Reference Number: P/02481/03 - TCP/05746/N

Parish/Name: Ryde - Ward/Name: Ryde South East

Registration Date: 12/12/2003 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr J Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Wadham College

Outline for residential development (additional information regarding suitability of junction of Woodland View/Ashey Road to serve proposed development)

part OS parcels 1238, 0135 and 0952, land between Weeks Road and, Ashey Road, Ryde, PO33

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

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

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

1. Details of Application

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

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

1.2.1 Drainage

Foul Drainage

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.2.2 Surface Water Drainage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.2.3 Flood Risk Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.2.4 Site Investigation Report (Geology)

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

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

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

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

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

1.2.5 Ecological Report

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

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

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

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

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

1.2.6 Transport Report – Vehicular Access Considerations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Location and Site Characteristics

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Relevant History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Development Plan Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Planning authorities should ensure maintenance of supply of housing by

· Concentrating most additional housing development within urban areas.

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

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

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

· Managing the release of housing land.

· Reviewing existing allocations of housing land in plans.

· Criteria for allocation should be based on:

· Availability of previously developed sites.

· Location and accessibility

· Capacity of existing and potential infrastructure

· Ability to build communities

· Physical and environmental constraints on the development of land.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

· G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development

· G6 – Development in Areas Liable to Flooding

· G7 – Development on unstable land

· C8 – Nature Conservation as a material consideration

· C11 – Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation

· C12 – Development Affecting Trees and Woodland

· C13 – Hedgerow

· TR6 – Cycling and Walking

· TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

· TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines

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

· U11 – Infrastructure and Services Provision

· L10 – Open Space in Housing Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Ecology Officer comments as follows:

o Housing allocation negates any Nature Conservation interest.

o He recognizes the importance of the adjacent SINCs.

o Need to protect natural boundary features.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.2 External Consultees

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

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

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

5.3 Third Party Representation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Concern about possible obstruction for emergency vehicle access.

· Increased pressures on health and police services.

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

· Development may impact on existing geology damaging existing properties.

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

· Level of disturbance caused by construction traffic.

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

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

· The proposed ponds will attract insects and smells.

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

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

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

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

6. Evaluation

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

6.2 Foul Drainage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

o All the above would be subject of negotiations.

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

6.3 Surface Water Drainage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.4 Ecological Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.5 Drainage/Ecological Matters

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

6.6 Highway Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Merrie Gardens/Whitecross Lane junction - Lake

· Carter Avenue/Brooks Road junction – Shanklin

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

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

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

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

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

6.7 106 Agreement Issues

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

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

· Education

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

· Village Green Contribution

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

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

· Highway and Community contributions

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

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

6.9 Affordable Housing

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

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

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

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

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

· Other Issues

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

· Policy Position

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

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

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

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

6.10 Density/Access

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

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

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

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

6.11 Slope Stability and Geotechnics

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

6.12 Open Space

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

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

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

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

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

8. Recommendation

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

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

· An education contribution of £232,000.

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

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

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

Conditions/Reasons:

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

02 & 02A

Reference Number: P/01728/05 - TCP/27277/A and

P/01729/05 - CAC/27277

Parish/Name: Ryde - Ward/Name: Ryde North East

Registration Date: 05/09/2005 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Hayley Ellison on Bennett urban planning for Mr P Salmon, Development Team Manager Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Isle of Wight Council

Demolition of buildings in connection with the development of a new transport interchange including associated canopies, ancillary facilities, a restaurant and railway footbridge

Transport Interchange, Esplanade, Ryde, PO33

Plus Conservation Area Consent for demolition of buildings in connection with the development of a new transport interchange and associated canopies, ancillary facilities, a restaurant and railway footbridge

Transport Interchange, Esplanade, Ryde, PO33

These applications are recommended for Conditional Permission and Conservation Area Consent

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a major application of significant Islandwide importance.

This report to the Development Control Sub-Committee has been prepared by consultants from bennett urban planning, which is the specialist planning and urban design division of tp bennett. The Council engaged bennett urban planning, following a competitive tender process, to provide independent planning and urban design advice in respect of the planning and conservation area applications submitted for the proposed Ryde public transport interchange.

1. Details of the Application

1.1 The proposals seek permission for the erection of buildings and facilities to provide a new full transport interchange at Ryde. The proposed facilities include provision of separate zones for bus, taxi and car set down/pick up. The proposed interchange buildings would provide a waiting area with views between the railway platform entrance, bus stops, ticketing facilities and pier entrance. The proposed scheme also includes provision of canopies over the pavement to provide shelter and incorporates a café, a newsagent and toilet facilities. Tourist Information is also proposed within the interchange building.

1.2 The existing pedestrian bridge over the railway line would be removed and replaced with a new bridge that would be fully accessible. The pedestrian bridge would link the interchange with the Hoverspeed terminal, the coastal path and the adjacent leisure facilities and car park.

1.3 The scheme includes proposals for a restaurant at first floor level on the northern side of the railway platforms, adjacent to the Hoverspeed terminal. While this aspect of the scheme is not included in the funding budget at this stage, the restaurant use is proposed as part of this planning application.

1.4 While the application drawings illustrate alterations to the road layout, the works to the highway do not form part of the planning application. In this regard, all the road works connected with the interchange proposals fall under general highways improvements and can be undertaken without the need for planning permission in accordance with the Highways Act 1980.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 The site is situated to the north of Ryde town centre, immediately adjacent to the Esplanade. The site is located on reclaimed ground where the 19^th Century grade II listed Pier meets the Esplanade. To the west the site is bound by Western Gardens and Ryde West Sands and to the east by Dover Street roundabout. To the north-east, there is a substantial area of reclaimed land which accommodates the 1980s leisure complex and Hovercraft terminal. The site overlooks the Solent and provides a ‘gateway’ for people arriving on the Isle of Wight at Ryde.

2.2 The nature of the topography means that the immediate environment is dominated by the town rising behind the Esplanade. The surrounding townscape varies in scale, prominence and quality, including the fine Prince Consort building and a number of elegant Regency residential villas. While there are a number of attractive buildings along the Esplanade, the existing rail, ferry and bus facilities have limited architectural merit or amenity value.

2.3 The application site is approximately 183 metres in length by 47 metres at its widest point and broadly curves alongside the railway lines to the north-east (as shown on the Site Location Plan ref: A-101 rev A). The site area is approximately 0.33 hectare.

2.4 The site is situated within the Ryde Esplanade and Pier (Seafront) Townscape Character Area within the Ryde Conservation Area and is opposite the listed buildings along the Esplanade. The Grade II Listed pier extends northward of the site. The foreshore and beach are designated as Ryde Sands and Wootton Creek Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and several parts of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) border the seafront.

3. Relevant History

3.1 The existing buildings which provide transport interchange facilities were established following the nationalisation of the railways in 1948. Works were undertaken so that the area previously occupied by the pavilion gates to the pier was filled in and converted for station use. As a result, an extensive flat, asphalt roof was constructed. It is considered likely that following the closure of the tramway in 1969, the original canopy on the northern platform was removed and the down platform and line were taken out of service. The introduction of bus facilities in the 1970s resulted in the demolition of the original parcel office and the Victorian frontage. The existing buildings are the result of a century of alterations, expansion and development.

3.2 There is no relevant planning history relating to this site.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 The following policy documents are considered relevant in determination of the planning application: -

· Unitary Development Plan (Adopted May 2001)

· Ryde Public Realm Strategy (December 2004)

· Ryde Transport Strategy – Baseline Report (February 2003)

· Local Transport Plan, 2001 – 2006

· Provisional Local Transport Plan, 2006 – 2011

4.2 The Esplanade Interchange is identified in the Ryde Transport Strategy as having a poor visual appearance, which gives an adverse perception of the services on offer and do not form an attractive ‘gateway’ to Ryde for tourists and visitors. The Strategy also cites vehicular traffic dominance of the main pedestrian route between the interchange and the town centre as a problem with the current arrangements. Within the Isle of Wight Provisional Local Transport Plan (2006 – 2011) a proposed new interchange at Ryde is cited as an infrastructure improvement which will contribute to the regeneration of Ryde.

4.3 Relevant strategic planning policies within the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) include: -

· S5 – Proposals for development which on balance (bearing in mind all the Part II policies), will be for the overall benefit of the Island, by enhancing the economic, social or environmental position will be approved, provided any adverse impacts can be ameliorated.

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

· S10 – In areas of designated or defined scientific, nature conservation, archaeological, historic or landscape value, development will be permitted only if it will conserve or enhance the features of special character of these areas.

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

4.4 Other local planning policies considered relevant to the consideration of this proposal include: -

· G4 – General locational criteria for development

· G6 – Development in areas liable to flooding

· D1 – Standards of design

· D2 – Standards for development within the site

· D3 – Landscaping

· D10 – Street furniture

· D11 – Crime and design

· D12 – Access for people with disabilities to buildings open to the public

· D13 – Energy conservation

· D14 – Light spillage

· B2 – Setting of listed buildings

· B6 – Protection and enhancement of conservation areas

· B7 – Demolition of non-listed buildings in conservation areas

· T7 – Sites suitable for tourism related development

· C12 – Development affecting trees and woodlands

· TR1 – Integrated transport network

· TR6 – Cycling and walking

· TR7 – Highways considerations for new development

· TR8 – The environmental impact of new infrastructure schemes

· TR9 – To encourage the provision of improve transport facilities

· TR10 – Cross-Solent ferry links

· U3 – Appropriate location of facilities and the promotion of sharing and dual use

· U4 – To provide additional capacity for the needs of the tourist population

4.5 The draft Ryde Public Realm Strategy provides a framework for the town as a whole, including the distinct urban quarters within the town centre and the Esplanade. The Strategy identifies that the Esplanade does not relate well to Ryde town centre, principally in terms of access and connections to and from the Ryde Interchange. Additional east-west access along the Esplanade is not direct and is impeded by the disjointed nature of the waterfront route. The Public Realm Strategy provides detailed design considerations which should be considered in assessing this planning application.

5. Consultation and Third Party Comments

5.1 The proposals for redevelopment of the Ryde transport interchange facilities have been developed from a design competition over a period of approximately 12 months. The brief for that competition set out that the key aim of the design was to:

“create an attractive but functional transport facility to promote public transport use, as part of the Local Transport Plan objectives of traffic reduction and increased use of sustainable transport.”

5.2 During the development of the proposals the applicant has held two public exhibitions in Ryde (April and June 2005) and engaged stakeholders, including landowners, statutory bodies, local businesses and community groups, in pre-application consultation.

5.3 Those comments received in response to the Council’s statutory consultation regarding the planning application are summarised below.

5.4 Internal Consultees

· Conservation Officer – supports the principle of the development and considers that the proposed structures are stunning despite being in total contrast to the existing area. Some concern is raised with regard to the proposed lighting and it is suggested that contextual illustrations are provided. Concern is also raised with regard to the dominance of traffic adjacent to a number of listed buildings. Implementation of the proposed scheme is likely to be expensive and it is considered that high quality buildings are required to make the scheme successful.

· Tree Officer – two factors for consideration are the loss of trees and protection of trees during construction. The loss of a London plane tree and the tulip tree is regrettable and proposed new tree planting should provide appropriate species and sized trees to mitigate the loss of amenity. It is important that trees to be retained are correctly protected during the development, in accordance with BS standards. If replanting is carried out correctly, with species that would compensate the loss of those trees to be removed, and correct protection of the trees to be retained is used, then the trees would become an asset that would complement the development.

· Highways Officer – has suggested conditions to be attached to any planning permission granted.

5.5 External Consultees

· Andrew Turner (MP) has responded stating that while he accepts the need for a new building he is concerned that the design does not represent the Island’s (or Ryde’s) way of life and would be detrimental to the character of the Esplanade; causing light pollution, obscuring views of the sea fro George Street, and obstructing views of buildings in the conservation area from the sea. The MP notes in his response that the committee may take the view that the replacement of the existing tired and worn out building outweighs his objections. In addition to comments relating to the proposed design, Mr Turner has raised concern that the development may make it more difficult to cross from Union Street to the pier and reduce the area of recreation space in the Western Gardens. In this regard, a planning condition is suggested requiring replacement of recreation space elsewhere on the Esplanade – perhaps by reducing the dual carriageway and creating a pedestrian or grassed avenue in the freed space between the interchange and Pier Road.

· English Heritage (EH) has responded to confirm that, for the most part, they welcome the imaginative proposals that seek to address this key gateway to Ryde. This is supported by their view that it is appropriate for any replacement for the existing buildings to be of contemporary design and not a pastiche. Having said that, EH has raised concern with some aspects of the proposals. EH consider that the proposals and associated public realm in its current form retains mistakes of the past, creating an overly engineered barrier to pedestrian movement and active use as a public space. In detail, EH is concerned that the proposals should form part of an overall master plan for the Esplanade and surrounding area. While EH consider that the proposed building could sit within the seafront in a manner that generally enhances the surroundings, concern is raised with regard to the height of the building and its impact on the layers of rising townscape. EH has raised concern that the eastern most part of the building should terminate more firmly, possibly in a rotunda/pavilion form. Also that the canopy on the island between the main building and the Esplanade does not relate to the new building or the Esplanade buildings resulting in the roof of the whole scheme reading as one larger mass, which they consider to be unacceptable. EH has also noted reservations with regard to the lighting scheme. In terms of the detail of the transport interchange, EH have suggested that slower traffic speed is required and less segregation between traffic and pedestrians, possibly a shared surface from Union Street to the George Street junction from the Esplanade across to the main concourse building. Other comments are made in relation to the highways works, which do not form part of this planning application. In conclusion, EH, welcome the proposals in principle, but are concerned that they do not provide substantial changes for the better if based on a new building.

· The South East Regional Design Panel (SERDP) met to consider the proposals at a pre-application stage and to review the design process. The overall view of the Panel was support for to the proposals, which they considered would enhance the Island’s image. The Panel supported the process, which included a design competition, and considered that the result of the competition had the potential to provide a practical, attractive building which should complement the historic seafront. The Panel agreed that the proposed building would stand out due to its form and materials, but, as a public building at an important interchange, it is correct that it does. Having said that, the Panel also commented that its relatively flat form is respectful of the layers of buildings that lie in its background when seen from the pier. The Panel raised some concern about the impact of the proposed roundabout at the end of Union Street on both visual and physical linkages and that the improvements to the public realm would halt abruptly at the site boundaries.

· Network Rail (which owns the existing rail station building) fully support the application which they consider will provide a striking interchange which would set high standards for future interchange proposals throughout the country. Network Rail considers that the proposal would fulfill the functions of an interchange, both in terms of providing modern facilities for passengers but also as an iconic gateway location.

· The Environment Agency (EA) initially raised objections to the proposals; however, following discussions regarding the details submitted with the application the Agency have withdrawn their objection and has confirmed in writing that they have no objection in principle to the proposal. The Agency has suggested conditions relating to the method of piling and a pollution prevention method statement be attached to any planning permission granted.

· English Nature (EN) consider that the scheme is unlikely to have a significant impact on the interest features of the SPA/Ramsar site and therefore does not require appropriate assessment in accordance with Regulation 48 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994. In addition, English Nature do not consider that the wider conservation interests of the SSSI would be affected, and therefore, they have no objection to the proposals. English Nature are seeking that a condition relating to the detailed lighting scheme be required if permission is granted.

· CABE – no comment.

· Ryde Development Trust supports the scheme and consider that it is in accordance with policies T7, TR1, TR9 and TR10 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Ryde Public Realm Strategy. The Trust supports the consultation work undertaken in establishing the proposals. The Trust considers that the proposals would provide a quality facility which would enable travellers to and from the Island to move between modes of transport with ease, creating new facilities for pedestrian and cyclists, and ensuring people with mobility problems can gain access to all of the facilities within the proposed landmark building, which would upgrade this area of Ryde seafront.

· WightTrack (rail users group) support the redevelopment, which they consider would transform the currently shambolic, uninviting site into a modern ‘gateway’ facility that the Island needs.

· Island Watch object to the design of the proposed development stating that, while they do not want a Victorian pastiche, they want good quality design which respects the surrounding area and will not look dated in a few years.

· Stagecoach (Island Line) supports the proposals and considers that the current buildings are inadequate for the number of people using them. Stagecoach considers that the proposed scheme would benefit Islanders and visitors alike.

· Quality Transport Partnership supports the proposals, which they consider will encompass and enhance public transport facilities. They consider that the design of the building promotes transport integration by providing ease of transfer between modes, increasing facilities for pedestrian, cyclists and ensuring access for people with mobility difficulties.

· Isle of Wight Community Rail Partnership support the application which they consider will assist economic growth through improvements to sustainable tourism.

· The Royal Navy have confirmed that the proposed scheme does not affect navigational safety and they have no objection to the proposals.

· IW Bus Users Group supports the application and consultation process.

· Wight Link have responded with comments relating to land ownership and highways works which are not related to the planning. Wightlink note that a new switch room for power supply would be required.

· Hovertravel initially raised concerns regarding the position of the proposed ramp on the northern side of the railway tracks, which they considered may impede access to their land and the hovercraft operating area. Following correspondence between the applicant and Hovertravel, it has been agreed that there is sufficient space to alter the ramp alignment, if necessary, to ensure there is adequate space to maintain operations as existing.

· Isle of Wight Police have no objection to the proposals, but would like a condition on any permission to ensure that the site is secure during demolition and construction.

5.6 Third Party Representations. A total of 55 third party responses have been received in response to the Council’s public consultation of this application. 38 responses raise objection to the proposed scheme and 17 letters have been received in support. The comment are separated into objections and support and summarised below.

5.7 Comments in objections to the scheme: -

· The proposed development would spoil the unique Victorian town and the skyline of Ryde as you cross the Solent would be ruined.

· The architecture of Ryde is dominated by straight lines, boldness and squareness. The interchange buildings proposed, particularly the rooflines, clash in concept with the existing facades along the Esplanade and up the principal streets.

· The scheme is architecturally inappropriate for this sensitive area.

· The covered area will create untamed air currents and it should be tested in a wind tunnel to prove its strength in high winds.

· The proposals do not mention a taxi rank or any pick up/drop off zones and pedestrians arriving by coach will have to walk approximately 150m with limited protection.

· The idea of a future restaurant is commendable, but the noise from the hovercraft would not make it a place for relaxing, meeting friends or eating.

· The proposed building is out of character/not in keeping with the Conservation Area.

· A precedent will be set to allow developers to knock down buildings and replace them with trendy glass structures. An interchange is required, but not in this building.

· Object to the demolition and removal of the café and toilets at Western Gardens.

· The indication of a future phase on the north-east side of the station would leave the development unresolved and unfinished until implemented.

· Is the Civic space needed?

· The assessment of pedestrian flows does not take into account movement along the seafront.

· Bus traffic would use a controlled junction, which is not as good as the present slip road entry.

· Ramp is too steep and results in the loss of motorcycle parking spaces.

· The scheme is bigger and more complicated than it needs to be.

· A retro Victorian look would be far more appealing.

· The scheme will look out of date before it is finished.

· The new interchange would be so brightly illuminated it would cause light pollution.

· A two-storey building will destroy the view from the various hotels, shops and cafes.

· Existing buildings should be preserved as they are part of the history of Ryde.

· More serious consideration should be given to alternatives which retain and refurbish as much as possible of the existing architectural fabric.

· An SEA has not been submitted with the application in accordance with EU Directive 2001/42/EC.

· The present café overlooks the Solent and the proposed café would be on a traffic island – unacceptable.

· The new building would rise over the first and in some case second floor of the shops on the Esplanade.

· The design statement makes unqualified assertions about future economic well-being in the area.

· The proposals do not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area in accordance with PPG15.

· The Pier and the wider historic landscape and its views from the streets as well as the sea must be unobscured.

· Improvements to the seafront should blend in with the existing style and materials.

· New taxi rank would be situated immediately below people’s dwellings.

· The height of the building would obliterate views across the Solent.

· The application documentation is flawed and inaccurate and does not provide sufficiently comprehensive material. Objection is raised to the terminology used in the applicant’s design statement.

· The proposed scheme does not increase the amount of integration and the canopies are high so are not likely to protect people from wind and rain.

· The area provides for bus to be parked so act as a bus garage rather than a station and the current facilities could accommodate the number of passengers if there weren’t so many buses parked.

· The application does not address changes to noise levels – the building would be closer to closer to existing buildings. An environmental assessment should have been undertaken.

· There is no health and safety assessment of the proposal – close quarters of cyclists, buses and taxis should be examined in terms of safety.

· Loss of views of the sea will impact on tourist enjoyment of the seafront.

· The enclosed concourse will be a magnet for groups of rowdy youths – all fixtures and fittings would need to be vandal proof.

· There seems to be no allocated seats by each bus stop and queues will impede pedestrian movement.

· The office of the bus facilitator is too far away from the buses, which will cause delays. The layout is confusing for pedestrians and the pedestrian crossing will delay bus movement.

· There is no provision for coach loading or unloading adjacent to the station and pier.

· The space for 4 spare buses is poorly planned and is unsafe and the layout of the taxi ranks is confusing for passengers.

· There is no direct route for pedestrians along the Esplanade without going via the concourse.

· The Health and Safety Executive will probably enforce the provision of railings all around the central island making it look like a cattle pen. Bus movement needs to be kept separate from pedestrian movement.

5.8 Comments in support of the scheme: -

· The proposed development of a new contemporary and innovative interchange at Ryde is long overdue.

· The building concept is exciting and the use of elegant steel detailing, glass and vaulted roofs are a 21^st Century version of Victorian railway stations.

· Improvements are required and removal of the toilet block is beneficial

· Bicycle parking and the bike shop provide good green transport.

· The proposed scheme is an elegant solution which links Victorian engineering with Regency elegance.

· A brilliant design, which is aesthetically pleasing and in harmony with the existing traditional seafront buildings.

· Innovative design which also responds to the wider public realm and could become a catalyst for further urban regeneration.

· Welcome improvement to the existing dilapidated interchange.

· There is ample space to view the Solent.

5.9 Third party responses are largely dominated by comments relating to the design of the proposed development. In this regard, 30 of the letters objecting to the scheme raised concerns in relation to the design and all 17 letters in support of the scheme comment on the design. Objections to the design of the proposed scheme relate to concerns that the design is inappropriate in the conservation area and in a Victorian seaside town. In addition, objections are made regarding the height of the building and the impact of the proposals on views of the Solent. In support of the scheme, comments in relation to the design are positive and include the need for an innovative building to replace the dilapidated interchange. In contrast to the objections comments received in support consider that the proposed contemporary building is a significant improvement and appropriate in relation to the surrounding buildings.

5.10 Whilst some comments have been made in response to the proposed alterations to the highway, these have not been reported to Members as the alterations to the highway do not form part of the planning application and, therefore, are not for the Planning Committee to determine.

5.11 In addition to the comments received by the Council, Members may be aware that a web site has been set up, which objects to the proposals.

6. Evaluation

Transport Interchange and Associated Facilities

6.1 The purpose of the proposed scheme is the development of an integrated transport facility at Ryde, which provides a functional and attractive environment and promotes the use of public transport. This is identified as the key aim of the design brief and is supported by strategic transport policy.

6.2 While the existing facilities at Ryde provide means of moving between different modes of public transport, the facilities are in need of improvement. Along with poor facilities, the existing layout of the transport interchange results in a number of problems that give rise to a poor pedestrian environment. In this regard, buses currently have to reverse out of their bays, which requires a large turning area; most buses travel up George Street after leaving the Interchange, which requires driving along the Esplanade and U-turning at the Dover Street roundabout; taxis are situated immediately outside the Interchange together with the access/egress to the Pier and bus station, which limits traffic movement; and a total of five lanes have to be crossed when walking between the Interchange and Union Street.

6.3 The proposed new layout allows alterations to simplify the traffic arrangements and provides improved facilities within the Interchange area. The details of the Interchange facility are as follows: -

· Bus Interchange: the layout of the bus bays removes the need for buses to reverse out of bays and reduces the width of the road within the forecourt area, resulting in a significant improvement to pedestrian safety. All of the bays are designed to ensure that buses can pull out independently. The proposed scheme includes a minimum footway of 4m alongside the bus bays allowing sufficient space for pedestrian movement.

· Taxi Rank: a rank with capacity for 4 taxis is proposed at the south-west end of the concourse within the interchange, which would provide convenient pick-up and drop-off facilities for people travelling by taxi. As part of the highways works, it is proposed to provide a secondary taxi rank on the opposite of the Esplanade. Although an objection has been received in relation to the position of the secondary taxi rank, this work is outside of that which is the subject of this planning application.

· Car/Taxi Set Down: on the north-west side of the interchange concourse five bays would be provided off the Pier access road for car and taxi set down, and car pick up.

· Cycle facilities: cycle stands are proposed at the end of the Pier access road and at the south-eastern end of the interchange within covered facilities. In addition, a bike shop is proposed adjacent to the Sheffield stands at the south-eastern end of the site providing a local service and natural surveillance for parked bicycles.

· Pedestrian facilities: the proposed alterations to the public highway would improve the traffic arrangements and simplify pedestrian movements creating a zebra crossing at the western end of the interchange providing a direct pedestrian route between the interchange and Union Street. The new signalised junction at George Street would incorporate pedestrian facilities so that each arm of the junction can be safely crossed. Within the Interchange wide pavements are provided and the openness and transparency of the interchange building would significantly improve the pedestrian environment.

· Deliveries and Servicing: the Interchange facilities would be serviced from the bus apron outside peak operating hours. Small vehicles could also deliver to the site from the taxi/car drop off area adjacent to the Pier access road.

6.4 Along with improvements to transport operations, the proposals include a number of facilities which provide additional services to people using the transport interchange at Ryde. In this regard, the proposed concourse pavilion houses facilities for the transport operators, along with public toilets, a new ticket office adjacent to a tourist information centre and left luggage facilities. The internal concourse would contain a newsagent and a coffee shop, which would spill outdoors while remaining under the cover of the main canopy. While Andrew Turner (MP) has raised an objection to the loss of recreation space in Western Gardens, the proposed scheme includes re-provision of public space adjacent to the café facilities within the interchange. The replacement of the existing café and public toilet block is considered a significant benefit of the proposed scheme. The provision of facilities for passengers beyond transport services is considered particularly appropriate in an area, which is essentially the gateway to Ryde. In this regard, it is considered that the proposals are in accordance with policies T7 and TR10 of the UDP.

6.5 Along with the interchange and associated facilities, the application proposals include a restaurant and civic space at first floor level. This level would be linked by a new footbridge over the railway line, which would be accessible by a lift and stair on the south side and a lift, ramp and stair on the north side. Although the public consultation has raised queries with regard to the need for the proposed civic space and the appropriateness of a restaurant adjacent to the Hovercraft terminal, the applicant has indicated that, during pre- application consultation, the need for exhibition/gallery space was identified. The flexibility of the proposed civic space is likely to provide beneficial facilities for both the community and tourists to Ryde and, in this regard, the proposals are considered to be in accordance with policies U3 and U4 of the UDP.

6.6 The proposed restaurant use forms part of the planning application, but the applicant has specified that the funding sought for the interchange would not ensure implementation of this aspect of the scheme and further funding would be required. The principle of a restaurant use on this site is considered appropriate as it would increase the vitality of the area, particularly in the evening. However, further details, including the servicing arrangements, would be required to ensure that the operation of a restaurant would be acceptable. It is considered that these details could be required by planning conditions.

Architecture/Design

6.7 In addition to improving the operational arrangements at the Ryde interchange, the proposed scheme seeks to improve the architectural quality of the buildings associated with the interchange. The design statement submitted with the planning application explains that the scheme was developed as several elements of accommodation rather than placing all the proposed facilities under one roof. In this regard, the design breaks up the scale of the development with each building and structure representing a different function and scale of importance. While English Heritage has raised concern that the proposed scheme would read as one large mass, it is considered that the variation in scale provided by the main building and associated canopies is appropriate in terms of distinct operational functions and provides an acceptable relationship to the Esplanade buildings.

6.8 The design concept takes influence from the adjoining seascape, with elements reflecting waves and sand ripples. The massing of the proposed buildings has been carefully considered to ensure that the highest point of the new interchange buildings would remain below the top of the Esplanade buildings and would not impinge much more on views of the Esplanade buildings than the existing interchange buildings. The actual footprint of the proposed new buildings/structures would be approximately the same as the existing interchange buildings. However, as a result of consultation during the design process, the design includes provision of additional canopies to provide shelter while waiting for buses, taxis, pick-up and cycle stands along with the café, newsagent and toilet facilities.

6.9 In order to maintain views of the Esplanade frontage and the Solent the height of the buildings generally remains low, with the proposed two-storey accommodation situated close to the railway where the building rises to clear the railway tracks. In this regard, the increase in height would be a maximum of 4 metres above the existing buildings; however, the height varies over the length of the building. The photomontages submitted with the application documentation illustrate that, while the height of the interchange buildings are greater than the existing buildings, a view of the Esplanade is retained and having regard to the wider context it is evident that the proposed buildings would have limited effect on the views of Ryde town centre. It should be noted that the South East Regional Design Panel (SERDP) considered the overall height and massing of the interchange proposals appropriate. The Panel considered that, when viewing the interchange from the town, it would stand on its own against the water and sky. From the north, for people arriving from the ferry, it would be seen against the backdrop of the town and this prospect of Ryde is strong enough to include a distinctive contemporary intervention. In contrast, English Heritage have raised concern regarding the impact of the height of the buildings on the rising townscape. It is considered that the proposals provide an opportunity to create a facility which is beneficial to Ryde beyond the proposed transport facilities and that while the view would alter the overall impact on the view in terms of the wider townscape is acceptable.

