PAPER B

Reference Number: P/02738/06 - TCP/15805/F

Parish/Name: Carisbrooke - Ward/Name: Carisbrooke West

Registration Date: 07/11/2006 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr J Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Messrs Mew, Bull, Harding, Twistleton & Isaacs

Demolition of dwelling (no. 87); outline for residential development (revised scheme) land between and including, 69a and 87, Gunville Road, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO30

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a major application with a contentious history.

1. Details of Application

1.1 This is an outline application with all matters except access reserved for future consideration.

1.2 The proposal comprises the assembly of several tracts of land presently comprising the extensive rear gardens of properties fronting Gunville Road, a combined area of approximately 0.9 hectares being the intervening land between properties in Gunville Road and properties in Alvington Road at Carisbrooke.

1.3 Proposal involves the demolition of no. 87 Gunville Road and the formation of a vehicular access through that narrow tract of land left by the demolition to access the extensive area to the south west. The proposal also involves the demolition of an additional dwelling located towards the south eastern extent of the site.

1.4 Application is submitted in outline form with plans showing the position of the access over the site of the existing dwelling, no. 87 Gunville Road which is located a few metres south east of the access to Gunville pond, located on the south west side of Gunville Road. The plans for guidance purposes indicate a possible design concept showing the intention to retain all boundary trees and shrubs and to reinforce with new planting where necessary. It indicates the possible route of a roadway traveling through the access tract in a south westerly direction turning through south and south east and traveling in a south easterly direction towards the south eastern boundary enabling the possibility of a further extension of residential development should the land become available.

1.5 The plan indicates areas within the site accessed from cul-de-sacs off the main spine road also indicating the possibility of two and three storey houses, maisonettes, flats and houses, a mix of development up to four bedrooms, the provision of amenity areas and provision of a rear access to those properties no. 77 to 85 Gunville Road to enable vehicles to park in their rear gardens.

1.6 The application does not specify numbers or density of development, leaving such issues to a reserved matters stage.

1.7 Further in support of the application a Road Safety Audit has been submitted, traffic count information and a foul and surface water drainage report from a consultant.

1.8 The drainage report is itself accompanied by a letter to the consultant from Southern Water which confirms that there is insufficient capacity to accommodate additional flows into the foul water system; that off site works will be required for additional flow to be accommodated; indicating the nearest point where capacity is currently available and indicating that a developer should seek alternative means of surface water disposal such as soakaways, any local drainage water courses etc. The nearest point for foul sewerage connection is 1300 m (directly) to the east at the junction of Trafalgar Road and Carisbrooke Road.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 The application site comprises approximately 0.9 hectares off largely undeveloped but individual parcels of land presently forming the rear gardens of properties fronting Gunville Road.

2.2 No. 87 Gunville Road, the property proposed to be demolished is a two storey red brick house, elevated from the road and forms the last property on the left of a small group located on the south east side of the access to Gunville pond, and in the intervening land lies an electric substation abutting the highway.

2.3 The existing properties 75 to 85 Gunville Road are, in the main, long established properties of semi-detached and detached units of varying sizes but nos. 71, 73 and 73a form a comparatively modern terrace. These properties are elevated from the road and the land continues to rise to the south west until it adjoins the rear boundaries of the properties fronting Alvington Road.

2.4 Parts of the site are open and other parts are scrub and covered with undergrowth but there are lines of established trees along the north western, western and south west boundaries.

2.5 To the northwest of the site lies the access to Gunville pond, to the west open agricultural land whilst to the south west are those properties fronting Alvington Road, the dwellings being a distance of about 25 metres from the common boundary with the application site; to the southeast extended rear gardens of residential properties fronting Gunville Road.

3. Relevant History

3.1 Outline for six houses, land rear of 83 to 87 Gunville Road was refused in January 2004 on the grounds that there was insufficient information in respect of drainage. This proposal envisaged the retention of no. 87 and the provision of an access road immediately adjoining the dwelling on its northern side, between the dwelling and the electric substation. The layout plan allowed for a new access road and the possible extension to the land to the south which was included within the application currently under consideration.

3.2 In March 2006 outline planning permission was refused for the demolition of two dwellings (no. 69a and 87 Gunville Road) and outline for residential development. This application was refused on grounds of insufficient detail in respect of a traffic safety audit and on grounds that there was insufficient spare capacity in the local foul sewage and surface water infrastructure to provide adequate drainage for the proposed development.

3.3 There were no other reasons for refusal.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance

PPG3 – Housing/PPS3 – Housing supports the efficient use of land within development envelopes, particularly urban land and especially brownfield sites.

4.2 UDP policies

S1	-	New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas
S3	-	New developments of large scale to be located in or adjacent to the defined envelopes of main Island towns
G1	-	Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages
H1	-	Major New Residential Developments to be Located within Main Island Towns
H2	-	Ensure that Large Residential Developments Contain a Variety of House Sizes and Types
H6	-	High Density Residential Development
H5	-	Infill Development
H14	-	Locally Affordable Housing as an Element of Housing Schemes
TR7	-	Highway Considerations for New Development

4.3 The site is outside of any other designation such as AONB but is within the designated development envelope.

4.4 There are no Tree Preservation Orders nor is the site within a designated Conservation Area.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· Highway Engineer notes the inclusion of the Road Safety Audit and recommends conditions if the application is approved.

5.2 External Consultees

· Southern Water confirms that there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. The public sewer is a combined system and no flows greater than currently received can be accommodated in this system. However Southern Water points out that by removing some of the existing surface water entering the sewer additional flows could be accommodated and therefore recommends the usual condition requiring the submission of a scheme which will achieve the drainage of the site whilst not increasing flows into the public sewer.

5.3 Town or Parish Council Comments

Carisbrooke Village Management Committee object to the proposal on grounds of increased traffic generation on an already busy road; no nearby sewerage connection, overdevelopment of a brownfield site and lack of play area.

5.4 Neighbours

Six letters of objection from neighbours and nearby residents on grounds of:

· Road safety implications and traffic generation

· Inadequate drainage

· Loss of habitats

· Overdevelopment of a brownfield site

· Loss of privacy (requesting screening conditions if approved)

· Proposal does not consider PPS3

· Undesirable infill

· Inadequate access

· Insufficient site area

· Dangerous effect of on street parking

· Precedent

5.5 Others

· Crime and Disorder Officer makes no comment due to outline submission and lack of detail at this stage.

· Housing Officer points out reference to affordable housing and not affordable housing for rent.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main issues relating to this application are:

· Access and highway considerations

· Issues relating to drainage

6.2 As with the previous application refused in March 2006, other issues which need to be taken into account include:

· Policy and principle

· Trees and ecology

· Density and height

· Effect on adjoining properties

· Objections raised to the scheme

· Affordable housing implications and contributions

6.3 This is an almost identical proposal to that refused in March 2006 which Members will recall that was refused, as stated above in the Relevant History section, solely on grounds of inadequate and deficient detail regarding a Road Safety Audit and the fact that there is insufficient spare capacity in the local foul sewage and surface water infrastructure to provide adequate drainage for the proposed development.

6.4 Accordingly the application must be determined on whether or not those two issues have been adequately addressed and whether or not sufficient information has now been submitted in order to grant planning permission.

