PAPER B1 - LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS REPORT TO COMMITTEE

Reference Number: P/01036/05 - TCP/10228/V and

P/01037/05 - CAC/10228/U

Parish/Name: Ryde - Ward/Name: Ryde St Johns West

Registration Date: 27/05/2005 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr A White Tel: (01983) 823550

Applicant: Mr J W Hetherington

Demolition of dwelling; erection of eight flats in two blocks and one semi-detached house with parking and alterations to access (revised scheme)

Jalna, Appley Rise, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO331LE

Plus Conservation Area Consent for demolition of dwelling in connection with erection of eight flats in two blocks and one semi-detached house with parking and alterations to access (revised scheme)

These applications are recommended for conditional permission and Conservation Area Consent.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The local Member, Councillor J Bowker, has requested that this application is considered by the Development Control Committee for the following reason:

"The development of this site for increased residential purpose would result in undesirable arrangement of dwellings, which would prejudice the privacy of neighbouring properties, as well as being contrary to the prevailing pattern of construction in the locality, and would create an undesirable precedent for this form of development.”

Members at the 6 September 2005 Committee resolved to defer consideration pending the submission of revised plans. To recap, it had been agreed with the agent to delete specific balconies from the front elevation in order to overcome concerns in respect of design and clutter. The revised plans have been submitted and officers can confirm that the scheme before Members for consideration is acceptable and is duly recommended for conditional permission. The only changes from the scheme previously submitted are the deletion of the balconies.

It can be considered concurrently with the Conservation Area Consent application.

1. Details of Application

1.1 This Report considers two applications. One is a Conservation Area Consent to demolish the existing bungalow and the other seeks full planning permission to redevelop the site with 8 flats and a house.

1.2 Conservation Area Consent is sought to demolish a 1960s style bungalow of buff brick construction under a concrete tile roof. This bungalow is considered to have little in the way of architectural merit.

1.3 The proposed development is divided into two blocks offering a total of 9 dwellings within two/three storey buildings. The western block would contain 5 flats and is shown as being two storey adjacent the common boundary with Marine Lodge, stepping up to three storey towards the centre of the site. The eastern block would compromise 3 flats within a three storey building stepping down to an octagonal shaped single dwelling which is mainly arranged over two floors but with a study within a turret type feature at second floor level.

1.4 The front elevation overlooking the boating lake is well articulated both in terms of its broken ridge line and staggered layout. The development is shown to have north facing gable features and balconies with overall proportions being vertically emphasised, reminiscent of nearby Victorian style properties in terms of overall scale, mass and detailing. Balconies that were originally shown to wrap around three sides of the octagonal building have been deleted from the scheme as they appeared contrived. Balcony also deleted from the western end of the building, closest to the neighbour at Marine Lodge. Buildings would be constructed of buff brick with stone features under a natural slate roof. Windows are shown to be white painted timber vertical sliding sashes and the metalwork to the balconies would be similar in pattern and colour to those on adjoining buildings.

1.5 Proposed layout makes provision for 7 parking spaces with access off Appley Rise. Bicycle parking and a bin storage area is also indicated.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 This is an irregular shaped site which is situated on the north-eastern side of Appley Rise, bounding Bird Cage Walk to the north and overlooking Ryde Boating Lake and the Esplanade. Site falls away steeply in a northerly direction. As said, the existing property comprises of a 1960s style bungalow which is arguably out of context within an area which is mainly characterised by substantial Victorian buildings. Of particular note is Wilmington, which is a large Victorian building occupied as flats immediately south-east of the application site. North-west of the site is a small group of Victorian style villas which have recently undergone renovation, conversion and some new build, and these go under the name of Marine Lodge and Melmouth Lodge.

3. Relevant History

3.1 P/2169/04-TCP/10228/S – Full permission refused in April of this year for 8 flats and a single dwelling. Reasons for refusal refer to excessive scale relative to adjoining buildings which in turn would have resulted in an intrusive and overbearing development detrimental to adjoining residents and the surrounding area in general. Proposed parking layout was also considered to be inadequate.

3.2 P/2313/04-CAC/10228/T – Conservation Area Consent refused in April of this year on the grounds that proposal did not provide for a suitable replacement building, leaving an unsuitable gap in the Conservation Area.

3.3 Both of the above are subject of an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

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.

· optimize 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 higher 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 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 and states that applicants should be expected to provide written information and/or drawings indicating their understanding of the context of an area.

4.4 In terms of Local Plan Policies, site is within the development envelope boundary for Ryde and is within the St John’s Conservation Area. Relevant policies are as follows:

S1 - New developments will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

S6 - All developments 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.

G5 - Development outside defined settlements.

D1 - Standards of design.

D2 - Standards for development within the site.

B6 - Protection and enhancement of Conservation Areas.

H4 - Unallocated residential development to be restricted to defined settlements.

H5 - Infill development.

H6 - High density residential developments.

TR7 - Highway considerations for new developments.

TR16 - Parking policies and guidelines.

U11 - Infrastructure and services provision.

4.5 Site is within Zone 2 in respect of the Council’s parking policies which require the developer to provide a maximum of 0 to 50% of parking guidelines. Parking guidelines require a parking space per bedroom.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comment

5.1 Internal consultees

· Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

· The Council’s Conservation Officer confirms that the reduction in height and separation into blocks has reduced the overall impact and improved the relationship to existing buildings compared to the scheme that was recently refused. He confirms that the area is characterised by large Victorian buildings of varying heights which are influenced by the local topography and that this proposal would respect the existing pattern of development. It is considered that the revised proposal has addressed previous concerns, but does suggest conditions in respect of external materials and other details such as windows, balconies and decorative gable features.

5.2 Neighbours

3 letters received from neighbouring property occupiers who object on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

· Inappropriate scale and mass.

· Too high.

