (reference number 02270L (20) 2022. 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.
3	None of the units hereby approved shall be occupied until uncontrolled raised area to facilitate pedestrian crossing has been provided close to the junction of Pyle Street with East Street, pedestrian cross over and refuge island has been provided mid way between the junction of Furlongs with South Street and junction of Pyle Street and South Street/East Street and vertical curbing has been provided along the edge of carriage way along the South Street frontage. Details of these features shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with those details. Reason: Is in the interest of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until 38 car parking spaces (including 2 spaces for the disabled) have been provided and are fully operational in accordance with Drawing No. 02270L (20) 2021. These spaces shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of Highway Safety to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	A parking area management plan including management responsibilities and maintenance schedules in respect of the communal parking area indicated on the plan hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of any part of the development. The parking area management plan shall be carried out as approved. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	Prior to occupation the dwelling hereby approved and agreed refuse collection management scheme shall be in operation and such scheme shall thereafter be retained. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of future residents and in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	Prior to occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved the proposed cycle shelter and bin store facilities shall be completed in accordance with details to be agreed and in the locations indicated on Drawing No. 02270L (20) 2022. Reason: In the interests of providing cycle storage facilities in compliance with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	No development shall take place until a full external brick, render and roof slate schedule has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such schedule shall be accompanied by samples and brick panels shall be erected on site for inspection prior to agreeing the schedule. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule and shall not be amended without prior to written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9	The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the windows, doors, bay window surrounds, moulding, string courses, piers, quoins, brick dressings and soldier courses have been constructed in accordance with the details shown on Drawing No.s 02270L (20) 2146 and 02270L (20) 2147. There should be no amendment to these details without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	None of the ground floor units fronting South Street and Pyle Street shall be occupied until the walls/wrought iron boundary treatment along the back edge of footpath has been constructed in accordance with agreed details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such boundary treatments to be retained and maintained thereafter and shall not be altered without prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
11	Prior to occupation of the dwellings hereby approved a lighting scheme shall be implemented in accordance with details to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority such lighting shall be provided both within the proposed basement car park and the hard landscaped area abutting in part the northern and eastern boundary of the site. Such lighting shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of planning out crime in accordance with Policy D11 (Crime and Design) 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.
13	A) No development shall take place until the applicant or their agents have 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. B) The demolition and site clearance of existing structures will only commence under direct archaeological supervision and recording. All archaeological remains should be preserved by records, in accordance with, and adhering to, the Institute of Field Archaeological codes of practice and standards. C) Following completion of Condition B) no development shall take place until a full archaeological excavation has been completed in areas made available by demolition. All archaeological remains should be preserved by record, in accordance with, and adhering to, the Institute of Field Archaeology codes of practice and standards. D) A full site archive and report must be prepared and deposited with the County Museums service no later than 24 months after the archeological excavation ceases. Reason: To ensure the preservation by record of highly sensitive archeological remains of national importance in compliance within Ministerial Circular DOE 11/95 and in PPG 16 and Policy B9 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
14	Prior to occupation of any of the dwellings an agreed hard and soft landscaping scheme shall be carried out. Any such scheme shall include details of surface treatments both at ground floor, basement, car parking floor levels shall include details of any tree planting noting species, plant sizes and an implementation programme. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
15	No development shall take place until a detailed scheme including calculations for capacity studies have submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul water and surface water disposal. Any such agreed scheme shall include for a foul water disposal system indicating connection points on the system where adequate capacity exists to ensure any additional flow should not cause flooding or overload the existing system. Any surface water system should be discharged into the nearby water course in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate foul and surface water drainage is provided for the development and in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
16	Prior to commencement of work detail scheme shall be submitted to and approved by Local Planning Authority indicating the treatment of the eastern and northern boundaries (adjacent the Clinic and Fire Station). Such boundary treatment shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details prior to occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in compliance with D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
17	Prior to commencement of work a full methodology statement shall be submitted in respect of proposed site management which shall include timings of delivery of construction materials. All construction traffic relating to the development hereby approved shall be directed to leave the site by means of prominent signage details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such signage shall be erected at the junction between the sites and South Street and Pyle Street. Signage shall be retained in a clean and legible condition for the duration of the development and any sign that is damaged beyond repair or removed shall be immediately replaced. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development.
18	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 materials from being deposited on the highway as a result of any operation on the site. Any deposit of materials from the site on the highway shall be removed as soon as it is practical 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 Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Conditions for P/00884/03 – TCP/24809/D