6.5 To summarise the evaluation of the other issues Members will realise that the site is located within the designated development envelope and presently forms gardens areas to existing residential properties fronting Gunville Road. Land of this description falls within the term of brownfield and therefore there is no principle objection to its residential development, subject to other issues. Policies S1, S3 and H1 support development proposals which steer residential development to the main Island towns and within designated development envelopes. Policies H5 and H6 relate to infill developments within development envelopes supporting such proposals which do not unduly damage the amenity of neighbouring property and accordingly will be supported. Policy H6 specifically relates to high density development and this is consistent with PPG3 and PPS3 and whilst the application is in outline form without density, without layout and any details at this stage to be determined, the proposal is broadly in line with current policy and policy guidance.

6.6 The site has an area of approximately 0.9 hectares and consistent with PPG3/PPS3 it is expected that a density of 30 – 50 dwellings per hectare could be achieved dependent upon other issues such as silvercultural and ecological value, also dependent upon the spread of the mix of dwellings which will include flats and maisonettes. Such density and layout would be determined at a later, reserved matters stage.

6.7 In the previous application the County Ecologist saw no objections in principle to the development of the site but acknowledged that there are features which have considerable biodiversity value including trees and shrubs along the perimeter boundaries within the site and pond. He acknowledged that the objectors had reported red squirrels using the area and states that frequency of hazel with field maple, spindle and mature fruit trees on the parts of the site would provide ideal habitat for squirrels. He concluded that any detailed scheme would need to take account of the ecological value of the site while comprehensive assessment of the features to create an area of managed green space which could become a feature of the development and maintain a valuable biodiverse habitat to wildlife.

6.8 Previously the Environment Agency had raised no objection to the development in principle but recommended conditions regarding surface water drainage which has been addressed by either sustainable urban drainage system or by attenuation and via a new sewer to the Gunville Stream.

6.9 In terms of density and height, the application is once again in outline form without such detail although it is acknowledged that the concept plan submitted shows the intention to develop two and three storeys height with the possibility of the three storey units being situated to the west and south west of the site.

6.10 Any effect on adjoining properties is difficult at this stage to judge since details have not been submitted. However the retention and augmentation of the tree screen to the boundary with the properties Alvington Road will be of paramount importance in determining how close and how high such dwellings should be in order to maintain adequate privacy. However, at the closest point the distance from the common boundary to the nearest dwelling in Alvington Road is approximately 27 metres, a distance which is in excess of what would normally be required between the rear faces of dwellings. Notwithstanding that it is felt that the tree screen should be retained and augmented to maintain a substantial boundary between the resultant development and that existing. In addition it should be remembered that, in any situation in the development envelope there will inevitably be some overlooking of garden areas, but in this instance the maintenance of the tree screen should minimise excessive effects.

6.11 As with the previous scheme which was refused in March last year, the primary objections are on grounds of inadequate information regarding drainage, trees, details of the ecology interests, density and design and inadequate details of amenity space as well as issues which relate to the access and traffic generation. This is an outline application seeking the principle and the means of access only. The site is not located within a Conservation Area neither is it in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where outline applications for development would not be accepted. Details of the numbers of dwellings, their type, their design, the density of the site, the landscaping, external appearance and materials are all matters which a subsequent application for approval of reserved matters would need to address. However it should be stressed that the site is within the development envelope; it is a brownfield site and it is surrounded in the main by other residential uses.

6.12 The last application in March 2006 was refused on grounds of inadequate detail regarding the Road Safety Audit and inadequate capacity within the existing drainage regime and therefore this application, as it is almost identical, falls to be determined purely on those two issues.

6.13 A Road Safety Audit has now been carried out and accompanied the submission and the Highway Engineer is satisfied that this has raised no issues which cannot be dealt with by condition. Accordingly recommends conditions including the implementation of those issues raised by the audit.

6.14 With specific reference to the issue of drainage, following the previous refusal, a drainage engineer has been engaged by the applicants to investigate the possibilities of providing an adequate scheme. This scheme has been submitted with the application and indications from Southern Water are that in principle this would be appropriate. Members attention is also drawn to the appeal decision which was taken at Mornington House regarding drainage. It is clear that, from a procedural point of view the appropriate course it to impose conditions ensuring that an adequate and workable scheme of foul and surface water drainage can be provided and is provided as part of a detailed development scheme but that such an issue should not preclude the grant of planning permission in principle.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 This outline application seeks to establish the principle of residential development with a specified access point on a site located within the development envelope but reserving all matters (except access) for a subsequent submission. It is clear that there are potential difficulties with sewage and storm water disposal but these issues have been addressed and a technical solution to the problem is feasible. In addition the concerns raised over the adequacy of the vehicular access and other highway issues including visibility have been explored by the implementation of a Road Safety Audit which show that these matters are also possible to solve. All of these matters will be the subject of an application for reserved matters and a survey of the trees on the site and their value will influence the final layout, the numbers of dwellings and their relationship with adjoining development.

7.2 Access to the site is in the same position as that previously refused but has been shown to be adequate subject to conditions by the Road Safety Audit. Visibility splays in both south easterly and north westerly directions can be formed adequately although this may require the relaying out of the frontages of the property to ensure an adequate splay is provided and it may require the redesign of the electric substation site adjoining which may be required anyway as part of the continuing development.

7.3 In conclusion, the two issues which justified a refusal of planning permission in March 2006 have been adequately addressed and therefore in principle no objections are seen to the proposed residential development of the site and approval is recommended accordingly.