· Out of character.

· Overlooking.

· Loss of light.

· Inadequate parking.

· High flood risk area.

· Inadequate drainage.

· May undermine stability of boundary stone wall between site and Marine Lodge.

6. Evaluation

6.1 Bearing in mind the site is within the development envelope boundary and is currently in residential use, it is considered that the principle of developing this site more intensively is acceptable. The determining factor is whether the site can be developed as proposed without being detrimental to the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring property occupiers or the character of the surrounding area in general, which Members will note is a designated Conservation Area. In order to make this assessment, it is necessary to compare the proposed scheme with the recent refusal and to address the following issues:

· Density

· Scale, mass and height

· Design

· Access and parking

· Drainage.

6.2 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 to 50 dwellings to the hectare, and 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 81 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 site does lie within a level walking distance of bus and railway stations as well as cross-Solent ferry terminals. Accordingly, the application site is considered to be a suitable candidate for high density development given accessibility to public transport and its location within a 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. But to refuse this application on the grounds of excessive density alone would be unsustainable.

6.3 One of the principal concerns in respect of the refused scheme was the overall height of the development and, in particular, the poor relationship that would have resulted with adjoining buildings. The revised scheme before Members indicates that better use would be made of the steep slope and a reduction in height. The combined effect of these changes is that the proposed development is between 1 and 2 metres lower than the refused scheme. These changes, coupled with the articulated nature of the proposed design, show a development that appears sympathetic to the prevailing scale and height of surrounding buildings. The western block, although having a higher ridge level, does not appear excessively large in relation to the neighbouring building at Marine Lodge. Although having a higher floor level compared to the said property, this relationship is generally reflective of the local topography and would respect the existing pattern of development. The most significant reduction in height compared to the refused scheme is the point where the proposed development sits forward of Wilmington. The benefits of this reduction are twofold. Firstly, the revised scheme would not be as overbearing as the refused development and secondly, important views of Wilmington from a northerly direction would remain much intact. Accordingly, the revised proposals have satisfactorily addressed the previous concern in respect of scale, mass and particularly height, meaning that proposal complies with requirements of Policies G4 and D1.

6.4 The proposed design is consistent with the appearance of Victorian buildings in this part of Ryde and elements of the proposed detailing are reflective of the recent development on adjoining land to the west. Agent has agreed to revise north elevation in order to resolve concerns regarding over proliferation and appearance of balconies. The remaining balconies appear integral to the overall design. The choice of the proposed materials, including timber sliding sash windows and stone detailing, is sympathetic to surrounding building styles. Accordingly, proposed design respects the distinctiveness of the surrounding area and therefore complies with policies G4 and D1 in this respect. In considering that proposal would be more reflective of prevailing building styles than the existing 1960s bungalow, it is felt that proposal would enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and therefore accords with Policy B6 in this respect.

6.5 The existing bungalow, although of little architectural merit, is low key and has little physical impact on the occupants of adjoining buildings. It is inevitable that the proposal, being that much larger than the existing property, would have a greater impact but this is not considered to be of such significance as to justify withholding consent. The rear yard area to Marine Lodge enjoys very little in the way of privacy although it would be beneficial to obscure glaze certain windows that face in this direction. The occupant of Marine Lodge is concerned that there could be a conflict between one of his balconies and a balcony serving a proposed flat. However, any conflict would be no worse than existing views into the objector’s balcony from the application site and the adjoining public footpath at Bird Cage Walk. The fragmented nature of the proposed development would help reduce its overall bulkiness relative to adjoining properties.

6.6 In terms of access, the revised scheme has overcome the concerns expressed by the Highway Engineer in respect of visibility. The proposed parking layout is now considered to be workable. Whilst seven spaces as shown would fall short of one space per unit, this level of parking is considered to be acceptable given that site is within Zone 2 of the parking guidelines and that a range of public transport is easily accessible. Fundamentally, proposal is consistent with the objective of reducing reliance on the motor car.

6.7 In terms of drainage, it is proposed to dispose of foul sewage and surface water into the existing combined system in Esplanade South. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a capacity problem with this system, but it is advisable to impose a condition to ensure that adequate provision has been made before work commences. Concern in respect of surface water runoff will be controlled under the Building Regulations.

6.8 In terms of other concerns, site is not shown as being at risk on Environment Agency flooding maps. There are no specific ground stability concerns in respect of this site, and the developer will have a duty of care insofar as neighbour property is concerned. This will also be monitored under the Building Regulations. Therefore neither concern presents a justifiable reasons to withhold consent.

6.9 Officer has considered the need for Section 106 contributions, but at 9 units it falls below the threshold.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that proposal would strike the balance of making efficient use of this brownfield site but not at the expense of adjoining property occupiers or the surrounding area in general. In respect of the latter, your Officers are of the view that the proposal, although much larger than the existing bungalow, would preserve and arguably enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as it is more reflective of surrounding buildings than the existing 1960s bungalow. It is also considered that a more intensive use of this site can be adequately served in terms of access, parking and drainage. In summary, proposal would result in a pleasing and sustainable addition to the surrounding townscape and therefore accords with the policies and objectives of the Unitary Development Plan.