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	Prior to occupation of any of the flats hereby approved secure cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with details to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Such cycle parking shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: to ensure adequate safe provision o facilities for cyclist and to comply with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	In the event of the retail units being unoccupied upon completion temporary shop fronts should be erected for a period of 12 months in accordance with details to be submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority. In the event of the retail units continuing to be unoccupied after 12 months permanent shop front shall be erected in accordance with details to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area and in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	The flat roofed area of the northern end of the block at third floor level shall not be used as a terrace or balcony and any access to this area shall be for emergency or maintenance purposes only. No permanent access shall be formed to this flat roofed area. Reason: To avoid any overlooking of the neighbouring properties and in compliance Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Prior to commencement of work details shall be submitted of the treatment of the existing northern boundary wall of the site. Such treatment shall ensure the retention of the wall along with its repair and development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the adjoining properties and in compliance of D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary development Plan.
6	Prior to occupation of the dwellings hereby approved agreed hard landscaping proposal should be carried out in respect of pedestrian accesses. Such hard landscaping proposal shall include any boundary treatment in respect of the western and eastern boundaries. Development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with those agreed details. Reason: In the interests of the future occupiers of the building in compliance of Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	Prior to commencement of work a full methodology statement shall be submitted in respect of proposed site management which shall include timings of delivery of construction materials. All construction traffic relating to the development hereby approved shall be directed to leave the site by means of prominent signage details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such signage shall be erected at the junction between the sites and South Street and Pyle Street. Signage shall be retained in a clean and legible condition for the duration of the development and any sign that is damaged beyond repair or removed shall be immediately replaced. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development.
8	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 materials from being deposited on the highway as a result of any operation on the site. Any deposit of materials from the site on the highway shall be removed as soon as it is practical 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 Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9	No development shall take place until samples of materials/details of the materials and finishes, including mortar colour to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	No development shall take place until a detailed scheme including calculations for capacity studies have submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul water and surface water disposal. Any such agreed scheme shall include for a foul water disposal system indicating connection points on the system where adequate capacity exists to ensure any additional flow should not cause flooding or overload the existing system. Any surface water system should be discharged into the nearby water course in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate foul and surface water drainage is provided for the development and in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
11	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.
12	The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the windows, doors, bay window surrounds, moulding, string courses, piers, quoins, brick dressings and soldier courses have been constructed in accordance with the details shown on Drawing No.s 02270L (20) 2146 and 02270L (20) 2147. There should be no amendment to these details without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
13	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no window shall be constructed in the north facing elevations of the block hereby approved without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining property owners in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
14	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) there shall be no north facing side window inserted within the first and second floor west facing bedroom bay windows without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of adjoining properties in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

12

Reference Number: P/01417/05 - TCP/13615/L Parish/Name: Ventnor - Ward/Name: Ventnor East Registration Date: 21/07/2005 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Miss S Wilkinson Tel: (01983) 823552 Applicant: Vectis Developments Ltd. Variation of condition no. 3 on TCP/13615/F relating to the southern boundary wall (additional information) Kingsview, (former Rex Cinema site) 23, Church Street, Ventnor, PO38

This application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This application relates to the boundary treatment on the major re-development site which has remained unresolved for several years. This combined with the question over the potential amendment relating to the accuracy of the plans and levels at the back of the site are considered contentious and as such both decisions should be made at Committee level.

For Members information, it is proposed to deal with the consideration of the amendment and accuracy of the plans at the beginning of the evaluation section before going on to consider the planning application as there are certain linkages between the two.

1 Details of Application

1.1 This is an application to vary the requirements of a planning condition.

1.2 Applicant seeks a release from condition 3 of TCP/13615/F requiring that the southern boundary wall between the site and the adjoining property St. Andrews, be raised by 0.75 metres. The current application seeks to provide the screen by way of a fence rather than a wall.

1.3 Whilst the original planning condition referred to the southern boundary wall being raised the current application is seeking to specify the extent of the screen which would be limited to a 16 metre section of the boundary where the two buildings face each other. The submitted plans show that the steel posts to support the double boarded screen are to be positioned between the Armco crash barrier and the existing brick wall without taking any direct support from the wall. Plans show the board to be attached to that section of the posts which projects above the top of the wall. The overall height from the driveway level to the top of the post is shown as 1.62 metres. The posts are to be finished in gloss paint to match the GRP panels on the building.