8. Recommendation

Conditional Permission.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this planning permission. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.
2	Before any works or development hereby approved is commenced on site details relating to the siting, design, external appearance of buildings to be erected, the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall comprise the ‘reserved matters’ and shall be submitted within the time constraints referred to in condition 1 above before any development is commenced. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail and to comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
3	Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the buildings, 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 Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be initiated by the undertaking of the material operation as defined in section 56 (4) (a) - (d) of the town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the development, until a planning obligation pursuant to section 106 of the said Act relating to the land has been made and lodged with the Planning Authority and the Local Planning Authority has notified the person submitting same that it is to the Local Planning Authority's approval. The said Planning Obligation will provide for the provision of for an agreed proportion of the properties erected pursuant to this permission to be acquired by a registered social landlord for affordable housing. The agreement will also provide for contributions at the current level to the Local Planning Authority for the purpose of the provision of educational facilities for the provision and/or the maintenance of open space. Reason: To ensure the Council's long term objectives contained within policy H14 identified to provide affordable housing to meet local needs are not compromised and to ensure that proposed development does not put undue pressure on the existing education facilities and open space provision in the area.
5	No development shall take place until a scheme for the disposal of storm water and surface water has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme for the disposal of storm and surface water shall be via a sustainable urban drainage scheme which shall attenuate run off from the site to a volume not exceeding 7 litres per second per hectare and the agreed scheme shall be fully implemented and operational prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings on site. Reason: To ensure that surface water run-off is satisfactorily accommodated and to comply with policies G6 (Development in Areas Liable to Flooding) and G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	No development authorised by this permission shall take place on the site until a scheme for the disposal of foul sewage has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning authority. No dwellings shall be occupied until the agreed scheme for the disposal of foul sewage has been implemented and is fully operational Reason: To minimise the risk of pollution and to comply with policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	Both the schemes for the disposal of foul sewage and for storm water and surface water drainage shall be submitted as part of the application for approval of reserved matters as required by Condition 3 above. 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 Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	No development shall commence on site until a comprehensive ecological survey of the whole the site has been carried out by an appropriate competent person with particular reference to badgers, red squirrels, bats species and any other protected species. Any such survey shall include an assessment of the impact of the proposed development and any appropriate alleviation measures shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority concurrent with the submission of the site layout drawings. Reason: To enable proper consideration of the impact of the development and contribution of nature conservation interests of the amenity of the area and to comply with policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9	No development shall take place until there have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: (a) 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; (b) Details of any proposed topping or lopping of any tree on land adjacent to the site; (c) A plan showing existing ground levels and details of any proposed alterations thereto and of any proposed excavations; (d) 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; (e) 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; (f) 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; (g) Details of all existing buildings, structures and services on the site, including hard surfaces, together with details of those that are to be retained and details of any works proposed thereto; (h) 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; (i) 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 Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	No existing trees, groups of trees or hedgerows on the site shall be removed or be the subject of surgery work without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority and until compliance with conditions 8, 9, 17and 18 have taken place. Reason: To ensure the protection of trees and groups of trees and hedgerows to be retained in the interest of the amenities of the area in compliance with policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
11	No development shall take place on site until the electric sub station situated on the north side of the proposed access route has been altered or re-sited in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
12	The layout of the site shall allow for the extension of the access road into the land to the south east to enable continuation of residential development. Reason: To enable the continuation of the development and in order not to prejudice the future development of adjoining land in compliance with policy G4 (General Locational Criteria) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
13	Development shall not begin until details of the design, surfacing and construction of any new roads, footways, accesses and car parking areas, together with details of the means of disposal of surface water drainage therefrom have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
14	The development shall not be occupied until sight lines have been provided in accordance with the visibility splay shown on the approved plan (reference number 2028/P/2/10 showing an X distance of 2.4m and a Y distance of 70m). 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.
15	No dwelling shall be occupied until the parts of the service roads which provide access to it have been constructed, surfaced and drained in accordance with [the approved plans/details which have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
16	No building shall be occupied until the means of access thereto for pedestrians and cyclists has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure adequate safe provision of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists wishing to gain access to the site and to comply with policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
17	Any submitted layout plan shall ensure provision of open space/amenity land of an appropriate size and location and shall account of existing landscape features. Any such provision of open space/amenity land shall be provided prior to occupation of a maximum of 80% of the total development with any such open space/amenity area being retained and maintained thereafter in accordance with a management scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate provision of amenity land in the interest of the amenities of the area and occupiers of the development in compliance with policy L10 (Open Space in Housing Developments) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
18	The details of the landscaping of the site required to be submitted shall include details of a scheme for the preservation or laying out of that part of the application site as amenity land and none of the building operations hereby permitted shall be carried out on that part of the application site. Reason: To ensure an adequate provision of amenity land, in the interests of the area and to comply with policies D1 (Standards of Design) and D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
19	The development erected pursuant to this permission shall include a mix of dwelling types and sizes details of which shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority as a Reserved Matter and shall be set at a density commensurate with the site's location in relation to surrounding development. Reason: To ensure efficient use is made of urban land in compliance with policy H2 (To ensure that large residential developments contain the variety of house sizes and types), and H6 (High Density Residential Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and Policies contained within PPG3 - Housing, March 2000.
20	The development shall not be occupied and carriageway opened until the RSA process has been carried out in accordance with Isle of Wight Councils Road Safety Plan, Road Safety Audit Policy and Procedures as set out in Appendix 3.
21	The agreed recommendations of the RSA process must be completed to the satisfaction of the Isle of Wight Council as Highway Authority before the public road is adopted.
22	All construction traffic related to the approved development shall deliver, load and un-load on a route and in a location and at times approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the traffic section of Engineering Services. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policies TR7 (Highway Considerations) and M2 (Defined Mineral Working) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
23	No construction traffic related to the approved development will enter the public highway unless their wheels and chassis have been washed to prevent material being deposited on the highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to prevent mud and dust from getting on the highway and to comply with policies TR7 (Highway Considerations) and M2 (Defined Mineral Working) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
24	No dwelling/building hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site and drained and surfaced in accordance with drawings that have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing for cars and cycles to be parking and for vehicle to be able to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The space shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/02376/06 - TCP/17732/D

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

Registration Date: 02/11/2006 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss S Wilkinson Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Island Vounteers

Demolition of existing shops; construction of 2 storey block comprising 2 retail units, 1 house & 8 flats to include accommodation in roofspace; alterations to vehicular access

11 St. James Street, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO30 5BA

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

Joint Report with P/02377/06 - CAC/17732/C

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a major application within the Newport Conservation Area.

1. Details of Application

1.1 This is a joint report for both a planning application and conservation area consent for the demolition of existing shops and construction of two storey block comprising two retail units, one house and eight flats to include accommodation in the roof space and alterations to vehicular access.

1.2 The proposed development is a no parking scheme due to the town centre location of the site and close proximity of transport networks. The application has been submitted with the parking assessment and justification for a zero parking scheme and is located within Zone 2.

1.3 The proposed scheme comprises a total of nine residential units consisting of a mix of 1 two bedroomed house, 1 two bedroomed flat and 7 one bedroom flats. The proposal also incorporates two retail units on the ground floor.

1.4 The design of the proposed scheme sees traditional shop fronts to the ground floor units with a gated entrance to the residential development. The building form reduces in scale adjacent to the single storey building at the junction with Lugley Street with the result of the proposal sitting comfortably in the streetscene. The design is traditional with projecting gabled bays to the first floor which would give some character and context to the design. When passing through the pedestrian gates one would enter a mews style development to access both the flats and buildings to the rear.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 The site is an irregular shape with an entrance on both Lugley Street and St James’ Street. The main aspect of the site is approximately 16 metres from the corner of Lugley Street and St James’ Street on the eastern side of the road and measures approximately 23 metres along the frontage.

2.2 The existing building on site is single storey and was formerly used as Solent TV. The neighbouring buildings are a mix of two and three storey with the wider area displaying a greater variation in height and designs.

3. Relevant History

3.1 P/01564/02 – TCP/17732/B – Consent was granted for alterations and change of use from retail to media centre in October 2002.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance

The following National Policy statements are applicable.

· PPS3 – Housing

· PPG13 – Transport

4.2 Strategic Policies

The following Strategic Policies of the Unitary Development Plan are applicable:

· S1	-	New Development will be concentrated within existing urban areas
· S2	-	Development will be encouraged on land which has previously been developed.
· S6	-	All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design
· S7	-	Provision of housing units on the Isle of Wight

4.3 The following Unitary Development Plan Policies are applicable:

· G1	-	Development envelopes
· G4	-	General Locational Criteria
· D1	-	Standards of Design
· D2	-	Standards of Development within the site
· D3	-	Landscaping
· H4	-	Unallocated Residential Development
· TR6	-	Cycling and Walking
· TR16	-	Parking Policies and Guidelines
· R1	-	Existing Town Centres
· R2	-	New Retail Development
· U11	-	Infrastructure and Service Provision

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 External Consultees

· Southern Water have highlighted that there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul disposal. However, as the system is combined they have confirmed that an appropriate method of attenuation can be conditioned to overcome their concerns.