6.10 In terms of the details of the design, the concourse pavilion would be an elegant structure with simple proportions of curved glazing, free-standing columns, and a seam metal patinated roof. It is proposed that the details of the materials be conditioned for approval by the Local Planning Authority, but the proposal to use copper for the roof, timber, steel and glass in the buildings, and natural stone in the public realm are considered appropriate in this environment and in accordance with the Ryde Public Realm Strategy. The proposal to use steel is consistent with Victorian structural aesthetic of the pier and station, and stainless steel furniture has been used elsewhere in Ryde. The use of glass in the concourse provides protection from the elements while maintaining transparency and sightlines through the interchange, which is beneficial in terms of pedestrian movement and views. The proposed copper alloy roof is unlike conventional copper and would not oxidise to green, but it would retain the soft golden colour complementing the stonework and roofscape of the town.

6.11 Having regard to the overall design of the proposed interchange buildings and the details of the materials proposed, it is considered that the proposed scheme would result in a high quality architectural solution, which would be sympathetic to the scale of the surrounding area yet providing distinctive and attractive buildings. While there has been objection raised to the nature of the design and its relationship to the historic townscape, other responses have been received in support of the contemporary design. Furthermore both English Heritage and SERDP have confirmed that they consider the principle of a contemporary design acceptable. It is considered that the scheme would be in accordance with strategic policy S6, the relevant criteria of policy G4 and the design policies D1 and D2 of the UDP.

6.12 As part of the design consideration, functional lighting is proposed in the form of integrated high intensity low voltage white light downlighters recessed within the roof illuminating areas of the internal and external concourse. Within the recess lighting direction can be controlled. The proposed scheme includes provision for feature lighting into the roof, canopy soffit, and within the public realm features such as the benches. A number of objections have been raised in relation to the proposed lighting and the potential pollution created by high levels of glare and light-spill. As lighting is important to the safety and security in an area that could be prone to anti-social behaviour, it is suggested that the details of the lighting, including the position of lights and lux levels, be required by condition to ensure the criteria set out in policy D14 of the UDP are addressed.

6.13 The proposed scheme includes provision for hard landscape treatment, including paving, benches and means of enclosure, and soft landscape treatment in the form of trees, shrubs, and flower beds/borders providing an enhanced pedestrian environment in accordance with policy D10 of the UDP and the draft Ryde Public Realm Strategy.

Urban Design/Public Realm

6.14 The details of the proposed interchange facilities have been considered by an urban design specialist at bennett urban planning having regard to the Council’s UDP policies relating to design and the draft Ryde Public Realm Strategy.

6.15 The proposed interchange is considered to significantly enhance the area by combining high quality urban design and attractive contemporary architectural approach to act as a landmark scheme in an important gateway location. The proposed scheme respects the surrounding context and scale of local buildings and provides a sense of place and distinctiveness which is currently lacking.

6.16 It is considered that the proposals would enhance the vitality of the surrounding public realm, and provide an attractive environment while ensuring that there is safe and adequate public pedestrian activity with appropriate materials and landscaping for the locality, in accordance the draft Ryde Public Ream Strategy. The location of the proposed café, spilling out into the public realm, is a welcome addition that will generate activity and therefore assist in the natural surveillance of the area, as is the use of glass within sections of the building to enable pedestrian routes to be clearly visible from the proposed development. In this regard, it is considered that the proposals are in accordance with policies D3, D11 and D12 of the UDP.

6.17 Crucially, the scheme provides considerably improved pedestrian access east-west along the Esplanade and north-south between the existing urban fabric of the town centre and the interchange and waterfront, with the introduction of pedestrian priority crossings and a reduction in road width where possible. The scheme therefore greatly reduces the disjoined nature of current pedestrian movement and the lack of legibility and pedestrian priority by connecting the interchange with the town centre and providing a more legible, permeable and safer environment. Contrary to comments submitted by English Heritage, it is considered that the scheme clearly supports an improved and appropriate balance between pedestrians and vehicles which is crucial to its future success. In this regard, it is considered to address the integration and safety requirements of policies TR1, TR6, TR7 and TR9 of the UDP.

6.18 Overall, having assessed the scheme in light of UDP design policies and the draft Ryde Public Realm Strategy, it is considered that the layout and facilities within the proposed interchange would provide an attractive and improved environment for pedestrians and that the scheme is in general accordance with the principles established by the draft strategy.

6.19 While English Heritage have raised some concerns that the scheme should be part of a wider master plan for the Esplanade, pier, pier head and western gardens, Union Street spine and the bottom of St Thomas’ Street and SERDP have raised concerns about the public realm improvements coming to an abrupt halt at the site boundaries, Members must consider the application that they have before them and its associated site boundary. Given that the proposals are considered to be in accordance with the draft Ryde Public Realm Strategy, which would provide the context for any future public realm works in the areas mentioned by English Heritage, it is considered that these proposals would not prejudice any future public realm works in Ryde. In fact, the benefits of the proposed scheme in terms of the public realm improvements may act as a catalyst for future improvements in accordance with the Council’s strategy.

Conservation Area/Setting of Listed Buildings

6.20 The site lies within the Ryde Conservation Area and the adjacent pier is a grade II listed structure. An application for conservation area consent for the demolition of the existing buildings is considered elsewhere on the agenda (ref: TCP/27277).

6.21 The existing buildings have been significantly altered and are in a poor state of repair. In this regard, they are not considered to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area. In fact, the quality and external appearance of the station building and the toilet block to the west may be considered to have an overall negative impact on the character of the conservation area and the setting of the listed pier.

6.22 The details of the architecture and design are considered in paragraphs 6.7 to 6.13 above. While the proposed scheme would result in a contemporary building in dramatic contrast to the existing architecture in Ryde, it is considered that the scheme would provide a high quality buildings and facilities.

6.23 In the absence of a Conservation Area Statement, it is considered that the Ryde Conservation Area is characterised by the Georgian and Victorian buildings along the Esplanade and rising up the hill behind. Whilst the design of the interchange proposals are in contrast to the historic townscape, the design reflects architectural solutions of this era, as the Regency houses and villas reflect architectural movement of that time. The quality of the proposed building and structures is considered such that the scheme would provide a stunning ‘gateway’ to Ryde, which enhances the character and appearance of the area. In this regard, it is considered that the scheme is in accordance with policies B2 and B6 of the UDP. In this regard, the removal of the public toilet block will improve the setting of the listed pier. In response to consultation, objection has been raised to the removal of the existing toilet block. Given the quality of the building and that the facilities would be replaced within the concourse pavilion, it is considered that the removal of this building would be beneficial.

Transport/Highways

6.24 The overall transport interchange scheme involves alterations to the highway, which simplify the traffic arrangements and introduce a new roundabout at the bottom of Union Street, a zebra crossing over the Esplanade, and secondary taxi stand on the southern side of the Esplanade. While these works are all associated with the transport interchange facilities they are not the subject of this planning application and can be implemented without consent under the Highways Act 1980 (as set out in paragraph 1.4 above).

6.25 A number of objections have been raised to the highways arrangements, including the appropriateness of the proposed roundabout and the position of the secondary taxi rank. However, Members should be aware that a number of the alterations to the highway, including the roundabout, the zebra crossing, and the secondary taxi rank are outside the application site boundary (the red line) and the highways works within the site boundary can be undertaken without planning permission.

6.26 While the detailed layout of the highways works are not the subject of the planning application, the overall concept of improvements public transport facilities is supported by Council policy, including policies S11 and TR1 of the UDP. In this regard, the proposals seek to improve integration and efficiency of the modes of public transport at Ryde. Policy TR9 of the UDP sets out that new or upgraded transport interchange facilities will be acceptable in principle and the policy provides criteria against which specific proposals should be considered. The criteria includes provision of facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and people with mobility problems; provision for easy transfer between modes; that the scheme would not prejudice future improvements; and that the scheme would not result in undue environmental impact. It is considered that the proposed scheme is in accordance with policy TR9. The provision of enhanced cycle facilities, including covered, secure cycle parking and the bike shop is considered to be in accordance with policy TR6 of the UDP.

6.27 In terms of the highways alterations in relation to the interchange facilities, the proposals provide buses with direct access to George Street, removing the need to U-turn at the Dover Street roundabout. The proposed zebra crossing at the western end of the interchange enhances pedestrian facilities and matches the desire line between the interchange and Union Street. In order to accommodate buses, the road width at the crossing is approximately 11m. To aid pedestrians crossing and the help minimise delays to traffic an island is proposed separating the two lanes of traffic.

6.28 Within the interchange, the proposed highways work includes the use of materials to segregate vehicles and pedestrians. English Heritage has raised concern that the scheme is over-engineered and that there should be greater use of shared surfaces within the proposals. However, given the nature of the facilities, which includes movement of buses, taxis, private cars, bicycles and pedestrians, it is considered that the proposed scheme provides adequate safety without excessive use of guard rails. In this regard, the proposed scheme is considered to be in accordance with policy TR7 of the UDP and makes adequate provision for safety of all users.

6.29 The Council’s highways officers will be responsible for the implementation of the highways works and they have noted in their response to the planning application that all works relating to highways alterations in connection with the interchange project are to be approved by the Council as the highways authority. With regard to the planning application, a number of conditions have been suggested by the highways officers.

Environmental Issues

Trees

6.30 The proposed development would result in the removal of two trees. The western-most London plane tree in the line of plane trees adjacent to the rose gardens would be removed as a result of the proposed highways work. A tulip tree, currently situated immediately south of the existing toilet block, would be removed to facilitate the erection of the proposed concourse pavilion.

6.31 The Council’s arboriculture officer has assessed the quality of the trees to be removed. In both cases the trees are considered to offer significant amenity value. In order to compensate for the loss of these trees the application includes provision for significant replanting, but is not specific as to species and size of trees intended. It is considered that the choice of species should be such that they would mitigate the loss of the London plane and tulip trees. In this regard, a condition is proposed which seeks details of the proposed new landscaping to the approved by the Local Planning Authority.

6.32 Given the nature of the proposed development, which involves demolition of the existing buildings, it is considered appropriate to attach conditions to any planning permission granted requiring the details of methods to protect the existing trees during demolition and construction. The British Standard 5837 (2005) guidelines “Tress in Relation to Construction” provide advice to applicants regarding protection of trees during construction. These guidelines should be followed when submitting details in relation to relevant condition.

6.33 The Council’s arboriculture officer has confirmed that, provided replanting is carried out correctly with species that would compensate the loss of those trees to be removed and correct protection of the trees to be retained, the trees would provide a high level of amenity and complement the development. With the use of appropriate conditions, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with policies C12 and D3 of the UDP in relation to trees and landscaping.

Sustainability

6.34 The primary feature of the proposed interchange in relation to sustainability is the principle of encouraging the use of public transport. Local, regional and national planning policy seeks to encourage the development of effective, efficient and integrated transport network and, in the regard, the proposals to improve the quality of the transport interchange at Ryde is in accordance with these policies.

6.35 In addition to the public transport benefits, the proposed concourse pavilion would be natural ventilated with the inclusion of roof openings. It is proposed that 10% of the main concourse roof area would be glazed to provide natural light into the building. To reduce solar gain the roof glazing would be predominantly north-facing. These features are in accordance with policy D13 of the UDP.

6.36 The applicant identifies other potential sustainable design features, which have been considered and will be considered further during the detailed design process and construction of the proposed buildings. These include photovoltaic panels on the canopies, passive heating and cooling, and grey water systems. As these are not included in the details of this application they cannot be required by condition; however, it is recommended that an informative be included on any planning permission granted to encourage the inclusion of sustainable design features in the details of the development.

Flood Risk

6.37 Given the location of the proposed interchange buildings in relation to the coastline, the planning application documentation includes a flood risk assessment in accordance with national and local planning policy guidance. The proposed development would substantially replace existing buildings and structures at the same level above sea level. For this reason, it is considered that the flood risk does not alter as a result of the proposed development. In addition, the site area currently consists of hard-standing and, therefore, it is not anticipated that run-off would increase. Although the Environment Agency response to consultation initially raised concern given the potential for increased run-off, it is considered that the proposed scheme would not alter the existing situation. It is considered that the proposed development would not be contrary to policy G6 of the UDP.

Environmental Matters

6.38 During the consultation process a number of environmental matters were raised by objectors to the planning application. These included comments relating to micro climate and SEA (strategic environmental assessment). Members’ should note that the Council determined prior to the submission of the application that the proposed development does not constitute EIA (environmental impact assessment) development in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, and, therefore assessment of factors such as micro-climate has not been specifically considered. In addition, English Nature have responded to the Council’s consultation to confirm that they consider that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on the relevant features of the Ryde Sands to Wootton Creek SSSI or the Solent and Southampton Water SPA/Ramsar. For this reason, English Nature has confirmed that an assessment in accordance with Regulation 48 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c) Regulations 1994 is not required.

6.39 The SEA referred to in a consultation response relates to assessment of policy documents rather than planning applications, which are considered by the EIA 1999 Regulations.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 This application seeks planning permission for the erection of buildings and facilities to provide a new public transport interchange at Ryde. The proposals involve demolition of the existing buildings and provision of a main concourse building and associated canopies providing improved operations and facilities for users of the Ryde interchange.

7.2 The applications for planning permission and conservation area consent have been the subject of public consultation and the responses are detailed in Section 5 of this report. During consideration of the proposals the scheme has been considered having regard to the consultation responses and the Council’s planning policy framework.

7.3 The main objection to this application relates to the architectural approach to the proposed new building and structures and, in particular, their relationship to the historic context of Ryde Esplanade. While the majority of the objections raise concern with respect to the appropriateness of the proposals, it should be noted that supporters of the scheme welcome the contemporary design proposed. Having regard to the overall design of the interchange buildings and the details of the materials proposed, officers consider that the proposed scheme would result in a high quality architectural solution, which is sympathetic to the scale of the surrounding area yet provides distinctive and attractive buildings. Both English Heritage and SERDP have confirmed their support for the principle of a contemporary design. In this regard, it is recommended that the contemporary design approach be supported.

7.4 In terms of the detail of the proposals, it is considered that the uses proposed within the concourse building would not only provide operational benefits to the functioning of the interchange, but they would also improve the nature of the public realm. The existing buildings are of poor quality and the proposed scheme would provide new facilities, including a café and public toilets, which would enhance activity and natural surveillance in the area.

7.5 The scheme provides improved pedestrian access along the Esplanade and between the interchange/waterfront and the town centre, with the introduction of pedestrian priority crossings and reductions in the road width where possible. Along with the operational improvements, the proposed scheme improves legibility for pedestrians while providing a safe environment. The public realm improvements would provide an attractive environment, in accordance with the draft Ryde Public Realm Strategy.

7.6 Environmental issues relating to trees, sustainability and flood risk are all considered within this report. Although the scheme would result in the removal of two trees within the application site, the proposals include provision for additional landscape treatment and it is suggested that conditions be attached to any permission granted with regard to landscape details. While some consideration has been given to sustainable features within the proposed building, the detailed design process will determine whether further features can be accommodated. It is suggested that an informative be added to any planning permission regarding these issues.

7.7 In overall terms, the proposed scheme would provide significant benefits to Ryde in terms of improvements to public transport facilities and the public realm generally. The scheme would result in a contemporary, high quality architectural solution, which would create an attractive environment. Having considered the scheme in light of the national and local planning policy framework, it is considered that the proposed development is in general accordance with strategic and local planning policy and, therefore, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	The development shall not be carried out other than in strict accordance with the plans hereby approved without prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the buildings is satisfactory in compliance with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Full details, including samples of external finishes shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work on the site is commenced and the development shall be completed in accordance with the details thereby approved. Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the details of the proposal in compliance with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan
4	Full details of the lighting of all public areas, including details of the position and lux level of lights, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the use of the site commences. The approved lighting shall be installed and maintained thereafter. Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the details of the proposal in compliance with policy D14 (Light Spillage) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	A cleaning and maintenance strategy for the exterior of the building, including the canopies, the bus interchange area and associated facilities to include the collection of litter and the cleaning of oil spills, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the use of the site is commenced. The approved strategy must be implemented and complied with for the duration of the use. Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the details of the proposal in compliance with policy TR1 (Integrated Transport Network) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Full details of the following shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work on the site is commenced: Art Wall Bench Seating and Street Furniture Bike Shop and Cycle Stands Signage/Shop front relating to the Café and Newsagent Uses Stairs, including the balustrading and materials Ramp, including the balustrading and materials Timber screen to the bin store CCTV The development shall be completed in accordance with the details thereby approved. Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the details of the proposal in compliance with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Full details of the proposed restaurant, including design and treatment of the elevation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing prior to the commencement of works related to the restaurant. The development shall be completed in accordance with the details thereby approved. Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the details of the proposal in compliance with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Prior to the implementation of the restaurant use hereby approved, details of servicing and refuse storage and collection relating to this use shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved servicing and refuse storage shall be implemented and maintained thereafter. Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the details of the proposal in compliance with policy R5 (Areas Outside Retail-Only Frontages) of the IW Unitary Development Plan
9	Prior to implementation of the restaurant use hereby approved details of the means of flue extraction relating to this use shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details and shall be implemented and maintained thereafter. Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the details of the proposal in compliance with policy R5 (Areas Outside Retail-Only Frontages) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	No development shall take place until full details of hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved landscape treatment shall be implemented and maintained thereafter. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	Notwithstanding condition 8 above, two heavy standard or semi mature trees to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority shall be planted in positions agreed with the Local Planning Authority. If either tree dies or becomes diseased within five years of planting they shall be replaced with a similar species and size of tree as originally planted in accordance with a scheme to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	Full details of the methods to protect existing trees during construction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any work, including demolition. The development shall be completed in accordance with the details thereby approved. Reason: To ensure that the amenity value of existing trees is not lost during construction and to comply with policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13	No development hereby approved shall be commenced until the method of piling has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with the details thereby approved. Reason: The piling method used should either by vibro or hydraulic piling, not percussive piling. This is to ensure the protection of the migratory passage of the Atlantic salmon and resident fish populations in compliance with policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
14	No development hereby approved shall be commenced until a detailed pollution prevention method statement for works that could impact on the inter-tidal area, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with the details thereby approved. Reason: To ensure that all reasonable measures have been followed to prevent pollution of the water environment. There is an increased risk of pollution if concrete is to be cast in situ in compliance with policy S15 (Important Natural Resources) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
15	Full details of the routing of all construction traffic shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of work on the site. The development shall be completed in accordance with the details thereby approved. Reason: In the interest of highways safety and to comply with policy T7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
16	Full details of the times and location of all deliveries, loading and unloading shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the use. The development shall comply with the details thereby approved. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of access and servicing for the proposed development and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
17	Full details including drainage and surfacing of the area for buses, taxis and cycles to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in a forward gear, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with approved details. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed development and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
18	Steps, including the installation and use of wheel cleaning facilities in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, shall be taken to prevent material being deposited on the highway as a result of any operation on the site. Any deposit of material from the site on the highway shall be removed as soon as practicable by the site operator. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to prevent mud and dust from getting on the highway and to comply with policies TR7 (Highway Considerations) and M2 (Defined Mineral Working) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
19	Development shall not begin until details of the design, surfacing and construction of any new roads, footways, accesses and car parking areas, together with details of the means of disposal of surface water drainage therefrom have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
20	No building shall be occupied until the means of access thereto for [pedestrians and/or cyclists] has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure adequate safe provision of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists wishing to gain access to the site and to comply with policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
21	Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, a scheme indicating the provision to be made for disabled people to gain access to (#) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The approved scheme shall be implemented before the development hereby permitted is brought into use. Reason: To ensure adequate access for disabled persons and to comply with policy D12 (Access for People with Disabilities) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Informatives:

1. This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may be required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and related legislation which must be complied with.

3. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you are advised to contact the Council’s Environmental Health Division.

4. You are advised that this permission does not authorise the display of advertisements at the premises and separate consent may be required from the Local Planning Authority under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992.

5. The applicant should consider the extent to which sustainable design features can be incorporated into the proposals during the detailed design process. Planning permission outside of this consent may be required for alterations as a result of the detailed design process.

6. The following policies from the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan were considered relevant in determining this application: S5, S6, S10, S11, G4, G6, D1, D2, D3, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14, B2, B6, B7, T7, C12, TR1, TR6, TR7, TR8, TR9, TR10, U3 and U4.

Conservation Area Consent – P/01729/05 – CAC/27277

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This application seeks permission for demolition of buildings within the Ryde Conservation Area to facilitate a planning application of significant importance.

1. Background

1.1 This application for Conservation Area Consent is submitted concurrently with the application for planning permission for the proposed Ryde Transport Interchange (ref: P/01728/05 – TCP). In order to facilitate the development proposed demolition of the existing buildings is required.

1.2 Details relating to the location, site characteristics, relevant history, and consultation responses are addressed elsewhere on the Committee agenda (application reference P/01728/05 – TCP). This report assesses the demolition proposals.

2. Details of the Application

2.1 In accordance with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 permission is sought for demolition of the existing transport interchange buildings (shown on drawings A-102 rev A) on the Ryde Esplanade which would facilitate the proposed new development.

2.2 The application is accompanied by a PPG15 assessment in relation to the demolition of buildings within a conservation area and the concurrent planning application provides details of the proposed replacement facilities.

3. Planning Policy Framework

3.1 Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 15 provides the Government’s guidance on planning and the historic environment. Sections 3 and 4 of PPG15 (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) are relevant to the proposals at Ryde Transport Interchange. In particular, paragraphs 3.16 – 3.19 provide guidance in relation to the demolition of a listed building or buildings within a conservation area. There is a general presumption in retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area.

3.2 Paragraph 3.19 of PPG15 sets out the criteria by which proposals for total or substantial demolition should be assessed:

“(i) the condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived from its continued use. …

(ii) the adequacy of efforts to retain the building in use.….

(iii) the merits of alternative proposals for the site. …”

3.3 Policy B7 in the UDP which relates to demolition of non-listed buildings in conservation areas is also relevant to the conservation area consent application.

4. Evaluation of the Application

4.1 The application for conservation area consent seeks permission for total demolition of the existing transport interchange buildings. In accordance with PPG15, the applicant has submitted an assessment of the existing buildings. While the existing interchange buildings date from the turn of the last century, as a result of works undertaken to the station buildings after nationalisation of the railways in 1948 the nature of the interchange was fundamental altered. The alterations included filling the area previously occupied by the pavilion gates to the pier and converting this for station use. As a consequence of the introduction of the bus facilities in the 1970s, the original parcels office was demolished.

4.2 The existing interchange buildings are the result of a century of change, expansion and development. The buildings vary in style and are largely of poor architectural quality. In this regard, it is considered that they do not make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Ryde Conservation Area.

4.3 Following privatisation and franchising of the Ryde to Shanklin branch of the railway line, the maintenance of the railway facilities are the responsibility of the franchisee even though Network Rail (previously Railtrack) retain ownership. The franchise has been awarded on a short-term basis – initially for five years (in 1996) and subsequently extended for shorter periods in 2001 and 2003. While the Train Operating Company is responsible for both running the train services and maintenance of the infrastructure and stations, the short term nature of the franchise has resulted in limited investment in structural remedial work beyond cosmetic maintenance. The overall result of this situation is that the station infrastructure has suffered from significant under-investment over many years.

4.4 Network Rail does not anticipate any works other than emergency maintenance on the Ryde facilities before 2019. Supporting scaffolding has been placed beneath part of the station to the north where it encroaches onto the pier and this area has recently declared structurally unsafe and has been condemned. Although the Train Operating Company has recently painted the exterior of the buildings, the general condition remains poor. In this regard, there is evidence of deterioration to bargeboards, cracking to masonry and in some areas complete exposure of structural reinforcement.

4.5 In terms of the PPG15 assessment criteria, the condition of the existing buildings is such that they have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. Given the minimal investment in the facilities over recent years it is considered that the cost of retaining the existing poor quality buildings would not be viable. It is considered therefore that an acceptable case has been made for demolition of the existing interchange buildings in accordance with criteria (i) and (ii) of paragraph 3.19 of the PPG15.

4.6 The applicant has submitted an application for planning permission for replacement buildings. The details of the proposed replacement buildings are considered in the report (ref: TCP/27277/A) elsewhere on the agenda. The proposed building and structures would provide a high quality replacement building, which would make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area. In this regard, it is considered that criterion (iii) and policy B7 of the UDP are met by the concurrent planning application.

4.7 The interchange facilities are used by a large number of people and continuity of facilities is necessary. For this reason, it is suggested that conservation area consent be granted subject to a condition which ensures that a contract for the proposed redevelopment is let prior to the demolition of the existing buildings. This would provide Members with the reassurance that the existing facilities could not be demolished prior to a contract for the construction of the new development is agreed.

5. Conclusions/Summary

5.1 The existing transport interchange facilities at Ryde are of poor architectural quality and have had limited investment in recent years resulting in poor structural integrity. The application for demolition of the existing buildings is accompanied by an assessment having regard to the criteria set out in PPG15. It is considered that the condition and quality of the buildings is such that the cost of refurbishing them to provide an appropriate facility within the conservation area would not be viable. An assessment of the proposed replacement building and structures is reported elsewhere on the agenda (P/01728/05 – TCP). The proposed new interchange would provide high quality facilities and would enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. In this regard, it is considered that the overall proposals are in accordance with national and local planning policy.

6. Recommendation

Conditional permission.

Conditions/Reasons for Conservation Area Consent – P/01729/05 – CAC/27277

No demolition shall be undertaken until a contract has been let for the construction of the replacement public transport interchange facilities.

Reason: To ensure that existing buildings within the conservation area are not demolished prior to confirmation that appropriate replacement buildings will be built in compliance with policy B7 (Demolition of Non-Listed Buildings in Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan

Full details of the hoardings to be erected around the development site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any work, including demolition.

Reason: To ensure site safety and security prior to the commencement of work in compliance with D11 (Crime and Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Full details of the methods to protect existing trees during construction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any work, including demolition. The development shall be completed in accordance with the details thereby approved.

Reason: To ensure that the amenity value of existing trees is not lost during construction and to comply with policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/01696/05 - TCP/19509/K

Parish/Name: Freshwater - Ward/Name: Freshwater Norton

Registration Date: 15/09/2005 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr A Pegram Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Planning UK Ltd

Demolition of holiday accommodation; construction of 33 replacement holiday chalets

Savoy Holiday Village, Halletts Shute, Norton, Yarmouth, PO410RJ

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This submission relates to a major development proposal involving the upgrading of an existing tourism accommodation site. The scheme raises issues of strategic significance to the implementation of the Island Tourism Plan. The proposal raises a number of issues which require careful consideration.

1. Details of Application

1.1 Application seeks full planning permission for demolition of 36 catered and self catering holiday chalets and construction of 33 replacement holiday chalets.

1.2 The proposal relates to two areas within this substantial holiday complex. The main element of the proposal involves the demolition of 26 single storey flat roofed chalets at the northern end of the site, most of which provide two bedroom accommodation, and their replacement with 30 two storey chalets. The chalets would be arranged predominantly in terraced blocks and would each provide accommodation comprising kitchen/diner, lounge and wc at ground floor level with two bedrooms and bathroom at first floor level. The second element of the proposal relates to demolition of single storey flat roofed accommodation blocks at southern end of site and their replacement with a two storey terrace of three holiday chalets, each providing accommodation comprising lounge, kitchen/diner and wc at ground floor level with three bedrooms, one with en-suite facilities, and bathroom at first floor level.

1.3 The replacement chalets would be clad with eternit weatherboarding under a concrete tile roof. All windows and doors would be timber.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 Application relates to substantial holiday accommodation site, having an area of approximately 6 hectares, located on north western side of Halletts Shute. North eastern corner of site abuts garden areas of residential properties on the Westhill estate (Linstone Drive and Braxton Meadow) and property fronting main road with number of dwellings to south of site. Boundaries of the site are defined for most part by natural growth and there are a number of trees throughout the site.

2.2 Accommodation within the site is provided for most part in single storey chalets. The chalets are constructed in a variety of materials, although the majority of the chalets are constructed in faced concrete blocks, with areas of timber cladding to elevations, under a flat roof. A number of later chalets are constructed in brick under pitched concrete tiled roofs. Site also includes a number of more substantial buildings providing single and two storey accommodation, including the office/reception block, facilities buildings and sports/leisure facilities.

3. Relevant History

3.1 The site has been the subject of numerous planning applications dating back to 1949. These have included proposals for facilities buildings and extensions thereto and addition of new chalets.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 Planning Policy Guidance note 21 – Tourism, addresses Government Policy in relation to land use planning for tourism. The PPG outlines the economic significance of tourism and its environmental impact.

4.2 Site is located outside of any development boundary as defined on the Unitary Development Plan and is designated as a permanent holiday accommodation site. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

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

· S4 – The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development

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

· G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

· G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development

· G5 – Development Outside Defined Settlements

· G10 – Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses

· D1 – Standards of Design

· D2 – Standards for Development Within the Site

· D3 - Landscaping

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

· T3 – Criteria for Development of Holiday Accommodation

· T6 – Permanent Accommodation Sites (other than hotels)

· C1 – Protection of Landscape Character

· TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

Highway Engineer

Highway Engineer has examined the proposal and does not consider there to be any highway conditions to be necessary for this phase of the holiday village re-development. However, in order to comply with the current Building Regulations, he advises that a temporary access would be required to enable emergency vehicles to access the chalets adjacent the northern boundary until a permanent access is constructed as part of the overall development.

Tree Officer

Council’s Tree Officer has inspected site and advises that there are two trees which could be affected by the proposed development, these being a Norway Maple and a Sycamore. Both trees are no more than 2 metres from the footprint of the build and would suffer from extensive root damage, putting their safety and longevity into question. He considers that both trees offer a certain degree of amenity to the surrounding area and contribute to its general character.

It is acknowledged that the existing trees are close to the existing buildings and in the case of the Norway Maple; it is considered that the tree should be removed. Work previously carried out to the sycamore has reduced its amenity value but not to the extent it should be condemned. The distance from the existing building and new building will not be significantly different although potential damage would occur from the change of the building type, particularly the more substantial foundations that would be required. The Tree Officer concludes that the options would be to refuse the application on the basis of the impact on the sycamore tree or to remove the tree and plant several replacement trees in a suitable location to compensate for the loss of amenity to the area.

