Development Control Sub Committee Minutes

57. MINUTES

RESOLVED :

THAT the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 February 2007 be confirmed.

57. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Interests were declared in the following matters:

Cllr Brian Mosdell declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Minute 59 (1,2,3 and 4) - Land at Sandown Airport, Newport Road, Sandown as he a near neighbour - he was not present during the discussion and voting thereon.

Cllr Susan Scoccia declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Minute 59 (9) – Land at junction of High Street and Rectory Drive, Wootton Bridge as her business supplied Tesco - she was not present during the discussion and voting thereon.

Mr Andrew Pegram, Development Control Manager, declared a personal interest in Minute 50 (9) – Land at junction of High Street and Rectory Drive, Wootton Bridge as his wife was employed by Tesco at the Ryde store.

Mr Justin Thorne, Legal Executive, declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Minute 59 (9) – Land at junction of High Street and Rectory Drive, Wootton Bridge as the objector was a personal friend - he was not present during the discussion and voting thereon.

Cllr Muriel Miller declared a personal interest in Minute 59 (10) – 14 Oxford Street, Cowes as she knew the applicant - she was not present during the discussion and voting thereon.

58. REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES

Planning Applications and Related Matters

Consideration was given to items 1 - 10 of the report of the Head of Planning Services.

RESOLVED :

THAT the applications be determined as detailed below :

The reasons for the resolutions made in accordance with Officer recommendation were given in the Planning report. Where resolutions are made contrary to Officer recommendation the reasons for doing so are contained in the minutes.

A schedule of additional representations received after the printing of the report were submitted at the beginning of the meeting and were drawn to the attention of Members when considering the application. A note is made to that effect in the minutes.