5.2 Internal Consultees

· Highway conditions have been incorporated.

· Archaeology recommend conditions if approved.

· The Council’s Crime Prevention Design Adviser has no objections provided the courtyard gates are lockable. This has been conditioned accordingly.

· Environmental Health have no objections subject to conditions which have been included at the end of the report.

· Conservation and Design support the application and recommend conditions which have been included accordingly.

5.3 Others

· Newport Town Management Committee have objected to the application on the grounds of loss of parking.

· Six letters of objection have been received. The comments of which can be summarised as follows:

o Noise and disruption to neighbouring business premises

o Piecemeal development.

6. Evaluation

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

· Impact of the development on the character of the Conservation Area

· Impact of the development on neighbouring premises

· Parking

6.2 Impact of the development on the character of the Conservation Area

The proposal is located within the Conservation Area of Newport and has been carefully designed, taking into consideration the character of the area and represents a considerable visual enhancement above that of the existing building on site.

The incorporation of dormers in the roof is not out of character with the area and works to break-up the roofscape. This is further achieved with the variation of the building heights, which also serves to help the building sit more comfortably within the street scene and reduces any dominance to neighbouring buildings.

An objection has been received in relation to the piecemeal nature of the development, in that the buildings on the corner of Lugley Street and St. James Street have not been incorporated within the scheme. These buildings are not however in the control of the applicant and the proposal has been carefully designed as to not prejudice the possible development potential of the neighbouring site or there continued use.

The design has been amended slightly to ensure that the building is read as separate units within the street scene in order to further improve the appearance of the development.

6.3 Impact of the development on neighbouring premises

The proposed development, as discussed above, has been carefully designed and would not have a detrimental impact on the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring premises. Letters of objection have been received from a neighbouring business due to possible disruption to working practices during the construction period. This is however a civil matter between the developer and objector although it must be accepted that building works will cause some disruption but only for a temporary period.

6.4 Parking

The proposed development is located within the town centre, close to a variety of transportation links and is considered to be an exceptionally sustainable location. This, combined with the nature of development is considered to result in a no parking scheme in this location being acceptable.

An objection has been received from Newport Town Management Committee in respect of loss of parking. However, the parking appraisal submitted with the application confirms that there is a vehicular service access serving the rear of the existing premises and this serves as a fire exit for shop staff. Cars do park in this area but this is on private land without the agreement of the owner therefore could be terminated at any time. The development would therefore not result in a loss of formal parking and irrespective of the planning application the use of this area of parking is likely to cease.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report it is considered that the application would enhance the character of the conservation areas and provide lower market housing in a sustainable location.

8. Recommendation

Conditional Permission

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	Notwithstanding the details on the submitted plans and application forms no development shall take place until samples of materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	No development shall take place until the applicant or their agents has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved by the planning authority in writing To facilitate monitoring of the on-site archaeological works, notification of the start date and appointed archaeological contractor should be given in writing to the address below not less than 14 days before the commencement of any works:- The Planning Archaeologist, County Archaeological Centre, 61 Clatterford Road, Newport, Isle of Wight. PO30 1NZ. Reason: In order that information of architectural or historic interest may be recorded and to comply with Policy B9 of the IW Unitary Development Plan
4	No development shall take place until a detailed scheme (including calculations of capacity studies) for foul and surface water drainage from the site have been submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing. Any such agreed foul and surface water disposal system shall indicate connections at points on the system where adequate capacity exists to ensure any additional flow should not cause flooding or over load the existing system, if necessary on alternative system for the disposal of surface water shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul and surface water drainage is provided for the development incompliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Notwithstanding the details on the submitted plans comprehensive details of the windows and the proposed shop fronts to be used in the development hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site. These details shall include dimensions, size of sections, materials, configuration and opening mechanisms. Reason: In the interests of the character of the area designated as a Conservation Area in compliance with policies D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Area) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	All construction traffic related to the approved development shall deliver, load and unload on a route, in a location and at times to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policies TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site for 8 bicycles to be parked. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Prior work commencing on site details of the proposed entrance gates and means by which they will be made lockable shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. They shall be installed in accordance with the agreed detail prior to occupation and thereafter maintained. Reason: In the interests of the visual character of the area and security of any future occupants in accordance with Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and D11 (Crime and Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9	Prior to the use hereby authorised commencing, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified of the intended business hours if each retail unit. The use shall not commence until these hours have been approved, or amended as necessary, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance, in particular sleep disturbance from noise emissions from the premises in accordance with G10 (Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Uses) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	Prior to the use hereby authorised commencing, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified of the intended hours of goods deliveries and goods dispatches to the retail units. The use shall not commence until these hours have been approved, or amended as necessary, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance, in particular sleep disturbance from noise emissions from the premises in accordance with G10 (Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Uses) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/02377/06 - CAC/17732/C

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

Registration Date: 11/10/2006 - Conservation Area Consent

Officer: Miss S Wilkinson Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Island Volunteers

Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing shops in connection with construction of 2 storey block comprising 2 retail units, 1 house & 8 flats to include accommodation in roofspace; alterations to vehicular access

11 St. James Street, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO30 5BA

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

Joint Report with P/02376/06 – TCP/17732/D

Conditions/Reasons:

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

Reason: As required by s18 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended).

The works of demolition hereby authorised shall not be commenced until a binding contract for the carrying out of the works of redevelopment of the site has been entered into and planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment for which the contract provides.

Reason: In order to protect the special character of the area and to prevent the site remaining vacant for a significant period of time and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

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

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

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

Officer: Mr C Hougham Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Sandown Investments Ltd (05663942)

Continued use of land for outdoor go-kart track and associated buildings land adjacent, Westridge Leisure Centre, Brading Road, Ryde, PO33

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

Application was considered by Committee three months ago and was recommended for conditional planning permission for a temporary period expiring on 30 September 2008. However, the Environmental Health Officer indicated that on the basis of the information available to him he was unable to support the continued use of a condition restricting noise levels on the site as, in his view, it was likely that there would be difficulties in complying with this particular condition. Consequently for this reason and other concerns Members decided to defer consideration to enable officers to obtain additional information and reassess the matter with a view to reporting the matter back to this Committee at a later date.

Outcome of discussions and correspondence with the applicants since the decision was taken to defer now appears in Details of Application from paragraph 1.4; further observations from Environmental Health Officer at 5.1; with additional information formulated by the Case Officer from 6.9.

1. Details of Application

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

1.2 Application is supported by the following plans:

· Location plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.4 Following the decision to defer consideration the Environmental Health Officer gave a detailed explanation as to why he was not now prepared to support the continued use of the aforementioned condition designed to control noise emissions.

In practice, ………, noise at trackside under race conditions was measured by ourselves at around 78 dB(A) – well above the limit. This was one of the two conditions, failure to comply with which resulted in (Planning) declaring that the previous consent was null and void. A different consultant was used by the applicants, whose measurements under test conditions were in line with what we had measured.

In our response to this current application, I examined the consultants report. I have no criticism of that report. We had considered recommending a trackside limit, but would have set it at 78 dB(A), not 70. One comment at the meeting was about a value measured on track being applied to another. That exactly was the problem with the previous consent.