5.2 External Consultees

Environment Agency

The Environment Agency advises that they have had reason to caution the previous owners of the site following an incident when sewage effluent overflowed from manholes and entered an adjacent water course causing pollution. It is understood that the likely cause of this was a blockage in the Savoy Holiday Village’s sewage system considerably restricting its capacity. The Executive Summary of this incident from the Environment Agency shows that action taken to resolve this problem included removing solid matter from the pipe and installing a seamless liner to prevent further escape of effluent through a crack in the pipe and to reduce the likelihood of further build up and subsequent blockages.

Southern Water

No comments received during the statutory consultation period and despite further request for comments, no response has been received at time of preparing this report.

5.3 Town and Parish Council Comments

Freshwater Parish Council commented that if proposal was purely for holiday accommodation, it would be in agreement with it, subject to a condition that the units are occupied by any person for no more than 6 weeks in any calendar year. However, the parish council object to the proposal on grounds that there is insufficient guarantee that the units will remain as holiday accommodation. They are aware that the applicants want flexibility, but without necessary infrastructure, feel the units should not be anything more that holiday units. The parish council sought more information on the intended use of the proposed chalets and time scales of usage.

5.4 Third Parties/Neighbours

The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England do not wish to challenge the principle of the development although concern is expressed about the possible abuse of holiday accommodation leading to permanent occupation and demand for increase in number of units for tourism accommodation. They consider that conditions should be imposed on any consent to ensure that units are not sold off on very long leases to a single occupant.

The application has attracted ten letters from local residents and the Westhill Residents Association expressing concern and/or objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

· Provision of two storey units would result in overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties

· Noise and disturbance arising from visitors staying at site

· Boundary fence with adjacent properties should be replaced

· Oppressive visual impact

· Two storey chalets not in keeping with surrounding area

· Chalets would permit increased occupancy and increased vehicle movements on Hallett Shute adding to hazards of highway users

· Surface water drains into watercourse adjacent northern boundary of site – extra waste will be discharged into watercourse

· Site has history of surface water drainage and sewage problems – proposal will exacerbate problems causing environmental and health and safety concerns

· Adverse impact on watercourse and stability of neighbouring properties

No objection is raised to upgrading of chalets and it is recognised that holiday village has been operating for many years making a valuable contribution to tourism economy of the Island.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main factors in determining this application are considered to be as follows:

· Whether proposal is acceptable in principle

· Impact of proposal on character of area

· Impact of proposal on amities of neighbouring properties

· Effect of proposal on level of occupancy within site and implications for traffic generation and adequacy of services

6.2 Whilst the site is located outside the development boundary as defined on the Unitary Development Plan, it is designated as a Permanent Accommodation Site and is cited in the plan as being amongst the largest chalet sites on the Island. In accordance with Policy TR6 of the UDP, development involving the upgrading or expansion of these sites will be approved, subject to proposals complying with the criteria set out in the policy, which relate to the effect of the proposal on the appearance of the site and the impact on the environment and amenities of the area.

6.3 The extent of this site is not apparent when viewed from the public highway (Halletts Shute) and the main element of the current proposal involves area of land well within the site, adjacent the northern boundary of the holiday village, although a small element of the scheme involves chalets on the southern side of the complex. The area adjacent the northern boundary is also, to a certain extent, visible from the adjacent Westhill estate, particularly in Linstone Drive.

6.4 The holiday chalets within this site have been developed over time and a number of them have already been replaced in recent years. Consequently, there is no uniform appearance to the chalets, although the majority of them are single storey and flat roofed. It is understood that the current owners of the holiday village intend to implement a programme of works to replace/upgrade further chalets and generally upgrade the facilities within the site with the current application forming the first phase of this operation.

6.5 A large number of the original chalets within this site are looking somewhat tired, despite repairs having been carried out to them over the years. In particular, several of the chalets, the subject of the current submission, have had new flat roofs constructed over the original roof deck, increasing the overall height of the structures. The replacement of the chalets on a phased approach will improve the overall appearance of the site. In addition, it should be noted that the site accommodates a mix of single and two storey buildings and your officers are satisfied that the proposal, and in particular the provision of two storey chalets, will not detract from the character of the area in general

6.6 The new chalets would, by reason of the provision of pitched roofs and first floor accommodation, be higher than the existing chalets. Therefore, they will have a greater impact on the adjacent properties in Linstone Drive. However, the design of the chalets incorporates an asymmetric roof, falling to an eaves level at the rear equivalent to that of a single storey building, lower than the roof height of the existing chalets. In this respect, the existing chalets vary in height between 2.8 m and 3.3 m whilst the new chalets would have an eaves height at the rear of 2.6 m. Furthermore, the chalets are shown on the revised plans to be a minimum distance of approximately eleven metres from the boundary with the adjacent properties. Consequently, whilst it is accepted that they will have a greater impact than the existing chalets when viewed from the neighbouring properties, your officers do not consider they will have an excessive or unacceptable impact.

6.7 The introduction of accommodation and windows at first floor level may give rise to a degree of overlooking of properties in Linstone Drive. However, it should be noted that these windows will serve bedroom accommodation and that the chalets would be located a minimum distance of approximately elevent= metres from the boundary of the site, with back to back distances between buildings of around 24 metres and more. In addition, screening is provided by dense natural growth running along the boundary of the site, although some of this is of limited height, and the applicant’s agent has indicated that his client intends to carry out further landscaping in this area. Having regard to these factors, your officers are of the opinion that the proposal would not give rise to an unacceptable level of overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties or, more importantly, that refusal of the application on these grounds would be justified.

6.8 The current proposal would result in a slight reduction in the number of chalets on the site and would certainly not give rise to a significant increase in occupancy. Therefore, it is not considered that proposal would generate a higher level of vehicle movements to and from the site or that the proposal has any significant implications regarding the use of the existing access to the site or highway safety generally. Similarly, whilst there has been some problems with drainage from the site, the proposal is not likely to have any implications in this respect. In any event, it is understood that the applicant’s future proposals for upgrading the site include improvement to the access onto Halletts Shute and to the infrastructure within the site, particularly the drainage system. It is understood that the latter is likely to include laying new pipes where necessary and the provision of attenuation systems to restrict flows to the mains drainage. Depending on the scale of the work involved, these matters may be the subject of further submissions to this authority. However, on the basis the current proposal will not result in significant increase in the level of occupancy within the site, it is not considered that it would be reasonable to require these works to be carried out as a condition of any planning permission in respect of the current proposal.

6.9 The provision of the replacement chalets at the southern end of the site will undoubtedly have an adverse impact on the two trees immediately adjacent the proposed site of the new chalets, leading to their loss. However, both trees are already in close proximity to the existing chalets and removal may not be considered unreasonable in any event. Furthermore, it is not considered that the loss of these trees alone would justify refusal of the application. Should members be minded to approve this application, your officers would recommend that the planning permission is subject to a condition requiring the planting of replacement trees, of an appropriate size and species, elsewhere within the site.

6.10 Conditions have previously been applied to planning approvals for holiday accommodation seeking to limit the period of occupation by any individual or group of people in an attempt to ensure that the accommodation is retained for holiday purposes only. However, this has been deemed by appeal inspectors to be inappropriate as this requirement would require intrusive checks, contrary to advice contained in Circular 11/95. Therefore it has become common practice to impose a condition which states that the accommodation shall be used as holiday accommodation only and not as a main or permanent residence. In addition, applicants are required to enter into a planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act which shall require a register of visitors to be maintained and made available for inspection on request by an officer of the Local Planning Authority. Your officers are satisfied that these measures are sufficient to ensure that the accommodation is retained for holiday purposes only.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Development

7.1 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, the proposed development, involving the upgrading of an existing tourism accommodation site, is acceptable in principal. Furthermore, your officers are satisfied that this proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the area in general or neighbouring residential occupiers. In particular, it is not considered that the proposed chalets will result in an unacceptable level of overlooking and loss of privacy to these properties. In considering this proposal and the potential impacts on the area and neighbouring properties, members should also give appropriate weight to the contribution this site makes to the tourism economy of the island.

8. Recommendation

This application is recommended for Conditional Permission.

That the applicant is advised of the need to comply with Building Regulations in respect of access to the chalets for emergency vehicles.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	The development hereby permitted shall not be initiated by the undertaking of a material operation as defined in Section 56 (4) (a)-(e) 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 land has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority and that the person submitting the same has been notified it is to the Local Planning Authority's approval. The said Planning Obligation shall require the owner of the property to keep a register of visitors staying within the holiday accommodation hereby approved, which shall be made available for inspection by any officer of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the accommodation is retained for holiday purposes only and to comply with Policies G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) and T3 (Criteria for the Development of Holiday Accommodation) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	The units hereby approved shall be used only as holiday accommodation and shall not be used as a main or permanent residence. Reason: To ensure that the accommodation is retained for holiday purposes only and to comply with Policies G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) and T3 (Criteria for the Development of Holiday Accommodation) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	No development shall take place until samples of materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted, together with colour finishes, 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.
5	All material arising from the demolition of the existing chalets shall not be disposed of within the site but shall be removed from the land as soon as reasonably practicable after the chalets have been demolished. Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	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. The landscaping scheme shall make provision for planting of trees as replacements for those which are likely to be damaged or lost as a result of the construction of three chalets at the southern end of the site together with a planting scheme to enhance the landscaping along the n northern boundary of the site. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 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: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/01429/05 - TCP/22290/F

Parish/Name: Wootton - Ward/Name: Wootton

Registration Date: 22/07/2005 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr C Hougham Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Tesco Stores Limited

Proposed retail (A1) store, vehicular access alterations and landscaping

land at junction of, High Street and, Rectory Drive, Wootton Bridge, Ryde,

This application is recommended for Conditional Permission subject to the applicants entering into a Section 278 Agreement with the Council in connection with onsite and off site highway works.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is an application which has raised a number of contentious issues.

1. Details of Application

1.1 This is a full application for a purpose designed, low profile retail unit to be positioned in the north eastern corner of the site adjacent to through access road serving the neighbouring commercial premises.

1.2 Submitted details illustrate that the proposed access to the site will be via the existing access onto Wootton High Street (A3054) serving a parking area which includes cycle racks, provision for the disabled and a loading bay, leading through to an exit onto Rectory Drive.

1.3 The new building in terms of overall footprint will be oblong in shape with approximate external dimensions of 30.3m x 12.2m giving a gross overall floor space of 386 sq m. of which 279 sq m (net) will be used as sales are and the remainder used for storage purposes. There is a service/plant yard to the rear of the building in the corner of the site.

1.4 In a covering letter with the original submission the applicant’s agents provide the following additional information.

…proposed development, to be operated as a Tesco Express Store, is to replace the existing store on the adjacent site…… The design of the proposed building … allows a more efficient arrangement of the floor space. It is proposed that the replacement store will continue to provide a primarily convenience goods offer, in line with the Express store model nationwide.

…proposed parking and access arrangement is design to accommodate the pass-by trade which results from the store’s location on the A3054,…..The forecourt parking arrangement at the existing store provides a convenient facility, but can become congested at peak times. The proposed arrangement provides a higher number of spaces to accommodate existing demand and, importantly, the car park layout reinforces the proposed one-way arrangement which will improve safety, access/egress and through movements. A significant increase in vehicle movements is not anticipated as a result of the modest increase in floor space proposed.

….site is well located to serve the surrounding residential area…… Additionally, the site is located on one of the main bus routes. …..regarded as accessible by choice of means of transport, with opportunities to reduce private car use. It is proposed that pedestrian access will be further enhanced by the provision of an additional traffic signal controlled pedestrian crossing, which will be secured by an s278 agreement.

……proposed building is a single storey modular structure. The low height of the structure is well suited to the natural topography of the site and the surrounding area. The modular construction and modern materials reduce the overall construction time and the site preparation work necessary before construction can begin thereby minimising construction related disturbance to surrounding properties.

1.5 Agent has highlighted what he and his client believe to be the benefits of the proposed development by comparison with the existing operation within the neighbouring building.

Existing store:

· The forecourt car park is unable to easily accommodate the high level of pass-by trade.

· Deliveries to and servicing the store from the front further increases forecourt congestion.

· The storage and non-sale space cannot readily accommodate peaks in trading.

· The convenience goods offer is limited by the sales floor space level.

By contrast, the replacement store proposed will provide:

· An appropriate car parking arrangement, including disabled parking provision.

· A clear one-way route through the car park.

· Rear deliveries and servicing via a delegated on-site loading bay.

· Additional outdoor servicing space for cage marshalling and waste management.

· Accommodation for greater stock levels and a wider range of convenience goods.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 This is a rectangular shaped site situated on the corner at the junction of Wootton High Street (A3054) with Rectory Drive. Overall dimensions of the site are in the region of 55m x 27m.

2.2 The land is currently vacant but was last used for open car sales.

2.3 In terms of character, the site forms part of a fragmented commercial/retail area on this side of Wootton High Street and, further to the east on the southern side of the High Street. Immediately adjacent to the site is the existing Tesco Express which forms part of the Minghella Centre. Opposite the site, in the High Street, and Rectory Drive is clearly a residential in character. On the western side of Rectory Drive there are four residential properties occupying a slightly elevated position overlooking the application site.

3. Relevant History

3.1 In December 1989 detailed planning permission was granted for the construction of two office blocks with associated parking on land then described as Wootton Filling Station. Members familiar with the area will know that one of the blocks was constructed and is now used as a private dental practice. The other block, on the site of the current application, was not built but because the approval was partially implemented the consent remains extant.

3.2 In November 2001 an application to develop the site with 12 flats was refused permission. The main issues can be summarised in the following terms:

· Effect on the character and appearance of the area.

· Effect on neighbouring residents living conditions (especially visual intrusion/loss of privacy).

· Highway safety.

This decision was the subject of an appeal which was dismissed in July 2002. It is important to note that the inspector dismissed the appeal on the grounds that a three storey building in such a prominent location would be likely to be both over dominant in the streetscene and “have little in common with its immediate host environment”. He did not support the case put forward by the Council in respect of the effect on neighbouring properties or highway safety.

3.3 An application submitted in June 2003 to develop the site with two 2 storey buildings providing a total of ten self contained flats with associated car parking and landscaping was not determined primarily because of a dispute over the payment of the relevant fee and in accordance with Article 25 (11) of the Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 the application was finally disposed of on 11 March 2004.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy

· PPS6 (Planning for Town Centres) – this recently published PPS essentially deals with making provision for retail development within our communities. In this particular case attention is drawn to Annex A (Table 1) which deals with the types of centre and their main characteristics. In this context it is considered that Wootton is a local centre.

…local centres include a range of small shops of local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas large villages may perform the role of a local centre.

Government guidance urges local planning authorities to adopt and pursue policies which ensure that the importance of shops and services to the local community is taken into account in assessing proposals which would result in their loss or change of use and also respond positively to proposal for the conversion and extension of shops which are designed to improve their viability. Paragraph 2.58 states:

The need for local shops and services is equally important within urban and rural areas. Local authorities should, where appropriate seek to protect existing facilities which provide for peoples day-to-day needs and seek to remedy deficiencies in local shopping and other facilities to help address social exclusion.

In large villages, such as Wootton, where there is potential to maximize accessibility by public transport and by walking and cycling whilst ensuring that the lack of public transport facilities does not preclude small scale retail or service development where these would serve local needs.

· PPG13 (Transport) makes reference to the issue of accessibility in Para. 19.

A key planning objective is to ensure that jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. This is important for all but especially for those who do not have regular use of a car, and to promote social inclusion.

When dealing with larger village locations the objective should be to ensure that the usual facilities, such as shopping, are positioned in accessible locations.

4.2 Strategic Policy

The relevant strategic policies are considered to be, S1, S2, S5, S6, S11 and S14. Essentially proposals for development which on balance, will be for the overall benefit of the Island by enhancing the economic, social and environmental position will be approved, provided any adverse impacts can be ameliorated.

4.3 Local Planning Policies

· G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development

· D1 – Standards of Design

· D2 – Standards for Development within the Site

· D14 – Light Spillage

· TR3 – Locating Development to Minimise the Need to Travel

· TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

· TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines

· R2 – New Retail Development

· R4 – Development on Unidentified Sites

In terms of Policy R2, referred to in the latter part of this report, paragraph 15.25 of the explanatory text says:

Village and local shops play a vital role in rural areas as they provide an alternative to shopping in the main towns as well as much needed service for the less mobile. This includes the elderly, people with disabilities and those who do not have access to a car or convenient public transport.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· Area Highway Engineer does not raise an objection to the application subject to the applicants entering into an S278 Agreement and the imposition of appropriate conditions. He has outlined his involvement with this particular case both pre and post submission and highlighted what, in his opinion, are the principle highway/traffic issues.

· Swept Path Analysis/Size of Delivery Vehicles

Swept path analysis for delivery vehicles approaching from either direction demonstrates that an HGV can perform the necessary maneuvers both into and out of the site. He points out h]that the swept path is for a 16.5m long articulated tractor and trailer unit but during negotiations/discussions the applicants have indicated that a 10.5m vehicle will be used and controlled through a Store Management Plan. He also points out that there is only one dedicated delivery vehicle a day, two at peak periods. This is a significant improvement on the present arrangements.

· Access, Parking and Circulation.

Having applied the relevant policy and car parking guidelines the Highway Engineer is satisfied that the provision of “on site” parking facilities is within the maximum parking allowance of 28 spaces and therefore the proposed level of parking is acceptable in policy terms. Layout is a significant improvement on existing situation and should overcome the present difficulties with traffic queues extending out on to the carriageway (A3054).

· Impact on Rectory Drive/High Street

While recognising that there is some concern about the possibility of an adverse impact on residents of several properties on the northern side of Rectory Drive, he believes that the proposed arrangements are preferable when compared with the current “in and out” arrangements onto Wootton High Street. He does not support view that the exit onto Rectory Drive will mean that residential street will become a “rat run”; although it is likely to be used by local residents, he is of the view that it is a tortuous route and that this factor in combination with the residential use and on street parking means that it would not be sufficiently attractive to motorists as an alternative access directly onto High Street.

· Internal Levels

Highway Engineer has been concerned about the possibility of delivery vehicles “grounding out” on the exit to Rectory Drive and although the applicant’s agents have provided him with additional information he still feels that further details may be required and that this matter should be covered by the imposition of a condition.

· Transfer of highway land

It will be necessary to “stop up” an area of highway verge on the eastern side of Rectory Drive and this will be dealt with by using powers under S247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

· Retaining Wall

In order to ensure continued structural integrity of the carriageway and footway along Rectory Drive and retaining structure will be required at the back edge of the footway.

· Off site highway works

In order to facilitate the development proposed various off site highway works are required and these will be secured through legal agreement. These works will improve traffic flows and alleviate the problem of users activating the existing systems.

More details about the proposed off site highway works are referred to in the latter part of this report.

· Store Plan

Highway Engineer supports the applicant’s response to certain identified difficulties by preparing a Store Management Plan and he offers advice on how, in his opinion, the details on such things as deliveries and how “on site” operational arrangements should be conducted.

He has recommended the imposition of a number of highway conditions on the assumption that the new pedestrian crossing, realignment of the footway in Rectory Drive, stopping up of the highway, securing of commuted payments and Store Management Plan would all be included in any legal agreement (or other conditions).

· Planning Policy Manager was invited to comment on this application and has made the following key observations:

“The site is within the development envelope ….. although not an identified town centre is part of a small group of shops which under definition in the new PPS6 would be considered to be a local centre as set out in Annex A. PPS6 stressed the importance of local shops in meeting day-to-day needs particularly for those who have difficulty in accessing high order centres.

Given the level of floor space proposed, my view is that the store should serve a local shopping need only and on that basis could be considered favourably under Policy R2 of the UDP which wile seeking to ensure retail development takes place within existing town centres, does allow for shops serving a local need………. recent retail study indicated sufficient capacity for additional food retailing across the Island which would cater for the small amount of additional floor space proposed. I would have concerns if both the existing and proposed stores both continued to trade but I understand that conditions will be put forward to ensure that this is not the case.”

· Environmental Health Office has requested that the relatively recently developed “standard” condition relating to possible previous contamination of the site should be imposed in order to comply with Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In order to protect the amenity of neighbouring property the EHO has also recommended the imposition of controlling conditions, summarised as follows:

· Intended business hours

· Delivery times

· Control of anticipated noise emissions

He has provided detailed advice for the application in the forma of an information note which can accompany the decision notice if Members are minded to grant (conditional permission.

· Section 106 Officer has been proactively involved with the processing of this particular application and has been in discussion and negotiation with solicitors acting on behalf of the applicants in connection with a legal agreement for ‘on site’ and ‘off site’ highway improvements and works.

5.2 External Consultees

None.

5.3 Town or Parish Council Comments

· Wootton Bridge Parish Council has registered objections to the application on the grounds that the highway issues need to be addressed, highlighting their main concerns as follows:

· Swept path analysis for delivery lorries, appears to be “very tight”.

· Pedestrian and highway safety in Rectory Drive.

· The need to properly delineate pedestrian areas within the site.

· Associated problems with congestion at the junction with Rectory Drive/High Street.

· Potential for Rectory Drive to be used as a “rat run”.

· Delivery vehicle issues; timing of deliveries. Size of vehicles used, associated noise problems in the early morning, delivery lorry parking in Rectory Drive.

Members are asked to note that these comments were made shortly after the submission of the application and prior to the submission of additional information prepared by the agent(s) in consultation with our own Highway and Traffic Engineers. Chairman and Clerk of the Parish Council have been briefed at a meeting attended by the Case Officer, the Highway Engineer, the applicants and their agent about additional information provided by the latter in response to these concerns and have been invited to submit further observations prior to the determination of the application.

5.4 Neighbours

· Members are advised that shortly after the submission of this application there was a public meeting which was attended by the case officer, the applicants and their agent which raised a number of issues which were subsequently highlighted in representations from local residents.

· Solicitors acting on behalf of the owner of the neighbouring premises (Minghella Centre) where the applicants present retail outlet is located raised a range of legal, procedural and policy interpretation issues in respect of land ownership, traffic and floor area, PPS6 and assessing the proposed development. Case Officer provided a detailed response which promoted further representations disputing interpretation and raising additional points which can be briefly summarised in the following terms.

· This is not a “modest increase” in floor space when compared with the existing store.

· Application is in conflict with Council Policy R2.

· Definition of “local need only”.

· Possibility of intensification of use if existing store continues to provide a convenience outlet.

· Traffic implications.

· Following the public meeting a number of written representations were received from local residents expressing concern and objecting to the application. The majority of these objections, including a small petition, have come from residents of Rectory Drive who almost exclusively object to the application because of the formation of an exit or egress onto Rectory Drive. There concerns are adequately summarised in the initial observations from the Parish Council (see above).

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main issues in this particular case are as follows:

· Principle of redeveloping the site for retail purposes.

· Interpretation and application of relevant location/design/retail/ highway policies.

· Access/parking/servicing arrangements.

· Overall size and scale mass and scale and appearance of new building.

· Associated “on site” and “off site” highway works to be carried out in conjunction with proposed development.

· Hard/soft landscaping.

6.2 It is important to stress from the outset that the single most contentious issue in respect of this particular development is the vehicular egress for deliveries and customers, onto Rectory Drive.

6.3 Members will appreciate that there is no sustainable objection to the redevelopment of a site, recently used for open car sales with an extant permission for a two storey office block, as it is within the development boundary adjacent and close to other retail/commercial outlets along the A3054 in Wootton. The view is taken that this site could be used for a variety of purposes, as evidence by previous proposal for residential redevelopment, and it is important that the Council make a decision which is consistent with relevant policies and in the interests of the wider community and other potential users of the proposed facility.

6.4 The central location of the site within the village means that it is ideally suited for retail development maintaining a popular and important outlet facility on the northern side of the High Street. It is considered that the criteria for assessing retail development of this nature has been satisfied as, in very simple terms, the existing operation gives adequate evidence of need, the development is of an appropriate scale, in location terms there is not a better site within the immediate vicinity and the site is clearly accessible by a variety of modes of transport including walking, cycling and public transport. The scheme will reinforce Wootton’s role within the Island’s retail hierarchy.

6.5 The proposed development satisfies the criteria set out in Policy R2 although it is accepted that experience would suggest that while satisfying a local need there is also a quite significant element of what can be loosely described as ‘passing trade’ as the existing operation and this site are on the main road between the Island’s two largest towns and also on the route followed by vehicular traffic from the west accessing the largest ferry terminal at nearby Fishbourne. However, it is important to note that this particular policy was developed to avoid losing local retail outlets when it could be shown that this may have a damaging impact on the local community. If Wootton was to lose such a well located nationally recognised retail outlet it would be difficult to sustain an argument that this would not cause inconvenience or be damaging to social fabric of the village. Nevertheless Members are cautioned against using any form of “Tesco argument” whether for or against the scheme and must treat this A1 convenience store application on its merits in accordance with policy.

6.6 The above points in conjunction with the observations from the Planning Policy Manager underline that there is not a sustainable objection to the redevelopment of this site with a retail outlet of this size specialising in convenience goods.

6.7 The remaining development control related issues have been the subject of public scrutiny and negotiations and discussion with the applicants and their agents leading to the submission of additional supporting information, including a Store Management Plan, but without any significant amendment to the characteristics of the overall development. It is considered that these issues should be viewed against a background of the problems associated with existing outlet in terms of traffic congestion and potential hazards arising from inadequate servicing and parking facilities within the curtilage of the site and although the Council should never accept sub-standard development, it is nevertheless a material consideration in this particular case.

6.8 The two outstanding issues relate to the anticipated visual appearance of the overall site and the position, scale, mass and design of the proposed retail store and the seemingly more contentious matter of access/egress, parking, servicing and other operational arrangements.

6.9 The overall layout of the site is reliant upon the existing access onto the A3054, which will also continue to serve the neighbouring commercial premises, and a shared route through the site giving access to customer parking and a loading bay leading to an exit only onto Rectory Drive with the proposed building in the least conspicuous position towards the rear of the site away from the respective road frontages. When compared with the present appearance of the site, this scheme offers a number of improvements which include increased customer parking when compared with the existing outlet, facilities for disabled people, bike racks, a designated loading area, the construction of new retaining wall on the southern side of Rectory Drive and landscaping including the planting of additional trees inside the new retaining wall. Pedestrian priority routes within the site will be denoted by the use of differing hard surface materials. The proposed building is clearly a modern, modular structure which, on balance, will modestly enhance the visual amenities of the area as it will have a minimal impact because of the topography of the site, which is significantly lower than the carriageway level in Rectory Drive, and it is a low profile building sited in a less than prominent position. Consequently, the view is taken that any objections on grounds of layout, design or hard/soft landscaping would be difficult to sustain if a decision was taken to withhold permission on these grounds.

6.10 The final detail issue to be assessed is matters relating to access/egress, “on site” parking provision, internal movement and method/arrangement for deliveries. It is clear that the present arrangements in respect of the present store are most unsatisfactory due to the existing shared access being used for both access and egress from the site, inadequate parking facilities, no loading/unloading provision etc. which have lead to difficulties which create congestion and in some instances (potential) traffic hazards. However, by the same token, while the proposed arrangements offer a very clear and significant improvement on the present situation, for the benefit of the wider community and other users, there is genuine concern about the proposed exit/egress onto Rectory Drive.

6.11 It has been explained earlier in this report that this application was the subject of detailed pre-submission discussions and negotiations and since the public meeting which highlighted some concerns referred to in the preceding paragraph there has been continuing discussion with the applicants and their agents in order to overcome these difficulties or mitigate any potential impact on the current level of amenity of residents in the first section of Rectory Drive. The obvious improvements when compared with the present arrangements for the store on the adjacent site have already been referred to in this report. However, it is essential that the other highway/traffic improvements negotiated both prior and since the submission of the application are well understood.

· Upgrade of existing uncontrolled crossing to the east of the junction of Brannon Way/High Street to a traffic light controlled PUFFIN crossing.* This will include all associated signing, lining, lighting and accommodation works.

· Provision of anti-skid surfacing with a design, extent and method of installation to be agreed.

· Necessary controls and dedicated link with existing pelican crossing to the east of the site, including ducting and accommodation works.

· Realignment of footway and construction to new access to Rectory Drive including retaining works, tactile crossings and associated accommodation works.

· Improvements to existing access onto A3054, with possible tactile crossing points and a bellmouth layout.

In addition to the above a commuted sum of £12,000 will be required to cover the future maintenance of the new crossing point.

*A Puffin Crossing is effectively an “intelligent “ crossing point that senses whether users are on or have left the crossing. This improves traffic flows and alleviates the problem of users activating the system and then being able to cross prior to the lights stopping vehicular traffic.

6.12 Post submission correspondence, discussion and negotiations culminated with a meeting with the applicants and their agent attended by the Local Member and the Local Parish Council Clerk. Prior to this recent meeting the agent provided a detailed response which dealt with the Rectory Drive egress, delivery and servicing hours and frequency, residential amenity, internal levels, retaining structure to Rectory Drive, off site highway works etc. In the view of the agent and applicant and the highway engineers employed by the applicants, there is not a viable alternative to the proposal to provide an exit onto Rectory Drive if there is to be an improvement on the present situation. However, he has identified the possibility of planning controls as a mechanism for addressing any possible difficulties and, in this context, his clients have produced a Store Management Plan (SMP) as a method of establishing a clear framework for site and store operation and he has also been able to confirm that his clients can insure that its own delivery and staff vehicles can only exit the site towards the High Street (i.e. left turn) and that this will be included in the SMP. The agent also provided detailed drawings giving information on site levels and gradients; a reduction in the level of signage/glazing an increase in the amount of brickwork in terms of the elevation facing onto Rectory Drive; raised landscaping along the back edge of the realigned footway on the southern side of Rectory Drive and increasing the size of the loading bay area.