1.4 Application accompanied by supporting information which includes five separate letters from consulting engineers and surveyors. Applicant’s agent makes the following point:

· Subject to some maintenance work, wall will not in any way be in danger of structural failure.

· Raising wall not possible due to actual construction of wall.

· Light weight screen seen as alternative solution.

· The strong horizontal emphasis reflects building design.

· Proposal will be 3 metres high on the St Andrews side, designed to appear less overbearing.

· At 1.62 metres, screen will prevent overlooking from Kingsview roadway and somewhat baffle vehicle noise.

· Screen limited in extent as overlooking not considered to be a problem closer to Hamborough Road.

· Proposed solution seen as more beneficial in appearance.

· Does not change in essence requirement of original condition.

· Work to be carried out strictly to Pritchard Wilmot structural design.

· Work to be fully maintained as part of maintenance agreement for the whole of the Kingsview development.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 Kingsview is located on the south side of Church Street at its junction with Alpine Road and Belgrave Road. Although the main pedestrian access into the building is from Church Street vehicle access is off Hamborough Road entering a short driveway which drops down running alongside the southern boundary before providing access into a basement parking area at the lowest level of the building.

2.2 The current building is a six storey luxury apartment block forming a landmark Art Deco building of a stepped design at the rear giving those apartments access to a series of south facing balconies. The southern boundary under consideration of this application separates the application site and the neighbouring property St. Andrews. As built it also marks a change in level with a drop in ground level into St Andrews.

2.3 Members are advised that St Andrews is the only property affected by the amendments currently under discussion.

2.4 The site is located within the Conservation Area of Ventnor.

3. Relevant History

3.1 TCP/13615/F – An application for demolition of former cinema; 4/6 storey block of 18 flats with car parking at garden level, one retail unit and bar/restaurant at ground floor level; use of public garden as private amenity area, car park access off Hamborough Road was approved in October 2000.

3.2 At the 29 April 2003 Development Control Committee meeting Members accepted an amendment to the approved scheme which raised the floor slab level and the vehicle access by 0.5 metres and the overall height of the building by 0.8 metres. Members also agreed to note the position of the developer and the adjoining property owner regarding compliance with condition 3 on increasing the height of the boundary wall and agreed not to enforce this condition at the present time but to allow the two parties to continue discussions and review the situation prior to first occupation of the new development.

3.3 In parallel with the processing of the current application further plans have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority clarifying the situation relating to the levels at the rear of the building and the height of the southern boundary wall.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 The site is located within the development envelope for Ventnor and is within the Ventnor Conservation Area. Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:

· S10 – Development will Conserve or Enhance the Features of Special Character

· G4 – General Locational Criteria

· D1 – Standards of Design

· D2 – Standards for Development within the Site

· B6 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· Building Control have confirmed that the Pritchard Wilmott report is satisfactory and poses an appropriate way forward for the situation.

5.2 Town Council Comments

· The Town Council see no reason why planning consent should not be issued in respect to the application.

5.3 Neighbours

· Three letters of objection have been received in regards to the application, two directly from the occupant of the neighbouring property, St. Andrews and the third from a planning consultant acting on behalf of the occupant of St Andrews. The letters written by the occupant carry a number of attachments including a letter from civil and structural engineer, a further copy of the Planning consultants letter, extracts from drawings, copies of letters written by consultant acting on behalf of the developer and a number of photographs taken at various stages of the development and more recent photographs showing individuals stood on the balconies at different levels within the building. The comments contained in all the representations, which are strictly relevant to the current planning application, can be summarised as follows:

§ Stability of wall

§ Privacy

§ Application does not detail scope or nature of repairs which are necessary

§ Increase in height of land level approved during amendment has resulted in the 0.75 increase inadequate

§ Fence is not maintenance free

§ Fence does not extend over full length of wall

§ Fence provides no safety from traffic, noise, an exhaust pollution or light pollution and provides no privacy or protection of amenities

§ Fence is a temporary structure

§ Any approval should be conditional as full repair to all the wall as agreed by an independent engineer.

6. Evaluation

6.1 Before considering the current planning application Members should take a view on the situation relating to the inaccuracies shown in the amended plans. It is the officer’s view that the decision by Members in response to this situation will influence how the planning application should be considered.