8. Recommendation

Conditional permission for P/01036/05 and Conservation Area Consent for P/01037/05.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	A10		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	S03		No development shall take place until samples 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.
3	UN1		No development shall take place until details of balconies and decorative gable features, including materials, design and colour, 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) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Area) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	UN2		No development shall take place until details, including material, dimensions and colour, of all windows and doors 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) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Area) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	UN3		No development shall take place until a detailed scheme, including calculations and capacity studies, have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water disposal. Any such agreed foul and surface water disposal system shall include connection points on the system where adequate capacity exists. Including any reasonable repairs which may be required, or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overload the existing system. No dwelling shall be occupied until such systems have been completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of drainage is provided for the development in accordance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	M10		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 artifacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, 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
7	M11A				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.
8	M11B				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.
9	K01		No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with drawing number 2614-04-A (Rev 2) for 7 cars to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10		J20		Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, the roadside boundary of the site shall be lowered to a maximum of 1 metre in height above existing road level over the whole frontage and shall be maintained thereafter at a height no greater than one metre. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11		UN4		The lower half of all sash windows serving bedrooms and lounges in the west elevation identified yellow on the approved floor plans 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 an alternative manufacturer) and shall be retained to this specification as obscure glazed hereafter and shall be fixed shut at all times. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property occupier and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12		UN5		The two bathroom windows in the western elevation identified by brown on the approved floor plan 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 glazed hereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property occupier and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13		UN6		No development shall take place until details of any openings to those windows specified under conditions 11 and 12 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the height of opening sections above respective floor level. Development shall only proceed in accordance with the agreed details and shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property occupier and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
14		M33		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 dwellings 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.

Conditions/Reasons for Conservation Area Consent:

P06

The works hereby authorised shall be begun not later than 5 years from the date of this consent.

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

P05

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

Reason: In order to protect the special character of the area and to prevent the site remaining vacant for a significant period of time and to comply with policies B1 to B8 (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

UR1

The existing dwelling shall be demolished, all resultant debris and material shall be carted away and the site left in a tidy and workmanlike condition within a period of three months from when demolition work first commences.

Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and to comply with policy B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/00281/05 - TCP/02329/E

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

Registration Date: 21/03/2005 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr J Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567

Applicant: Mr J Caplan

Demolition of flats; erection of 3 storey block of 14 flats with roof terraces, parking & alterations to vehicular access

Parklands Holiday Apartments, 9 Winchester Park Road, Sandown, Isle of Wight, PO368HJ

The application is recommended for Refusal

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a major application which is proved contentious by reason of conflicting policy considerations.

1. Details of Application

1.1 This is a full application with all matters to be considered.

1.2 The proposal comprises demolition of the existing buildings and the redevelopment of the site with a block of 14 flats to a maximum of three storeys. Flats to be used for permanent residential occupation. Plans show a roughly L shaped floor plan with a proposed building almost abutting points on the Fitzroy Street and Winchester Park Road frontage. Development to comprise 4 flats per floor comprising 2 bedrooms, kitchen, bathroom, living/dinging area, with the exception of three of the flats which have subsequently been reduced to single bedroom, in the wing fronting Winchester Park Road.

1.3 Car parking is shown to be of an existing vehicular access from Fitzroy Street serving 8 car parking spaces with a further 3 off Winchester Park Road. The first and second floors over sale the access off Fitzroy Street and contain a further 2 flats comprising of 3 bedroomed accommodation.

1.4 The flats are accessed via two separate stair wells with entrances on each of the Winchester Park and Fitzroy Street road frontages. Roof plan indicates top flats with the exception of those flats fronting Winchester Park Road to have roof terraces accessed from within the units.

1.5 Turning to design, elevations show the building to be similar to an art deco design with a semi-circular feature at the southern end, situated almost abutting the boundaries of the frontages of both Winchester Park Road and Fitzroy Street.

1.6 Building is shown to be constructed and finished in brick work and render with glass block features on three of the elevations, parts of the building which serve the access and stairwells. It has a flat parapet bounded roof with glass block features incorporating the stair well accesses and escape route at roof level.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 Site has an area of 0.07 hectares, overall dimensions of 38.6m on its frontage to Fitzroy Street and is presently occupied by an Edwardian style, essentially two storey building with a half timbered first floor under a gabled roof. The existing building has been extended probably about 40 years ago by the addition a three storey, flat roofed addition approximately doubling the size of the original building and used as flats. Whilst described as holiday apartments, there is no restriction on the occupation of the said units.

2.1 Located on a corner site, the property relates directly to two other buildings, one fronting Winchester Park Road, the other, to the north, on the corner of Fitzroy Street and Grove Road. The former of these properties is a two storey building, with additions, one of a pair of semi-detached properties currently used as a private residence and three holiday units. It is of similar age but different style from the application property that incorporates similar design features of gables, bays and fenestration of a vertical emphasis.

2.2 The property to the north is again of similar style but finished in red brick and pebble dash on first floor. However, this property is about 50 metres from the boundary of the application site in roughly a northerly direction.

2.3 The area is characterized by fairly large building masses in comparatively substantial sites; strict building lines with a distinct character although it is acknowledged that some properties have modern additions.

2.4 The use of the area is predominantly residential but it does contain some hotels and guest houses etc.

3. Relevant History

3.1 Permission granted for alterations and extension in 1963 for the three storey extension located on the rear – no conditions regarding occupation.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 PPG1 (General Policy and Principles) – states that the appearance of proposed development and its relationship to its surroundings are therefore material considerations in determining planning applications and appeals and furthermore, paragraph 15 states that good design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process and should be encouraged everywhere and, in addition, in paragraph 17 advises that local planning authorities should reject poor designs which may include those inappropriate to their context, for example those clearly out of scale or incompatible with their surroundings.

4.2 UDP Policy – D1 is applicable – D1 states development will be permitted only where it maintains or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment. Planning applications will be expected to show a good quality of design and should conform to the following criteria:

· Respect the visual integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area.

· Be sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting, layout and detail.

· Of a height, mass and density which is compatible with the surrounding buildings and uses.

· Provide for safe, convenient access and circulation for the public including the disabled.

· Provide adequate daylight, sunlight and open aspect for the development and the adjoining uses.

· Respect historic street and footpath plans.

· Do not constitute over development leading to cramped appearance and obtrusiveness but include appropriate spacing between properties.

· Do not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of properties.