6.13 Following the last meeting involving local community representatives, the agent has provided further information, details and amendments in an attempt to address some of the continuing concern about a number of aspects but primarily the exit onto Rectory Drive.

· Further revisions to the SMP confirming the applicant’s intention to service the store with a shorter articulated vehicle with a 10.4m rear – steer trailer supported by a new swept path analysis drawing.

· Confirmation of one dedicated delivery a day rising to two deliveries during peak season.

· Installation of advisory “turn left” instruction at exit point.

· Detailing of possible boundary treatment on the frontage onto Rectory Drive designed to reduce any visual intrusion for residents living opposite the site.

· Subject to elected Members being satisfied that works are in accordance with relevant Government guidance and tests the applicants are prepared to fund the replacement of two street lights outside the existing store and the application site.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 In terms of adding value to the application it is not considered that any further controls and/or associated community benefits can be delivered beyond what has now been agreed with the applicant’s agent. Inevitably, the owners/occupiers of properties on the western side of Rectory Drive, which is presently a relatively quiet residential street despite the close proximity to the junction with a busy classified road, will suffer a degree of disamenity but, on balance, the provision of a new purpose designed retail store with associated facilities including increased “on site” parking, suitable delivery/loading facilities and various other highway improvements/community benefits outweigh this single factor and on this basis it is recommended that the application should be approved subject to the applicants entering into a Section 278 Agreement with the Council which has largely been negotiated, in accordance with good practice, by the applicant’s solicitors and our own Legal Executive prior to this determination

8. Recommendation

Conditional Permission (subject to the applicants entering into a Section 278 Agreement with the Council for various “off site” and “on site” highway/traffic improvements not covered by the comprehensive following condition schedule.)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	The operation of the site including the number and arrangements for deliveries shall be the subject of a Store Management Plan with final details to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any work commences on site. Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: A desk-top study documenting all previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with national guidance as set out in Contaminated Land Research Report Nos. 2 & 3 and BS10175: 2001; and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as appropriate by the desk-top study in accordance with BS10175: 2001 – “Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites – Code of Practice”; and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a remediation scheme to deal with any contaminant including an implementation timetable, monitoring proposals and a remediation verification methodology. The verification methodology shall include a sampling and analysis programme to confirm the adequacy of decontamination and an appropriately qualified person shall oversee the implementation of all remediation. The construction of buildings shall not commence until the investigator has provided a report, which shall include confirmation that all remediation measures have been carried out fully in accordance with the scheme. The report shall also include results of the verification programme of post-remediation sampling and monitoring in order to demonstrate that the required remediation has been fully met. Future monitoring proposals and reporting shall also be detailed in the report. Reason: To protect the environment and prevent harm to human health by ensuring that where necessary, the land is remediated to an appropriate standard in order to comply with Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
4	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no access gate shall be erected without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Development shall not begin until details of the design, surfacing and construction of any new roads, footways, accesses and car parking areas, together with details of the means of disposal of surface water drainage therefrom have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Development shall not begin until details of the sight lines to be provided at the junction between the access of the proposal and the highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be occupied until those sight lines have been provided in accordance with the approved details. Nothing that may cause an obstruction to visibility shall at any time be placed or be permitted to remain within the visibility splay shown in the approved sight lines. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	The building shall not be occupied until the means of vehicular access thereto has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	The building shall not 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 IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	Development shall not begin until details of the junction between the proposed service road and the highway have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; and the building shall not be occupied until that junction has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	The vehicular access shown from the High Street on the approved plan shall only be used as a means of ingress to the site and the vehicular access to Rectory Drive on the approved plan shall only be used as a means of egress from the site. [No building shall be occupied/The use shall not commence] until a traffic management plan showing details of the measures to be applied to ensure that drivers use the appropriate means of access and egress has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and has been put into effect in accordance with the approved details. The measures shall be retained in place at all times. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	The use hereby permitted shall not commence until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with drawing number SP.13 for 22 cars/10 bicycles to be parked and for delivery vehicles to be loaded and unloaded and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	All traffic shall be directed to leave the site by turning left into Rectory Drive by means of a prominent sign, the details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, erected at the junction between the site access road and the highway before the access road is first used. The sign shall be retained in a clean and legible condition for the duration of the development and any sign that is damaged beyond repair or removed shall immediately be replaced. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policies TR7 (Highway Considerations) and M2 (Defined Mineral Working) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13	Steps, including the installation and use of wheel cleaning facilities in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, shall be taken to prevent material being deposited on the highway as a result of any operation on the site. Any deposit of material from the site on the highway shall be removed as soon as practicable by the site operator. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to prevent mud and dust from getting on the highway and to comply with policies TR7 (Highway Considerations) and M2 (Defined Mineral Working) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
14	The shop hereby approved shall only be used for the sale of convenience goods and for no other purpose, including any other purpose in Class A1 of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification. Reason: The land is situated within an area where general retail uses are not normally permitted and to comply with policy R2 (New Retail Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
15	The proposed store, hereby permitted, shall not be open to customers outside the hours of 0600 to 2230 daily. Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residential properties and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary development Plan)
16	Before the use commences, a scheme showing details of the facilities to be provided for the deposit of refuse by customers shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works forming part of the approved scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the use commences and shall thereafter be retained. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and the occupiers of nearby properties and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
17	No loading equipment, stock, delivered stock or stock awaiting collection, finished or unfinished packaging crates or boxes shall be stacked or stored on the site at any time except within the building or the dedicated service yard identified for that purpose on the approved plans. Reason: In the interest of visual appearance of the site and the visual amenity of the surrounding area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
18	No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include [proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (eg. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg. drainage power, communications cables, pipelines, etc, indicating lines, manholes, supports, etc); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant]. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
19	The building shall not be brought into use until details of any floodlighting to be installed 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 maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
20	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. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
21	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 IW Unitary Development Plan.

Informative:

You are advised that the signage shown on the permitted drawings has not been granted consent and is subject to consideration under different regulations. Members are further advised that this aspect of the overall development has also been the subject of further negotiations resulting in the submission of amended plans considerably reducing the level of signage along the frontage onto Rectory Drive.

Reference Number: P/01803/05 - TCP/10484/M

Parish/Name: Newport - Ward/Name: Parkhurst

Registration Date: 15/09/2005 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr J Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Isle of Wight Council

Demolition of library headquarters & industrial units; outline for residential development comprising 54 houses & 24 flats with access off Parkhurst Road

former IW Council library headquarters, Parkhurst Road, Newport, PO30

This application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a major application submitted by the Council involving a significant number of dwellings which have implications with regard to infrastructure and highway issues and which have given rise to a number of letters of representation.

1. Details of Application

1.1 This is an outline application with all matters reserved apart from siting and means of access seeking consent for a residential development comprising 54 houses and 24 flats.

1.2 Application is accompanied by a layout plan indicating an extension of Hewitt Crescent in an easterly direction serving a development which is scheduled as follows:

· 4 bed houses – 6 number (2 semi-detached, 4 detached)

· 3 bed house – 30 number (28 semi-detached, 4 terraced)

· 2 bed houses – 18 number (14 terraced, 4 semi-detached)

Total: 54

1.3 In addition proposal indicates 4 three storey blocks of flats in two paired groups with accommodation being scheduled as follows:

· 2 bed flats – 12 number

· 1 bed flats – 12 number

Total 24

1.4 Total of number of units - 78

Density 60 units per hectare

1.5 In order to address parking concerns by Hewitt Crescent residents, negotiations have taken place which has resulted in Hewitt Crescent being widened to both allow for increased carriageway width plus parking provision in the form of extended lay by on the eastern side of Hewitt Crescent adjacent the existing open space land. Effectively this results in an increase of 4.5 metres. Also included in the proposal is adjustments to the alignment of Hewitt Crescent in the area of properties 1, 2 and 6 Hewitt Crescent in order to provide sufficient land to ease the tight bends in that road.

1.6 The proposed residential development to be serviced by an extension of Hewitt Crescent at a point off the existing Hewitt Crescent opposite properties 18 and 19 Hewitt Crescent in an easterly direction. An extension in the form of a traffic calmed road with a series of pinch points running through the centre of the site serving development either side. In the eastern area of the site the road turns in a northerly direction terminating in a circular cul de sac head again serving proposed housing development and the proposed flatted development in the north eastern area of the site, directly to the east of numbers 10 and 13 Woolcombe Road. Although the original submitted proposal indicated retention in part of the existing group of trees on the site, the application has been amended indicating a realignment of the proposed access road serving the development to increase the level of retention of trees with the road now passing further to the north of those trees.

1.7 Parking provision is set at approximately 100 number resulting in a parking ratio of approximately 1.3 parking spaces per unit.

1.8 Application includes for pockets of open space including an extension to the existing open space on the eastern side of Hewitt Crescent. Proposal also indicates a proposed pedestrian/cycle access linking the proposed development to the eastern end of Woolcombe Road. Proposal also indicates the extension of an existing footpath/cycle way access which runs in a north south direction at the western end of Woolcombe Road. This extended footpath/cycle way access to be extended in a southerly direction to the southern boundary of the site and thence to make use of the former vehicle access that served the library headquarters and industrial units converting that access to a footpath/cycle way giving access out on to Parkhurst Road.

1.9 Finally, the application includes the land which currently forms an access off Parkhurst Road between numbers 22 and 23 Hewitt Crescent. The application excludes a square shaped area of land which currently accommodates an electrical sub station.

1.10 Applicants have also indicated through the submission of a cross section the impact of the widening of Hewitt Crescent on the current open space area which is elevated above the carriageway level of Hewitt Crescent. This section indicates the need for retaining wall structures along its whole length and again following negotiations the erection of a fence of approved design along the top of the open space which is required for safety reasons.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 Site located on the eastern side of Parkhurst Road directly to the north of St Mary’s Hospital grounds being to the east of properties 22, 23 and 24 Hewitt Crescent.

2.2 The main body of the site is bounded to the north by properties in Woolcombe Road, Cookworthy Road and Harris Road. Abutting the eastern boundary is open fields whilst the abutting to the south is the cartilage of St Mary’s Hospital.

2.3 Site stands elevated above Hewitt Crescent and is irregular in shape. Site has a cross fall between south to north, the lowest point being in the north eastern area of the site to east of Woolcombe Road.

2.4 Site currently accommodates a number of vacant buildings which in the past served the Council’s library headquarters with the remaining buildings being former small industrial units with all these facilities having relocated. These buildings were all served off an existing access off Parkhurst Road which runs alongside number 24 Hewitt Crescent. Site also accommodates a parking area which serves a number of properties which front Woolcombe Road.

2.5 In landscaping terms there is a small area of trees located east of the electricity sub station. Site is bounded in part by intermittent hedgerows particularly along its southern and eastern boundaries.

2.6 Finally, the site carries an overhead high voltage electricity line which runs in a west east direction across the centre of the site and a secondary low voltage overhead line which clips the western corner of the site running towards the north.

3. Relevant History

3.1 In September 2001 outline consent granted for residential development on the western half of the site excluding the Council owned land which contains the library headquarters and industrial units to the east. That consent included the whole of the length of Hewitt Crescent through to its junction with Partridge Road and the short length from that junction with Partridge Road through to its junction with Parkhurst Road. That outline consent covered access as a detail matter only with all other matters being reserved. As such the application did not indicate any proposed density. Having received no reserved matter application covering the details within the required three years this consent is therefore expired.

3.2 That consent was subject of a number of significant conditions which are itemized as follows:

· Submission of drainage scheme which does not increase flow to the sewer thus increasing frequency and volume of storm overflow events at Dodnor Lane and Prior Crescent waste water pumping station.

· Submission of a service water regulation system designed to separate system complementing the existing combined sewer to reduce the incidents of overflows.

· Submission of a detailed scheme including calculations and capacity studies in respect of foul water disposal.

· Requirement that parking provision shall not exceed 75% of the parking guideline of the Unitary Development Plan.

· That any development on the site should indicate number and range of dwellings sizes and types.

· Prior to completion of 50% of open market housing an agreed number of affordable housing units for rent shall be provided with the actual number being a proportion of 20% of the total number of units of the overall site including land to the east.

3.3 The above expired consent was granted to H M Prison Service and formed one of eleven sites being identified as surplus land owned by the Prison Service within the Camp Hill, Albany and Parkhurst estates. Of those 11 applications 7 including the above mentioned site, were granted outline consent, two were refused for reasons of being outside development envelope boundary and two were not determined and were finally disposed of.

3.4 The strategy behind these applications was to dispose of the sites, the income from which would enable funding for the much needed upgrading of the existing highways, lighting and drainage, none of which are adopted by the Council and are falling into greater and greater disrepair.

3.5 In August 2002 an outline application for residential development submitted by the Council was approved and related to both the Prison Service land and the Council owned land excluding the land accommodated by the industrial units and accessed off Parkhurst Road adjacent St Mary’s Hospital cartilage. As with the above mentioned consent this consent has now expired.

3.6 This consent also included improvements to Hewitt Crescent and part of Partridge Road through to the junction with Parkhurst Road. In general the conditions applied to this consent are the same as quoted above with the addition of a condition requiring details of junction improvements at Partridge Road/A3020 Parkhurst Road, a requirement to investigate any possible contamination on the site necessary improvements to Hewitt Crescent/Partridge Road to a standard suitable for adoption and a specific requirement for a brick wall where any residential development abutted the existing industrial units.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National policies covered in PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development, PPG3 – Housing and PPG13 – Transport.

4.2 PPS1 emphasises the need to ensure sustainable development (definition of sustainable development – development that meets the need of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs). In general it _mphasizes the key role of planning to enable the provision of homes and a building investment and jobs in a way which is consistent with the principles of sustainable development. It recognizes that there are several economic and environmental social and other factors which need to be taken into account however, the principle that all applications should be considered in accordance with the statutory planning policies unless material considerations indicate otherwise still apply .It also recognizes the important use of conditions and obligation in ameliorating adverse effects of development.

4.4 PPG3 emphasises the following:

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

· Create a more sustainable pattern of development insuring accessibility to public transport, jobs, education etc.

· Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with 30 -50 units per hectare quoted as being an appropriate level of density with higher densities being appropriate where proposals are close to transport nodes.

· New housing development should not be viewed in isolation but should have regard to immediate buildings in the wider locality.

· More than 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect the Government’s emphasizes on sustainable residential development

· Ensure delivery of affordable housing as part of any residential scheme of an appropriate density. Such affordable housing should address local housing needs with those needs being identified through a robust and up to date housing need survey.

4.5 PPG13 emphasises the following:

· Promotion of more sustainable transport choices.

· Promotion of accessibility to jobs, shopping and leisure facilities, services via public transport, walking and cycling.

· Reduce the need to travel especially by car.

· Document also encourages the introduction of maximum levels of parking in order to promote sustainable transport choices.

4.6 Local Plan Policies (Strategic)

Relevant policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan are as follows:

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

· S2 – Development will be encouraged on land which has previously been developed (brown field sites rather than undeveloped green field sites.)

· S3 – New developments of a large scale will be expected to be located in or adjacent to the defined development envelope of the main Island towns.

· S7 – There is a need to provide for the development of at least 8,000 housing units over the planned period.

4.7 Relevant Local Plan Policies are as follows:

· G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

· G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development

· D1 – Standards of Design

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

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

· H3 – Allocation of Residential Development Sites.

· H6 – High Density Residential Development

· H14 – Locally Affordable Housing as an Element of Housing Scheme.

· TR3 – Locating Development to minimise the need to travel

· TR6 – Cycling and Walking.

· TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

· TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines

· U2 – Ensuring Adequate Education, Social and Community Facilities for future population.

· U11 – Infrastructure and Services Provision

· L10 – Open Space in Housing

· P3 – Restoration of Contaminated Land

4.8 Site is within Zone 3 of the Council’s Parking and Policies and therefore any parking provision shall not exceed 75% of parking guidelines.

4.9 Site is allocated for residential development and policy relating to that land is as follows:

“An area of land 1.59 hectares east of Parkhurst Road, north of St Mary’s Hospital previously partly used as tree nursery is considered suitable for residential development in conjunction with undeveloped land within the southern part of residential estate to the north and possible re-development of adjoining library headquarters site. This may be reduced for the proposed road link from Parkhurst Road to Dodnor Lane. Presently occupied by library headquarters and buildings housing a small number of light industrial units and the development of the site will be relied upon suitable alternative accommodation being found for some existing uses and subject to existing vehicular access being improved.”

Members are advised that the hospital no longer required the proposed link between Parkhurst Road and Dodnor Lane referred to in the above statement and therefore the element of the policy is now redundant.

4.10 Members attention is drawn to the Supplementary Planning Guidance in respect of provision of affordable housing which now requires a 30% provision subject to negotiation.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· Following considerable discussion involving the Traffic Management Section of the Highways Department and given the limited information contained in the Traffic Impact Report prepared on behalf of the Council, Highway Engineer (Traffic Management Section) recommends the installation of signaled controlled junction at the junction of Partridge Road with Parkhurst Road. Such action would be required to link to any other signal controls in the area and pay a commuted sum of 10 years maintenance of the equipment/anti skid surfacing. In addition, the junction would need to be remodeled so that a segregated right turn lane could be achieved.

· The Council’s Environmental Health Department recommends appropriate conditions covering the need to vet the site for potential contamination.

5.2 Internal Consultees

· Southern Water comments are as follows:

Following initial investigations, there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. The proposed development would increase flows to the public sewerage system, and existing properties and land may be subject to a greater risk of flooding as a result. Additional off-site sewers, or improvements to existing sewers, will be required to provide sufficient capacity to service the development. Section 08 of the Water Industry Act 1991 provides a legal mechanism through which the appropriate infrastructure can be requested (by the developer) and provided to drain a specific location.

Should this application receive planning approval, please include, as an informative to the permission, the following requirement:

“The applicant/developer should enter into a formal agreement with Southern Water to provide the necessary sewerage infrastructure required to service this development. Please contact Southern Water’s Network Development Team (Wastewater) based in Otterbourne, Hampshire.”

Southern Water is aware of the limited foul sewer capacity in this area. Various improvement works are proposed over the next few years. This development is considered premature unless the applicant proposes to utilize the S98 mechanism.

The applicant has not stated details of the proposed means of disposal of surface water from the site. This should not involve disposal to a public sewer.

· Environment Agency raise no objection and suggest condition be applied requiring the provision of a surface water regulation system is provided which will not increase the risk of flooding of site. Any such scheme to be maintained in accordance with the timing and phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme etc. The EA also require a scheme for foul drainage to be submitted.

· Southern Electric have no objection to proposed development but advise that any such development could affect their equipment (overhead power cables) and relevant Health and Safety Executive guidelines must therefore be adhered to.

5.3 Third Party Representations

Application has been subject of 11 letters of objection and comment, 9 from residents of Hewitt Crescent and 2 from residents of Partridge Road with points raised being summarised as follows:

· Concern that the traffic generated from a development of this density will be excessive and will have an unacceptable environmental impact on existing residents in Hewitt Crescent.

· Concern that the increase in the width of Hewitt Crescent by 3 metres is insufficient to alleviate the current problems experienced by Hewitt Crescent residents and is unlikely to be sufficient to service the proposed development.

· Concern that proposal will have an effect on the existing on-street parking provision in Hewitt Crescent and that the increase in width may makes no allowance for the on-street parking requirement for those resident.

· General concern that Hewitt Crescent will be squeezed between the traffic noise and pollution from Parkhurst Road and the increased noise and pollution from traffic using the widened Hewitt Crescent which will be to the detriment of the residents of Hewitt Crescent.

· Whilst recognizing traffic calming measurements shown on the new development, the proposal does not appear to indicate similar traffic calming in Hewitt Crescent.

· General concern that the junction of Partridge Road onto Parkhurst Road will be unable to cater for this additional generation of traffic. One writer suggests radical alterations including the introduction either of a roundabout or traffic lights. Suggestion is that a wider strategic approach should be adopted before approving this development in isolation.

· Some writers are concerned regarding drainage issues making reference to the general geology of the area causing water retention problems during wet periods and the fear that this proposal will simply increase those problems.

· The above mentioned issue could be exacerbated if those existing trees on the site were to be removed as a result of this development.

· A number of writers suggest that the existing thicket of trees should be retained as a feature of any proposed development on this site.

· Concern that this development will have an adverse impact on wild life habitat which over the years has occupied this generally vacant area of land.

· General concern that the existing drainage systems in the area are incapable of accommodating this level of development and would need to be upgraded. This concern relates to both foul and surface water drainage.

· Because the open space area to the north of the site is elevated above Hewitt Crescent any proposal to widen the road is likely to increase the difference in height thus causing dangers to children who use that open space area for play.

· Application fails to indicate whether the current entrances to Hewitt Crescent off Parkhurst Road are to be retained as such or are to be stopped up.

· Concern that the inadequacy of parking provision in respect of the proposed development.

· Concern that construction works will cause extreme disturbance to local residents with particular reference to the routing of construction vehicles and the inability of local residents to be able to park their vehicles within Hewitt Crescent.

· Suggestion that this proposal provides an opportunity to improve street lighting in the area.

· Resident of Partridge Road is concerned that the widening of the road will have an impact on the ability to park on–street. There are also concerns regarding the effect increased traffic may have on the structural integrity of the nearby properties.

6. Evaluation

6.1 Principle

The residential allocation of this site is obviously an important material consideration in planning policy terms with the information contained in the application effectively complying with the written statement in respect of this allocation. Relocation procedures have taken place or are in the process of being taking place and understand that disposal of this site will be funding the mechanisms to achieve relocation. Also the proposal clearly indicates existing vehicular access improvements as described.

This is the first time an application has been received which both includes in its entirety the Council owned land and the Prison Service owned land, being the overall site subject of the residential allocation in the Unitary Development Plan. The approval of September 2001 related exclusively to the Prison Service owned land whilst the consent of August 2002 related to both the Prison Service land but only part of the Council owned land excluding the area which accommodated the industrial units.

6.2 Density/Affordable Housing

Members will note that the application not only seeks outline consent for principle but also indicates siting and therefore density. Obviously to an extent the layout is indicative but does indicate a variety of house sizes and types ranging from one bedroomed flats to four bedroomed houses in compliance with local and national polices. The result of such a mix which includes the provision of 24 flats is a density of 60 units per hectare which is slightly higher than the general density guidance within PPG 3 which advises 30-50 units per hectare. The reason for this slightly higher density is the introduction of flats which will always increase the actual density figures although that increase is not reflected in terms of amount of footprint of development on the site. Also the advice given is that the 30-50 units per hectare can be increased where a site is close to transport facilities, which in this case is a fairly regular bus route between Cowes and Newport. Therefore the density proposal which results from the mix and range of dwellings is acceptable in this case with that range of dwellings providing opportunities for first time buyers to enter the housing market.

6.3 Both the past outline consents previously granted in respect of parts of this site has been conditioned to ensure provision of an appropriate proportion of affordable housing. Those conditions were general in nature and required that no more than 50% of any open market housing should be completed before the affordable housing units for rent were constructed and made available through registered social landlords. Significantly, those conditions related to the 20% provision which has now been increased to 30% under the auspices of the Supplementary Planning Guidance although that 30% is a starting point for negotiations.

6.4 In view of the fact that this is a Council application the imposition of a Section 106 Agreement is not possible. (The Council cannot enter into a S106 Agreement with itself). Given this situation, it is suggested the general condition is applied covering the provision of affordable housing but secondly an advisory letter be sent advising that any contractual sale of the site be dependant on any future purchaser entering into a Section 106 Agreement in conjunction with a registered social landlord in order to ensure deliverability of locally affordable housing on the site. Such a procedure will inevitably be dealt with through the submission of a Reserved Matter application or a Detailed Application.

6.5 Any such affordable housing provision is negotiable dependant upon costings and viability and could involve a mixture of rented and shared equity ownership homes. It is also important to note that the site’s location relative to the adjoining St Mary’s Hospital provides obvious advantages in providing much needed longer term accommodation for hospital staff.

6.6 Highway Issues

This represents an important issue flagged up at the time of the allocation for it is self evident that Hewitt Crescent in its present form would be incapable of serving even a modest level of development on this site. There are clear carriageway width, alignment and parking problems along this road and this proposal provides a valuable opportunity to address all those issues by carrying out the necessary improvements. Of equal importance is the fact that the improvements will result in a road which will achieve adoptable standard up to the junction with Parkhurst Road. In this regard Members should note that Hewitt Crescent or Partridge Road are not adopted roads with your officer’s understanding being they are in the ownership of the Prison Service.

6.7 It is important to appreciate that the consent granted to the Prison Service in September 2001 was one of eleven applications for residential development on various sites throughout the prison estates (Albany, Camphill and Parkhurst). It is important to appreciate that the strategy behind the obtaining of these consents was to amass sufficient funds from the sale of the sites to ensure an upgrading of the roads and the sewers and street lighting bringing them all to an adoptable standard.

6.8 Unfortunately, the significant infrastructure costs involved in bringing these site to fruition with particular reference to drainage and highway improvement issues resulted in a lack of interest with none of the sites coming forward in respect of detailed proposals.

6.9 Part of the highway proposals in respect of five of the service land sites on the Parkhurst estate (west side of Parkhurst Road) was to create a new access junction onto Parkhurst Road at the northern end of the existing recreation ground with that new junction being traffic lit and accommodating both traffic generated by the proposed developments on these various sites but also significantly involving the closure of the junction of Clissold Road and Lonsdale Avenue with Parkhurst Road with the re-routing of Clissold Road to link to the new signalised junction proposal. This was considered to be an appropriate solution which would have both provided a road system to serve the proposed developments but also enabled the addressing of current road junction problems in the area with particular reference to the junction of Clissold Road with Parkhurst Road. Obviously, this was a costly solution which would have needed to be funded through the sale of the various sites which would benefit from the road improvement proposals. Your officer’s understand that this still represents the ideal option although it is clear that costs would be loaded against the new development thus impacting on their viability.

6.10 It should be noted that the above radical road improvements proposals related to the sites on the western side of Parkhurst Road with the current application site being the only site on the eastern side and therefore relying on the junction of Partridge Road and Parkhurst Road to serve the development in line with the Policy Statement in respect of its allocation.

6.11 The Council have commissioned the production of a report assessing the volume of additional traffic likely to be generated as a result of the above proposal. It is important to emphasise that this is not a full transport assessment but was required to assess estimates of trips associated with the existing dwellings. Those estimates were based on appropriate codes of practice. This information was required to effectively enable a judgement to be made as to the level of road improvements which could b reasonably applied to ensure that the junction of Partridge Road with Parkhurst Road could adequately accept both the existing traffic generation along with the additional traffic generation resulting from the current development proposals.

6.12 The information contained within the brief, Traffic Generation Report referred to above, whilst indicating traffic flows onto Parkhurst Road did not provide information relating to current traffic flows along Parkhurst Road and therefore the Highway Engineer is unable to carry out an appropriate assessment as to whether or not improvements to the Partridge Road/Parkhurst Road should be limited to road widening and provision of a right hand turn lane or whether there is a need for traffic light junction in addition. Therefore the Highway Engineer is taking a worst scenario stance in this case continuing to require the traffic lit junction.

6.13 Obviously the imposition of the need for a signalised junction will have an impact on viability of the development of the site which is residentially allocated. Such costs will be loaded entirely on this development which would also be expected to generate full provision of affordable housing along with other possible financial contributions.

6.14 Whilst recognizing that the requirement for a signalised junction goes beyond that which was required in respect of the approval granted in August 2002 but is a reflection of the increase in traffic flows generally and the need to ensure a safe junction is provided to cater for the additional development being proposed.

6.15 More significantly is the impact that a signalised junction may have on the ability to implement the new traffic lit access junction which was proposed a short distance to the south along Parkhurst Road, as previously described. Obviously such a proposed junction represents a significant cost factor on development but this would be loaded onto several development sites involving a significant area of land and therefore it was considered that these could be absorbed more readily.

6.16 It is important however to note that these past approvals (4 number) have all expired and any further proposal to develop these sites would require the benefit of further applications. Discussions are presently on going which could result in applications being submitted early in the New Year.

6.17 Whilst there are concerns about the position of a signalised highway improvement junction and the effect this may have on the overall viability of the scheme your officers have no option but to impose the condition on the advice of the highway engineer. I would suggest however, that a caveat be placed within the condition to enable the matter to be revisited should other circumstances occur with particular reference to development of the land on the western side of Parkhurst Road. Such a caveat would enable a more holistic approach to traffic junction improvements on the basis that there is likely to be greater certainty as to development proposals for the area in the near future.

6.18 Members will note that the application includes the two existing accesses off Parkhurst Road one between properties 22 and 23 Hewitt Crescent and the other being the former vehicular access which served the industrial units and the former Cowes library headquarters adjacent 34 Hewitt Crescent. In terms of the latter access the submitted layout indicates the conversion of this access into a footpath/cycle way only and therefore an appropriate condition covering this conversion and its effective closure as a vehicular access would be appropriate in this case.

6.19 With regard to the former access between 22 and 23 Hewitt Crescent there is no doubt that this represents a positively dangerous access both in terms of ingress and particularly egress onto Parkhurst Road. It is considered that as the application includes this access it provides an opportunity to apply condition requiring its closure for vehicular use. The obvious reason for this suggestion is in the interest of highway safety and particularly given that proposal provides for the improvements to Hewitt Crescent and the junction of Partridge Road with Parkhurst Road the availability of which when complete may discourage the continued use of this existing dangerous access. There may be individual rights laid down between the owners of properties in Hewitt Crescent and the Prison Service in respect of the use of this access which will need to be subject of discussion and negotiation between those two parties outside the remit of planning legislation. Therefore it is suggested that any condition requiting its closure is subject to a reasonable time period within which agreement can be reached. Any failure to agree would obviously result in the need for that condition to be revisited by way of an application to either remove the condition altogether or extend the time period within which the access should be closed. This apart however, the application provides this opportunity which the planning authority should take up at this time.