1.5 A meeting took place with the applicants and their agents which was attended by the Case Officer and Environmental Health Officers. Discussion focused on this particular issue (see above) but also other concerns expressed by Members and the need for specific detailed information in order to conclude the expert consultation process, re-evaluate the recommendation and, if approval was still recommended, to develop appropriate conditions including the length of the (temporary) permission. The applicants gave an undertaking to provide additional material to enable Committee to reconsider the application. However, in practice, they have found it difficult to acquire the level of detailed information required to satisfy the requirements of officers, particularly the Environmental Health Officers. Further information has been forthcoming on a variety of related issues which can be summarised in the following terms.

· Expense and non-viability of electric carts

· Specifications about surface of the track

· Applicants’ justification for a minimum two year permission

Applicants were disappointed that the matter was not reconsidered by this Committee at the meeting held prior to the festive break which was not possible because of the absence of detailed information.

1.6 Further information eventually forthcoming in mid-December and the document produced by the applicants is attached to this amended report for Members. It is important that Members note that the applicants have made three important observations.

· ……, it is NOT definite that these are the carts that will be used – that will be a business decision arrived at after taking finances and other matters into consideration.

· Any suggested further reduction in working hours would not be compatible with the viable operation of a business.

· ……we would require a MINIMUM OF TWO YEARS to enable use to get the business up and running; eighteen months would go nowhere near being long enough to achieve this.…

1.7 Applicants have provided written confirmation from the National Karting Association which states that they do not maintain information on noise emissions and that in their experience local authorities do not accept this type of information as impartial advice and will invariably insist on an independent test being carried out on site. Safety co-ordinator at the NKA expresses surprise at our request for additional information and points out that, in his view, the Council has an obligation to the community as a whole and it is incumbent on us to act impartially.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

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

3. Relevant History

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

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

· Time restriction (0900 hrs to 2100 hrs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance

PPG24 – Planning and Noise

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

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

4.2 Strategic Policy S4, S5, S6

4.3 Local Planning Policies

· G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

· G5 – Development Outside Defined Settlements

· D1 - Standards of Design

· D2 - Standards for Development within the Site

· P1 – Pollution and Development

· P5 – Reducing the Impact of Noise

· L2 – Formal Recreational Provision

· L9 – Noisy Sports

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

· T2 – Tourism Related Development

· T7 – Sites suitable for Tourism Related Development

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

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

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

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

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

o Time operation restriction (0800 to 2000 hrs)

o No more than eight karts at any one time.

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

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

Environmental Health Officer has been asked to comment on the amended report prepared for Members and advises that this report differs from the previous one in that it does not include conditions regarding the imposition of a noise limit and are requiring a noise barrier. He therefore confirms his support for the recommendation subject to the suggested conditions.

5.2 External Consultees

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

5.3 Third Party Representations.

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

6. Evaluation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Policy P5 states (in part):

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

· Policy L9(c) states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.6 Members will have to take into account these views and set those against the advice and any further detailed observations from the Environmental Health Officer who expresses the view that at various times the use will have some detrimental impact on the level of amenity experienced by local residents.

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

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

6.9 In the previous report we indicated that the Council was probably not in a position to withhold permission particularly as the failure to offer substantive evidence, in the event of an appeal, to support such a decision would run the risk of losing (conditional) control over the use; Environmental Health Officer concurs with this view. However, we also indicated that the circumstances enabled the Council the opportunity to review the matter against a background of the various problems associated with the use over the last two years in conjunction with the expert opinion and consultee responses as well as the third party representations. On this basis we took the view that it was prudent to revisit the conditions imposed on the earlier permission and to consider whether they should be amended or additional conditions imposed, in connection with a further permission. In this context we made four specific suggestions:

· Permission should be for a temporary period of no more than two years during which time the applicants would be responsible for carrying out further noise measurement work at different times of the year, different times of the day and in varying weather conditions in accordance with a programme to be agreed with the Environmental Health Officer. As a separate exercise the Environmental Health Officer should be invited to conduct his own investigation/measurements during this trial period.

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

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

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

6.10 The situation now is that Members have to determine whether to support the application, without the condition relating to the decibel limit included on the original permission, with the knowledge that the applicants and their agents have been unable to obtain the level and degree of information that elected Members had hoped for when they decided to defer consideration three months ago. It needs to be pointed out that the view is taken that the applicants are not being evasive but the level of desired information particularly in terms of potential noise pollution is simply not available from any source. Environmental Health Officer also feels that any potential (noise) benefits from perimeter banking/fencing is likely to be minimal and can’t be justified and since the site is not visually obtrusive the condition can’t be sustained on grounds of pure visual amenity.

6.11 On the basis that it would be unreasonable and bad practice to include (technical) conditions which are not supported by our own internal consultee on the simple basis that he/she does not believe that the applicants can comply with such a condition or it simply can’t be justified, it would appear that this committee has three possible options:

· To refuse permission on grounds on inadequate information which effectively means that the council, as Local Planning Authority, is unable to determine whether the (continued) use is likely to (seriously) adversely affect the (residential) amenities of the area even for a temporary trial period.

· Grant a short term temporary conditional planning permission until 31 March 2008 which would allow the applicants and the Environmental Health Officer adequate time within which to monitor the use and decide whether an application to renew the temporary permission would be granted on a permanent basis; with the advantage that if there were any seriously adverse effects on the amenity of residential properties in the locality during the summer months that the use would be discontinued prior to the next summer (2008).

· Grant a temporary conditional planning permission for a minimum period of two years, in accordance with the request made by the applicants, which would enable the applicants and the Environmental Health Officer to monitor the situation over a longer period and possibly introduce mitigation measures during the temporary period prior to the submission of an application to renew the permission.

6.12 The Council may still have difficulty in offering substantive evidence to support a decision to refuse permission. But in light of the difficulties associated with the previous recent use of this site for go-kart racing and the absence of conclusive evidence that would enable Members to grant permission with the comfort that full compliance with the imposed conditions would ensure there were no adverse impacts on the amenities of the immediate locality means that the Committee has no alternative other than a reduced short term temporary planning permission which, in practice, is a trial period. The vagaries of the situation mean that the Council should be particularly circumspect in this matter and adopt a prudent approach irrespective of the request by the applicants for an extended temporary permission as per our initial recommendation. Consequently, although officers are prepared to maintain their qualified support for the continued use, the view is that the temporary permission should not go beyond one summer period and that over the eighteen month period the use should be strictly monitored by all interested parties.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

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

8. Recommendation

Approve.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition on or before 31 March 2008 in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact of the proposed use in view of policies S6 (Standards of Design), policy P1 (Pollution and Development), P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
2	During the temporary period a monitoring programme, developed in consultation with the Council, shall be carried out by a competent person(s) in connection with the use of the site for go-kart racing based on the criteria and parameters of the acoustic assessment report but including readings taken at different times of the day, different times of the years and various weather conditions to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. This information together with a detailed assessment and any mitigation measures must feature as an integral part of any application to renew the temporary planning permission. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact of the proposed use in view of policies S6 (Standards of Design), policy P1 (Pollution and Development), P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	No go-karts shall be operated on the site before 1030 hours or after 2000 hours (1200 hours to 1900 hours on Sundays) on any day unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent disturbance from noise emission from the premises and to comply with policy P1 (Pollution and Development) and P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	No more than eight go-karts shall be operated on the site at any one time. Reason: To prevent disturbance from noise emission from the premises and to comply with policy P1 (Pollution and Development) and P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Only go-karts powered by silenced four stroke motors, whose precise specifications are to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before the use recommences, shall be used on the site. No modified or race prepared karts, motorbikes, "mini motos" or any other motorised vehicles are to be used on the site. Reason: To prevent disturbance from noise emission from the premises and to comply with policy P1 (Pollution and Development) and P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Second Recommendation