· Do not adversely affect the visual amenity of occupiers of the same building or site.

· Retain, maintain, enhance or create open spaces, views or other features which significantly contribute to the area.

4.3 Site is not within Conservation Area or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

Highways Engineer confirms no objection to access, parking and turning.

Conservation and Design Team consider the style of the building to be inappropriate in its setting and represents an unacceptable contrast of styles in this area of traditional architecture.

5.2 External Consultees

Architects Panel considered the application and whilst Members were divided on the various issues of the design were united in their opinion that the ‘retro’ style of the design was not appropriate.

Although it was agreed that the scale and massing was appropriate and that the flat roof was reasonable, the Panel could not come to a solid agreement on the scheme, each having a different view.

5.3 Town Council comments. Sandown Town Council objects on the grounds of over development of the site and property extending over existing building.

5.4 Neighbours. Four letters from the adjoining neighbour to the west supported by two letters from his agent, objecting to the proposal on grounds of loss of light and privacy, inadequate parking, inaccurate plans, building right up to the boundary, loss of outlook, overdevelopment of the site, questioning accuracy of land ownership, questioning accuracy and adequacy of drainage for the development, development out of keeping and out of context and inappropriate design also disputing that the proposed use is acceptable in policy terms.

Eleven letters of objection from other neighbours and local residents on grounds of excessive size and scale of development, encroaching on all boundaries, excessive height, inappropriate style and out of keeping with the character of the area, loss of on street parking, generation of need for additional parking, lack of amenity space, inadequate visibility or encumbrance to visibility, increased traffic and resultant pedestrian safety, loss of an attractive building and loss of holiday accommodation.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main issues relating to this application are policy and principle; the density, i.e. the numbers of units on site; mass and scale and site coverage; design, style and materials; effect on adjoining properties and matters relating to access and parking.

· Policy and Principle

· The density (i.e. the numbers of units on the site)

· The mass, scale and site coverage

· The design, style and materials

· The effect on adjoining properties

· Matters relating to access and policy

6.2 The existing building contains 12 flats, originally used as holiday flats with uncontrolled occupancy. It is understood that the flats have been used for the last few years as residential units, but, irrespective of the way in which they have been used, the potential is there to use the site purely for residential purposes as opposed to holiday use. The building is not listed and is not within a conservation area and therefore residential redevelopment is acceptable in principle and policy terms.

6.3 In terms of density, there are presently 12 but comparatively small residential units within the building. The application seeks consent for 14, and taking into account the revisions subsequently submitted, these comprise of 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms at a ratio of 3, 1 bedroomed flats, 2, 3 bedroomed flats and 9, 2 bed flats. This means that the whole of the building is 3 storeys in height, the variation only occurring in the building where access is gained to roof terraces and their enclosures which comprise the area fronting Fitzroy Street, excluding areas near the west and northern boundaries.

6.4 In terms of mass, scale and site coverage, the application states that the existing building as a footprint of 282 sq metres; that the proposed building has a footprint of 338 sq metres (which represents an approximate 20% increase). This measurement clearly relates to the footprint of the existing building and it should be pointed out that some parts of the footprint are single storey, although the majority is both two and three storeys in height. The site coverage of the proposed building is not only increased by 20% but the building extends the full length of the site reaching the northern boundary where it oversails the access to the car parking area and also to the southern extent of the site with the semicircular feature reaches the front boundary with Winchester Park Road. In addition, whereas the element abutted Fitzroy Street was only single storey height; the replacement building includes three storey development abutting the rear of the footpath. Furthermore, single storey elements closest to the boundary with the adjoining property to the west are proposed to be replaced with three storeys, of full height structure. The building now fills the width and depth of the site to its fullest extent and although, in terms of physical site coverage it is not significantly greater, the perceived mass is and it is felt is not consistent with the scale and massing of existing development.

6.5 Probably the most controversial part of this application is the design, the style, the external appearance in its setting. Whilst the choice of materials can change the appearance of a scheme significantly, the choice of materials isn’t necessary the overriding factor in the determination of whether or not the building is acceptable in terms of its context.

6.6 The style of this building is considered as a modern version of an ‘art deco’ style incorporating some rounded features such as the semi-circular “half tower” located on the southern end of the building at the junction with Fitzroy Street and Winchester Park Road. It also incorporates glass block features which were prevalent in that style and these are applied to the stairwells and the roof top structures which give access to the roof terraces.

6.7 The area is characterized by late Victoria/Edwardian style and although many of the buildings in the locality have been painted, altered and extended, many of the structures retain original design features and proportions. The proposal seeks to introduce a unique style in this locality, one which is different in style and contrasts with the general character of the area. In terms of external appearance, the determination must turn on whether or not this building is acceptable in its context as opposed to the design of the building in isolation. This is a design which some may admire whilst others might not. However, in its context, it is felt to be an alien style which would not be acceptable in this mature residential location.

6.8 Turning to the effects on adjoining properties, direct effects are probably limited to the adjoining property to the west since, in this corner location, viewed out of the site in a southerly and easterly direction have the intervening highways separating them. In addition, to the north, the property located on the corner of Fitzroy Street and Grove Road is approximately 20 metres from the common boundary between the two. However, it is proposed to increase the footprint up to and abutting the common boundary and, theoretically, if the property to the north wishes to carry out a similar scale of development, the space between buildings will be lost. However, it has to be said, that no overlooking in that direction would occur due to lack of windows in that northern elevation and sight lines from other parts of the development would be too far distant. It is not felt that overlooking is of sufficient weight to withhold permission.