6.20 Landscape/Open Space

It will be noted that the site has limited existing landscape features however these are important and indeed the application has been revised in terms of the alignment of the proposed estate road to ensure greater level of retention of trees within the site. I consider that this along with the retention of the perimeter hedgerows and tree boundaries will reduce the impact on existing landscape and any ecology which currently resides within that existing landscape.

6.21 The submitted layout also indicates additional small areas of open space within the proposed development. Also significantly the proposal provides for open space adjacent to the proposed access off Hewitt Crescent which will be directly attached to the existing significant open space area to the east of Hewitt Crescent and zoned as such in the Unitary Development Plan. Therefore adequate provision has been made for open space and landscape proposals.

6.23 In terms of the impact of the Hewitt Crescent road improvement proposals on the existing open space and more importantly the safety of the use of that open space which again has been addressed by provision for a fence of appropriate height and design along the top of the embankment which will formed by the widening of Hewitt Crescent and is required because of the elevated nature of the open space land. It is considered that this will be sufficient to address any safety concerns in respect of children playing on this open space area.

6.24 Drainage

Members will note that the major problems with developments on sites in this area has been the inability of existing drainage systems in the area to service the site. Following extensive discussions between the various agencies close to resolution although obviously there are cost factors involved. The Environment Agency’s comments are self-explanatory. Southern Water have been consulted in this instance but at time of preparing report their views have not been received. This apart however Members will be aware that Southern Water have a duty to provide satisfactory foul sewer drainage to service development in accordance with appropriate legislation although the costs of installing such schemes will need to be borne by the development in direct agreement with Southern Water. Therefore whilst the achievement of a solution is near resolution, in the absence of any detailed information it would be appropriate to continue to apply the previous drainage conditions which related to the approval of August 2002. In this regard Members should note the Environments Agency’s recommended condition.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, your officers are satisfied that these outline residential proposals are satisfactory subject to conditions that are appropriate to this allocated site. The application of the conditions are particularly important in this case to ensure that controls can be exercised in relation to necessary road improvements, provision of affordable housing, provision of appropriate drainage solutions and protection of existing landscape and open space provision. Your officers also consider that the mix and range of dwellings along with the resultant density is acceptable in this location and therefore the application is recommended for conditional approval subject to advisory note covering the need for any future applicant other than the Council submitting the detailed application to enter into a Section 106 Agreement in conjunction with a registered social landlord to ensure deliverability of affordable housing on the site.

8. First Recommendation

Conditional Permission be granted.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3	Approval of the details of the design and external appearance of the building(s), 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	Any reserved matter or detailed permission granted following this outline consent shall not be initiated by the undertaking of material operations as defined in Section 56 (4 A - D) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the development until planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the said Act relating to the land has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority and the Local Planning Authority has notified the person submitting the same that it is to the Local Planning Authority's approval. The said planning obligation will provide for: Provision of affordable housing to satisfy a local need to be made up of up to 30% of the total number of units on the overall site. Provision of an agreed educational financial contribution. Management of Open Space Areas Reason: To ensure the provision of affordable housing, and education facilities in compliance with policy U2 (Ensuring Adequate Education, Social and Community Facilities for the Future Population), policy H14 (Locally Affordable Housing as an Element of Housing Schemes) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and Statutory Supplementary Planning Guidance - Affordable Housing.
5	No development shall be commenced until a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following details: The revision of a surface water regulation system is designed and implemented in accordance with those approved details supported by detailed calculations. Any such scheme shall ensure that any increase in load to the sewers does not increase the frequency and volume of storm overflows at Dodnor Lane pumping station or Prior Crescent. Scheme must include maintenance programme and establish ownership of the drainage system. The agreed scheme shall be implemented and subsequently maintained in accordance with the timing and phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme or within any period agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the River Medina estuary designated under EC directive for shell fish waters, to ensure an adequate system of surface water drainage is provided for the development and that existing small streams in the area are protected from additional flows from the proposed development thus minimising the risk of flooding all in compliance with policy C7 (River Corridors and Estuaries), policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	Details of the design and construction of any new road, footways, accesses, car parking areas with details of the disposal of surface water drainage therefrom shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of works. Such details shall include the improvements and widening of Hewitt Crescent through to its junction with Partridge Road to a standard suitable for adoption by the Highway Authority. Such details shall also include provision of parking facilities on the eastern side of Hewitt Crescent. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to improve the access route to the site from the A3020 Parkhurst Road in compliance with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	Details of the design and construction of any retaining walls along with details of the type, height and materials in respect of any fencing along the eastern boundary of the improved Hewitt Crescent road with the existing open space area shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works commencing. Any such retaining wall and fencing shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In order to protect both existing and future users of the open space area in compliance with policy L4 (Protection of Open Spaces, Village Greens and Allotments) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	No dwelling shall be occupied until both parts of the roads and drainage system which serve the dwellings have been constructed in accordance with a scheme agreed by the Local Planning Authority including any agreed improvements and widening to Hewitt Crescent and Partridge Road, (see condition 6) and any agreed retaining wall and fencing between Hewitt Crescent and the open space area (see condition 7). Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access to the proposed dwellings in compliance with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9	No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site and drained and surfaced in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority for cars/bicycles to be parked and for vehicles to be loaded and unloaded and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in a forward gear. Space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: To ensure an adequate level of on street parking provision in compliance with policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) and policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	No development shall commence on site until details of the improvements to the junction of Partridge Road with the A3020 Parkhurst Road have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such improvements shall include for the creation of a traffic lit junction, carriageway widening and the provision of a right turn lane in Parkhurst Road. None of the proposed dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until these junction improvements have been completed in accordance with agreed details or as otherwise may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings in compliance with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
11	In this condition "retained hedge or hedgerow" means an existing hedge or hedgerow which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. No retained hedge or hedgerow shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained hedge or hedgerow be reduced in height other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. If within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development the whole or any part of any retained hedge or hedgerow is removed, uprooted, is destroyed or dies, another hedge or hedgerow shall be planted at the same place and that hedge or hedgerow shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained hedge or hedgerow shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and particulars before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any fenced area in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered nor shall any excavation be made or fire be lit, without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing hedges or hedgerows and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	No development shall take place until a programme of scrub, shrub and ground clearance has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The programme shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To minimise disturbance to wildlife and to comply with policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13	No retained boundary hedgerow or tree shall be indicated to be within privately owned domestic gardens which will be retained as a public amenity in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure long term retention of these landscape features in the interests of nature conservation in compliance with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
14	A landscape management plan, including long-term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than privately owned, domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development or any phase of the development, whichever is the sooner. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To ensure long-term maintenance of the landscaping of the site/ development and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
15	[The plans and particulars submitted in accordance with conditions (#) shall include:] [No development shall take place until there have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: A plan showing the location of, and allocating a reference number to, each existing tree on the site which has a stem with a diameter, measured over the bark at a point 1.5 metres above ground level, exceeding 75mm, showing the species, girth or stem diameter, height, crown spread, state of health and stability of each tree, together with details of those trees that are to be retained and details of any proposed topping or lopping; Details of any proposed topping or lopping of any tree on land adjacent to the site; A plan showing existing ground levels and details of any proposed alterations thereto and of any proposed excavations; A plan showing the location, spread, height, species and state of health of all existing hedgerows, hedges and other areas of vegetation on the site, together with details of those that are to be retained and details of any that are proposed to be cut back or removed, wholly or partially; A plan showing the location, levels and dimensions of all existing watercourses, drainage channels and other aquatic features on the site, together with details of those that are to be retained and details of any works proposed thereto; Details of all existing boundary features and means of enclosure at the site, together with details of those that are to be retained and details of any works proposed thereto; Details of 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; Details of the specification, position and programme of implementation of any measures to be taken before or during the course of development for the protection from damage of anything to be retained; The erection of fencing for the protection of anything to be retained shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and ground levels within those areas shall not be altered nor shall any excavation be made or fire be lit, without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans, particulars and details approved pursuant to this condition. Reason: To allow the proper consideration of the impact of the proposed development on the amenity value of the existing site and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
16	No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: A desk-top study documenting all previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with national guidance as set out in Contaminated Land Research Report Nos. 2 & 3 and BS10175: 2001; and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as appropriate by the desk-top study in accordance with BS10175: 2001 – “Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites – Code of Practice”; and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a remediation scheme to deal with any contaminant including an implementation timetable, monitoring proposals and a remediation verification methodology. The verification methodology shall include a sampling and analysis programme to confirm the adequacy of decontamination and an appropriately qualified person shall oversee the implementation of all remediation. The construction of buildings shall not commence until the investigator has provided a report, which shall include confirmation that all remediation measures have been carried out fully in accordance with the scheme. The report shall also include results of the verification programme of post-remediation sampling and monitoring in order to demonstrate that the required remediation has been fully met. Future monitoring proposals and reporting shall also be detailed in the report. Reason: To protect the environment and prevent harm to human health by ensuring that where necessary, the land is remediated to an appropriate standard in order to comply with Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
17	Prior to occupation of any dwellings hereby approved the existing access off Parkhurst Road (A3020) which serve the industrial units and former library headquarters shall be stopped up to prevent vehicular traffic access but shall be retained for use as a cycle/footpath access in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any such details shall include information relating to width, surface treatment, lighting and landscaping and shall be constructed to a standard suitable for adoption by the Highway Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure an adequate standard of cycleway/footpath is provided to comply with policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) and TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
18	No later than six months after the day on which the first dwelling is occupied the existing access off Parkhurst Road (A3020) between numbers 22 and 23 Hewitt Crescent shall be permanently closed to vehicular traffic in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Second Recommendation:

That an advisory note be sent to the Property Services department emphasising the importance of the contents of condition number 4 and the importance that any applicant other than the Council submitted the detailed or reserved matter application should be aware of the need to enter into a Section 106 Agreement in conjunction with a registered social landlord to ensure deliverability of affordable housing on this site.

Reference Number: P/01864/05 - TCP/10858/N and

P/01867/05 - CAC/10858/M

Parish/Name: Ryde - Ward/Name: Ryde North East

Registration Date: 23/09/2005 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr J Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Mr J Tilden-Smith

Demolition of building; construction of 3 storey building with accommodation in roof space to form 14 flats; alterations to vehicular access, parking areas & landscaping (revised scheme)

26 Bellevue Road, Ryde, PO332AR

Plus Conservation Area Consent for demolition of building in connection with construction of 3 storey building with accommodation in roof space to form 14 flats; alterations to vehicular access, parking area & landscaping (revised scheme)

These applications are both recommended for Refusal

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a major planning application which has proved to be contentious by reason of conflicting policy considerations and the site’s location within the Conservation Area. It can be considered concurrently with the Conservation Area Consent application accompanying.

1. Details of Application

1.1 These two applications seek full permission and Conservation Area consent for the demolition of the existing building and for its replacement with 14 flats. Plans show a four storey building with the upper floor contained within the roof space, a single block but due to existing levels, first floor would be set at approximately road level. Building is shown to be roughly ‘S’ shaped with a projection at front and rear giving relief to those elevations, constructed in facing brickwork, stone faced quoins and plinths, stone headers and quoins to windows with some sections rendered and painted. Details also include brackets beneath eaves, cills and string courses. First floor level accessed from highway via a bridge leading to a stair and lift well situated centrally in the plan form and capped by a central turret feature above roof level. Upper floor containing two penthouse units lit by roof lights and dormers.

1.2 Flats are two bedroomed (one en-suite), kitchen and bathroom and lounge/diner varying between 70 and 86 sq m except for the penthouse flats which are approximately 100 sq m. Outside proposal involves utilization of the existing access into an area currently used for car parking where it is proposed to provide five car parking spaces only but also to include an additional building to contain a secure bicycle store and bin store. The remaining part of the site is laid out to landscaped areas except for a pedestrian footpath leading from the parking area to both the rear entrance for pedestrians and to a communal garden situated in the north western corner. The existing front boundary wall of the site is proposed to be retained at the western extent, at the eastern end of the frontage but, between the building and Bellevue Road it is proposed to retain part of the wall and to provide wrought iron railings to a height commensurate with the existing stone wall. The access is intended to be maintained in its present form.

1.3 Details of justification for demolition of existing building. Situated in a Conservation Area and comprising the demolition of a substantial building, Conservation Area consent is required for the demolition of the existing structure. As before, accompanying the application are three alternative feasibility studies, each with the intent of retaining the existing building and comprising the conversion of same into apartments; the converting/upgrading including the partial re-roofing of the flat roofed areas to convert the building into apartments; the partial demolition of the existing building and conversion of the remaining structure and extension forming additional self-contained flats.

1.4 Each of these alternatives has financial implications and each concludes that they are all uneconomic and therefore unviable. The building is in a poor state of maintenance and is deteriorating but appears to be structurally sound. Since the previous application, the building has deteriorated further and is now boarded up to prevent access and reduce vandalism.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 Site has an approximate area of 0.15 hectares and is presently occupied by a substantial two/three storey building which is not listed but the majority of it is of Victorian origin. It has been extended by the addition of a two storey flat roofed wing at the rear and the existing building has been painted white with the quoins picked out in black. Formerly used as a nursing home, the building is now empty and the grounds are beginning to grow over.

2.2 To the north east of the site is a terrace of three modern two storey dwellings or maisonettes which front onto East Street; to the west is a pair of modern semi-detached properties but the area is one of mixed development, some two and some three storeys, fairly substantial properties in large sites.

2.3 In close proximity, directly to the north but within the site, is the route of the tunnel serving the railway linking Ryde St John’s to the Esplanade railway station. The front boundary with Bellevue Road is a mix of stone walls and iron railings and there is no footway on that side of the highway. The site contains some trees, the majority of which are located along the northern boundary and a single, substantial tree immediately adjoining the existing building on its eastern side.

3. Relevant History

3.1 At 6 September 2005 meeting a three and four storey building to form 14 flats and an application for the associated conservation area consent for demolition were both refused on grounds of inappropriate design and adverse affect on the Conservation Area and, in the case of the application for Conservation Area consent, on grounds that the replacement building was not of sufficiently high standard of design.

3.2 In July 2004 an application seeking consent for the demolition of the existing building and redevelopment of the site with 12 three storey town houses was refused for reasons of inappropriate design, external appearance and inappropriate scale and character and, in addition, on the basis that insufficient detail had been submitted to justify the demolition of the building which is located within the conservation area. Also, a further reason for refusal was on the basis of an inadequate access due to limited visibility.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance

PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) require schemes to be good enough to approve, not bad enough to refuse.

PPG3 (Housing) supports the use of brownfield sites within urban areas especially increased densities for best use of urban land.

PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) refers to development within conservation areas, especially regarding demolition of non-listed buildings.

4.2 UDP Policy

Policy D1 – Standards of Design; D2 – Standards for Development within the Site; B6 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas; B7 – Demolition of Non-Listed Buildings and TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development are applicable.

4.3 The site is not within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but is within the Designated Conservation Area but the building is not listed.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved but wishes to limit the use of the access in connection with this development to a level commensurate with the approved use. Accordingly, he recommends a maximum of five car parking spaces. Recommends a comprehensive landscaping scheme in order to prevent additional parking on site.

· The justification for the demolition of the non-listed building in the conservation area is identical to that submitted previously which was reviewed by the Property Services Department. This information included three alternative feasibility studies as detailed above and it was concluded that the building costs explained therein were reasonable and that the sales values are also realistic.

· Conservation and Design Team comments.

Concern is raised that the proposed building is not appropriate to this part of the conservation are by virtue of its bulk, assertiveness and apparent status and ancillary works required to support it. This is not clearly illustrated in the submission which provides only minimal contextual illustration.

· Bellevue Road is for more than half its length, a road of “backs”, having historically provided the service accesses to properties in Melville Street. Thus the character of the eastern part, walls, trees and a narrow low status road. The western end provides for the sides of large properties fronting the major road and some older houses set well back. Tilden House and the pair of modest, modern semis adjacent to it are the only properties fronting the road and they are relatively modest retaining the scale of this road which is almost a back lane.

· The site is constrained by the presence of the tunnel and that a large area must remain undeveloped. The proposal places a large building, a long bin/cycle store and very urbanized parking and access arrangement in what is a very low key, modest and green space within the Conservation Area.

· The building itself in elevation is a reasonable pastiche of a period building, but its large and deep plan form necessitates the use of a large area flat roof and the lower floors are close to retaining walls at the front. It is not set back as are other buildings of this apparent status locally.

· Accordingly, the proposal may be considered as over development in an overassertive form which is inappropriate to its location within the Conservation area. Thus it fails to preserve of enhance that area contrary to the advice in PPG15, PPS1 and Policies contained within the UDP.

5.2 External Consultees

· Network Rail expresses areas of concern (but raise no objection) wishing to ensure safeguarding the tunnel to the rear of the site.

· English Heritage commenting on the original proposal observed that the existing building was found to be sound but with poorly designed, more modern extensions; considered that the replacement building was of excessive mass which would have an adverse effect on the Conservation Area.

5.3 Third Party Representations

· Town Council comments – not applicable.

5.4 Neighbours

· One letter raising concern over position of tunnel, inadequate drainage, subsidence and traffic problems.

· Two letters of objection, from the same local resident claiming inadequate consultation, excessive height; inappropriate development of excessive mass in the Conservation Area; loss of privacy due to inclusion of windows in side elevation. Adverse effects on Rail tunnel; unjustified reasons to demolish.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main issues relating to this application are:

· Policy and principle

· Justification for demolition of a property in the Conservation Area

· The design of the replacement building in this Conservation Area setting

· Traffic and access implications

· Effect on adjoining properties and proximity to the tunnel

6.2 As with the previous application which was refused, the site is located within the development envelope and in an area predominantly residential use. In purely land use terms, the residential use of the land is acceptable in principle and policy terms, the utilization of brownfield sites and the best use of urban land and consistent with national and local policies. Given the area of the site overall density is acceptable.

6.3 In order to carry out redevelopment in the Conservation Area, the justification for the demolition of the existing building is the first step. PPG15 makes it quite clear that the general presumption should be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and to demolish such buildings it should be assessed against the broad criteria as proposals to demolish listed buildings. It continues by advising that in less clear cut cases, where a building makes little or no such contribution, the Local Planning Authority will need to have full information about what is proposed for the site after demolition. It is usual for the demolition to be prohibited until there are acceptable detailed plans for redevelopment and, in the event that both planning permission and conservation area consent for demolition and redevelopment of the site are granted the demolition does not commence until a binding contract for the commencement and implementation lf the replacement development has been provided.

6.4 In order to justify the demolition of a non-listed building in a conservation area, all matters should be considered in reaching a decision as to whether Conservation Area Consent should be granted. The criteria can be wide ranging but essentially fall into the following categories. Firstly the visual contribution the existing building makes to the conservation area. Assuming the building is of insufficient architectural merit alone or in a group to warrant it being included in the listing, some buildings still can contribute significantly if only by way of continuity of the style of buildings in a particular area. Structurally, if the building is in poor condition, the economics of repair and refurbishment are also factors which are inextricably linked with alternative developments or uses for such sites Lastly, but by no means least the visual impact of the loss of the building and its potential replacement are major factors in determining whether such a scheme should be accepted.

6.5 In this instance, as with the previous scheme, three alternatives were included by the agent to see if conversion to flats, for example, would make the retention of the building economically and practically viable. As mentioned above, these schemes were evaluated by the Property Services Department who considered them to be realistic alternatives but the schemes proved to be unviable.

6.6 The former application, refused at the September meeting was originally submitted in a similar form as the application now under consideration. With that application, negotiations took place in order to achieve a design which, in effect, reduced the mass of the building visually by dividing into three separate elements. The application as now submitted has not been negotiated and is similar in form to the original plans submitted in the last application. Members will be aware that Ryde has a fairly distinctive design style and is well known for its roofscapes and design articulation. The design of a building on this site should be capable of integrating well with the understated simple, elegant late Regency/early Victorian style.

6.7 In determining this application Members will need to be mindful that the development should be sufficiently high quality to grant planning permission (and conservation area consent) rather than “not bad enough to refuse”.

6.8 Whilst the building has regard to features found within the vicinity and wider Conservation Area and therefore represents a fair pastiche of a period building, it does represent a significant increase in mass stemming at least in part from the significant increase in ground coverage, whilst this may not be excessive in another situation, in this context the mass does result in an over development and over assertive form, imposing on adjoining development to an unacceptable degree in the conservation area.

6.9 In terms of traffic and access, the conflict was previously seen as that of the existing establishment which only had sufficient car parking for five vehicles used in connection with the former nursing home. The increase in provision of a greater capacity of car parking would lead to an increase use of the vehicular access which, in turn, would necessitate the improvement of the visibility by creating a much wider access or visibility splays and the removal of some of the brick and stone boundary wall running along the Bellevue Road frontage. This would have an adverse effect on the Conservation Area as it is characterised by a substantial boundary walls and a sense of enclosure. However, limitation to the same level of existing use, and the number of vehicles to be accommodated at a maximum of 5 meets with the approval of the Highways Engineers who recognise that in this location a reduction a parking provision may be made due to UDP policies and advice in PPG13 (Transport).

6.10 Following criticism at the previous application stage, this revised scheme incorporates a cycle parking and bin store building, a long narrow single storey pitched roof structure located immediately to the east of the new building and accessed from the car park. This building would be at a lower level due to the reduced ground levels within the site at that point and visible obliquely through the access point from Bellevue Road. It is unlikely to be easily visible within the streetscene due to the retention of the boundary wall and screening by the proposed building. However, in the context of the site itself it would be an extremely prominent feature from within and not ideal in terms of its design in relation to the conservation area.

6.11 Turning to the effect on adjoining properties, the pair of semi-detached houses located to the west of the site, numbers 24 and 24A Bellevue Road are likely to be the only properties directly affected. The revised scheme shows the elevation which fronts onto that pair of semi-detached houses as being three storeys in height and windows incorporated in that elevation serving bedrooms and a secondary lounge window which could affect the privacy of the adjoining property. The secondary lounge windows could be obscure glazed or, at least, comprise the bottom half with obscure glazing in order to maintain adequate levels of privacy and if permission was granted this could be conditional. It is arguable that the three storey building would have a dominant effect on the adjoining property due to the distances involved, 6m from the adjoining property but one whole floor of the development will be below road level thus giving a relatively similar overall height.

6.12 The tunnel, through which the Island line runs between Ryde Esplanade and Ryde St John’s Stations is situated only a few metres to the north. Bearing in mind this particular feature, liaison has taken place between the agent and Network Rail who has set out the criteria and conditions which need to be observed. No objections are raised providing those safeguards are undertaken.

6.13 In the event that planning permission and conservation area consent are granted, a Section 106 obligation will be required to cover education, open space contributions and for transport infrastructure.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 Situated in the Conservation Area and comprising a comparatively large building mass, the site is underlain. by the railway tunnel which places a constraint on the site, forcing development to the south west corner due to structural considerations and proximity to the tunnel beneath. The loss of the building in the Conservation Area has been investigated and treated as those the building were listed, as required by PPG15. It is not listed but its style does make some contribution to the character of the area, however, in practical terms, retention of the building appears to be uneconomically viable as a conversion and retention of most of the structure for residential purposes has proved to be uneconomically viable. Without redevelopment the site is likely to fall into further disrepair and dereliction, detracting further from the Conservation Area.

7.2 The former use as a nursing home ceased some while ago due to the inability of the property to be adapted to meet modern standards and upgrading has also proved an uneconomic proposition. In addition, there is no policy objection to the loss of nursing homes and the proposal seeks the most appropriate use in this location which is for residential purposes.

7.3 This is a very substantial development and it is clear that only five car parking spaces are proposed but this restriction on parking is an important one since it provides no increase in vehicular provision on site. Increased use of the access would necessitate a significant increase in standard of access to obtain visibility splays which would mean the loss of a large proportion of the stone wall which charaterises the Conservation Area as there is not footway on this side of Bellevue Road, the need to improve visibility would be increased. On balance it is more desirable to retain the character of the area rather than provide for additional car parking.

7.4 This scheme, with some revision, has been submitted in a similar form originally but following that revision the last application was refused as it was still felt inappropriate at that time and it was felt appropriate to negotiate a more acceptable solution. In effect, the scheme has reverted to a form similar to the original from which negotiations commenced. In essence the building is considered to be of excessive mass and inappropriate in the conservation area and therefore whilst consistent with some UDP policy is contrary to Policies B6, D1 and D2 and contrary to PPG15, Planning and the Historic Environment.

8. Recommendation

Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

The proposed development, by reason of its position, design, scale, mass and external appearance, would be an intrusive development, out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the locality as well as having an adverse affect on the amenities of the adjoin gin residential properties and within a conservation area fails to enhance or preserve the current amenity value and accordingly is contrary to Policies S10 (If it will conserve or enhance the features of special character of these areas), B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas), S6 (To be of a high standard of Design) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan)

Conditions/Reasons for Conservation Area Consent – P/01867/05 – CAC/10858/M

The proposal does not provide for a suitable replacement leaving an unsuitable gap in the streetscene which falls within a designated conservation area, failing to enhance and preserved the amenities of the area and also contrary to S10 (If it will conserve or enhance the features of special character of these areas) and Policy B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/01930/05 - TCP/27308

Parish/Name: Newport - Ward/Name: Mount Joy

Registration Date: 11/10/2005 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr J Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Isle of Wight Cricket Board

Change of use of agricultural land to cricket ground to include construction of cricket pavilion and detached store

OS parcel 3660, Newclose Farm, Nunnery Lane, Newport, PO303DX

This application is recommended for Refusal

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a major application and is particularly contentious by reason of conflicting policy considerations; it is of genuine Islandwide significance.

1. Details of Application

1.1 This is a full application with all details included for determination.

1.2 The proposal is primarily the change of use of a piece of agricultural land with an area of approximately 8.9 hectares located on the east side of C11 Newport to Chillerton Road (Nunnery Lane) approximately 0.3km north of the junction with Sandy Lane, otherwise known as Cox’s Corner. In turn, Cox’s Corner is the western most extent of Sandy Lane, immediately adjoining the Whitecroft complex of buildings with which Members will be familiar.

1.3 The proposal comprises the engineering operations required to flatten the agricultural land to form a cricket ground of Gold Standard. By employing a cut and fill regime the intention is to provide a roughly rectangular flat table approximately 140m by 160m a vehicular access situated in the layby on the east side of Whitcombe Road leading into a driveway with car parking off on its northern side; the driveway extending towards the eastern boundary where it is proposed to erect a pavilion and an underground store. The pavilion is proposed to be constructed in masonry and have a hipped and gabled roof with the gable projecting in a southerly direction incorporating a clock, typical characteristic of a cricket pavilion. The overall height of the building is shown as 9m to its ridge roof overall width of 33m and a depth of approximately 18.6m. Building is shown to be situated on the top of the cut embankment provided as part of the leveling process.

1.4 Having an internal area of approximately 403 sq m, the pavilion is proposed to provide visitor and home changing facilities with showers, toilets, office and other facilities with an intervening section providing a lounge, bar, kitchen and cellar. Materials for the finishes of the building have not been specified but are expected to be the subject of condition.

1.5 In addition it is proposed to construct an underground store close to the eastern side of the pavilion to house equipment used for maintenance purposes.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 The site has overall dimensions of approximately 250m and 250m, the land rises substantially in a north easterly direction.

2.2 Site comprises an open or cultivated field surrounded by field hedgerows set in open and relatively flat open landscape with panoramic views especially to the south and western quadrants.

2.3 To the south east of the site, at a distance of approximately 350m lies the Whitecroft complex. Otherwise, surrounding the site in the near vicinity there are only farm complexes and individual properties, the nearest development being Blackwater approximately 1.4 km distance and Carisbrooke approximately 1 km to the north with Carisbrooke Castle 1.2km to the north west.

3. Relevant History

3.1 None

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance

· PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development)

· PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas)

· PPG13 (Transport)

· PPG17 (Sport and Recreation)

4.2 The following UDP Policies are considered applicable in this instance.

Strategic Policies

· S4 – The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development

Detailed Policies

· G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

· G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development

· G5 – Development Outside Defined Settlements

· T11 – Special Events or Festival Sites

· C1 – Protection of Landscape Character

· C2 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

· C14 – Safeguard Best Agricultural Land

· C15 – Appropriate Agricultural Diversification

· TR3 – Locating Development to Minimise the Need to Travel

· TR4 – Transport Statement Requirements for Major Development

· TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

· L1 – Informal Recreation Provision in the Countryside

· L2 – Formal Recreation Provision

· L7 – Gold Course Development

· T2 – Tourism Related Development

· U3 – Appropriate Location for education, community, social, health and welfare facilities and the promotion of sharing and dual use.

· TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines

4.3 The site is located within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· County Archaeology Officer advises the site probably contains a Bronze Age Burial ground which is of National Importance and accordingly if the Committee is mindful to favour the proposal, prior to the issue of permission, a full site investigation to ascertain the precise location, date, nature and importance of any archaeological deposits is carried out. Accordingly, at this stage there is inadequate information to grant planning permission.

· Highway Engineer recommends refusal on grounds of inadequate access due to unacceptable visibility and on grounds of generation of traffic onto the public highway.

· The AONB unit objects to the development and its associated buildings and engineering operations on grounds of adverse visual effect in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

· County Ecology Officer points out that the hedgerows are a significant feature in the landscape which have been well managed with few gaps but concedes that it would not qualify as important under the wildlife criteria, The Hedgerow Regulations and although there are no intentions to remove hedgerows recommends that a management condition be imposed in the event of permission being granted.

5.2 External Consultees

· None at the time of writing.

5.3 Third Party Representations

· Parish Council comments – not received at the time of writing.

· Gatcombe Parish Council (whilst not in their area) request control on subsequent uses of the land and any further development.

· CPRE object to adverse impacts of development in the AONB and countryside generally claiming application is contrary to policy contained within the UDP and adverse traffic implications.