(Cllr Brian Mosdell declared a personal and prejudicial interest in these items and left the room)
Application:	TCP/20677/U, TCP/20677/Y, TCP/20677/W and TCP/20677/X
Details:	Construction of 10 holiday units with areas for aircraft parking. Detached 2 storey block of 8 units of holiday accommodation; alterations to vehicular access. Construction of single/3 storey 53 bedroom hotel; alterations to vehicular access. Construction of 2/3 storey blocks of 42 units of holiday accommodation with associated swimming pools; alterations to vehicular access, (revised scheme). Land at Sandown Airport, Newport Road, Sandown, Isle of Wight
Site Visits:	The site was visited by Members of the Development Control Sub Committee on Monday, 19 March 2007.
Public Participants:	Mr Roy Adams (Objector
Additional Representations:	A supplementary letter was received from Newchurch Parish Council maintaining its objection and pointed out that the Parish Council was half way through a consultation process to produce the Newchurch Parish Plan. The consultation process with all households in Newchurch had not yet been completed. The Parish Council considered the developments were contrary to the Council’s own tourism policies that the site was outside the designated development envelope and that a development would spoil the beautiful undeveloped area. In addition, the development would preempt the Sandown Bay Action Area Plan. Two further letters of representation had been received from local residents objecting on the grounds of adverse effect on the green area which was traversed by public footpaths and on visual intrusion; adverse effect on wildlife claiming that the development would create significant light pollution and to the height of the development which was greater than anything else in the area. One writer objected to increased usage of the airport and noise associated with flight paths. Two further letters from the agent on behalf of the applicant supplied further information supporting the proposals stating that due to the location off the main road and out of town, the complex was likely to be popular; that the airfield was a positive rather than a negative impact on the popularity and that since taking over the Aviator, the turnover had doubled. Indicated that a major holiday firm was supporting the proposal; pointed out that the hotel included a function room, spa, health club and swimming pools with two alternative restaurants being in the hotel and the Aviator. The intention was also to develop a golf driving range and that, at present, the airport hosted major events such as car rallies, sky diving, microlite weekends and spitfire weekends. Also pointed out that most small airports had accommodation and quoted Goodwood, Northampton and Alderney in the Channel Islands. Also claimed the intention was to extend the season. More specifically agent confirmed that: · The applicant would agree to a legal agreement that the entire complex was in one ownership · Applicant was happy with the same conditions as at Westfield Lodges being a holiday use only. · Was happy with an open register of occupants and their home addresses and confirmed that phase one would consist of apartments, all three swimming pools, spa and fitness centre connected to the Aviator. The agent raised a question in relation to condition 16 on P/00050/07 pointing out that the existing hangar was unaffected by the development and questioned its necessity. Comments were received from the Head of Tourism
Comment:	Members indicated that if the application was approved they wanted the junction improvements carried out before the implementation of any of the approved schemes. Members asked that although there was no guarantee that the Local Highway Authority would adopt the road.
Decision:	The Committee had taken into consideration and agreed with the reasons for the recommendation as set out under paragraph entitled Justification for Recommendation of the report and resolved: Conditional Planning Permission, subject to the conditions set out in the Part II Register.
Conditions:	Additional conditions as follows : THAT the S106 Agreement in addition to the terms as set out in the report should require the prior provision of the on highway road improvements as set out on Drawing No. l/CSSCOTCHELLS.1/1 revC to make provision for the right turn lane and the improved visibility splays and to commence prior to any development contained within the four applications. THAT the access road be made up to an adoptable standard as far as the northernmost access to the site. THAT a Rain Water Harvesting Scheme to help with drainage problems be installed. Condition 10 to be reworded. Condition 16 on P/00050/06 to be removed. As per report (Items 1, 2, 3 and 4)
Application:	TCP/16532/M and TCP/16532/N
Details:	Demolition of section of factory; proposed construction of detached building to provide replacement factory. Outline for 2 terraces of 4 houses and block of 12 flats with parking. Clark Masts and land adjacent Clark Masts, 18-20 Ringwood Road, Ryde, Isle of Wight.
Site Visit:	The site was visited by Members of the Development Control Sub Committee on Monday, 19 March 2007.
Public Participants:	Mr Simon Bennett (Applicant)
Additional Representations:	The highways engineer recommended conditions if the applications were approved. The Crime Prevention Officer offered no comments due to the fact that the housing element was in outline. Four letters of objection had been received from local residents on the grounds of inadequate surface water drainage, noise, distance from residential property, inadequate maintenance of grounds, need for sound insulation to the building, particularly the siting of extract and ventilation fans which create a noise problem in themselves.
Comment:	The Local Member, Cllr Ian Stephens, spoke on this item. The Committee indicated that a rain water harvesting scheme should be implemented to help with any drainage problems.
Decision:	The Committee had taken into consideration and agreed with the reasons for the recommendation as set out under paragraph entitled Justification for Recommendation of the report and resolved: Conditional Planning Permission, subject to the conditions set out in the Part II Register.