6.2 To recap, at the 29 April 2003 Development Control Committee meeting, Members considered a detailed report on a number of changes that had occurred during the implementation of the approved scheme. The developer provided the Local Planning Authority with detailed plans prepared by an architect which included a cross section through the site and also plans that showed a detailed spot levels survey of the building, the driveway, the boundary detail and also included detailed spot levels of the adjoining property to the south (St Andrews). Those proposals were the subject of a limited consultation exercise and attracted substantial representations from the occupant of St Andrews. After consideration of all the factors Members resolved to accept the following as an amendment to the approved scheme:

· An increase of approximately 0.5m in the height of the floor slab level and the vehicle access ramp above that shown on the originally approved plans.

· An increase in the overall height of the building of 0.8metres greater than that shown on the approved plans.

6.3 The report also considered the situation with regards to compliance with condition 3 which required the raising of the southern boundary wall before development commenced. The report noted that the occupant of St Andrews had expressed concern with regards to the benefits of raising the wall and on the basis that the condition was imposed solely for their benefit, the Council agreed not to enforce compliance with the condition but to allow time for the development to take shape so that the occupant of St Andrews could make a judgement as to whether they wish to see the boundary raised which might reduce the level of light to a bedroom window and a kitchen window and door or whether they valued their “light” greater than any potential loss of privacy or amenity by virtue of being overlooked. This was reflected in the second recommendation through which the Council deciding not to enforce compliance with condition 3 at that time.

6.4 The local Planning Authority is aware that discussions took place between the developer and the owner of St Andrews on a range of alternatives which included mitigating works to St Andrews in lieu of the wall being raised. However, negotiations between the two parties appear to have irrevocably broken down in May 2004.

6.5 With regards to the situation relating to the accuracy of the plans the architect’s drawing of April 2003 indicated that the height of the southern boundary wall above the roadway level would be 1.47 metres. The actual measurement which exists on the ground is 0.88 metres. This has led to questions as to whether the ground levels have changed and as a consequence the Local Planning Authority carried out a detailed survey of its own in October 2005. Based on the results of this survey it can be confirmed that the architect’s plan of 2003 was inaccurate in estimating the height of the boundary wall above the road level. The plan also under estimated the drop in level into the garden area of the adjoining property by 0.2 metres with a consequential error in the level of the roof of the adjoining bungalow relative to the new building and roadway level.

6.6 Given the circumstances as outlined above, the road level other than a minor alteration to reverse the camber, is as approved under the amendment. The most fundamental impact of the architect’s errors is that instead of adding 0.75m on top of a 1.47m wall the addition will be added to a 0.88m wall and will as a consequence be less effective as a screen by a reduction of 0.6m

6.7 A limited consultation exercise has been undertaken relating to the update information on the true situation relating to the relative levels at the rear of the building. At the time of writing this report no responses have been received from any of the parties contacted.

6.8 The current planning application does present an opportunity to consider if the height of the screen should be “adjusted” to compensate for the error referred to above. In the circumstances the Local Planning Authority would be in its right to require a variation to the originally specified height or seek some other remedial works.

6.9 The adjoining property owner has also continued to insist that the southern boundary wall is now functioning in part as a retaining wall and as such is structurally unsound. The developer has installed a concrete beam on the development side of the wall and the integrity of this structure has been assessed by his engineers. Whilst the beam may not be as extensive as first thought the engineer’s conclusion is that subject to some maintenance and repair work which would involve the co-operation and agreement of the adjoining property owner to the south, then there is no reason to suspect that the wall would fail. Discussion with the adjoining property owner would suggest that they have little or no confidence in the advice given by the developer’s engineers. However, as far as the Local Planning Authority is concerned it would not be appropriate to question a consultant’s advice and it is considered that the Council has adequately discharged it responsibilities as set out in PPG14 (Responsibilities of the Different Parties to Development) paragraphs 16-20.

6.10 On the basis that Members accept that the situation relating to the ground levels at the rear of the building it would now be appropriate to consider the current planning application proposal and in doing so take account of the current height of the southern boundary wall. The determining factor with regards to this application is whether the proposed fence provides an adequate substitute in lieu of the proposed wall with regards to providing an adequate level of privacy and amenity for the adjoining residential property without appearing as a discordant feature within the conservation area.