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

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

___________________________________________________________________________

Reference Number: P/02603/06 - TCP/07673/E

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

Registration Date: 17/10/2006 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr C Hougham Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Bo Handley

Demolition of hotel; outline for residential development (revised scheme) Culver Lodge Hotel, Albert Road, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO368AW

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a resubmission following an earlier application which was refused permission on policy grounds under the delegated procedure. Local Member has indicated that, in his view, there are extenuating circumstances in this particular case which require a determination by elected Members.

1. Details of Application

1.1 Application involves the cessation of the use of the premises as a hotel, the demolition of the existing building and seeks outline permission to redevelop the site for residential purposes. All detailed matters are reserved for subsequent approval.

1.2 Submission is supported by a somewhat crude layout plan and sketch elevations of a possible redevelopment of this site but these are to be treated for illustrative purposes only. More importantly, the applicants’ agent has submitted a covering letter with the application in which he says:

…hotels are struggling to survive and although the policies of the Unitary Development Plan were good in their intentions they have no arguable come to the end of their useful life. It simply does not make sense to keep hotels open that are losing money and in the same breath looking for new sites for housing and affordable housing to come forward.

However, the hotel is a twenty two bedroom hotel which has a value of approximately £395,000. The hotelier has been on site for three and a half years and there has been an investment of some £200,000 this has made all bedrooms en-suite but still does not attract the customers that are required.

1.3 Agent seeks to justify his argument through interpretation and application of current local planning policies and concludes by saying:

…hotel is simply not needed and does not do anything for enhancing the opportunity for the future, ……if the Council is serious about repositioning the holiday trade then, overall, this can be lifted by taking the surplus requirements from the hotel stock.

1.4 Application is also supported by a design and access statement which is adequate for the purposes of the new requirements but adds little to the fundamental issue in relation to the interpretation and application of the relevant local planning policy (see below).

1.5 In this particular context the applicant (and her agent) have been asked to provide additional information which relates to the viability of the business, the investment/loss in recent year(s), likely cost of necessary repair work, marketing/valuation of the existing property with or without the necessary repair work and short term/long term future viability of the premises as a hotel.

1.6 This request has resulted in the submission of a viability report which is largely a detailed planning argument but advises that in simple terms the amount of money needed in bringing the money up to standard is too great to make it a viable and realistic possibility. Works are needed to repair roof, replacement windows, replacement carpets, damp in several bedrooms and repairs to lead work. This does not include general maintenance, such as painting, carpet cleaning and general works and plaster will have to be taken off in rooms with those rooms damp proofed and made good.

1.7 Report contains photographic evidence of remediation required to fabric of building itself however supports viability payment provides evidence in the form of repair work (£466,000) some evidence of cancellations and marketing of operation. In addition, there is supporting detailed letter from accountant and extracts from relevant policy documents. The application is also supported by detailed financial statements up to early 2005 from the applicant’s accountant which largely confirm and detail other financial information contained in this report which, for obvious reasons, has not been placed on the public file. Other information includes submission of floor plans, extract from surveyors report and estate agency details.

1.8 Reference is also made to Good Practice Guide and on Planning for Tourism and Tourist Development Plan point is made that rigid policy of UDP is not responsive to rapidly changing markets and areas of growth both within industry and economy.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 Site is in a mixed tourist/residential area to the north and in very close proximity to the town centre, transport links and the beach.

2.2 Premises is quite a large hotel (22 bedrooms) occupying a substantial corner site at the junction of Albert Road with Victoria Road a short distance away from the mini roundabout junction with Avenue Road and the High Street.

2.3 The building comprises an original early Victorian property which during the period following the last war up to the mid 70’s has been the subject of a number of unsympathetic extensions/alterations in terms of design and appearance and inappropriate use of materials which has effectively destroyed the likely contribution that the original building made to the character and appearance of the area. As different from other buildings in the immediate vicinity the building is in set back position at the northern end of the site and at an angle to both road frontages (i.e. Albert Road and Victoria Road) with a small car parking area for the proprietor and residents off Albert Road and an outdoor swimming pool in what can be best described as the front garden area. Notwithstanding the inappropriate and somewhat unattractive more modern additions to the premises it is apparent that it has been reasonably well-maintained property with boundary walling along the respective road frontages and a landscaped garden area.

2.4 An important aspect of the processing and determination of this particular application involved as internal inspection of the building carried out in mid November (i.e. outside the tourist season). It is clear that the present owner or proprietor has made strenuous efforts and used her best endeavours to improve the accommodation on offer, particularly the letting rooms with en-suite facilities, as well as the decorative order of the residents lounge, dining area and small bar. Nevertheless, due to serious structural defects invariably associated with older overly extended properties there is evidence throughout the premises, particular at upper floor level, that problems and associated damage due to leaks, rising damp etc. The result of these structural defects is twofold inasmuch as the owner is not in a position to finance the necessary repair work because of the significant downturn in business, particularly during the last season, and consequently a number of rooms and a large number of bed spaces can no longer be used for tourist accommodation.

3. Relevant History

3.1 In August 2006 an application virtually identical to the one under consideration for the demolition of the hotel and the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes was submitted. On the basis that there was a clear conflict with the relevant local planning policy (T5 (Hotels Outside Defined Hotel Areas)) the application was dealt with under the delegated procedure. In the written justification in support of the recommendation to refuse permission the Case Officer said:

The loss of this hotel premises, which by the agents own admission comprises twenty two bedrooms (probably the majority if not all providing en-suite accommodation) quite clearly conflicts with policy T5(c) and not withstanding work which is currently being undertaken which effectively reviews tourist related policies, a favourable decision on this application would, at best, be regarded as premature and contrary to the development plan.

Accordingly permission was refused.

3.2 This decision has not been appealed but the applicants’ agent wrote shortly after the issue of the decision notice claiming that the matter should be reconsidered as the current administration had made a significant policy “change” which would effectively allow applications such as his clients proposal to be favourably considered. Included with his representations an extract from a relatively recent edition of the Isle of Wight County Press which claimed that the Council had “scrapped that rule.” As Members know at this moment in time this is not correct. However following discussion with the local Ward Member it was decided that there was sufficient justification for the resubmission of the application.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance

PPS1, PPG3 and Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism (May 2006) .

4.2 Strategic Policies

S1, S2, S3, S5, S6, S7 and S11.