Conditions:	Conditions to be added re : A Rain Water Harvesting Scheme to help with drainage problems. A footpath to be laid on the west side of Ringwood Road. The Highway Engineer recommended the following conditions for both applications: · The recommendations of the Road Safety Audit should be completed · That all construction traffic shall deliver, load and unload on a specific route and at times agreed. · The installation of wheel wash facilities. · Provision of adequate pedestrian access. · The provision of parking and turning. · Submission of details of road construction. As per report (Items 5 and 6)
Application:	TCP/21093/A
Details:	Demolition of stable block; residential development of terrace of 3 houses, 3 pairs of semi-detached houses and 1 detached house; refurbishment of existing play area and alterations to vehicular access. Land between Oaklea and 1 Eddington Road, Seaview, Isle of Wight.
Site Visit:	The site was visited by Members of the Development Control Sub Committee on Monday, 19 March 2007.
Public Participants:	Mrs Trigg (Objector) Kate Golding (Objector) Mr Paul Wade (Objector) Mr Pete Tuson (On behalf of Nettlestone & Seaview Parish Council)
Additional Representations:	Members congratulated officers as the site was for 100% affordable housing and to be occupied by people having a connection with the local area.
Comment:	The Local Member, Cllr Diana Tuson, spoke on this item.
Decision:	The Committee had taken into consideration and agreed with the reasons for the recommendation as set out under paragraph entitled Justification for Recommendation of the report and resolved: Conditional Planning Permission, subject to the conditions set out in the Part II Register.
Conditions:	Condition 2 to be reworded to read as follows: No development shall take place until a Road Traffic Order has been approved for double yellow lines in both directions from the centre line of the proposed access road. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. The following condition to be added: Condition 15 Tactile paving shall be provided at the access in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. No occupation until the yellow lines have been laid down. As per report (Item 7)
Application:	TCP/13289/F
Details:	Demolition of existing dwelling and garage; construction of two detached dwellings with parking and turning; creation of 2m wide footpath across site frontage; alterations to vehicular access. 74 Baring Road, Cowes, Isle of Wight.
Site Visit:	The site was visited by Members of the Development Control Sub Committee on Monday, 19 March 2007.
Public Participants:	Mr Morris Barton (On behalf of the applicants)
Additional Representations:	Cowes Town Council supported the application. The applicant’s Water Engineer had submitted an addendum to his original report in respect of surface water disposal. He reiterated the sustainability benefits of removing surface water from the existing combined system and suggested that the development should rely on infiltration into the ground so as to replicate as closely as possible the natural drainage situation of the site if it were undeveloped. It was also stated that the proposed use of a rain water harvesting system would reduce the amount of water percolating into the ground, to the point where the effect of the proposed houses compared with the existing bungalow would be neutral. The applicant’s agent had submitted cross sectional plans showing the height of the roof windows above floor level. Side facing dormer to House B was shown as having a cill height of almost 2 metres above the half landing level and 0.9 metres above the landing level. All velux windows were shown as having a cill height of 2 metres.
Comment:	The Local Member, Cllr John Effemey, spoke on this item.
Decision:	The Committee had taken into consideration and agreed with the reasons for the recommendation as set out under paragraph entitled Justification for Recommendation of the report and resolved: Conditional Planning Permission, subject to the conditions set out in the Part II Register.
Conditions:	A condition to be added re a Rain Water Harvesting Scheme. As per report (Item 8)
(Cllr Susan Scoccia and Mr Justin Thorne, Legal Executive declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and left the room).
Application:	TCP/22290/G
Details:	Proposed retail (A1) store; alterations to vehicular access; construction of new access; parking and landscaping (revised scheme). Land at junction of High Street and Rectory Drive, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, Isle of Wight.
Site Visit:	The site was visited by Members of the Development Control Sub Committee on Monday, 28 November 2005.
Public Participants:	Mr Brian Pyner (Objector) Mr Glen Hepburn (On behalf of objectors) Mr Nick Baker (On behalf of the applicant)
Additional Representations:	Wootton Parish Council registered following comments and objections to application: · Members were concerned they had not seen a satisfactory safe road plan associated with site. · A3054 carried a large volume of ferry traffic and there were additional issues with the road junction onto High Street near the site which would add to highway safety problems and when considered collectively with other proposals in the locality would have implications for traffic flow and safety through the village. Reference was made to the consented hotel complex at Lakeside, redevelopment of Woodside Bay Holiday Village, proximity of Brannon Way to the proposed retail store and potential problems in using Rectory Drive when customers left site. · Members would like to have seen a more comprehensive plan for the entire business site. · Dis-amenity to local residents as a result of queuing and congestion at access and egress points. · Concern particularly at night from vehicle lights. · Crime and disorder implications. · Use of 16.5m articulated vehicles in residential area. In conclusion, Wootton Parish Council strongly recommended that in the interests of safety consideration should be given to highway issues associated with the application and that they should not be taken in isolation but considered as part of a overall highways plan for the High Street stretching from Lakeside to Rectory Drive. They considered highways issues must be resolved to prevent further congestion and traffic problems in Wootton High Street. Furthermore, should the application be granted they requested that a condition was imposed to ensure that associated street furniture was in keeping with public realm scheme as recently completed on the south side of High Street. Solicitors acting for the freehold owners of the existing Tesco store indicated there seemed to be an assumption that the net effect of any grant of planning permission would result in only one supermarket in Wootton albeit on a different site. They considered