5.4 Neighbours and others

· Sixteen letters of objection from local residents/land owners on grounds of:

o Suggests that approval would turn green build agricultural land into building land.

o Inadequate access and poor local highway system not being able to cope with additional vehicles in addition to the development at Whitecroft.

o Argues that donation of the land is not a good reason for approving development.

o Questions whether or not attempts have been made or proof provided to shown that this is the only and appropriate site.

o Argues that the land is isolated and therefore is not part of the village scene of an English countryside.

o Development will positively encourage access by car.

o Inadequate access, inadequate parking and inappropriate location for ancillary uses such as the use of the clubhouse/pavilion as a social club with bar.

o Adverse effect on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

o Suggesting it would more appropriately located closer or adjacent one of the existing popular centres which is well served by transport links.

5.5 Others

Nine letters from local and mainland addresses supporting the development.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main issues relating to this application are:

· Policy and principle

· The sustainability of the location.

· The choice of site bearing in mind the sequential approach.

· The visual impact of the physical development

· Matters relating to traffic and access.

· The effect on the archaeological value of the site

6.2 The principle of establishing a Gold Standard Cricket Ground on an appropriate site on the Isle of Wight no doubt is well supported and highly desirable and, is unlikely to receive any serious adverse criticism. The principle of such an establishment is undisputedly supported by PPG17 and Policies L1 and L2 but, of course, subject to appropriate location and do not result in an unacceptable loss of amenity. It is not disputed therefore that the principle of the establishment of such a facility would benefit the Isle of Wight.

6.3 Whilst the principle of the establishment of a Gold Standard Cricket Ground is supported, the application site is not. Whilst the principle is felt acceptable and supportable, it should not be seen as the over riding factor in determining this application.

6.4 The proposal is to carry out extensive engineering operations to create a level table upon which the ground can be laid out, to erect a very substantial clubhouse and to erect screens, provide car parking and a means of access to the highway to enable the site to be used as a County plus standard of cricket ground in an area which almost entirely of an agricultural landscape, situated in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The use which will inevitably lead to players and spectators, in the main, accessing the site by car given the paucity of public transport links from across the Island and, as such, is contrary to principles of planning encompassed within the Unitary Development Plan.

6.5 The site is in open countryside and is comparatively isolated from any settlement, the nearest being the Whitecroft complex and, further to the north Carisbrooke. Ideally, in order to comply with National and Local policy a site for a purpose such as that proposed would be adjoining a centre of population; easily accessible by foot or by public transport and would not be situated in an area of sensitive landscape and not in an isolated position in open countryside which is also an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

6.6 There should be evidence to show the site is sequentially appropriate and that other sites within or adjoining built up areas have been discounted due to proper planning reasons. Again, it appears that the applicants consider the site proposed is only suitable because it is being donated by a benefactor. If that argument were to hold water, any landowner could offer their land for development.

6.7 Other sites have not been properly evaluated except for the suggestion that land to the north of Seaclose Offices might be appropriate but it is suggested that “Gold Standard” would not permit sharing the out field with the football pitches and that their loss is likely to be unacceptable. Your officers hypothesize that such a loss would necessarily occur. There is already a cricket square to the south of the Seaclose Offices which could be turned back into football pitches to compensate for the displacement if provision were made in that site.

6.8 However, this is only one site which has been suggested but the application includes no evidence to suggest that any other sites have been considered.

6.9 In terms of sustainability it is not felt that this is an appropriate site. The activity intended to be carried out on the site is one which if successful will inevitably encourage patronage from participants and spectators from all over the Island and, indeed, from the mainland. Whilst there may be a need and desire for such a facility in principle, it does not need to be on this land or in this location.

6.10 The proposed pavilion indicates substantial facilities including a kitchen, bar and very substantial lounge of over 130 square metres in addition to the toilet and changing rooms provided for the players. It is inevitable, in order to make such a provision economically viable, that the pavilion and it’s facilities are utilized on more occasions other than on match days, presumably for cricket club members and other functions and located in such an isolated position the development is not consistent with sustainability aims.

6.11 It is clearly the intention in providing such a high standard of facility that it would be used for the purpose proposed, that is to hold events consistent with its status. Since the site is unlikely to be accessed on foot by spectators, by players and staff, it is reasonable to assume that, especially on event days the access will be used considerably. It will be seen that the highway engineers consider the access to be inadequate in terms of visibility and it is apparent that changes to the access to permit its use at the envisaged scale and safely would need to be carried out. Such improvements would include a provision of a right turn lane when approaching the site from the south, possibly lighting and signage which would be inappropriate in this rural location in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

6.12 At present the site is no more than an agriculture field with natural contours consistent with the surrounding land. The works propose to create a level playing field will extend to approximately 2.5 hectares off cut and fill or as much as 4.5 metres of cut, near the pavilion would mean about 3 metres of fill close to the western corner of the site adjoining Whitcombe Road. Although it is argued that a cricket ground is like one would expect to see in the English landscape and that “there is nothing more English”, cricket grounds are more associated with edge of town or edge of village locations rather than in the open countryside within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The visual impact of the engineering works, the pavilion, the underground store and the associated screens, score board and perhaps practice nets would have a significant visual impact on this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which would be inappropriate. In essence it is not so much the pitch and outfields, which will be green and well maintained so much as the additional paraplendia associated with any cricket ground, particularly a high standard one.

6.13 The applicants have referred to other cricket grounds approved in the last few years but these are not located within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the applicants do not say why none of these others would be suitable for upgrading to the Gold Standard so desired.

6.14 The site is highly likely to contain Bronze Age burial remains of National Importance and as such would need to be the subject of a comprehensive investigation and in the event the presence of such artifacts and status of the site are established a full program of excavation of the site or other mitigation measures would need to be implemented before works commence if the Committee contemplated the grant of permission.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 The idea of creating a Gold Standard Cricket Ground within the Isle of Wight is applauded and encouraged for reasons of sporting activity and the need for such activities for greater health. However, despite the support and desirability of such a facility, the site chosen is simply the wrong one. Such a development will impact visually on the sensitive Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty with impacts being substantial in an otherwise open agricultural landscape. The site is isolated and comparatively remote for easy and sustainable access to those who are going to participate or spectate or otherwise to use the facilities provided on site. The choice of site should be dictated by its practical application to continuing use so should be within only a short distance of a major settlement and service by several traffic routes with the emphasis on public transport and/or pedestrian access and should not be determined as suitable just because it’s available.

7.2 Whilst it is accepted that cricket ground is part of the traditional English scene, it is appropriate to a village remote from all other development or edge of settlement setting rather than one in open countryside.

7.3 The visual effects on the area, the inability of the site to enable easy access and the lack of evidence to show that there are not other, more suitable sites available, clearly supports the contention that whilst it is commendable use, this proposal is on a totally unsuitable site in an inappropriate location.

8. Recommendation

Refusal.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The proposal would be detrimental to the rural character of the area by reason of the physical impact it would cause and would therefore conflict with the intention of the Local Planning Authority to protect the natural beauty of the landscape and would therefore be contrary to Policy S10 (If It Will Conserve or Enhance The Features of Special Character of These Areas) and Policy C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
2	The proposal fails to protect and enhance the special quality of the landscape designated by the National Parks Commission under Section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy S10 (If It Will Conserve or Enhance The Features of Special Character of These Areas) and Policy C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	The proposed development would generate a significant increase in vehicular traffic entering and leaving the public highway to the detriment of highway safety and would therefore be contrary to Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	The access is unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of inadequate visibility and would therefore be contrary to Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	The proposal represents the introduction of a use which has not been justified as an exception to established planning policy and in an unsustainable location and therefore would be contrary to UDP Policies S11, G4, (c) (General Locational Criteria for Development), T11 (e) (Special Events or Festivals sites) and TR3 (Locating Development to Minimise the need to travel) and PPG13 (Transport)
6	The information accompanying this application is inadequate and deficient in detail in respect of archaeological survey information so that the Local Planning Authority is unable to consider fully the effects of the proposal on the site's archaeological importance and likely content of archaeological artifacts and in the absence of further details it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to Policy B9 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and PPG16 Archaeology and Planning.

Reference Number: P/00004/05 - TCP/17825/C

Parish/Name: Shanklin - Ward/Name: Shanklin Central

Registration Date: 04/01/2005 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr A White Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Mr S & Mr R Wyatt

Demolition of building; erection of 3 storey building to form 9 flats with parking (revised scheme)

1, Hope Road, Shanklin, PO376EA

This application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Local Member, Councillor D Pugh, has requested that this application is considered by Committee on grounds of inadequate parking provision.

1. Details of Application

1.1 Full planning permission is sought to demolish the existing building, which has gradually fallen into a poor state of repair, and to build a three storey block of nine 2 bedroom flats. Proposed building has been designed with the double road frontage in mind, with two canted bay windows on the North Road elevation and similar features onto Hope Road. The Hope Road elevation also includes full height glazing to the communal entrance and stairwell, at which point the building would step down by approximately 1.4m to ensure an acceptable height relationship with the adjoining property. The stepped-down section of the building would almost read as a separate entity to the remainder of the development, although the design approach would ensure a degree of continuity throughout the whole scheme. Six parking spaces are proposed to the front of the building and these would be served via an existing access off North Road. Two prominent trees (Beech and Lime) on the corner of Hope Road and North Road are shown to be retained. Revised plans have been submitted in an attempt to reduce the impact of the proposed parking area on the said trees.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 Site is situated on the corner of Hope Road and North Road adjacent to the road junction known as ‘Five Ways’. Site currently comprises of a large two storey Victorian building used historically as a hotel but in latter years as a restaurant. Planning permission was granted in January 2004 to change the use to a dental practice, but it is unclear as to whether this use has been implemented. Building has started to fall into a poor state of repair.

2.2 Surrounding area comprises of a variety of uses, as you would expect on the edge of a town centre, as well as a mix of buildings, in terms of style, height and overall mass. Many of the local buildings are used as hotels, and there are many examples of three storey developments. Many of the original buildings are Victorian in style with emphasis on prominent bay windows and decorative details such as fascia boards and ornate brickwork.

3. Relevant History

3.1 P/01704/02 – TCP/17825/A – Use of former hotel as restaurant and self-contained flat at ground floor and use of first floor for complimentary and beauty therapy facilities was granted permission in December 2002.

3.2 P/02387/03 – Change of use from restaurant and self-contained flat on ground floor to a dental clinic and surgery was granted conditional permission in January 2004.

4. Development Plan Policy

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

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

· Optimise the potential for site to accommodate development

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

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

4.2 PPG3 (Housing) stresses the need to make efficient use of land, but states that this should not be at the expense of cramped development prejudicial to the surrounding environment. Whilst advocating high densities, it is stressed that good design is key in order to create attractive high quality living environments in which people will choose to live. It is suggested that housing developments achieve between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare and higher where good links with public transport exist.

4.3 PPG13 (Transport) stresses the need to reduce car dependancy by facilitating more walking and cycling, by improving linkages with public transport, local services and local amenities. Local planning authorities should examine critically the standards they apply to new development, particularly with regard to roads, layout and car parking, to avoid the profligate use of land.

4.4 Site is within the development envelope boundary for Shanklin as identified on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Although site is within a designated hotel area, the hotel use has already been lost through the passage of time and approval of other uses. Relevant policies of the UDP are considered to be as follows:

· S1 – New Development will be concentrated within Existing Urban Areas

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

· G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

· G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development

· D1 – Standards of Design

· D2 – Standards for Development within the Site

· D3 – Landscaping

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

· H5 – Infill Developments

· H6 – High Density Residential Developments

· C12 – Development Affecting Trees and Woodland

· TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

· TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines

4.5 Reference is also made to the Housing Need Survey which identifies, among other things, a demand for smaller two and three bedroomed homes.

4.6 The site is allocated within Parking Zone 2 of the UDP where parking provision is 0-50% of the non-operational requirement. The maximum requirement in respect of residential development is one space per bedroom.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should permission be granted.

Tree Officer confirms that his initial concerns have been resolved through the submission of revised plans but does recommend a condition in respect of protective fencing in order to minimise any potential damage during construction work.

5.2 Town or Parish Council Comments

Shanklin Town Council stated ‘no comment’ in respect of the scheme as originally submitted, but object to the revised scheme on grounds of over development. It is relevant to note that the revised scheme relates to design changes and not the overall scale or density of the development.

5.3 Neighbours

Two letters and one email have been received from local residents objecting on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

· Not in keeping with the surrounding properties, which are mainly Victorian.

· Overlooking.

· Inadequate parking.

5.4 Others

Council for the Protection of Rural England, object on grounds of increase in traffic generation and inadequate parking.

6. Evaluation

6.1 Determining factors in considering this application are:

· Principle

· Density

· Scale, mass, design and impact on the surrounding area.

· Impact on neighbouring properties.

· Parking

6.2 The site is within the development envelope for Shanklin and, for the purposes of PPG3, it is considered to be brownfield site. The principle of redeveloping this site for residential purposes is therefore considered to be acceptable.

6.3 Members will be aware that local and national policies in respect of housing encourage the efficient use of land, with PPG3 advocating densities of between 30 and 50 dwellings to the hectare, and even higher where good links to public transport can be achieved. Such advice is echoed in Policy H6 of the UDP. It is inevitable that flats result in higher densities, hence the proposed scheme would amount to some 113 dwellings to the hectare. Policy does not rule out densities in excess of 50 dwellings to the hectare, and it is relevant to note that the application site does lie within walking distance of Shanklin Bus and Railway Stations. Accordingly, the application site is considered to be a suitable candidate for high density development given accessibility to public transport and its location within the built up area. However, the main test in respect of any residential development is whether or not the site can accommodate a given number of units without being at the expense of cramped development to the detriment of neighbouring property occupiers or the surrounding area in general. To refuse this application on ground of excessive density alone would be unsustainable.

6.4 The proposed building is large, but so are many other buildings in this part of Shanklin which generally contain hotel accommodation or flats. Essentially, this is a corner site which can accommodate a large and relatively imposing building without being out of context in this part of Shanklin. The submitted plans confirm that the development would not be significantly higher than a building to the south, and revised pans now show that the building would be stepped down on the Hope Road elevation in order to reflect the height of the neighbouring building on that frontage. Plans do make provision for limited communal garden space which is not extensive but is considered sufficient to cater for bin and bicycle storage as well as outside drying area. Overall, Officers are satisfied that the site can accommodate the size of building required to provide nine flats without appearing cramped or out of context on this prominent corner site. Accordingly, proposal would be sympathetic to prevailing form and scale of development in the immediate locality and therefore complies with relevant UDP policies in this respect.

6.5 In terms of design and external appearance, revised plans have been submitted which confirm that the proposed development would pay due regard to the prevailing style and appearance of buildings in the locality, particularly in respect of window proportions, bay windows and other design details. Accordingly, it is felt that proposed building would respect local distinctiveness which, combined with appropriate scale and height as discussed above, would result in a building which takes full account of the surrounding townscape. Members are therefore advised that the proposal satisfies the requirements of UDP design policies.

6.6 Concern has been expressed that proposed development would result in overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy of adjoining properties. All living room windows would face towards the adjoining highway network where overlooking is not considered to be an issue. Windows that could arguably look in the direction of the objector would serve bedrooms which in any event would be set at an oblique angle to the property of concern. Bearing these points in mind, it is considered that the development would not result in a significant level of overlooking.

6.7 With regard to parking, Members are advised that the site falls within Zone 2 of the Parking Guidelines which requires 0-50% of the non-operational requirement. Bearing in mind that 18 bedrooms are proposed, policy would require a maximum of nine parking spaces for this development. Six spaces as shown is considered to be compliant with policy particularly when bearing in mind the proximity of the site to Shanklin town centre, the railway station and numerous bus stops. Approval of this development with limited parking provision would accord with the objective of securing sustainable residential environments and, in particular, national and local policies which seek to reduce reliance on the private car. Members’ attention is drawn to a recent appeal decision relating to a proposed site of ten flats in Mill Hill Road, Cowes. The submitted plans indicated two parking spaces which Members considered contrary to officer recommendation, was inadequate for ten flats. That site is within Zone 2 of the Parking Guidelines and is arguably less sustainable than the site currently under consideration by Members, but was nevertheless considered consistent with the main thrust of PPG13 and Policy TR16 of the UDP. Accordingly, the inspector allowed that appeal. Members are therefore strongly advised that the scheme under consideration is compliant with national and local policies and that a refusal based solely on parking grounds is unlikely to be defendable at appeal.

6.8 Regarding traffic generation, whilst a traffic audit has not been submitted with this application, previous uses which include hotel, restaurant and possibly a dental practice would have generated a level of traffic which may not be dissimilar to that proposed. It is important to note that the Highway Engineer recommends approval subject to conditions on the basis that adequate turning can be provided and that visibility is acceptable in both directions. Accordingly, proposal accords with the requirements of Policy TR7.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in the report, it is considered that the proposal would strike the balance of making efficient use of this site but not at the expense of cramped development prejudicial to neighbouring property occupiers or the surrounding area in its wider context. The proposed level of parking would accord with the policy objective of reducing reliance on the motor car and the proposed access is considered to be acceptable. Accordingly, proposal complies with policies contained in the UDP.

8. Recommendation

Conditional Permission.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	No development shall take place until samples of materials and finishes 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	Before work commences on the development hereby approved details of existing site level (including a fixed point) to be agreed outside of the site) as the proposed finished floor levels shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning authority. Development shall only proceed in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the area in general and neighbouring properties in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	All material excavated as a result of general ground works, including site leveling, installation of services, or the digging of foundations, together with all debris following the demolition of the existing building, shall not be disposed of within the area identified red on the submitted plans. The material shall be removed from the site prior to construction of the dwelling proceeding beyond damp proof course level or such other timescale as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with Drawing No. 04:DD:16-1Rev C for six cars to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in a forward gear. 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 for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for nine bicycles to be parked. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles and to comply with Policy TR17 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved the western roadside boundary of the site shall be lowered to a maximum of 1m in height above existing road level over the whole frontage and shall be maintained thereafter at a height no greater than 1m. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highways Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Existing trees which are to be retained in accordance with the approved plans shall be subject to paragraphs a) and b) below. Such conditions shall have effect until the expiration of three years from the date of the occupation of the last flat hereby approved. No retained preserved tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the details to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with the BS3998 (Tree Work). If any retained preserved tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, a replacement tree shall be planted in the same place or a place to be agreed and that tree shall be of such size and species and shall be planted at such time as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the protection of trees to be retained and in the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development.
9	No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These works shall be carried out as approved prior to occupation of any of the units hereby approved. Such scheme shall specify position and species and size of any trees and shrubs to be planted along with timing of such planting and shall include the provision for their maintenance during the first five years from the date of planting. Scheme shall also include construction method of any proposed access or parking areas within the proximity of trees which shall accord with the arboricultural practice note (Trees in Focus Practical Care and Management Issues by the Arboriculture Advisory Information Services dated 1999) and BS5837 (Trees and Development). Any such detailed porous surface finish shall be carried out in accordance with agreed details and shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all trees or group of trees to be retained have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: A 1.2m minimum height Chestnut paling to BS722 Pt 4 Standard securely mounted on 1.2m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground. Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of works on site during which period the following restrictions shall apply: No placement or storage of material No placement or storage of chemicals No placement or storage or excavated soil No lighting of bonfires No physical damage to bark or branches No changes to natural ground drainage in the area. No changes to ground levels No digging of trenches for services, drains or sewers Any trenches required in close proximity shall be hand dug insuring all major roots are left undamaged. Reason: To ensure that the preserved trees and groups of trees to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period, in the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) and C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/00649/05 - TCP/02147/E

Parish/Name: Ventnor - Ward/Name: Ventnor West

Registration Date: 01/04/2005 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr J Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Isle of Wight Properties Ltd

Demolition of building; erection of 3/4/5/6 storey block of 8 flats with ground floor parking; vehicular access & landscaping

Beachlands, Esplanade, Ventnor, PO381JR

This application is recommended for Refusal.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a major application and is contentious due to conflicting policy implications and the possible precedent for further, similar proposals in the vicinity.

1. Details of Application

1.1 This is a full application with all matters to be considered and therefore both the principle and details are to be determined at this stage.

1.2 The proposal comprises the demolition of the existing building and replacement with a 3/4/5/6 storey block of eight flats and the plans show the building to be “built into” the slope rising from the Esplanade to the north. Ground floor plan shows pedestrian access situated centrally in the building with vehicular access situated to the western side leading to undercroft car parking for seven cars utilising a turntable in order to access the spaces. First floor contains two flats, each of two bedrooms, kitchen/utility and a living and dining area and each with two bathrooms (one en-suite); first floors contain balconies accessed from the flats. Second and third floor plans also provide two flats per floor of similar accommodation to that beneath but comprise only viewing decks of limited size of the respective living areas.

1.3 Fourth floor plan shows parts of two living units, each comprising four bedrooms, two bathrooms (one en-suite) and an en-suite shower with access to a roof garden and the fifth floor shows kitchen dining living area.

1.4 Elevationally, the front elevation of ground floor is parallel to the Esplanade but floors one, two and three are then set back square with the side boundaries of the site. Floors four and five are then set well back behind the roof terrace of the floor three and both of these levels (four and five) are set further back, cantilevered back, close to the cliff face.

1.5 The side elevations incorporate arched, headed windows with radial brick heads linked by soldier courses and materials are proposed to be yellow facing brick to all elevations with contrasting soldier courses and brick quoins; some painted render to features and roofs clad in slate with the exception of the head of the stairwell which is proposed to be constructed in a glazed roofing and walling system.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 Site is located on the northern side of The Esplanade at Ventnor a few metres from the bottom of Cascades. It is presently occupied by a two storey dwelling which appears to have a single storey addition on the front, probably at some time used as a shop or café. The existing building is finished in paint, black and white under a hipped and slate roof. This building is at Esplanade level whereas the adjoining building, to the east, the property known as the Harbour View Hotel is at a considerably higher level behind a very substantial retaining wall although the land does rise very steeply to the Cascades and back up into the town where, in close proximity, the property is situated at road level.

2.2 To the west of the site is a three storey narrow but very deep building in residential use. The area is characterised by Victorian architecture and of a seaside characteristic.

2.3 Towards the rear of the site the land rises dramatically to higher levels to cliff like retaining walls interspersed with natural growth. A quadrant shaped building almost abuts the common boundary with the frontage onto Hamborough Road.

2.4 The cliff and green area extends north westwards behind those properties fronting Esplanade Road and forms parts of a feature, the boundary of the Conservation Area.

3. Relevant History

3.1 None.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance PPS1 – Prudent Use of Natural Resources – Ensuring high quality development through good and inclusive design.

PPG3 seeks the best use of urban land.

PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment – Expresses the need to consider carefully developments which are within or adjoining conservation areas or have an effect on their setting.

PPG14 – Development on Unstable Land – Expresses the need to take account of land and slope stability in determining development proposals.

4.2 UDP policy.

· Policy S2 relates to the reuse of urban land – “brownfield sites”.

· Policy D1 relates to the standards of design.

· Policy D2 relates to the standards of development within the site.

· Policy G4 relating to the general locational criteria expects new development to harmonise with its surroundings, landscape or townscape by using appropriate scale, design and landscaping and; is sympathetic to the character and materials of their surroundings; does not protrude into prominent views into, out of or across any town, village or area of countryside.

· Policy G7 relates to development on unstable land making it clear that such development will only be permitted where the site can be properly developed taking account of matters of instability and requiring suitably qualified engineers report.

· Policy B6 refers to the protection and enhancement of conservation areas.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· Highways Engineer recommends conditions if approved.

· Conservation and Design Team points out that the site immediately abuts the boundary of the existing Conservation Area on one side and is close to it on the rear and therefore any proposal will affect the setting of the Conservation Area. The site is particular visible from many aspects and although it does not effect the views into and across the Conservation Area the site is particularly visible when looking from the west towards the Conservation Area and from the Winter Gardens along the Esplanade. Ventnor and its Conservation Area are like several others on the Island visible from the sea and are often viewed this way, the tiered form of development and the green wedges which is separating the tiers is an integral part of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposed building is considerably larger than the existing it replaces and includes an element to the rear and higher level close to the cliff and the building will appear incongruous and over large and when viewed from the junction of Esplanade Road and The Esplanade the impact of the building in the immediate foreground will be dramatic and harmful and accordingly it is felt that the proposal is over dominant, especially to adjoining buildings.

· At present the focal point of the Esplanade which has replaced the Metropole, one being of similar scale and mass to that which it replaced and the remaining buildings on the Esplanade will be subservient to this focal site with a mix of 1, 2 and 3 storeys. The design is not scholarly replica nor contemporary interpretation of the local style and does not represent high quality design which enhances the area; the use of the ground floor for parking deprives the street scape of an active frontage in this area which relies on its seaside character accordingly the Conservation and Design team consider the proposed building is not appropriate in its setting and adversely affects the character of the adjoining conservation area. Although the site is not within the conservation area, it is immediately adjoining and in an area which is the subject of imminent consultation with a view to incorporating the whole of the Esplanade within an extended conservation area. Such a development would be inconsistent with the character of an extended conservation area and inappropriate in its form and mass, clashing with the adjoining properties both in terms of style and bulk. It therefore conflicts with the advice in PPS1 and PPG15 and with UDP policy.

5.2 External Consultees

· Independent Geotechnical Engineer has been consulted with regard to the proposals. His comments are as follows “In any stability report on a site that has a cliff slope or retaining wall adjacent to it such as this, I would expect to see a section through the slope showing all the existing structures, their construction and the nature of the ground behind together with a full geotechnical assessment of the natural slope and engineering assessment of the retaining walls together with sufficient information as to how the stability of the slope is to be maintained as to be able to judge its efficacy. Such information has not been provided…… The investigations which would be undertaken by a geotechnical specialist with appropriate experience can be quite expensive. However they are vital if the building is to perform satisfactorily for its intended life as the results of these investigations may determine the shape, form and position of the proposed building in order to maintain stability to the surrounding buildings and be unaffected by ground instability itself, it is my opinion that they should be addressed at the planning stage under PPG14 rather than at the Building Regulation stage. They are also too critical to the development to be the subject of a condition. However, there may be a case for other planning matters to be dealt with first so that some comfort may be given to an applicant so that the proposed development will be given approval once the question of stability has been satisfactorily dealt with i.e. for the Council, once satisfied on all other matters, to advise the applicant that they are resolved to approve the application once the problems of stability have been satisfactorily dealt with.

On the other hand as the question of stability will have to be addressed regardless of the development that is proposed on this site, the Council could insist that this be addressed at this stage. Certainly the major expense will be in the physical investigation and the data so obtained will be relevant to any proposal for the site. “

· Assistant Ecology Officer has identified the possibility of wall lizards at this site and there have been allegations of the existence of a badger sett. Whilst these have not been confirmed, mitigation measures would need to be put in place in the event that planning permission is granted.

5.3 Town Council Comments

Ventnor Town Council, in considering original proposal for up to seven storeys considered the proposed development to be overdevelopment, excessive in height and a development which is in conflict with the recommendations of the geotechnical survey of land stability in this area. Also allege receipt of reports that the site contains a badger sett.

5.4 Neighbours

11 Letters of objection on grounds of overdevelopment, building too tall, poor and inappropriate design contrary to Policy D1, excessive mass. Development incorporating no tourist element; inadequate infrastructure; creation of congestion and adverse effect on pedestrian safety; development incorporates no affordable housing element; inadequate infrastructure, adverse effect on tourism; erection of a large development on potentially unstable land; loss of habitats for wall lizards; allegations of badger setts; loss of Victorian house; too many flats on the market and proposed development would produce more; adverse effect on adjoining properties due to height and mass, suggesting that the development should be a maximum of three storeys.

5.5 Others

Architects Panel considered that the design falls short of the standards required for such an important site and the development represented a missed opportunity for such an important site, that the ground floor should incorporate some active frontage such as restaurants or shops.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main issues relating to this application are considered to be:

· Policy and principle

· Design and visual impact, height etc.

· Effect on adjoining properties and the seafront as a whole

· Issues relating to land stability

· Highway matters, access and parking

· Habitats

6.2 In terms of policy and principle, the site is already developed and therefore could be considered as brownfield. It is within the development envelope and is not covered by any other specific notation except it does adjoin Ventnor conservation area as defined at present. Subject to other considerations, the principle of residential redevelopment of this site is therefore considered acceptable.

6.3 Following original submission the content of the scheme has been revised to omit one floor but the design remains the same, comprising a 3/4/5 storey block of flats with the upper two floor cantilevered backwards to a plateau area at the rear and incorporating a large glazed feature towards the upper levels housing the lift and the width of the block virtually fills the width of the site, although space between it and adjoining buildings is retained in similar form to that existing elsewhere on the Esplanade. Although design features echo those found in the vicinity, the overall height, shape, bulk and mass of the building is felt excessive in this location and therefore contrary to policies D1 and D2 of the UDP and due to the proximity of the site and its relationship with the existing conservation area, it is felt contrary to the aims of PPG15 which seeks to protect and enhance the conservation area.

6.4 The shape of the building, especially the “stepped” nature of the elevational form is felt to be incongruous in this location, especially when viewed obliquely from viewpoints on the Esplanade.

6.5 In terms of effect on adjoining properties, the replacement of the existing building with one of much greater mass will clearly impact on properties. The increased mass of the building on the site will in effect, dwarf the building adjoining to the south west although the building to the north east, known as Harbour View Hotel will be affected to a lesser degree due to the stepped plan form of the development and the distance between buildings and, in addition, the fact that the ground level upon which the Harbour View Hotel is sited is considerably higher.