6.11 Based on information submitted by the applicant and from the results of the survey undertaken by the Local Planning Authority a number of sight lines have been calculated. This exercise has also involved visits to each floor of the balcony areas within the building. It soon became apparent that an increase in the boundary height of only 0.75m would be inadequate to compensate for the lower height of the original wall. Accordingly, whilst on site a section of heras fencing was held up against the boundary representing a new boundary height of 1.8 m. and this was then viewed from each of the balconies to ascertain the effectiveness of a screen of this height.

6.12 A boundary screen of 1.8m in height would have the following benefits and effects (all measurements are taken at the closest point):

· from the driveway – adequate protection from overlooking, with no loss of privacy or amenity.

· at first floor balcony level – the screen would obscure any line of sight into the bedroom but would screen only the lower half of the glazed kitchen door from anyone standing at the balcony rail. A person sitting on the balcony would probably be unable to see into either of these openings.

· at second floor level – for a person standing at the balcony rail the majority of the bedroom window would be obscured but the full length of the kitchen door could be seen. A person sitting down would probably not be able to see into the bedroom but there would be a view of the door which is only 14m away.

· at third floor balcony level – a person standing at the balcony rail would see half the bedroom window and all of the kitchen door. A person sitting down would likely to be able to see into the upper part of the bedroom window which is only 18m away.

· At the fourth floor and top floor balcony levels – the whole of the bedroom window and all of the kitchen door will be visible to a person standing, but they would be 22-26m away. A person sitting and looking down would also be likely to have a view of this door and window.

6.13 Members are advised that these observations were made by an officer intentionally trying to look into St Andrews from the new development. Members are further advised that although the land levels as provided by the architect were incorrect that new flats are no closer to St Andrews than shown on the originally approved plans. Nevertheless, your officers are of the opinion that the barrier to prevent intevisibility should be 2m high to provide the occupants of St Andrews a reasonable level of privacy and amenity and conform to UDP policy D1. This will provide adequate protection for occupants of St Andrews from overlooking from the roadway, the first floor and most of the second floor balconies. However, at higher levels the screening effect diminishes, but the intervisibility distances increase.

6.14 Consequently, it is proposed in considering this application, to vary the requirements of the condition to require the installation of a fence that would result in a 2m high structure. Furthermore, notwithstanding the applicant’s suggestion that the fence runs for 16m between the two buildings it would be appropriate if this ran around the curved section of the boundary wall terminating at the entrance gate to St Andrews.

6.15 There is an additional aspect that officers would wish to clarify and the Committee is asked to give delegated authority to pursue this if it can be achieved. This is to obscure glaze the balcony’s clear safety glazing to further reduce overlooking by persons seated in the balconies. An update on this aspect will be provided at the meeting.

6.16 As a general point, there is not considered to be any fundamental difference between the installation of the boundary screen through the utilization of a fence as opposed to raising the height of the brick wall. The applicant has indicated that the fence will be adequately maintained as part of the overall management of the communal areas of the site.

6.17 With regards to the general appearance of the fence which is to be painted the same colour as the GRP panels on the building, I do not consider that this would be detrimental to the general character of the conservation area and conform to UDP policies D1, D2 and B6.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 In conclusion regarding the review of the site detail and levels as set out in the amended plans of 2003, it is considered that this can be noted. The error in the height of the boundary wall can be remedied by raising the height of the proposed fence.

7.2 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the variation of condition 3 of TCP/13615/F to provide a fence rather than increasing the height of the existing wall would be in accordance with the reason for the condition and as such is in compliance with policies contained within the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

8. Recommendation

Recommendation 1:

A) The Members note that the height of the driveway has not changed fundamentally from the level shown on the amended plans agreed inn 2003.

B) That Members note the situation relating to the error in the representation of the height of the boundary wall as depicted on the amended plans agreed April 2003 but take no further action on this specific point.

C) That the Council continues to express a view that it has fulfilled its responsibilities on the issue of considering ground stability as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 14 and re-emphasise to the neighbour that if they wish to challenge the developers information relating to this point they must do so outside the planning process.