this was not the case as if the current operator vacated the existing premises in order to move into new store, the existing premises were left with a lawful A1 use. If, as it was likely, existing premises would be occupied by A1 user then that would result in unsatisfactory traffic arrangements with potentially two retail units side by side with implications for traffic safety and congestion. The planning agent acting on behalf of owner of adjoining land and part owner of current application site sought to clarify several points. Firstly, access into site would be served by other existing adjoining operators thereby resulting in substantial impact and inhibiting free flow and safety of traffic which was generally not supported by Highway Authority. Secondly, reference was made to the possibility of land accumulation, however limited weight should be given to that suggestion and the application judged on its own merit. Thirdly, the agent advised that the existing retail store use would not be relinquished and as the applicants were not freeholders of site they were unable to confirm that two retail stores could not exist side by side. The Environmental Health Officer advised that no information had been submitted in respect of noise control measures other than delivery and opening times. Whilst delivery and opening hours proposed were within times that would normally be specified by that section an assessment of noise from the site which was likely to be experienced by occupants of nearby noise sensitive premises was required. As no such assessment had been submitted they considered they had no option other than to recommend refusal. Nevertheless, should the Committee grant approval then they would recommend conditions be attached to the decision concerning operating and delivery hours and an internal management system being agreed. A further condition requiring physical controls, operational restrictions and administrative controls for dealing with noise anticipated to be emitted from operation of plant machinery and business activities. Fourteen emails/letters of objection had been received to the proposal. Points of objection could be summarised as follows: · Current operator caused problems concerning early morning noise from deliveries. · Constant stream of traffic waiting to gain entry into existing operator’s site resulting in obstruction of existing drives which would be worsened by proposed scheme. · Inappropriate activity in predominantly residential area. · Rectory Drive itself was a residential road not designed for commercial traffic loads. · Serious safety aspects in respect of mixing commercial and residential traffic with particular impacts on children and the elderly. · Noise and pollution from heavy commercial vehicles. · Potential damage from heavy lorries mounting verges and footpaths. · Development out of character with village. · Lorries exiting the site would result in opposing traffic mounting pavements with consequent implications for highway safety. · Site was too small to cope with cars reversing, lorries unloading, shopping trolleys being used and pedestrians walking across site. · Likely use of residential estate for rat running. · Adequacy of existing retail operation. · Reference was made to previous problems of on-street parking in Rectory Drive and formal complaints made to existing retail operator concerning noise disturbance. · Proximity of bus stops and location of traffic island add obstructions and difficulty to maintain traffic flows in locality. · Development contrary to guidance contained within PPS 6 “Planning for Town Centres” and Village Design Statement. Question as to effectiveness of Traffic Management Systems including usefulness and need for puffin crossing and yellow box arrangements and enforcement of highway arrangements. A petition supported by 436 signatories had also been received and supporting statement submitted with petition was attached to the update. The applicants agent requested that should Members grant consent then conditions agreed in the Statement of Common Ground in connection with the appeal should be attached to approval which could be agreed as amendments and dealt with by officers under delegated powers. The solicitors acting for applicant had confirmed that a unilateral undertaking would be completed to provide for a Section 278 Agreement to complete the highway works listed on or before commencement of development and to pay £12,000 to cover future maintenance of a new crossing point.
Comment:	The Local Member, Cllr Barry Abraham, spoke on this item. Members were reminded that they were dealing with the principle of a retail unit and not the operator. The application fitted in with the retail impact.
Decision:	The Committee had taken into consideration and agreed with the reasons for the recommendation as set out under paragraph entitled Justification for Recommendation of the report and resolved: Conditional Planning Permission, subject to the conditions set out in the Part II Register.
Conditions:	Condition 2 to be amended to include the date of implementation of the store plan. As per report (Item 9)
(Cllr Muriel Miller declared a personal interest in this item and left the room).
Application:	TCP/27901/A
Details:	Two storey extension to provide additional living accommodation; conservatory (revised scheme). 14 Oxford Street, Cowes, Isle of Wight.
Site Visit:	The site was visited by Members of the Development Control Sub Committee on Monday, 19 March 2007.
Public Participants:	None.
Additional Representations:	None.
Comment:	None.
Decision:	The Committee had taken into consideration and agreed with the reasons for the recommendation as set out under paragraph entitled Justification for Recommendation of the report and resolved: Refusal of Planning Permission, for the reasons set out in the Part II Register.
Conditions:	As per report (Item 10)

59. MEMBERS' QUESTION TIME

Cllr Brian Mosdell asked a question in relation to applications being granted as holiday use and at a later date being converted to residential use. He was advised that a report was to be brought to a future meeting of the committee on that subject.

Cllr Arthur Taylor asked for clarification as to instances where a personal and prejudicial interest had been declared should the member involved not only be expected to leave the room but also not sit in the public gallery. He was advised that if a personal and prejudicial interest was declared by any member they should withdraw altogether and not sit in the public gallery.

CHAIRMAN