6.6. A comprehensive response to the submission has been made by a consultant (requested by this office to comment) on the form and content of the proposal, especially bearing in mind the location of the site and the geotechnical nature of this particular area. The geotechnical engineer has observed that there is evidence of land movement on the site but this is not unusual to this sort of location and that there is an obvious danger for material falling from the upper part of the cliff onto the site. Points out that the construction of the existing retaining walls is not known nor is the type of material that is supported. He considers that the existing retaining wall at the base of the slope would appear to be inadequate and is severely cracked and the face of it has moved forward but is strongly of the opinion that a development such as this in such a location should be accompanied by a full geotechnical assessment of the natural slope and engineering assessment with the retaining walls before planning permission could be granted. Bearing in mind the complicated nature of such investigations coupled with the expense, it would not seem appropriate to require this to be done if doubt over the proposal in purely design terms is still expressed.

6.7 It is therefore contended that there is insufficient information in terms of land stability investigations regarding this site to grant planning permission.

6.8 Highway Engineer considers the proposals to be acceptable recommending conditions if approved regarding the vehicular access and the provision of parking. Traffic speeds in this location are very low due in part to the location and proximity to the Cascades and also due to the traffic calming measures which have been installed in close proximity. Visibility splays are not extensive but bearing in mind the limited speeds and subject to the realignment of the pinch point, access and parking provision is felt acceptable.

6.9 The matter of habitats has been raised by some objectors and these issues have been investigated as far as possible. The Assistant County Ecologist points out that badger setts are protected by the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 but was not able to ascertain whether or not there was a presence on site. It is known that Ventnor is a location of a long established population of wall lizards, a species which is protected under the Annexe 2 Habitat Conservation Requirements of the Bern Convention, is known to be threatened species in its northern European range. Wall lizards are an Isle of Wight bio-diversity action plan species of local conservation concern. The proposed development does have an implication with regard to parts of the existing retaining wall upon which the proposed development adjoins, indeed, although the building is proposed to be designed so as not to be a weight on the upper section above the retaining wall, it will appear that the space between the wall and the building will be affected thus losing a section of wall/cliff face, possibly part of the habitat considered suitable for this species. No survey work has been made available to determine whether or not there are serious implications regarding either species but, in the event that planning permission is contemplated, specialist survey work should be carried out to determine the extent, if any, of inhabitation by these species and what mitigation measures could be taken to compensate for the loss in habitat. However, at this stage, there is insufficient information to make an assessment.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 Although not currently within the Conservation Area, the site abuts the Conservation Area boundary and, clearly, any development of this site affects the setting. Whilst the site is within the designated development envelope and is not subject to a tourism restriction, in effect, the development as proposed would result in an area of dead frontage onto the Esplanade where enhancement of the setting of the Conservation Area would be an appropriate step.

7.2 In addition steps have already commenced to extend the Conservation Area to include the whole of the Esplanade and seafront as far as and beyond the Spyglass Inn at the southern extent of the promenade. An inappropriate form of development on this prominent and important site would not only detract from the process of enlarging the conservation area but would also detract from the quality of the environment the subject of that designation.

7.3 The resultant effect on adjoining properties and the whole of the seafront would not be a positive one and could well set a precedent for further similar developments, which although would be determined on merit, it would set a benchmark for the type, height and scale of development by subsequent proposals.

7.4 The question of land stability is of paramount importance and insufficient information has been submitted in order to ascertain whether or not the proposed development would maintain land stability. In this location extensive, expensive and specialist survey work would be needed to prove the development is a practical one before planning permission was granted but such survey work would be abortive if the development were unacceptable for other Reasons.

7.5 Accordingly should Members feel disposed to accept the proposed development, such a permission should not be issued until such evidence has been produced adequate to prove the propriety of the development and, similarly, that survey work is carried out regarding badgers and wall lizards.

7.6 However, irrespective of the above, the proposal is considered unacceptable for design, mass and scale reasons and due to the lack of information submitted in connection with land stability and major conservation considerations. Albeit your officers do accept that a building slightly larger than the one currently on site might, subject to detailed design and addressing the other comments in this report, be acceptable. Such comment is naturally made without prejudice to the Local Planning Authority’s right to consider each application on its own merits.

8. Recommendation

Refusal.

Conditions/Reasons:

The proposal, by reason of its design, height, bulk, shape, mass and scale and its relationships with adjoining properties and in the Esplanade as a whole would result in an unacceptable development contrary to Policies D1 and D2 of the Unitary Development Plan and PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment).

The information accompanying this application is inadequate and deficient in detail in respect of land stability and geotechnical survey works so that the Local Planning Authority is unable to consider fully the effects of the proposal on the stability of the land and in the absence of further details it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the requirements of PPG14 (Development on Unstable Land).

The information accompanying this application is inadequate and deficient in detail in respect of survey work regarding protected species such as badgers and wall lizards so that the Local Planning Authority is unable to consider fully the effects of the proposal on the protected species and in the absence of further details it is considered that the proposal will have a detrimental effect on the habitats of those protected species and therefore contrary to policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and PPG9 (Nature Conservation).

Reference Number: P/01983/05 - TCP/26828/B

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

Registration Date: 14/10/2005 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr A Pegram Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Sigma Homes Ltd

Demolition of house; outline for block of 8 flats with parking at lower ground floor level; alterations to vehicular access and landscaping

23 Cambridge Road, East Cowes, PO326AH

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is the third application this year seeking to obtain planning permission for redevelopment of the site and the current submission is largely controversial having attracted a substantial number of letters of representation both for and against.

1. Details of Application

1.1 Consent is sought for demolition of the existing dwelling on the site and outline planning permission for block of 8 flats. With the exception of means of access, all other matters are reserved for subsequent approval.

1.2 Although the application seeks outline consent only, the submission is accompanied by illustrative drawings showing a double fronted three store building with bay windows, reflecting the Victorian architecture in the area, with parking facilities in an under storey.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 Application relates to rectangular site located on north eastern side of Cambridge Road, immediately adjacent the junction with Maresfield Road. Site is bounded to north east and south east by gardens to adjacent properties and to northwest by an unmade track, which provides vehicular access to adjacent property.

2.2 Site has a frontage of approximately 24 metres and a depth of some 43 metres. Cambridge Road and area in immediate locality falls in a north westerly direction, although the site itself is, for the most part, relatively level with some terracing within the gardens.

2.3 The site is currently occupied by a quite substantial detached Victorian dwelling constructed in yellow brick under a slate roof. The property has been altered in the past, including the installation of replacement aluminium windows, detracting from its architectural merit.

2.4 Majority of the properties in this area front directly onto the road although properties immediately to north of site, which include a pair of semi-detached houses and a detached unit, depart from this general pattern of development, sitting to the rear of the frontage development and accessed over private driveways off Cambridge Road. The area is characterised by dwellings of varying ages, although there is a strong Victorian influence, and includes a number of three storey properties.

3. Relevant History

3.1 P/00168/05 – TCP/26828 – An application seeking consent for demolition of the house and outline consent for three storey building to provide eight flats with garaging and store to lower ground floor and formation of vehicular access was submitted to the authority in January 2005. The application was subsequently withdrawn. Matters considered on that outline application were siting, design and means of access, with external appearance and landscaping reserved for subsequent approval.

3.2 P/01256/05 – TCP/26828/A – Application seeking consent for demolition of dwelling and outline planning permission for ¾ storey building to provide 8 flats with parking and stores at lover ground floor level was submitted to the authority in June 2005. Matters considered were siting, design and means of access. The application was refused in August 2005 on grounds that the proposal, by reason of the scale and mass of the building would represent an over-development of the site, which in turn would create conditions likely to give rise to overlooking, loss of outlook and be of an overbearing nature to the detriment of the amenities of neighbouring properties as well as being out of scale and character with the prevailing pattern of development in the area. This proposal is now the subject of an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 – Housing, sets out the role of the planning system in relation to housing policy. Of particular relevance to the current proposal, the guidance note highlights the Government’s commitment to _reenfield the re-use of previously developed land and empty properties and the conversion of non-residential buildings for housing in order both to promote regeneration and minimise the amount of Greenfield land being taken for development.

5.2 Site is located within the development boundary as defined on the Unitary Development Plan and is classified as a brown field site. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

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

· S2 – Development will be encouraged on land which has been previously developed (brownfield) sites rather than undeveloped (_reenfield) sites.

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

· G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

· G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development

· D1 – Standards of Design

· D2 – Standards for Development Within the Site

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

· H5 Infill Development

· TR7 – Highway Consideration for New Development

· TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

Highway Engineer considers that proposal has implications affecting the highway and recommends conditions should application be approved.

5.3 External Consultees

Southern Water

No comments received during the statutory consultation period and despite further request for comments, no response has been received at time of preparing this report.

5.3 Town and Parish Council Comments

East Cowes Town Council considers that proposed building should be reduced in height by one storey and raises concern about impact of development on privacy of neighbouring properties.

5.4 Third Parties/Neighbours

The application has attracted a total of 31 letters from local residents, Island Watch and the Isle of Wight Society objecting to the application on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

· Overdevelopment

· Development out of keeping with surrounding properties

· Proposal fails to meet design criteria of UDP policies D1 and D2

· Replacement building too large for modest scale street of family houses

· Loss of privacy to neighbouring properties and overshadowing/over dominant

· Inadequate parking

· Add to hazards of road users

· Added burden on drainage system – drains have insufficient capacity

· Detrimental impact on proposed conservation area

· Demolition of property would result in loss of a piece of history – building should be preserved and made a listed building in order to maintain the heritage of East Cowes

· Building is a fine specimen of Victorian Architecture which is unspoilt

· Would set a precedent for other properties to extend to rear causing further overlooking

· No major developments should be permitted until full extent of SEEDA regeneration is known

· Area is a haven for wildlife

· Level of excavation may have detrimental effect on surrounding properties

Application has also attracted 18 letters from local residents, including the current occupant of the property, although he is not the applicant, raising no objection/supporting the proposal and commenting as follows:

· No objection to demolition of existing property

· Redevelopment would be in keeping with area

· Proposal involves sympathetic redevelopment of site which will enhance residential accommodation in area

· Proposal will fit in with modernisation of East Cowes

· Many old properties in East Cowes and with redevelopment of area it is appropriate that this small development goes ahead

· Shortage of quality apartments in area

· Area includes a number of substantial properties

· Existing house too large for occupation by single family

· ‘Too many people live in past’ – many properties in East Cowes are past their ‘sell by’ date.

· Development will make provision for much needed parking

6. Evaluation

6.1 The site is located within the development envelope and is classified as a brownfield site, i.e. previously developed. Consequently, redevelopment of the site for residential purposes is considered to be acceptable in principle and the main issues in determining this application are as follows:

· Loss of existing building.

· Adequacy of site to accommodate development of eight flats.

· Access and highway safety matters.

· Likely impact on amenities of area in general and neighbouring residential properties.

6.2 Concern has been expressed regarding the loss of this building and view expressed that it should be listed for its architectural and historic importance. However, Members are advised that a formal request for the building to be listed has already been made to English Heritage earlier this year (2005) whose advisor considered that, notwithstanding the connection with Samuel Saunders, the house is representative of mid-Victorian speculative housing and in no way special. He concluded that its value is local and contextual but that this was not sufficient for listing to be justified. Whilst an area close to the application site is currently being considered for Conservation Area designation, the Conservation and Design Team Leader does not consider the area in question to have the same character as this site and the area between the two is not of high quality. She advises that PPG15 states that Conservation Areas are about areas not buildings and there is therefore a wider consideration than just one building. Consequently, this building does not benefit from any protection, from either listing or Conservation Area status, and refusal of the current application on grounds of the loss of the existing building could not be sustained on appeal.

6.3 Many of the letters of representation objecting to this proposal have expressed concern regarding the size and design of the proposed building. However, Members are reminded that this application seeks outline consent only with all matters except access reserved for subsequent approval, and the plans which form part of the submission are for illustrative purposes only. These plans are submitted in an attempt to demonstrate that the site can accommodate a building containing eight flats and Members should give little weight, if any, to comments relating to the size and design of the building. During pre-application discussions with the applicant’s agent, a number of concerns were highlighted with regard to elements of the building as detailed on the illustrative plans. In addition, it is noted that some of the flats are quite substantial in terms of their floor area and this clearly has implications for the size of the resultant building. Nevertheless, this is a substantial site and your officers are satisfied that it can accommodate a building providing eight flats in a form which would not have an excessive or unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties. Issues such as the size, scale and design of the building and positioning of windows are matters for consideration on the submission of an application for approval of reserved matters of full planning permission. In terms of the impact of the proposal on the amenities of the area in general, the illustrative plans show what would appear as a three storey building in the street scene and, given the mass of the existing building and the mixture of dwelling types in the locality, which include a number of three storey buildings, your officers are satisfied that such development would not be inappropriate.

6.4 Proposal involves the formation of a vehicular access within the north western corner of the site, immediately adjacent an access track serving neighbouring properties. It is not considered that a development of eight flats would generate significant vehicle movements or that such a proposal would add unduly to the hazards of highway users. These details have been considered by the Highway Engineer who has raised no objection and recommends conditions should the application be approved. In the absence of any objection from the Highway Engineer, it is not considered that refusal of application on grounds relating to the formation of the access and the impact on highway users would be sustainable. In terms of car parking provision, given the size of the site, appropriate level of parking could be accommodated to serve a development of eight flats.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, your officers are satisfied that development of this site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle and that the site is of adequate size to accommodate a building providing eight flats in a form which would be unlikely to have a significant or adverse effect on neighbouring properties. Whilst the existing building is of some architectural merit, it does not benefit from any protection as a listed building or Conservation Area status and refusal of the application on grounds of the loss of the existing building would not be sustainable on appeal.

8. Recommendation

Application is recommended for conditional permission.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3	Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the building(s) and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory development and be in accordance with policies S6 (Standards of Design), D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards of Development Within the Site), D3 (Landscaping), TR7 (Highway Consideration for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	No work shall commence in respect of the demolition of the existing building until such time as an application for approval of reserved matters or full planning permission for the redevelopment of the site has been approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Development shall not begin until details of the junction between the proposed service road and the highway have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; and the building shall not be occupied until that junction has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	No later than one month after the day on which the building hereby permitted is first occupied or the access hereby permitted is first used (whichever is the earlier) the existing access to the site from Cambridge Road shall be permanently closed in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site and drained and surfaced in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing for 9 cars/bicycles to be parked and for vehicles to be loaded and unloaded and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Steps, including the installation and use of wheel cleaning facilities in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, shall be taken to prevent material being deposited on the highway as a result of any operation on the site. Any deposit of material from the site on the highway shall be removed as soon as practicable by the site operator. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to prevent mud and dust from getting on the highway and to comply with policies TR7 (Highway Considerations) and M2 (Defined Mineral Working) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	No part of any boundary wall or fence erected on the site frontage, nor any hedge planted to mark the boundary or alongside any such boundary, wall or fence shall at any time be permitted to be more than one metre above the level of the carriageway and the resultant visibility splay shall be kept free of obstruction. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policies D1 (Standards of Design) and TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/01687/05 - TCP/05124/C

Parish/Name: Wootton - Ward/Name: Wootton

Registration Date: 30/08/2005 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr C Hougham Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Mr D Scadding & Mrs P Wade

Demolition of dwelling; outline for residential development of 3 dwellings; alterations to vehicular access

The Moorings, 15 Station Road, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, PO334QU

This application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Local Member, Councillor Abraham, considers the proposal to be over development of the Station Road frontage but is not opposed to some development.

1. Details of Application

1.1 This is an outline application with all matters reserved to demolish a detached dwellinghouse and redevelop the site with a pair of semi-detached houses fronting onto Station Road and a single detached house on the frontage to Fernside Way.

1.2 The initial submission proposed four units but following negotiations it was agreed that the various constraints, including the need for a number of trees on the frontage onto Fernside Way to be retained, would be best overcome if the proposed development on that particular frontage was amended to a single detached house.

1.3 The application is accompanied by a tree survey report in respect of a number of trees on either side of the south eastern (rear) boundary of the site in close proximity to the garage to No. 1 Fernside Way and a larger Beech tree which occupies a central position within the site.

1.4 Illustrative plans which show how the site might be developed for three units and the level of accommodation that could be achieved have been submitted.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 This is a 1930s detached house with the benefit of a relatively substantial ‘L’ shaped plot fronting onto Station Road with a secondary frontage onto Fernside Way. The building has not been well maintained and it is understood that there may be some structural damage.

2.2 This is a predominantly residential area, close to the controlled traffic junction with the A3054, characterised by detached and semi-detached properties, some of which have large curtilages by comparison with modern day development.

3. Relevant History

3.1 In February 1987 permission was granted for a development of four houses within a larger curtilage of the parent property fronting onto what is now known as Fernside Way. This permission was implemented and the curtilage of the application site was reduced to its present size.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy

· Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivery Sustainable Development

· Planning Policy Guidance 3 (Housing (2000))

Government is committed to maximizing the re-use of previously developed land and empty properties and the conversion of non-residential buildings for housing, in order both to promote regeneration and minimise the amount of greenfield land being taken for development.

4.2 Strategic Policies

The relevant Strategic Policies are S1, S2 and S7 which essentially recognise that new development will be concentrated in an existing urban areas; development will be encouraged on land that has been previously been developed, as opposed to Greenfield sites; and there is a need for the development of at least 8,000 housing units over the planned period, a proportion of which will occur on previously unidentified sites.

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

· TR3 – Locating Development to Minimise the Need to Travel

· TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

· U11 – Infrastructure and Services Provision

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

Highway Engineer has indicated that he does not wish to raise any objection to the application subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

5.2 Parish Council objected to original submission for four dwellings on grounds of overdevelopment of the site and out of character in the streetscene, particularly Station Road.

5.3 Third Party Representations

Neighbours

Three letters of objection/comment have been received, two from local residents living in Station Road and one from a resident of Downsview Gardens. Their reasons for objecting about this application can be summarised as follows:

· Loss of existing property

· Consideration needs to be given to traffic generation

· Alleged problems with mains drainage during high rain fall

· Over intensification of development

· Fear of overlooking and associated loss of privacy

· Concern over boundary treatment

6. Evaluation

6.1 There are two fundamental issues in connection with the determination of this application.

· There is no sustainable objection to the demolition of the existing building

· There is no sustainable objection to the re-development of the site for residential purposes as it is within the development envelope boundary.

6.2 This is an outline submission with all matters reserved for subsequent approval. Application is supported by relatively detailed drawings that are to be used for illustrative purposes as indicative of the type of development that may result if approval is granted for three units. Consequently, other than the two primary matters referred to above, the determining factors can be summarised in the following terms:

· Suitability of site for intensification of residential development and the likely impact on the character and appearance of the area and the level of amenity currently enjoyed by the owner/occupiers of neighbouring properties.

· Increased use of (improved) access onto Station Road to serve a pair of semi-detached houses, as opposed to the existing single dwelling.

· Likely impact proposed development off Fernside Way on the “tree protection zone” identified in supporting information accompanying the application.

· Any other technical constraints.

6.3 On the first point the proposed plot(s) for the pair of semi-detached houses is seen to be adequate, particularly in terms of width, and although the predominating types on this side of Station Road are detached units, the illustrative plans indicate that a pair can be designed in such a way that it will appear to be context and therefore will not have a detrimental effect on the amenities of the area. The size of plot and mature boundaries means that there is unlikely to be any impact on neighbouring properties sufficient to justify withholding permission.

6.4 The existing access on Station Road will be improved and the area Highway Engineer has not raised an objection.

6.5 Position and siting of the detached unit on Fernside Way is in accordance with the advice provided by the consultant who prepared the tree survey. Notwithstanding this constraint the size of the plot and the position of the proposed dwelling is in keeping with the character of the immediate area.

6.6 The only possible technical constraint relates to third party representations alleging problems in respect of foul/surface water disposal; is considered that this can be dealt with adequately by imposition of an appropriate condition.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

In revised form, there is no sustainable objection to a suitably designed pair of semi-detached homes on a relatively wide plot in Station Road and a single detached house off Fernside Way.

8. Recommendation

The application is recommended for conditional permission.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3	Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory development and be in accordance with policies S6 (Standards of Design), D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards of Development Within the Site), D3 (Landscaping), TR7 (Highway Consideration for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Development shall not begin until drainage works have been carried out in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate drainage system is provided for the development and to comply with policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	No later than one month after the day the repositioned access is first used the existing access to the site from Station Road, Wootton shall be permanently closed in accordance with details, which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Steps, including the installation and use of wheel cleaning facilities in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, shall be taken to prevent material being deposited on the highway as a result of any operation on the site. Any deposit of material from the site on the highway shall be removed as soon as practicable by the site operator. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to prevent mud and dust from getting on the highway and to comply with policies TR7 (Highway Considerations) and M2 (Defined Mineral Working) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Notwithstanding the provisions of any Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no gates shall be erected without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: IN the interest of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site and drained and surface in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing for cars to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site (of Plots 1 and 2) in forward gear. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	Development shall not begin until details of the sight lines to be provided at the junction between the accesses to Fernside Way and Station Road have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be occupied until those sight lines have been provided in accordance with the approved details. Nothing that may cause an obstruction to visibility shall at any time be placed or be permitted to remain within the visibility splay shown in the approved sight lines. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	Development shall not begin until details of the relocation of the vehicular access to Plots 1 and 2 have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; and the building shall not be occupied until that junction has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with details that have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority, for three cars 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 other than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings hereby permitted are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13	No development shall commence on the site until details of design of all building foundations and of the layout, positions, dimensions and levels of all trenches, ditches, drains and other excavations on the site, 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 avoid damage to health of existing trees and hedgerows and to comply with policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
14	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 IW Unitary Development Plan.

12 & 12A

Reference Number: P/01694/05 - TCPL/27263/A and

P/01695/05 - LBC/27263

Parish/Name: Ryde - Ward/Name: Ryde North East

Registration Date: 31/08/2005 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr D Long Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Hutchison 3G (UK) Ltd

Telecommunications installation comprising a 6.1m high flagpole, 3 panel antennae with associated radio equipment housing & ancillary development

Royal York Hotel, 67 George Street, Ryde, PO332ES

Plus LBC for telecommunications installation comprising a 6.1m high flagpole, 3 panel antennae with associated radio equipment housing & ancillary development

These are recommended for Conditional Permission and Listed Building Consent.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Local Member, Councillor Adams has expressed concern over the visual impact of such an installation on a Listed Building and also upon the Conservation Area of Ryde.

1. Details of Application

1.1 This is a full application and a concurrent listed building application.

1.2 The proposal is for telecommunications installation disguised within a 6.1m flag pole to be fixed to the rear of the round tower projecting 4m from the flat roof of the Royal York Hotel. The height of the flat roof from street level is 24.5m, making the installation read at a total height of 28.6m.

1.3 The proposal also comprises of equipment housing measuring 1.8 sq m (approx) also attached to the flat roof of the Royal York Hotel.

1.4 The flag pole and housing equipment is connected by a series of cables protected by cable trays running along the roof.

1.5 The equipment on the roof level is connected to a 0.75 sq m boxing unit located to the side elevation of the Royal York at ground floor.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 The Royal York Hotel is a Grade II Listed Building set within the development envelope of Ryde, located at the junction of George Street and Cross Street. This area is designated as a Conservation Area. The building itself is listed due to its art deco appearance.

2.2 The building sits in relative prominence within the streetscene, being four storeys in height in comparison to other buildings within the area.

2.3 There is a mix of residential and commercial properties within the area. All the properties vary in design, scale and mass being typical of such a Conservation Area.

3. Relevant History

3.1 There is no planning history relevant to the determination of this application.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 The relevant National Policy Guidance relevant to the determination of this application is:

· Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (Telecommunications)

· PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment

4.2 Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies to be considered with this application are:

· S6 – High Standards of Design

· G4 – General Locational Criteria

· D1 – Standards of Design

· D8- Telecommunications

· B1- Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings

· B2 – Setting of Listed Building

· B6 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

· U17 – Telecommunication Facilities

4.3 There is no Supplementary Planning Guidance relevant to the determination of this application.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· The Conservation and Design Team recommend approval subject to conditions. They indicate that proposal will have no significant impact on the listed building or the conservation area as the proposal will simply read as a flag pole attached to a property and not as a telecommunications installation. The streetscene and setting of the building will not be affected as long as the colour of the flagpole and ancillary unit can be regulated for the Local Planning Authority’s approval.

5.2 Internal Consultees

· There were no relevant external consultees to be considered within the determination of this application.

5.3 Town Council comments.

· Not applicable

5.4 Neighbours

The application has attracted six letters of objection in total raising issues in respect of:

· The proposal will degrade the setting of the Grade II Listed Building.

· It will be visually obtrusive within the Conservation Area.

· It will block light to gardens and would caste shadows over properties.

· The Art Deco appearance of the Listed Building will be affected.

· Will create inherent risks to health, being “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main issues relating to this application are:

· The need for the installation within this area.

· The impact on the Listed Building and Conservation Area

· Health Implications

· Remaining third party comments.

6.2 Information accompanying the submission clearly indicates that there is a gap in coverage within the Ryde area and the proposal will form an integral part of the operator’s network, demonstrating that there is a need for an installation within this location. On this basis, the Local Planning Authority has to weigh the technical justification for site coverage against the visual appearance such structures can have within a locality. The Commodore Cinema located at Star Street was an option but it is indicated that the building has a number of operators using it and a through survey it was established that the building is not structurally capable of supporting the equipment needed to provide the required coverage. The Royal York Hotel is an extensive building being high within the streetscene. This allows for extensive site coverage by the operator. Being placed within such a location and upon a Listed Building set with the Conservation Area, Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 recognises that such sites can be used subject to sensitive design and position.

6.3 The Conservation and Design Team suggest that the appearance of a flagpole on this building will have no effect on the listed building itself, nor affect its art deco appearance. Members should note that the installation will be viewed as a single flagpole as shown on the plans, with the antennae integrated within the flagpole and it will not hold any other equipment as on many other telecommunication installations on the Island. From ground floor level, the housing unit and associated wiring located on the roof will not be seen. The design of this installation is not inappropriate for this location and its appearance on the listed building. Within the wider context of the Conservation Area, again the appearance is deemed to be appropriate, as there will be no significant effect to the prevailing pattern of development, amenities, or special characteristics of the area. It is recommended that the installation is conditioned for colour treatment to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, in order for the flagpole itself and the housing unit to blend into its environment.

6.4 The applicant has demonstrated that the telecommunications installation is in accordance with PPG8 where it advises that installations must comply with ICNIRP guidelines on maximum public exposure levels with reference to electromagnetic field emissions (EMF). This installation will meet ICNIRP public exposure guidelines and it is therefore accepted that there will be no inherent risk to third party health.

6.5 It has been suggested that the flagpole style antenna will block light to gardens, however due to its slender design, having a diameter of just 174mm, its position on the roof top and its relationship to dwellings within the area, it is considered that the impact of this proposal on third party land would be minimal. This installation will not cause any issues over right to light or casting obtrusive shadows within the area.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 In light of all material considerations referred to in this report, the Local Planning Authority are satisfied that the proposal is technically necessary for coverage within the Ryde area and will not have an unacceptable impact on the Listed Building or within the Conservation Area.

8. Recommendation

The applications are recommended for Conditional Permission and Listed Building Consent

Members are advised that these are to be determined each on their own merits.

Conditions/Reasons:

The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Any apparatus or structure provided in accordance with that permission shall be removed from the land, building or structure on which is it situated:

if such development was carried out on any Article 1(5) land in an emergency, at the expiry of the relevant period; or

in any other case, as soon as reasonably practicable after it is no longer required for telecommunication purposes;

and such land, building or structure shall be restored to its condition before the development took place, or to any other condition as may be agreed in writing between the Local Planning Authority and the developer.

Reason: To comply with Part 24A2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and to comply with policy D8 (Telecommunications Equipment on Buildings) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Before any development commences on site, colour specifications for the flagpole and all ancillary structures shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The colour treatment shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless prior written approval has been granted by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area, to protect the visual appearance of the listed building and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design), B2 (Setting of Listed Building) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Conditions/Reasons for Listed Building Consent – P/01695/05 – LBC/27263

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.

Any apparatus or structure provided in accordance with that permission shall be removed from the land, building or structure on which is it situated:

if such development was carried out on any Article 1(5) land in an emergency, at the expiry of the relevant period; or

in any other case, as soon as reasonably practicable after it is no longer required for telecommunication purposes;

Before any development commences on site, colour specification for the flagpole and all ancillary structures shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The colour treatment shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless prior written approval has been granted by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, protect the visual appearance of the Listed Building and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design), B2 (Setting of Listed Building) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/01916/04 - TCP/20468/C

Parish/Name: Ventnor - Ward/Name: Ventnor East

Registration Date: 19/10/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr A White Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Sigma Homes Limited

Detached dwelling with garage; detached double garage for 'Homelands'.

land adjoining Homelands, Southgrove Road, Ventnor, PO38

This application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This application has been reported to Committee as it raises a number of contentious issues, in particular the innovative design.

1. Details of Application

1.1 Full planning permission is sought for a detached house with integral double garage and a detached double garage to serve the existing property known as ‘Homelands’. Both the proposed dwelling and garage to ‘Homelands’ would be served by the same access off South Grove Road and would also share the same turning facility.

1.2 The proposed house is shown to be split level and arranged over three floors, and will be partially dug into a steep vegetated slope. The design approach is uncompromisingly modern and constitutes a contemporary solution to the considerable constraints imposed by this challenging site.

1.3 The western end of the building would be arranged over two and three floors and would be topped with a roof garden. Walls would be part render and part curtain wall glazing including glass panels for balustrading around the roof garden. The eastern end, which comprises approximately two thirds of the entire building, would be arranged over two floors but stepped up higher than the western end. The first floor section would also cantilever over part of the ground floor. Walls would comprise mainly of curtain wall glazing which would curve over onto a flat roof. A feature of the proposed design is a glass dome which not only provides the entrance and stairwell but also provides a visual break between the eastern and western ends of the building.

1.4 Proposed dwelling would offer an integral double garage, store, gym, four bedrooms, observation area, lift and open plan living/dining/kitchen area on the upper floor which would open onto an external decked area, an enclosed deck area and a roof garden.