6.9 The adjoining property to the west, a property which is used as a dwelling at the front and holiday flats towards the rear incorporates a small swimming pool and amenity area to the rear of the property. It is claimed that this area would be overlooked by the flats proposed and that a loss of privacy would result. The wing of the building, projecting in a northerly direction and containing the two, three bedrooms flats, is some 8.5 metres from the common boundary and the proposals shown to comprise the dining room, kitchen, bathroom and bedroom window on the first and second floors. Some of the other flats more in the centre of the site also overlook these are primarily bedrooms. There are, however, windows in the existing building fronting the site, some at second floor level and some which are closer to the boundary. There is also an external fire escape located in the rear of the existing building but, should also be noted that the adjoining property is a raised patio/balcony which, in turn, overlooks the rear of the application site.

6.10 It should be remembered that, in any urban situation, unless substantial distances exist between properties or very substantial and high boundary screening is in existence and maintainable, that there will always be a degree of overlooking between neighbouring properties. It is considered that, bearing in mind the existing and proposed situations, a degree of overlooking likely to result is not sufficient to warrant a refusal in its own right. However, the mass of the new building, bearing in mind its greater footprint and, in most instances its consistent height at three storeys, will have an enclosing impact on the adjoining property despite the distance of 8.5 metres to that common boundary.

Whilst overlooking may not be sufficient grounds upon which to refuse consent, the dominating effect of the mass of the new structure is felt to be a sustainable reason for refusal.

6.11 In terms of access and parking, the existing property comprises 12 flats and has 9 car parking spaces. The proposal is to increase the number of flats to 14 and provide 11 car parking spaces. This means an increase in 2 units but an increase in 2 car parking spaces. However, of the 14 units, there are only 3, 1 bedroom flats whilst there are 2, 3 bedroomed flats and 9, 2 bedroom flats. Therefore, potentially car parking demand could be significantly increased.

6.12 The site is located within parking zone 3 where 0-75% of maximum non-operational vehicle parking provision would be allowed on site. This would mean that of the 27 bedrooms proposed within the development, between 0 and 20 car parking spaces would be appropriate.

6.13 The proposal involves widening the existing access, which presently serves one vehicle, off Winchester Park Road to be widened thereby allowing three vehicles to be parked side by side in front of the building without the ability to turn on site.

6.14 The existing vehicular access onto Fitzroy Street is proposed to be narrowed, access passing beneath the building with three spaces beneath, three spaces behind the building abutting the northern boundary, with a further two spaces situated adjoining the western boundary of the site.

6.15 The Highway Engineer considers the details regarding access, parking, turning, cycle parking and refuse facilities to be acceptable and therefore raise no objection.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 This is a redevelopment for residential purposes on a site situated in a residential area and abutted by residential uses even though some of the uses in the area include holiday accommodation. The introduction of a contrasting architectural style does not comply with Policy D1 which expects new development to respect the visual integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area and that development should be sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting, layout and detailing as well as being of a height, mass and density which is compatible with the surrounding buildings and uses. This is a prominent site, located on a junction and although this may be a landmark building, bearing in mind it fills its site dimensions, both in width and length, the elevation to Fitzroy Street will result in a significant visual intrusion due to the proximity of the building, its consistent height and the relationship with the adjoining and properties opposite.

8. Recommendation

Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

The proposal by reason of its position, size, design and external appearance, would be an intrusive development, out of character with the prevailing style of development in the locality and would be contrary to Policy S6 (To Be Of A High Standard Of Design) and Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The proposal by reason of its position and mass would have an overbearing and adverse effect on the amenities of the adjoining property and would therefore be contrary to Policy S6 (To be of a High Standard of Design) and Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The proposal would result in a significant loss of space about the building to the detriment of the visual amenity and spatial characteristic of the street scene removing the valuable contribution the space makes to the apparent density of the locality and is contrary to Policy S6 (To Be Of A High Standard Of Design) and Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Reference Number: P/01410/05 - TCP/26744/B

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

Registration Date: 11/08/2005 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss L Scovell Tel: (01983) 823552

Applicant: Ruddell Homes Ltd

Demolition of house; construction of a pair of semi-detached houses (revised scheme)

11 Riboleau Street, Ryde, PO332JT

This report is recommended for Conditional Permission.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Local Member, Councillor Chapman, has requested that this application is considered by the Development Control Committee for the following reasons:

No parking to be provided - would exacerbate existing congestion problems.

Over development of site.

Existing dwelling could be retained and parking provided to serve property.

1. Details of Application

1.1 Full permission is sought for the demolition of a house, and the construction of pair of semi-detached houses.

1.2 The proposed semi-detached houses are simple in design consisting of buff brick and slate tiles and will provide two bedroom accommodation.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 This is an irregularly shaped site which is currently occupied by a simple white painted brick cottage under a hipped slate roof. This is a mixed residential street which becomes distinctively narrow outside the site when approaching from St. Johns Hill end. There are a variety of dwelling types, with examples of detached, semi's and terraces; bungalows, chalet bungalows and houses. Generally speaking most properties are slightly set back from the edge of the carriageway and the roofscape is mainly shallow and hipped with the occasional gable elements which are not particularly intrusive in the street scene.

3. Relevant History

3.1 P/02485/04 – TCP/26744 – Demolition of house; construction of a terrace of 3 town houses was refused on 22 March 2005 as the number of units and design proposed would appear cramped and intrusive in the street scene.

3.2 P/00997/05 – TCP/26744/A – Demolition of house; construction of a pair of semi-detached houses (revised scheme) was refused on 26 June 2005 as the design would appear intrusive and not in keeping with the street scene.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance – PPG 3 Housing stresses the need to make the best use of previously development land. Whilst advocating higher 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 it is advised that anything less than 30 should be avoided. Greater density of development in places with good public transport accessibility, such as major nodes along good quality public transport corridors, is encouraged.