4.3 Local Planning Policies

· G4	-	General Locational Criteria for Development
· D1	-	Standards of Design
· D2	-	Standards for Development within the Site
· H4	-	Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements
· H5	-	Infill Development
· H6	-	High Density Residential Development
· H14	-	Locally Affordable Housing as an Element of Housing Schemes
· T5	-	Hotels Outside Defined Hotel Areas
· TR3	-	Locating Development to Minimise the Need to Travel
· TR7	-	Highway Considerations for New Development
· TR16	-	Parking Policies and Guidelines

Additional Reports and Documentation

· Isle of Wight Hotel Futures (A Review of Hotel Performance and Future Development Strategy prepared for Isle of Wight Tourism (final draft (January 2006)). Section 5 of this particular document deals with the policy context and includes the following observations.

…emerging South East Plan has set a new regional context for hotel development, that encourages diversity of offer, locational guidance, encourages extensions and upgrading of existing stock and the resistance of loss where there is proven demand.

At a local level, the policies contained in the current Unitary Development Plan in relation to hotel accommodation development and particularly the retention of hotels from change of use, are strong, but could be strengthened further in the new Local Development Framework, giving greater transparency to this process and supporting it with an SPG and relevant professional/technical inputs.

Document contains a number of conclusions:

There is potential to secure investment in improving and upgrading existing hotels on the Island, but the pace of investment will be relatively slow without some form of financial assistance. Many hotels will have difficulty in investing low levels of profit that they are making.

There is a need to reduce the stock of hotel accommodation in Shanklin and Sandown in order to accelerate the upgrading and repositioning of hotels here.

The above is reflected in the concluding key messages where it is stated that many hotels will find it difficult to upgrade and position and some hotels need to be let go.

· Bay Area Action Plan (Issues Report) (July 2006) prepared by IWC.

This document deals with the whole range of planning issues relevant to this particular area but does include some key observations in the section dealing with the tourism industry.

There has been a major shift in the UK tourism market in the last two decades. Holidays taken within the UK by residents are increasingly orientated to weekends and short breaks focusing on entertainment, culture, dining room, spa or outdoor activities. The Bay’s tourism offer has not adapted to these trends and is reliant on a declining UK family and coach holiday market.

…attractions and visitor facilities offered by the Bay are not fit for purpose for new and emerging UK markets. This includes some of the accommodation, …

As a result … many businesses … often perform at marginal levels of profitability and lack the resources to upgrade facilities and invest in business repositioning.

This report merely deals with identified issues and does not promote any solutions.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· Head of Tourism has met with applicants and agent at the premises in early December 2006. He has carried out and extensive and detailed investigation into this particular case and made use of a viability test which requires the applicant to demonstrate that the premises are not economically viable in their current use and are incapable of being made viable as tourist accommodation. His assessment has been made on the applicant’s original business plan; the viability report produce by the agent; a record of occupancy rates over the period 2003 to 2006; accounts for the annual period ending 2/04, 2/05 and 2/06; applicant’s marketing strategy and evidence of attempts to sell the property as a hotel.

It should be stressed that this was a comprehensive investigation but some of the detailed findings are not appropriate for a report in the public domain. However, these findings can be summarised in the following terms:

· It appears that building was in a poor condition at the time of purchase by the applicant.

· Significant outgoings in terms of essential repair work.

· High builder’s estimate for necessary work in terms of renovation and upgrading of the property.

· Reliance on lower yield market rather than “private” business.

· Loss of significant part of lower yield market.

· Poorly advised downturn in advertising/marketing in 2006.

· Shortcomings in terms of offering the premises for sale.

· In terms of location this is not a “prime” position in an area which in terms of character is becoming increasingly residential.

Any attempt to retain the use of the site for holiday purposes, possibly in the form of self-catering accommodation would almost certainly require redevelopment of the site and consequently a significant investment it is unlikely that an investor could be found.

In conclusion, based on the adopted criteria he recommends that café could be made to allow the change of use to residential on the basis that he is satisfied that the premises are firstly not economically viable in their current use and secondly are incapable of being made viable as tourist accommodation.

Acting Planning Policy Manager advises that whilst UDP Policy T5 is prescriptive the Core Strategy is clear that there will be a move away from this approach to strengthen the tourism sector in the Bay Area. Whilst the document has not yet been adopted it has been through considerable public engagement. The background to this change is the research paper commissioned by Isle of Wight Tourism which clearly shows that there is an over-supply of accommodation within the Bay.

Area Highway Engineer raises no specific objections to the proposed redevelopment of the site subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions if the application is to be approved.

Tree Officer has commented on the application and has raised one or two relatively minor issues that could be dealt with at the detailed stage if this outline submission was approved.

5.2 Parish/Town Council

Sandown Town Council have made the following observation on this application.

…..Council is concerned there is another hotel going in Sandown and note at the same time some hotels seem to be seeking additional capacity.

5.3 Third Party Representations

Island MP has commented on this submission as one of two applications in Sandown that involve demolition of existing buildings.

· Concern at demolition of good quality late Victorian villas.

· Replacement by non-descript blocks of flats.

· The destruction of its Victorian/Edwardian character leading to excessive infill destroying garden gaps between buildings, overdevelopment and the provision of inadequate parking facilities. Existing buildings should be converted, out of character extensions demolished and replaced (where necessary) in character.

A resident in Victoria Road is concerned at the prospect of the loss of a building which offers the potential of a small first class hotel; the external fabric of the building fails to reflect money allegedly invested in the existing hotel building; likely overdevelopment of the site and concern about the prospect of a (secondary) vehicular access onto Victoria Road.

Another Victoria Road resident raises no particular objection to the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes providing adequate “onsite” parking facilities are provided for future occupants of the individual units.

6. Evaluation

6.1 This is a resubmission following an earlier decision taken under the delegated procedure to refuse permission on the grounds that the loss of these premises as hotel accommodation would conflict with the relevant tourist related policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan.

6.2 Consequently my view on this application is that it relates virtually solely to Members interpretation and application of the relevant policy set against a background of the more generalised overarching regional and strategic policies in addition to additional work which has been carried out for Isle of Wight Tourism and the issues highlighted in the recently published Bay Area Action Plan. Members will have to give due regard and appropriate weight to these relatively recent documents/reports in conjunction with the detailed information which has been provided by the applicant and her agent but must recognise that the predominant factor in this particular case is the interpretation and application of the relevant approved policy which is T5 (Hotels Outside Defined Hotel Areas).

Outside the defined hotel areas, development resulting in the loss of hotel accommodation will only be approved where:

a) there is a change of use to another form of holiday accommodation; or

b) existing accommodation is upgraded or improved; or

c) the proposed involves a change of use of premises of less than ten habitable rooms.

6.3 From an interpretation aspect Members are asked to note that the specific criteria which features in this policy does not offer any significant degree of flexibility when applied to particular cases unless, in my opinion, there is overwhelming evidence that this is an irretrievable situation and the retention or continued use of a premises as a hotel is retrograde step which is likely to have an adverse impact on the character and amenities of the area. While there should not be undue concern about the prospect of a favourable decision being viewed as a precedent, since each application is judged on its individual merits, Members must be very clear that if they wish to depart from the approved development plan they must be satisfied that the level of information provided in support of the application offers conclusive evidence that would justify a grant of (conditional) permission.

6.4 However, although this report primarily focuses on just one issue there are some fundamental points which have to be taken into account in terms of the possible redevelopment of the site for residential purposes.

· Building is of no specific architectural or historic merit and is not within a designated conservation area and consequently there is no sustainable objection to its demolition providing it is in connection with a residential redevelopment scheme.