1.5 Application is accompanied by a tree report in respect of a Holm Oak and Turkey Oak, which are situated to the north and east of the proposed house respectively. Both trees are considered to be in good condition and are shown to be retained.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 Application site is a vacant piece of land, almost rectangular in shape measuring approximately 48m long by 20m deep and was formerly part of grounds to King Charles I Hotel which is situated below. Although now part of applicant’s property at ‘Homelands’, which itself is a substantial detached Victorian house of stone construction, the site is heavily vegetated and clearly not cultivated as a domestic garden. This is partly explained by the sloping nature of the site, which falls away steeply in a north to south direction before dropping almost vertically down to the rear of King Charles I Hotel. The site falls about 8 metres from east to west and also approximately 8 metres north to south.

2.2 Area is generally characterised by detached and terraced Victorian buildings which are positioned at significantly varying levels due to the nature of the local terrain and often punctuated by wedges of vegetated land.

2.3 Application site is outside but adjacent the Ventnor Conservation Area boundary, which for the record includes properties situated at the foot of the slope forward of the application site. King Charles I Court situated below the application site is also a Listed Building.

3. Relevant History

3.1 TCP/20468/S/24986 – Outline for house and garage on land south of ‘Homelands’, South Grove Road refused June 1990 on grounds that development would be detrimental to the visual amenities and character of the King Charles I Hotel which is a listed building and the site is within an area of fundamental ground instability.

3.2 TCP/20468/A/P1896 – Outline for a bungalow on land south of ‘Homelands’, South Grove Road refused March 1996 on grounds that development would be detrimental to visual amenities and character of the locality and that the site is identified as being within an area of ground instability.

3.3 TCP/20468/B/P/483/97 – Outline for a bungalow on land south of ‘Homelands’, South Grove Road refused November 1997 on grounds that the development of the site with a dwelling, either two storey or a bungalow, would be detrimental to the visual amenities and character of the surrounding area.

3.4 None of these decisions were subject to appeal.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) replaces PPG1 (General Policies in Principle) and emphasises the following:

· Good design to ensure attractive, useable and durable and adaptable places contributing positively to making places better for people.

· Designs which are inappropriate in their context failing to improve the character and quality of an area should not be accepted.

· Good design should:

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

· Optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development.

· Respond to local context and create and enforce local distinctiveness

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

This document re-emphasises points previously made in PPG1:

· Avoid unnecessary prescription and detail.

· Should concentrate on guiding the overall scale, mass, landscaping, layout and access of the new development in relation to the neighbouring buildings and local areas more generally.

· Should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes.

· Should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain developments or forms or styles.

4.2 PPG3 (Housing) – emphasises the following:

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

· Give priority to reusing previously developed land in urban areas taking pressures off greenfield sites.

· Create a more sustainable pattern of development ensuring accessibility to public transport, jobs, education etc.

· Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with 30-50 units per hectare quoted as being the appropriate level of density.

· Emphasise the need for good quality designs.

· New housing development should not be viewed in isolation but should have regard to the immediate buildings in the wider locality.

4.3 PPG14 (Development on Unstable Land) states that planning applications relating to certain areas should be accompanied by a slope stability report which demonstrates that the site is stable or can be made so, and will not be affected or trigger land sliding beyond the boundaries of the site.

4.4 Site is within the development envelope boundary for Ventnor as identified on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and adjoins the Conservation Area boundary which sits at the bottom of a scarp slope immediately forward of the application site.

4.5 The following policies of the UDP are considered to be relevant:

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

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

· G1 –Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

· G4 – General Locational Criteria

· G7 – Unstable Land

· D1- Standards of Design

· D2 – Standards for Development within the Site

· D3 – Landscaping

· B2 – Settings of Listed Buildings

· B6 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

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

· H5 – Infill Development

· C12 – Development Affecting Trees and Woodland

· TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

· TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines

· U11 – Infrastructure and Services Provision

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

Conservation and Design Team Leader expresses the following concerns:

· Lack of contextual information in terms of depicting the relationship of the proposed dwelling with a listed building and conservation area to the south and ‘Homelands’ to the north.

· Views through the access from South Grove Road would be of a side elevation, with front elevation facing south overlooking Ventnor. This effectively neglects the South Grove Road frontage.

· Pair of incongruously traditional garages forward of the contemporary house.

· Unconvinced that the submitted illustrations are an accurate impression of what might be the finished building. For example, the extensive glazed elements show feint single line where one may assume glazing bars will exist. One must question whether it’s capable of being built as drawn.

· Development in this area is generally layered relative to the roads, with green wedges slotting in between. When viewed from a distance, including on the water, these green wedges are very important to the form and structure of the settlement.

· Developments such as this result in the loss of this definition to the detriment of the character of the area.

Highway Engineer recommends conditional permission.

Geotechnical consultant – no objection subject to conditions.

5.2 Town or Parish Council Comments

Ventnor Town Council sees no reason why planning consent should not be issued.

5.3 Neighbours

Six letters have been received from local residents who object on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

· Ground stability concerns given precarious position of the proposed dwelling.

· Design is out of keeping, particularly as area is dominated by Victorian houses. Futuristic design is totally unsuitable for this context.

· Light pollution at night given the amount of glass.

· Impact on trees.

6. Evaluation

6.1 Determining factors in this instance relate to:

· Principle

· Ground stability

· Impact on neighbouring property occupiers

· Appropriateness of design in this location

· Trees

6.2 Site is within the development envelope for Ventnor meaning that the principle of development is acceptable in the broadest of terms. However, permission for residential development was consistently refused between 1990 and 1997 on grounds of appearance and ground instability, therefore casting doubt as to whether the site is developable at all. Members will be aware, however, that there has been a fundamental shift in policy in terms of placing greater emphasis on making efficient use of land in built up areas. It is acknowledged that this site offers significant constraints in terms of its gradient, proximity to a scarp slope, conspicuousness and potentially vulnerable ground conditions, hence why development has previously been refused. However, this is arguably the first application which has responded positively to these constraints and, coupled with greater emphasis on making more efficient use of urban land, it is considered that this site could well have development potential depending upon visual impact and ground stability implications.

6.3 Members are advised that the Unitary Development Plan, adopted in 2001, has identified the site as acceptable in principle for development and this is a material change since the earlier refusals up to 1997. Therefore the principle of development on the site is no longer an issue.

6.4 Regarding ground stability, the majority of the site is within an area identified as being ‘likely to be suitable for development’ as shown on the Ventnor Undercliff Coastal Landslip Potential Assessment. The application is accompanied by a Stability Report which has been considered by the Council’s Geotechnical Consultant. He is of the opinion that the proposed building may be constructed without adversely affecting the stability of neighbouring properties or being adversely affected by instability arising from outside the site and hence the requirements of PPG14 are satisfied. However, he does recommend a condition stating that further site investigation should be carried out prior to the commencement of development, which will necessitate the submission of a methodology report outlining the means of excavation and disposal of material together with design construction of retaining walls. Accordingly, officers are satisfied that proposal accords with Policy G7 regarding development on unstable land.

6.5 In terms of impact on neighbouring property occupiers, the main aspect to the proposed dwelling would be due south where it would overlook Ventnor town centre and the sea. Accordingly, overlooking is not considered to be an issue in this direction. Regarding the potential for overlooking from the proposed balcony and outside decked area into properties to the rear, it is relevant to note that there is a significant change in ground level whereby the vantage point from either outside amenity area is unlikely to be higher than the hedged boundary between the site and adjoining properties. Officers are therefore satisfied that the proposed dwelling would not result in an unacceptable level of overlooking and is therefore compliant with Policy D1 in this respect.

6.6 The issue which is probably the most controversial is the appropriateness of the design in this location. This is probably the most important issue and, as always, involves an element of subjectivity when assessing this matter. Clearly the ‘safe’ (and some might say bland) option would be to design a house which reflects the local vernacular and lacks any form of distinctiveness. However, the agent has taken a more radical approach in seeking consent for a modern and innovative design which he considers would compliment the surrounding area.

6.7 The most prominent views of the proposed house would be from the south, looking up to the site from the town centre through part of the conservation area and past a listed building, and when approaching the site from the west along South Grove Road. Contextual images of views into the site suggest that heavy vegetation at the top of the slope would screen a large part of the proposed dwelling with the most prominent section being the glazed dome over the stairwell and observation platform. The dwelling would also be viewed against a back drop of vegetation, not least of which is a large Holm oak on the northern boundary of the site. Accordingly, proposal would maintain a key characteristic of the area, that being the important fusion of natural growth with the built environment. Such fusion would go someway in helping this innovative design to sit non-offensively into its context.

6.8 The view from the west would doubtlessly be prominent. However, it would mainly be viewed in isolation as properties to the south are at a much lower level and therefore not viewed in context with the development from the west. Properties to the north are at a higher level, set a reasonable distance away and separated from the site by vegetation. This relationship would be further aided by the manner in which the dwelling would be well anchored into the site owing to its split level nature and curvaceous design. Finally on this issue, Members attention is drawn to advice in PPS1, which discourages planning authorities to be unnecessarily prescriptive and ‘should not stifle innovation, originality, or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain forms or styles’. Specifically, the document states that, in terms of architecture, the planning authority ‘should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes.’ Given the above assessment and notwithstanding the views of the Conservation and Design Team Leader, it is considered that the proposal constitutes an innovative and exciting solution to the challenges imposed by this difficult site. Members are strongly advised not to reject the proposal just because it chooses not to conform to the Victorian vernacular in this part of Ventnor, but to accept that the unique characteristics of the site warrant a unique design approach in order to maximise the potential of this site within a built up area.

6.9 Other specific concerns of the Conservation and Design Team Leader relate to the ‘buildability’ of the proposed dwelling and light pollution at night given the amount of glass proposed. Regarding the first point, agent has submitted construction drawings and technical information from a glazing manufacturer suggesting that the scheme could be implemented as shown. In any event, officers are satisfied that specific details can be controlled through planning conditions. Such conditions would require details in respect of the type of glass, size of glazing bars, balustrading, drainage and colour of render. Regarding light pollution, site is within an urban location overlooking Ventnor town centre where ambient light levels are already quite high. Accordingly, it is not considered that the proposal would be particularly intrusive in this respect.

6.10 There are two trees on the site which are considered to be important in the local landscape and would also help to partially screen and soften the impact of the proposed house. These trees are the subject of an arboricultural report which has been vetted by the Council’s Tree Officer. He is satisfied that the development can take place as proposed without undermining the health or stability of these trees. Accordingly, proposal satisfies Policy C12 in this respect.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, Members are strongly advised not to reject this proposal just because it chooses not to conform to the Victorian vernacular in this part of Ventnor. It represents an innovative solution to this challenging site, a solution that takes full account of the changes in levels. The proposed dwelling would be set within a spacious setting and would retain important trees and vegetation which create an important fusion with buildings. Essentially, it is considered that the proposal would protect and arguably enhance the appearance of this site through the use of good quality contemporary architecture, whilst also being integrated into the grain of the existing built environment. The impact on nearby property occupiers will be minimal, and the Council’s Geotechnical Consultant is satisfied that the proposal would satisfy the requirements of PPG14. Similarly, the Tree Officer is of the view that the health and stability of important trees would not be compromised. Therefore, officers conclude that on balance the development in question does comply with policies contained in the UDP and recommend accordingly.

8. Recommendation

Conditional Permission.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	No development shall take place until samples of 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 IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	No development shall take place until details of glazing including type of glass, the alignment and dimensions of glazing bars have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall only proceed in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To ensure that the dwelling is of a satisfactory appearance and in the interest of the amenities and character of the area in general and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	No development shall take place until details of surface water drainage and guttering have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall only proceed in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To ensure that the dwelling is of a satisfactory appearance and in the interest of the amenities and character of the area in general and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	No development shall take place until details of the proposed garage door have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall only proceed in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To ensure that the dwelling is of a satisfactory appearance and in the interest of the amenities and character of the area in general and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development within Classes A to E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out [other than that expressly authorised by this permission]. Reason: So that the Local Planning Authority can assess the design implications of any future extensions and alterations and in the interest of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the dwelling is of a satisfactory appearance and in the interest of the amenities and character of the area in general and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all trees or groups of trees to be retained have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier along a line to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: A 1.2m minimum height Chestnut paling to BS1722 Part 4 Standard securely mounted on 1.2m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground. Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained through the course of the works on site during which period the following restrictions shall apply: a) No placement or storage of material b) No placement or storage of chemicals c) No placement or storage of excavated soil d) No lighting of bonfires e) No physical damage to bark or branches f) No changes to natural ground drainage in the area g) No changes to ground levels h) No digging of trenches for services, drains or sewers i) Any trenches required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are left undamaged. Reason: To ensure that the preserved trees or groups of trees to be retained are adequately protected to avoid damage to their health and stability throughout the construction period and in the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policies D3 (Landscaping) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	Existing trees which are to be retained in accordance with the approved plans shall be subject to paragraphs a and b below. Such condition shall have effect until the expiration of three years from the date of the occupation of the building hereby approved: a) No retained preserved tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the details to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with the BS3998 (Tree work). b) Any retained preserved tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, replacement trees shall be planted in the same place or a place to be agreed and that tree shall be of such size and species and shall be planted at such time as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the protection of trees to be retained and in the interest of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policies D3 (Landscaping) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include [proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (eg. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg. drainage power, communications cables, pipelines, etc, indicating lines, manholes, supports, etc); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant]. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	Soft landscape works shall include [planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities; an implementation programme]. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13	No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building hereby permitted is occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
14	No development shall take place until a comprehensive site investigation has been carried out, which may be by trial pit or bore hole to at least the depth of the proposed footings and a Method Statement produced confirming the material found, the proposed method of excavation and the method of disposal of the excavated material, with the design and construction of the proposed retaining walls and method of supporting the buildings above and the protection of buildings below during construction. Such method statement shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and development shall only proceed in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To minimise the threat to the stability of the adjoining land and buildings during the construction phase of the development and to comply with Policy G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
15	All material excavated as a result of general ground works, including site levelling, installation of services or the digging of foundations shall not be disposed of within the area identified in red or blue on the submitted plans. The material shall be removed from the site prior to construction of the dwelling proceeding beyond damp proof course level or such other time scale as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
16	No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until its garages have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/00347/04 - TCP/02524/K

Parish/Name: Ventnor - Ward/Name: Ventnor East

Registration Date: 10/03/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr A Pegram Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: A J Salisbury

Alterations & extension to include removal of roof & extension to provide accommodation at 1st floor level (revised scheme)

Maples Farm, Trinity Road, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO381NS

Reason for Committee Consideration

The Local Member, Cllr Fitzgerald-Bond, accepts that there is no objection in principle to the extension of this property but considers the materials to be used would be out of keeping with the surrounding area.

1. Details of Application

1.1 Proposal involves alterations and extensions to an existing sectional concrete bungalow, to include single storey extension on eastern side of property and removal of pitched roof and extension at first floor to provide additional accommodation. In essence this is the creation of an entirely new property totally embracing and developing the existing bungalow.

1.2 The existing windows and external doors would be replaced with new hardwood windows and doors and the first floor elevations would be finished for most part in untreated cedar cladding. The shallow pitched roof to the property would be covered with a rubber membrane over a plywood deck.

1.3 The resultant building would provide accommodation comprising lounge, kitchen, wc, recreation room and two studies with three bedrooms, all with en-suite facilities, and separate bathroom at first floor level.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 Application relates to detached bungalow occupying rectangular plot on southern side of Trinity Road, adjacent its junction with St Boniface Road and Bonchurch Village Road. The existing property is a sectional concrete bungalow with painted elevations under a concrete tile roof and of no particular architectural merit. Site is located opposite an open triangular shaped area of land laid to grass.

2.2 The site is bounded to west by block of garages, accessed from and running at right angle to Trinity Road, with Grade II listed cottages to east constructed in natural stone under a slate roof. Land to rear of site rises steeply and is well stocked with trees. Property beyond garages to west of site is a modern detached house constructed in brick under a concrete tile roof.

2.3 The premises are not situated within a Conservation Area.

3. Relevant History

3.1 None which is considered to be directly relevant to the current proposal.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 Planning Policy Statement 1 outlines the Government’s policy on issues relating to the delivery of sustainable development. Of particular relevance to the current proposal, the document deals with design issues and advises that planning authorities should plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes. In addition, the document advises that design policies should avoid unnecessary prescription or detail and that local planning authorities should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to conform to certain development forms or styles. Planning Policy Guidance note 15 – Planning and the Historic Environment provides comprehensive advice on controls for the protection of historic buildings and conservation areas. The guidance note highlights the requirements of the legislation which requires Local Planning Authorities considering applications for planning permission or listed building consent for works which affect a listed building to have special regard to matters, including the desirability of preserving the setting of the building.

4.2 Site is located within the development boundary as defined on the Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

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

· G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development

· D1 – Standards of Design

· D2 – Standards for Development Within the Site

· B2 – Settings of Listed Buildings

· H7 – Extensions and Alterations of Existing Properties

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

Conservation and Design Team Leader:

Conservation and Design Team Leader considers that the current scheme is an improvement to the original submission, although its detailing and execution are critical to the success of the proposal along with the performance of materials.

In view of the lack of detail in the submission, she would wish to see conditions imposed on any consent requiring large scale details of junctions between roof and walls, cladding and lower walls and setting in of windows, including cills. In addition details/samples of materials and finishes for all external elements (including windows) should be agreed. In addition, this information should include details of rainwater products.

5.2 External Consultees

None

5.3 Town and Parish Council Comments

Ventnor Town Council considers that planning consent should be subject to a condition that the façade and roof should be constructed in natural materials to blend with the adjacent properties.

5.4 Third Parties/Neighbours

The revised proposals have attracted have attracted 9 letters, predominantly from local residents, objecting to the proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

· Proposal is out of keeping with the area, detrimental to the character of the village – area is characterised by Victorian stone cottages and houses

· Design has no obvious architectural merit and will dominate the existing character cottages

· Proximity to neighbouring property – would over dominate neighbouring building

· Located adjacent Grade II Listed Building and on edge of Bonchurch Conservation Area

· Proposal involves retention and extension of a prefabricated building

6. Evaluation

6.1 The extension of this residential property is considered to be acceptable in principle and the determining factors in considering this proposal are therefore as follows:

· Whether the design, scale and general appearance of the resultant building is considered to be acceptable

· Impact of proposal on the character of the area and, in particular, the setting of the adjacent Listed Building

· The impact of the proposal on the amenities of neighbouring properties

6.2 The original submission sought consent for the demolition of the existing bungalow and the construction of a replacement dwelling on the site. The replacement dwelling was shown to be L-shaped, having a quite substantial footprint, providing two storey accommodation. Although this dwelling was of a more traditional design, incorporating natural stone in the construction of the external elevations under a slate roof, it was considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the neighbouring property as well as detracting from the setting of the adjacent listed building, principally by reason of a two storey element projecting to the rear of the building, immediately adjacent boundary of the site. Concern was also expressed by the Conservation Officer regarding the general appearance of the building as seen from the public highway.

6.3 During subsequent negotiations, the applicant was made aware of the need to produce a design which did not over-dominate or compete with the adjacent listed building. In particular, it was considered that the original proposal obstructed views of the adjacent listed building, detracting from its setting. Consequently, following discussions with the Conservation and Design Team Leader, the applicant has chosen to submit a revised scheme involving alterations and extensions to the existing bungalow, adopting a more contemporary design.

6.4 The extension adjacent the boundary has been limited to single storey only and the first floor element on the eastern side of the building has been set back from the frontage in order to ensure that the proposal does over dominate the neighbouring property. Consequently, your officers are satisfied that the resultant building would not over dominate the neighbouring property or detract from the amenities of the occupiers thereof. In addition, the provision of a shallow pitched roof keeps to a minimum the overall height of the building, again ensuring that it does not appear over dominant in the street scene.

6.5 Whilst the properties to the east of the site are older character cottages, there are examples of more modern dwellings in the area, including a two storey detached dwelling beyond the garage block to the west of the application site. Therefore, there is a variety of dwelling types and styles in the locality and your officers are satisfied that the design approach adopted in the revised proposals is acceptable and will not detract from the character and amenities of the area.

6.6 The buildings in the locality are constructed in a variety of materials, including natural stone, brick and render with concrete tile or slate roof coverings. The ground floor elevations of the resultant dwelling would have the appearance of render while the upper elevations would be clad in untreated cedar boarding. This would weather down to a silver/grey colour and would blend well with the natural stone in the area.

6.7 The western elevation of the property to the east contains a number of windows, both at ground and first floor level. Whilst it was considered that the original proposal would have been likely to result in an unacceptable impact, by reason of its proximity to the boundary, physical impact and loss of light, the revised proposal would have minimal impact on the neighbouring property by limiting the height of the structure to single storey only adjacent the boundary and setting the first floor element away from the boundary. Consequently, your officers are satisfied that the proposal will not have an excessive or unacceptable impact on the amenities of the neighbouring property.

7. Conclusions and Justification for Decision

7.1 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, your officers consider that the scale, design and general appearance of the resultant building is appropriate in this locality and will not detract from the character of the area or the amenities of the neighbouring property. In particular, the building will not dominate or detract from the setting of the adjacent listed building.

8. Recommendation Conditional Permission

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	Prior to work commencing on site, comprehensive drawings prepared at a scale of no less than 1:20, providing sections through the window and door frames, together with details of the finishing to the timber cladding around window and door openings and at the junction between the first floor and ground floor elevations along with detailing around the eaves, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details. Reason – To ensure that the development is finished to a high standard, in the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Strategic Policy S6 (Standards of Design) and Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Design), D1 (Standards of Design) and D2 (Standards for Development Within the Site) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	No development shall take place until [samples of materials/details of the materials and finishes, including mortar colour] to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed. Reason – To ensure that any alterations do not detract from the appearance of the building or privacy of neighbouring occupiers and to comply with Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development within Classes A to E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out [other than that expressly authorised by this permission]. Reason: To ensure that any alterations do not detract from the appearance of the building and to comply with Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	Prior to the commencement of development there shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its approval in writing a detailed survey of the existing dwelling setting out clearly the amount of this property that is to be preserved and incorporated into the scheme of extension and alteration hereby permitted. Reason: To control the amount of redevelopment work undertaken as the permission does not allow for demolition, or substantial demolition work and to comply with Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/02641/04 - TCP/22282/D

Parish/Name: Ryde - Ward/Name: Ryde North West

Registration Date: 15/12/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr A White Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Mr D Willett

Detached house with detached garage; formation of vehicular access (revised scheme)

land rear of The Dolphins, Augusta Road, Ryde, PO33

This application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

1. Details of Application

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

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

2. Location and Site Characteristics

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

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

3. Relevant History

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

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

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

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

4. Development Plan Policy

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

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

· Optimise the potential for a site to accommodate development.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· S10 – Areas of Historic Value

· G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

· G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development

· D1 – Standards of Design

· D2 – Standards for Development within the Site

· D3 – Landscaping

· B6 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

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

· H5 – Infill Development

· C12 – Development Affecting Trees and Woodland

· TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

· TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines

· U11 – Infrastructure and Services Provision

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

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· Highway Engineer recommends conditions should permission be granted.

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

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

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

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

· Out of keeping with the Victorian properties.

· Footprint is too large

· No fundamental changes since previous applications were refused.

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

· Traffic problems, as area is already congested.

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

· Second floor windows would overlook nearby bungalows.

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

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main issues for consideration are as follows:

· Principle

· Impact on character and appearance of Conservation Area

· Trees

· Impact on neighbouring property occupiers

· Highway and traffic issues

· Drainage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

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

8. Recommendation

Conditional Permission.

Conditions/Reasons:

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

Reference Number: P/01417/05 - TCP/13615/L

Parish/Name: Ventnor - Ward/Name: Ventnor East

Registration Date: 21/07/2005 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss S Wilkinson Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Vectis Developments Ltd.

Variation of condition no. 3 on TCP/13615/F relating to the southern boundary wall (additional information)

Kingsview, (former Rex Cinema site) 23, Church Street, Ventnor, PO38

This application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

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

1. Details of Application

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Light weight screen seen as alternative solution.

· The strong horizontal emphasis reflects building design.

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

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

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

· Proposed solution seen as more beneficial in appearance.

· Does not change in essence requirement of original condition.

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

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

2. Location and Site Characteristics

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

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

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

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

3. Relevant History

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

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

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

4. Development Plan Policy

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

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

· G4 – General Locational Criteria

· D1 – Standards of Design

· D2 – Standards for Development within the Site

· B6 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

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

5.2 Town Council Comments

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

5.3 Neighbours

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

§ Stability of wall

§ Privacy

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

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

§ Fence is not maintenance free

§ Fence does not extend over full length of wall

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

§ Fence is a temporary structure

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

6. Evaluation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

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

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

8. Recommendation

Recommendation 1:

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

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

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

Recommendation 2:

Application is recommended for Conditional Approval.

Conditions/Reasons:

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

01	P/02481/03 TCP/05746/N	Ryde	Conditional Permission
	Part OS parcels 1238, 0135 and 0952, land between Weeks Road and, Ashey Road, Ryde, PO33 Outline for residential development (additional information regarding suitability of junction of Woodland View/Ashey Road to serve proposed development)
02	P/01728/05 TCP/27277/A	Ryde	Conditional Permission
	Transport Interchange, Esplanade, Ryde, PO33 Demolition of buildings in connection with the development of a new transport interchange including associated canopies, ancillary facilities, a restaurant and railway footbridge
02A	P/01729/05 CAC/27277	Ryde	Conditional Permission
	Transport Interchange, Esplanade, Ryde, PO33 Conservation Area Consent for demolition of buildings in connection with the development of a new transport interchange and associated canopies, ancillary facilities, a restaurant and railway footbridge
03	P/01696/05 TCP/19509/K	Freshwater	Conditional Permission
	Savoy Holiday Village, Halletts Shute, Norton, Yarmouth, PO410RJ Demolition of holiday accommodation; construction of 33 replacement holiday chalets
04	P/01429/05 TCP/22290/F	Wootton	Conditional Permission
	Land at junction of, High Street and, Rectory Drive, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, PO33 Proposed retail (A1) store, vehicular access alterations and landscaping
05	P/01803/05 TCP/10484/M	Newport	Conditional Permission
	Former IW Council library headquarters, Parkhurst Road, Newport, PO30 Demolition of library headquarters & industrial units; outline for residential development comprising 54 houses & 24 flats with access off Parkhurst Road
06	P/01864/05 TCP/10858/N	Ryde	Refusal
	26 Bellevue Road, Ryde, PO332AR Demolition of building; construction of 3 storey building with accommodation in roof space to form 14 flats; alterations to vehicular access, parking areas & landscaping (revised scheme)
06A	P/01867/05 CAC/10858/M	Ryde	Refusal
	26 Bellevue Road, Ryde, PO332AR Conservation Area Consent for demolition of building in connection with construction of 3 storey building with accommodation in roof space to form 14 flats; alterations to vehicular access, parking area & landscaping (revised scheme)
07	P/01930/05 TCP/27308	Newport	Refusal
	OS parcel 3660, Newclose Farm, Nunnery Lane, Newport, PO303DX Change of use of agricultural land to cricket ground to include construction of cricket pavilion and detached store
08	P/00004/05 TCP/17825/C	Shanklin	Conditional Permission
	1, Hope Road, Shanklin, PO376EA Demolition of building; erection of 3 storey building to form 9 flats with parking (revised scheme)
09	P/00649/05 TCP/02147/E	Ventnor	Refusal
	Beachlands, Esplanade, Ventnor, PO381JR Demolition of building; erection of 3/4/5/6 storey block of 8 flats with ground floor parking; vehicular access & landscaping
10	P/01983/05 TCP/26828/B	East Cowes	Conditional Permission
	23 Cambridge Road, East Cowes, PO326AH Demolition of house; outline for block of 8 flats with parking at lower ground floor level; alterations to vehicular access and landscaping
11	P/01687/05 TCP/05124/C	Wootton	Conditional Permission
	The Moorings, 15 Station Road, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, PO334QU Demolition of dwelling; outline for residential development of 3 dwellings; alterations to vehicular access
12	P/01694/05 TCPL/27263/A	Ryde	Conditional Permission
	Royal York Hotel, 67 George Street, Ryde, PO332ES Telecommunications installation comprising a 6.1m high flagpole, 3 panel antennae with associated radio equipment housing & ancillary development
12A	P/01695/05 LBC/27263	Ryde	Conditional Permission
	Royal York Hotel, 67 George Street, Ryde, PO332ES LBC for telecommunications installation comprising a 6.1m high flagpole, 3 panel antennae with associated radio equipment housing & ancillary development
13	P/01916/04 TCP/20468/C	Ventnor	Conditional Permission
	Land adjoining Homelands, Southgrove Road, Ventnor, PO38 Detached dwelling with garage; detached double garage for 'Homelands'.
14	P/00347/04 TCP/02524/K	Ventnor	Conditional Permission
	Maples Farm, Trinity Road, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO381NS Alterations & extension to include removal of roof & extension to provide accommodation at 1st floor level (revised scheme)
15	P/02641/04 TCP/22282/D	Ryde	Conditional Permission
	Land rear of The Dolphins, Augusta Road, Ryde, PO33 Detached house with detached garage; formation of vehicular access (revised scheme)
16	P/01417/05 TCP/13615/L	Ventnor	Conditional Permission
	Kingsview, (former Rex Cinema site) 23, Church Street, Ventnor, PO38 Variation of condition no. 3 on TCP/13615/F relating to the southern boundary wall (additional information)

PAPER B1

6. Evaluation

Trees

Sustainability

Flood Risk

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

2. Location and Site Characteristics

Highway Engineer

Tree Officer

Environment Agency

Southern Water

Informative:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

2. Location and Site Characteristics

Southern Water

Reason for Committee Consideration

2. Location and Site Characteristics