4.2 Site is within the development envelope boundary as shown on the Ryde insert map of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Relevant policies of the UDP 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

G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 – General Locational Criteria

D1 – Standards of Design

D2 – Standards for Development within the Site

H4 – Unallocated Residential Development will be Restricted to Defined Settlements

H5 – Infill Development

TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· Highways – The Highway Engineer recommends conditional approval on the basis that site falls within Zone 2 of the parking guidelines laid out in Appendix G of the UDP and as such a no parking scheme is considered acceptable.

5.2 External Consultees

· None

5.3 Town or Parish Council Comments

· None

5.4 Neighbours

Two objections have been received and can be summarised as follows:

· Loss of a building of character

· Proposed development would detract from nearby conservation area

· Lack of parking of proposed scheme

· Crime and disorder

· Lack of infrastructure and services in the area

· Over development

5.5 Others

· The Local Member has objected on the following grounds:

o Property on the site is one of the oldest in the area encompassing conservation area and would detract from the overall aims of English Heritage.

o Density.

o Traffic and parking.

o The loss of the existing property would effect the character and appearance of the area.

o Crime and disorder.

o Human rights. Local residents feel their human rights are being infringed with further development in the street.

o Lack of infrastructure and services.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main issues relating to this application are the effect of the development on the character of the area and parking.

6.2 This application seeks to address previous reasons for refusal in terms of inappropriate design under the most recent application and reducing the density from three units to two thereby addressing previous reasons for refusal under the first application. The resultant application makes the semi-detached building appear less cramped in the street scene and therefore complies with the relevant policies of the UDP. Whilst recognising the need to make the best use of a brownfield site in this type of location, it is important that more intensive development should not be at the expense of the urban fabric and therefore the current application fulfils that criteria and presents an acceptable scheme for residential development in this area.

6.3 In respect of density the application site proposes a density of 90.0 per ha whilst the adjoining area encompassing numbers 11 - 19 Riboleau Street have a density of 106.0 per ha. Conversely numbers 5 - 8 have a density of 24 per ha. Numbers 9 and 10 have a density not dissimilar to the application site. It is important to be aware that calculating density on such a small scale can be misleading.

6.4 Representations received also object to the loss of a property with character and make reference to the Conservation Area. The existing property is not listed nor is it within a Conservation Area and therefore does not benefit from the special protection these designations afford. Additionally the existing property is simple in design and as such its loss is unlikely to affect the character of the immediate locality.

6.5 In respect of parking, Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) and Appendix G of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan show this site to be located in Zone 2 and as such a no parking scheme is, on balance, acceptable for this location, where the town centre and local railway station are both within walking distance.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations outlined in this report, it is considered that proposal would strike the balance of making efficient use of land but not at the expense of cramped development. There is no historical or architectural justification to retain the existing property and the proposed design is considered acceptable. No on-site parking is appropriate in this location given proximity to town centre and accessibility to public transport, thereby meeting Government objectives of reducing reliance on the motor car. Proposed is therefore considered consistent with UDP policies.

8. Recommendation

This application is recommended for 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	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		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.
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 development within Class E of Part 1 or Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out [other than that expressly authorised by this permission]. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW 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: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW 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 windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed. Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW 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 addition or alteration to the roof of the dwelling hereby approved (including the addition of windows) shall be made. 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.

Reference Number: P/01060/05 - TCP/26954/A

Parish/Name: Calbourne - Ward/Name: Brighstone and Calbourne

Registration Date: 14/06/2005 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mrs J Penney Tel: (01983) 823593

Applicant: Mr & Mrs S F Biles

Demolition of single storey extension; proposed single/2 storey extension to provide additional living accommodation (revised scheme)

Downsview, Lynch Lane, Calbourne, Newport, PO30

The application is recommended for Refusal.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The local Member, Councillor C West, has requested that this application is considered by the Development Control Committee for the following reasons:

1. Application is fully supported by the Parish Council and the applicant's neighbours.

2. The applicant has compiled a large document supporting his claim.

3. The openness and transparency that the full Committee can give to this application will be of benefit to the local residents.

Chairman Councillor A Taylor subsequently submitted information:

1. Architect designed building using local materials not detrimental to character of area.

2. Larger than policy guidelines but part built into ground.

3. Building situated in large area with no neighbouring properties and no objections.

4. Extension required as applicant has large family.

The application was deferred at the meeting held on 6 September 2005 to enable officers to consider additional information circulated by the applicant to Members prior to the meeting. Members are advised that the report has not been amended but attached at the end are your officers’ comments on the new material.

1. Details of Application

1.1 This is a full application.

1.2 Proposal is a revised scheme and comprises demolition of single storey non-habitable outbuildings which appears to have been long-standing and for calculation purposes in terms of assessing acceptable volume increases has been treated as part of the original dwelling. Large two storey projection to the rear of the dwelling with additional single storey elements. The proposed scheme clearly shows a level plot throughout. Applicant has submitted supporting information as to why he considers scheme should be supported. The existing cottage comprises four bedrooms, four rooms on the ground floor (including a kitchen) but lacks a bathroom or any internal WC facilities. The scheme proposes the creation of an upstairs bathroom/WC by partial subdivision of a bedroom.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 The site is located in a rural area to the south of the main Calbourne village, on the eastern side of Lynch Lane immediately to the south of a small group of farm buildings. The area is open countryside with traditional character buildings with no large modern extensions noted in the locality.

2.2 The site is within the AONB, is highly visible from the lane and is set against rising land to the rear and open land to the south, with limited boundary screening. The dwelling is of traditional materials of some character, in a poor state of repair and appears to have been unoccupied for some time.

3. Relevant History

3.1 TCP/26954-P/627/05 - application for demolition of single storey extension; proposed single storey and single/two storey extension to provide additional living accommodation. Approved May 2005.

3.2 The previous application followed lengthy negotiations to produce a scheme that was marginally acceptable both in terms of design, size, siting and in accordance with policy.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 Development national policies are contained in PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development); PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas).