Recommendation 2:

Application is recommended for Conditional Approval.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The fence hereby approved shall be installed within three months of the date of this decision notice. Reason: In the interest of the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
2	Notwithstanding the information shown on the submitted plans, the fence shall be installed so that it maintains a consistent height of two metres above the adjoining roadway level as measured up from the tarmac surface. Reason: In the interest of the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	Notwithstanding the information shown on the submitted plan, the fence shall be installed along the southern boundary between points A and B as shown on drawing number...... Where the fence line extends beyond the originally intended 16m section and prior to any installation works taking place in this area, details of the exact position and foundations to support the fencing posts shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall include a report from the applicant's consulting engineers containing calculations relating to the support foundations. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed specification. Reason: In the interest of the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	The fence shall be maintained at the height described in condition 2 hereafter and shall be painted to match the GRP panels on the building and maintained in this matching colour hereafter. Reason: In the interest of the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

13

Reference Number: P/02641/04 - TCP/22282/D Parish/Name: Ryde - Ward/Name: Ryde North West Registration Date: 15/12/2004 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr A White Tel: (01983) 823552 Applicant: Mr D Willett Detached house with detached garage; formation of vehicular access (revised scheme) land rear of The Dolphins, Augusta Road, Ryde, PO33

This application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Local Member, Councillor A Taylor, has requested that this application is considered by Committee as it raises a number of contentious issues.

1. Details of Application

1.1 Full planning permission is sought for a detached house, detached single garage and access off Sea Close. Submitted plans show a large Victorian style property with gable features and a front facing two storey canted bay window. Design details and overall proportions are reminiscent of the Victorian period.

1.2 Dwelling would be positioned towards the centre of the site, being a Reasonable distance off each boundary. Plans indicate the crown spread of three prominent trees, two of which are within the application site and the other overhangs. Application is accompanied by a tree report.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 Site measures 30m x 24m and is situated on the Pelham Field Estate which is located to the north of Spencer Road and is accessed over Augusta Road and Sea Close. It previously formed part of the residential curtilage to an adjoining property, but has since been fenced off. Site is within the Ryde Conservation Area, where this immediate location is not just recognised for its architectural importance comprising of Victorian style villas, but also for its landscape setting as well. Application site is host to individual specimens of particular note (TPO’d in 2002) and also overhung by adjoining important trees.

2.2 The character of the area is of large properties, mainly detached, set in extensive grounds at a density of under 10/ha.

3. Relevant History

3.1 P/00930/97 – TCP/22282 – Detached house and double garage granted conditional permission in October 1997.

P/01581/01 – TCP/22282/A – Renewal: Detached house with garage withdrawn March 2002.

P/01076/03 – TCP/22282/B – Detached house with double garage; formation of vehicular access refused March 2003 on grounds that its position, size, design and external appearance would be intrusive, out of scale and character with the prevailing pattern of development. Furthermore, insufficient details were submitted regarding trees and in particular their location, species, crown spreads and assessment of their condition.

P/00912/04 – TCP/22282/C – Detached house with detached garage; formation of vehicular access refused in October 2004 on grounds that inadequate and insufficient information had been submitted in respect of trees. Moreover, it was felt that trees to be retained which are considered important to the local landscape would cast considerable shade over the dwelling, thereby prejudicing the future retention of those trees.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) stresses the need for good design to ensure that spaces and places are attractive, usable and durable for people. Designs which are inappropriate in their context and /or failing to improve the character and quality of an area should not be accepted. Good design should:

· Be integrated into the existing urban form and natural built environment.

· Optimise the potential for a site to accommodate development.

· Respond to local context and create and enforce local distinctiveness.

· Be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.

4.2 PPG3 (Housing) stresses the need to make efficient use of brownfield sites, but not to the detriment of the built environment.

4.3 PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) states that special attention must be paid to ensuring preservation and enhancement of the character and appearance of conservation areas.

4.4 In terms of Local Plan Policies, site is within the development envelope and conservation area boundaries for Ryde. Relevant policies are as follows:

· S1 – New Development will be Concentrated Within Existing Urban Areas

· S6 – All Development will be Expected to be of a High Standard of Design

· S10 – Areas of Historic Value

· G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

· G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development

· D1 – Standards of Design

· D2 – Standards for Development within the Site

· D3 – Landscaping

· B6 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

· H4 – Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements

· H5 – Infill Development

· C12 – Development Affecting Trees and Woodland

· TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

· TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines

· U11 – Infrastructure and Services Provision

Site is within Zone 2 of the Council’s Parking Policies which requires the developer to make a maximum of 0-50% of parking guidelines. Parking guidelines require 1 parking space per bedroom.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· Highway Engineer recommends conditions should permission be granted.

· Conservation Officer stresses the important role of trees insofar as the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area is concerned. The overall scale of the proposed house is considered appropriate in this context, and initial concerns regarding quality and detail of design have been resolved through the submission of revised plans and can be further reinforced through the use of conditions should Members be minded to grant permission.