· Original character of this Victorian building has largely been lost due to large, unsympathetic extensions and additions which were carried out during the peak period for family holidays to Sandown and other similar seaside resorts. Even if there was any justification for the retention of the original part or any other part of the building its position in the back corner of the site would seriously prejudice any redevelopment proposals which sought to reflect the pattern of development in the immediate locality. On this particular point, in response to the comments by the MP, the Development Control Manager advised him:

…..…in the case of the Culver Lodge application, whilst this seeks the demolition of the existing building, the submission seeks outline consent for redevelopment and no details have been presented at this stage of the replacement building. …, we would of course seek to ensure that the replacement buildings were of appropriate design. ……, I believe that it would be difficult to justify refusal of these applications on the basis of the loss of the existing building. The Culver Lodge Hotel in particular has been subject to a number of unsympathetic additions/alterations, and I do not consider the building makes a significant contribution to the character of the area.

· Site is within the development envelope boundary and therefore in terms of principle there is no objection for redevelopment in an area which is now largely predominantly residential in character, a residential development is clearly most appropriate. Due regard has to be given to the fact that this is a substantial site (0.15 hectare) located in a prominent position at a road junction in very close proximity to local facilities, social infrastructure and public transport links. It is clear that a redevelopment scheme could make better use of this land providing a relatively high density redevelopment, possibly made up of one and two bedroom units close to the town centre in a sustainable location.

6.5 Having dealt with aspects of the application that did not feature in the reason for withholding permission on the initial submission it is important to examine the evidence supporting the resubmission and decide whether these material considerations together with new work recently carried out are sufficient to make a decision which is effectively contrary to the approved development plan. In brief, the application must be judged on its merits and not seen as an opportunity for a fundamental policy shift which is not the remit of this regulatory committee.

6.6 From a practical viewpoint, largely arising from an internal inspection of the premises, Members should give due consideration to the following factors.

· At this moment in time the premises does not offer a standard of accommodation commensurate with the modern expectations of visitors to the Island.

· Applicant has provided sufficient evidence to prove that this should be viewed as a failing business which in the present economic climate would require a very significant investment to render the accommodation and associated facilities of a reasonable standard in the current market.

· Notwithstanding the above the applicant appears to have used her best endeavours to improve the quality of the accommodation, largely in decorative terms, but this is still not sufficient because of the shortcomings of an overly extended former Victorian villa and the obvious structural defects which means that any further investment of a cosmetic nature is not a sustainable option.

· The above factors lead to the conclusion that this is not a viable business and is unlikely to become a viable business in the foreseeable future.

· These views have been authenticated by local professional persons with experience in the building and tourist business; views confirmed by previous marketing and valuations and the opinion proffered by the Head of Tourism.

6.7 It is clear from interpretation and application of the relevant local planning policies; involvement in the report referred to in the earlier part of this report and the detailed investigation that he has undertaken, that the comments, observations and recommendation of the Head of Tourism should be given due regard and significant weight in the determination of this application. It is apparent that based on the information provided, his own findings and assessment/recommendation that this is no longer a viable business and because of the significant investment that would be required in terms of repair, renovation and upgrading of the building there is little likelihood of recovering that lost business even under new owner/management. Consequently, although there is some degree of conflict with Policy T5 it is considered that there are material considerations in this particular case which outweigh the primacy of the Development Plan.

6.8 Had the level of information, authoritive support and consultee responses been available at the time of the initial submission it is possible that officers may have taken a different view rather than refusing permission under the delegated procedure. On balance, it is now considered that there is sufficient information and evidence in the form of material considerations to outweigh the primacy of the development plan and, on this basis, it has been decided to recommend the grant of condition outline permission.

6.9 It is appreciated that Members of this Committee, particularly ward Members in the principal resorts on the Island, will be all too familiar with a scenario of large older properties which for many years have been used for hotel or guest house accommodation which are no longer viable because, even with relatively substantial investment, they cannot provide accommodation of a sufficiently high standard to meet modern requirements and they have also fallen victim to changes in holiday trends recently identified in research work referred to elsewhere in this report. In the earlier part of this report an indication was given to the effect that a favourable consideration in this particular case may not necessarily set a (dangerous) precedent for future applications of a similar nature but Members will appreciate that there are a number of other hotels/guest house owners who find themselves in a similar position who will consider submitting (or resubmitting) applications for the change of use/conversion or demolition and redevelopment of their properties. It is for this very reason that this application has been the subject of quite intensive scrutiny and verification of views before making a favourable recommendation.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the development plan and other material considerations it has been decided on balance that this is an instance where sufficient information has been provided to outweigh the normal presumption in favour of the development plan.

8. Recommendation

Approve.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this planning permission. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.
3	Development shall not commence until details of the facilities to be provided for the storage of refuse have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No building shall be occupied until the facilities have been provided in accordance with the approved details and the facilities shall thereafter be retained. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	Development shall not begin until details of the design, surfacing and construction of any new roads, footways, accesses and car parking areas, together with details of the means of disposal of surface water drainage therefrom have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	No dwelling shall be occupied until the parts of the service roads which provide access to it have been constructed, surfaced and drained in accordance with [the approved plans/details which have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority]. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no gates shall be erected [other than those expressly authorised by this permission/other than gates that are set back a minimum distance of 5 metres from the edge of the carriageway of the adjoining highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	No residential accommodation shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site and drained and surfaced in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing (see condition 5) for vehicles and bicycles to be parked, vehicles to be loaded and unloaded and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in a forward gear. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	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.
9	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	No development shall take place until a scheme of landscape implementation and maintenance for a minimum period of 5 years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved design and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
11	No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before any of the development hereby approved is occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
12	No development shall take place until details of the materials and finishes to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Derek Rowell

STRATEGIC DIRECTOR FOR

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & REGENERATION

1.	P/02738/06 TCP/15805/F	Carisbrooke	Conditional Permission
Page 3	land between and including, 69a and 87, Gunville Road, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO30 Demolition of dwelling (no. 87); outline for residential development (revised scheme)
2.	P/02376/06 TCP/17732/D (Joint)	Newport	Conditional Permission
Page 16	11 St. James Street, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO30 5BA Demolition of existing shops; construction of 2 storey block comprising 2 retail units, 1 house & 8 flats to include accommodation in roofspace; alterations to vehicular access
3.	P/02377/06 CAC/17732/C (Joint)	Newport	Conditional Permission
Page 22	11 St. James Street, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO30 5BA Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing shops in connection with construction of 2 storey block comprising 2 retail units, 1 house & 8 flats to include accommodation in roofspace; alterations to vehicular access
4.	P/01693/06 TCP/22670/E	Nettlestone & Seaview	Conditional Permission
Page 24	land adjacent, Westridge Leisure Centre, Brading Road, Ryde, PO33 Continued use of land for outdoor go-kart track and associated buildings
5.	P/02603/06 TCP/07673/E	Sandown	Conditional Permission
Page 40	Culver Lodge Hotel, Albert Road, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO368AW Demolition of hotel; outline for residential development (revised scheme)

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB COMMITTEE -

TUESDAY 23 JANUARY 2007

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES

WARNING

Background Papers

Additional Reports and Documentation