4.2 Relevant Unitary Development Plan policy:

· S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

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

· S10 - If it will conserve or enhance the features and special character of these areas.

· G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

· G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements

· C1 - Countryside will be protected from inappropriate development

· C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

· D1 - Standards of Design

· H7 - Extension and alteration of existing properties.

4.3 Isle of Wight Council Supplementary Planning Guidance – Extending Your Home.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Officer is of the view that previous scheme followed a number of pre-application discussions resulting in consent for the site. Of view it is unfortunate that the revised scheme has been submitted seeking to amend this approval. AONB Partnership does not consider revised scheme represents a significant departure from approved scheme. Accept proposal seeks to increase volume of dwelling; this is not significant in terms of its impact upon the designated area. Re-iterate support for sympathetic restoration and re-use of Downsview which will be an enhancement to the area over its current derelict appearance. Therefore raises no objection to revised proposal.

5.2 Town or Parish Council Comments

A letter on behalf of Calbourne Parish Council supporting the scheme as proposal is subservient, not obtrusive. Consider it of appropriate scale to dwelling and character of area. Practical improvement to family's living space and dwelling better cared for when lived in and their needs better met if extra accommodation is approved. (Written on behalf of the Parish Council by a supporter of the scheme and possibly an informal comment).

Subsequently a further formal comment from the Clerk to the Parish Council which states “would like it to be noted that there are no objections”.

5.3 Neighbours

10 comments in support of application have been received. It should be noted that the content of much of the communication appears to have been duplicated (several being close to being pro forma letters) and not all from immediate neighbours. (E.g. Cowes, Yarmouth, Newport and Southampton).

Support relates to development being in keeping with the existing dwelling and character of area, being marginally different from existing approval. At last the property will be cared for and will be of benefit to local school, shops and post office and rural area bringing disused dwelling back into village. Scheme reflects intentions of PPS7 and PPG3 and will enhance the area and improve appearance.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main issues relating to this application are:

· Policy

· The scale, mass and design of the proposal

· Impact on the character of the original property and surrounding area.

6.2 With regard to policy, there is no objection in principle to an extension on the site subject to appropriate size and design as evidenced by the permission already granted. Volume calculations in respect of the recently approved scheme represents a 34% increase. Calculations on this current scheme represent a 54% increase. The Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance states “As a guideline extensions are more likely to be acceptable if they do not exceed 35% of the volume of the original dwelling”. It advises against very large extensions, which dominate the existing house or introduce a fundamental and often damaging change to the landscape character. Extensions in excess of a 35% volume increase will be assessed primarily on the impact of the resulting dwelling, in terms of its size, design and siting. The extension of existing buildings must be of a scale and character appropriate to the locality.

6.3 In floorspace terms the original dwelling not including the non-habitable outhouses has a gross externally measured floorspace of 170m². The extensions proposed will double the area of the ground floor and with the part first floor proposed add a further 102m² – a 73% increase. The original outbuildings extended to approximately 35m². The permitted scheme was more modest comprising an extension of around 50m² at ground floor and 30m² above; a total 57% increase.

6.4 Due to the increased width of the proposal, the roof pitch is now pushed up higher, resulting in development that does not read as a subservient addition; also the two storey element is now deeper and the single storey element larger. The proposal will be very visible when travelling north-east as there is limited screening on this boundary, and it is considered that a landscaping scheme would not mitigate this factor.

6.5 For information the submitted plans are inaccurate insomuch as the elevational details show different roof designs.

6.6 The previously approved scheme represented significant alteration to this countryside property which could be accommodated subject to appropriate materials and in accordance with policy. The differences in the current scheme in terms of volume and design and the resultant visual impact particularly from the road, is significant and justifies a refusal. Given the facts set out above your officers have concluded that the previous scheme was the maximum that could reasonably be accommodated to enable the original property to remain as the dominant feature. The increase in this scheme will result in a scheme that does not complement the host dwelling and is not of appropriate size and design.

6.7 With regard the property being brought back into use and supporting the village, the originally approved scheme enables this. Personal circumstances of the applicant do not override the planning policies. Members are advised that the Parish Council’s supposed support is not a valid planning consideration and no weight can be given to the large document in support compiled by the applicant except in so far as it refers to material planning considerations. That it is architect designed is not in itself a reason to grant permission and it is only reasonable to expect the use of local materials which the permitted scheme already does (designed incidentally by the same architect). None of the building or the proposed extension is shown on the submitted plans as being below ground level and hence there is no “trade off” against policy guidelines. The lack of objections is not a material planning consideration and the policy/SPG are intended to cover houses in the open countryside. The personal needs of the applicant are totally irrelevant as are the applicant’s qualifications and experience, matters relating to capital gains tax, the size of the family or number of children or a threat to leave the premises vacant or to seek in the alternative a permission to replace Downsview.

6.8 The Local Planning Authority have successfully defended relevant appeals to the Planning Inspectorate. In particular TCP/1152/E Meadcott, Heathfield Road, Bembridge, April 2003 – urban area. In this case, the Inspector was concerned about the bulk and mass of a proposal. TCP/15212/C, South View Grange, Bagwich Lane, Rookley – June 2004 – rural area where main issue effect on the character and appearance of surrounding countryside. Inspector referred to unspoilt and deeply rural character and existing dwelling unobtrusive within attractive rural landscape because of its modest scale and proportions. In this scheme, he noted the proposal was architecturally designed to be compatible with the existing dwelling and not visible from front of house; the Inspector was concerned about the substantially greater depth and overall bulk that seriously harmed the distinctive character and appearance of the surrounding countryside.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 It is important that Members are aware that often what may be read on plan form as small changes to schemes can make the difference of it being acceptable or not. Based on experience on appeals and professional judgment, It is considered the changes in the current proposal compared to the approved scheme are significant not only in terms of the volume increases but as importantly how the resultant building and design fits in with the original property and the impact on the visual amenity of the area. If Members are minded to approve the application, the current policies and guidance will be undermined. It is your officers view therefore that the appropriate test of these policies is through the appeal process.