· Countryside Manager confirms that he has visited the site and confirms no objection to the proposed development. He states that the height of the trees’ crowns is such that the trees are not going to be adversely affected by this development and therefore this application cannot be refused on arboricultural grounds. However, he does state that it is essential that these trees are retained in the interests of the local landscape and therefore suggests that conditions are imposed to protect the trees during construction, in order to prevent disturbance, excavation or placement of structures within the crown spread of trees.

5.2 Neighbours - Eight letters of objection have been received from local residents and these can be summarised as follows:

· Intrusive development by reason of size, height and location.

· Out of keeping with the Victorian properties.

· Footprint is too large

· No fundamental changes since previous applications were refused.

· Trees are wrongly described, and it is suggested that the Tulip Tree is not dead as stated by the agent.

· Traffic problems, as area is already congested.

· Condition of existing private road is far from ideal and this could be exacerbated by the proposed development.

· Second floor windows would overlook nearby bungalows.

· Question why existing access on the southern road frontage cannot be utilized rather than constructing a new access through the western boundary of the site.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main issues for consideration are as follows:

· Principle

· Impact on character and appearance of Conservation Area

· Trees

· Impact on neighbouring property occupiers

· Highway and traffic issues

· Drainage

6.2 The plot is within the development envelope for Ryde and is considered as a brownfield site for the purposes of policy. Furthermore, plot is very much the same in terms of size and condition as it was when planning permission was granted for a detached house in 1997. Accordingly, the principle of developing this site for residential purposes is considered to be acceptable.

6.3 However, were it not for the characteristics of the Conservation Area and the effects of the TPO, officers would have recommended the scheme for refusal because of its low density (below the PPG3 threshold) and consequently the inefficient use of brownfield land which has led to more Greenfield development.

6.4 In terms of assessing the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, it is not only necessary to consider the scale, mass and design of the proposed house relative to the surrounding built environment but also the direct and/or indirect impact of the development on the health and stability of prominent trees which are considered important to the local landscape. As mentioned above, part of the special interest of this area is the mixture of prominent and mature trees and hedgerows that create an important fusion with the substantial historic villas. The character of this area is both defined and enhanced by the presence of vegetation which not only creates a tranquil atmosphere in the immediate vicinity, but also defines the skyline especially when viewed from a distance.

6.5 The most recent application was refused on grounds of insufficient information in respect of trees, but from the details that were submitted it was felt that the development would have been overshadowed by large trees which in turn would have prejudiced their long term retention owing to likely requests to carry out significant surgery or even total removal. The application before Members includes accurate plans in respect of crown spreads relative to the proposed dwelling and these are accompanied by a tree report. This has been considered by the Council’s Countryside Manager who has also inspected the site. As a result, it is confirmed that the proposed development would not have a direct impact on the health or stability of the protected trees. In terms of indirect impact or future pressure to carry out considerable surgery, it is considered that the spacing of trees combined with the shape and height of their crowns relative to the path of the sun would allow for an acceptable amount of light to penetrate the site and the proposed house. Officers are of the view that any future tree work requests could be justifiably resisted. Taking the above points into consideration, Members are advised that this application could not be refused grounds of adverse impact on the protected trees.

6.6 In terms of the overall size and design of the proposed dwelling, it is relevant to note that the house would sit central to the site where it would enjoy sufficient curtilage to provide appropriate setting and space. Site is relatively substantial distance away from properties which front Ryde West Sands and would also be separated from properties to the west and south by Sea Close. Accordingly, officers are satisfied that the proposed dwelling would not appear cramped or overcrowded within its site or within its context. The proposed dwelling is relatively large, but not excessively so when considering its position on the plot and the substantial size of nearby Victorian villas. The agent has opted for a Victorian pastiche, which has required close examination of design details to ensure that this approach would protect and wherever possible enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Officers are now satisfied that the proposal has reached a more than acceptable standard through the submission of revised plans and Members are also reminded that certain details can be carefully controlled through the use of planning conditions.

6.7 Taking the above points into consideration, it is considered that the proposed house would protect the character and appearance of the surrounding conservation area and would arguably enhance owing to the current unmanaged condition of the site which is gradually falling into an untidy condition. Accordingly, proposal complies with Policy B6 of the Unitary Development Plan.

6.8 As said above, dwelling would enjoy an acceptable degree of separation with nearby properties either in terms of actual distance (over 40m back to back and around 20m front to front or front to flank) and the intervening road. Accordingly, proposal would not be overbearing and neither would overlooking be of significant concern owing to the distance between properties and the presence of mature vegetation. Accordingly, it is considered that the amenities and privacy of nearby residential property occupiers would not be seriously compromised by this development.

6.9 Regarding highway issues, it is not considered that a single dwelling house would significantly increase traffic generation on the local highway network. It is relevant to note that highway and access issues have not been cited as reasons for refusal in respect of previous applications and that the Highway Engineer is recommending permission subject to conditions. Accordingly, it is felt that proposal complies with Policy TR7 of the Unitary Development Plan. Local residents are concerned that the condition of Sea Close and Augusta Road (both private) would deteriorate as a result of this development. Members are advised that as both these roads are unadopted they are not the responsibility of the Isle of Wight Council. Those parties who own or control these roads are responsible for their upkeep and have the powers in Law to enforce remedial work should any third party cause damage to it.

6.10 In terms of drainage, Members should note that Southern Water have previously indicated that it has no objection regarding the drainage of the application site. In any event, Officers are satisfied that the level of drainage from a single dwelling would not be significant and can be adequately controlled under the Building Regulations.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that the previous reasons for refusing a dwelling on this site have been satisfactorily overcome through the submission of this application and revised plans. It is felt that the size and position of the house would have an acceptable relationship with the protected trees whereby their longevity would be secured. Furthermore, the scale, mass and design of the proposed building is considered appropriate for this context and that the site can be adequately accessed without adding to the hazards of other highway users or interfering with the free flow of traffic on the local highway network. Accordingly, it is considered that the development would comply with policies of the Unitary Development Plan.

8. Recommendation

Conditional Permission.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	No development shall take place until samples of materials and finishes, including mortar colour to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Notwithstanding the approved plans, construction of the building hereby permitted shall not commence until a full specification, including the materials for construction (at a scale of no less than 1:20) of the barge boards, finials, window panels, clad gables and ridge tiles 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 a high standard of design and to reflect the requirements of Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings in 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 Area) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Notwithstanding the approved plans, construction of the building hereby permitted shall not commence until a full specification (at a scale of no less than 1:20) of the windows and doors, including cross sections for glazing bars, cills, heads, frame and dividing mullions has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a high standard of design and to reflect the requirements of Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings in 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 Area) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building 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 IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all trees or groups of trees to be retained have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier along a line to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: A 1.2m minimum height Chestnut paling to BS1722 Part 4 Standard securely mounted on 1.2m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground. Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained through the course of the works on site during which period the following restrictions shall apply: a) No placement or storage of material b) No placement or storage of 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 to 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 the preserved trees or groups of trees to be retained are adequately protected to avoid damage to their health and stability throughout the construction period and in the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policies D3 (Landscaping) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Existing trees which are to be retained in accordance with the approved plans shall be subject to paragraphs a and b below. Such condition shall have effect until the expiration of three years from the date of the occupation of the building hereby approved: a) No retained preserved tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the details to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with the BS3998 (Tree work). b) Any retained preserved tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, replacement trees shall be planted in the same place or a 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 trees to be retained and in the interest of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policies D3 (Landscaping) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include [proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (eg. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg. drainage power, communications cables, pipelines, etc, indicating lines, manholes, supports, etc); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant]. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	Soft landscape works shall include [planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities; an implementation programme]. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	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 IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	The first floor and gable end windows to be constructed in the north and south elevations shall be fitted with obscure glass with a glass panel which has been rendered obscure as part of its manufacturing process to Pilkington Glass Classification 5 (or equivalent of glass supplied by alternative manufacturer) and shall be retained to this specification as obscure glaze hereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and privacy of neighbouring property occupiers and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	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 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area in general and the privacy of neighbouring property occupiers in particular and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Area) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development within 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: So that the Local Planning Authority can assess the design implications of any future extensions and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
14	Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, the roadside boundary of the site shall be lowered to a maximum of 1m in height above existing road level over the whole frontage and shall be maintained thereafter at a height no greater than 1m. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Developments) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
15	Prior to any development commencing on site, a condition survey of Sea Close and Augusta Road from the application site to its junction with Spencer Road shall be undertaken and submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Any remedial works required to restore the road to its original condition following site development shall be carried out prior to occupation of the development hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
16	The dwelling hereby permitted shall not 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 a maximum of 4 cars 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 IW Unitary Development Plan.