7.2 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations, your officers consider that the proposal is unacceptable by reason of size, siting and design and is contrary to adopted Policy. There is an approved scheme which can be implemented; personal circumstances and letters of support do not outweigh the policy considerations.

Recommendation- Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

The proposed extension because of the scale, mass, siting and design, would be an intrusive addition, out of scale and character with the existing dwelling and have a serious and adverse effect on the visual amenity of the locality and landscape character. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies S6 (To Be Of A High Standard of Design) G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design), H7 (Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties) and C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and Isle of Wight Supplementary Planning Guidance – Extending Your Home.

Appendix to Application P/01060/05 – TCP/26954/A

1. On 2 September 2005 the applicant delivered to all sub Committee Members a bundle of papers, including what can best be described as the applicant’s version of the Council’s standard Committee Report set out in the same manner, style and format, a covering letter and some plans and photographs. None of this was copied to officers who did not receive a copy of the bundle until 15 minutes before the scheduled meeting. However, the applicant had previously had a lengthy discussion with one of the Council’s team leaders.

2. Turning to the recently submitted paper work, the applicant has cited a number of other properties which he suggests form a precedent to his application. However, these comments in respect of the supporting photographs submitted refer mostly to schemes that were dealt with before the Supplementary Planning Guidance – Extending Your Home was adopted. In particular:

TCP/20787 – Whitehouse Cottage, Whitehouse Road, Porchfield – 1991 consent – carries no weight due to time lapse.

TCP/23868/C – 4 Park Place Cottages, Calbourne Road, Carisbrooke. Semi-detached property. Previous larger scheme refused. The smaller proposal was approved April 2004 before adopted SPG therefore carries no weight.

TCP/25398 and TCP/25398/A – March 2004 Hill Top Dairy, Long Lane, Newport – replacement dwelling which was of less volume than the original dwelling. Was in different siting and more prominent than original dwelling but carries no weight to the Downsview site as not an extension.

TCP/1935/J – TCP/1935/K – 2005 - Highfields, Gatehouse Road, Ashey. The Inspector did conclude the difference in the approved scheme to that appealed was negligible which carried weight in favour of the appeal. Local Planning Authority is of the view that this is not a comparable case; also the single storey additions that were demolished were much larger than those at Downsview.

In design and character terms and taking account of current policy standards, the application property is of some character and merit and it is not considered the above referred sites carry weight in favour of the current scheme.

The applicant’s version of the report sets out to suggest that officers were in some manner lacking in competence and design skills, misunderstood that the reasons for similarities in letters of support were because the applicant had explained to the authors how to couch their submissions, failed to adequately or properly measure the building as existing and proposed, reiterates (twice) that as he is a chartered surveyor his measurements are to be preferred as being more accurate, that the proposals are not out of keeping and the increase over the permitted scheme is marginal, that the Parish Council’s support is well founded, that “slight inclines and differences in topography” are rarely shown on application plans and ends by setting out the alleged practical consequences of a refusal.

Dealing with these points in turn:

· Members will draw their own conclusions and place such weight as they deem appropriate on the competence and skills of their officers. But Members should be aware that during negotiations, senior officers within the Development Control, AONB and Conservation and Design Team were involved to seek to achieve the best scheme possible. The applicant and agent requested consultation and negotiation to seek a scheme which complied with Policy which the originally approved scheme achieved.

· Advising supporters of a scheme how to compile their letters might possibly be regarded as canvassing support (and were the matter reversed and there were objections it would be equally true) and Members may wish to consider the weight to be attributed to such responses.

· Your officers stand by the measurements in the report.

· The applicant may be a chartered surveyor, but this is not a relevant consideration and neither does it mean that a non-surveyor cannot measure accurately.

· The decision as whether it is in keeping is for Members to determine given the policy and adopted SPG base against which this application has to be judged.

· The differences between the permitted and the applied for schemes are adequately set out in the main report.

· The initial response on behalf of the Parish Council referred to a number of non-planning matters such as the needs of the applicant’s family and was written by and delivered with a similarly couched and identically printed letter of support from the Vice Chairman of the Parish Council writing in a private capacity. At the very least this may have been done in innocence, but it might also suggest that there was a lack of clear separation of personal and Council views. Members will place weight on these letters that they consider appropriate, but account must be taken of the much more bland e-mail received from the Parish Clerk sometime later.

· Whilst your officers may concede that “slight inclines etc.” are rarely shown, the applicant is then asking that this tiny change in levels somehow conceals 20m³ volume of building. This is roughly two thirds of a single garage and your officers would respectfully suggest that either the 20m³ is incorrect or the use of the term ”slight” is incorrect. If it is the latter than the plans are inaccurate.

· There is no weight which can be attributed to the practical consequences set out, especially as the building is neither listed nor in a conservation area.

5. Notwithstanding the late submitted dossier your officers do not consider there are any grounds to revise the original recommendation which stands as printed.

Reference Number: P/01485/05 - TCP/25289/B

Parish/Name: Ryde - Ward/Name: Ashey

Registration Date: 01/08/2005 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr M Grantham Tel: (01983) 823570

Applicant: Mr A Graham

Alterations; 2 storey extension to form double garage with 2 bedrooms over (revised scheme)

Colemans House, Stroud Wood Road, Ryde, PO334BZ

The application is recommended for Refusal

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Local Member, Councillor V Churchman, has requested that this application is considered by the Development Control Committee for the following reasons:

1. The nature of the site and setting for the house have been largely ignored in the apparent arbitrary application of the spatial guidelines in respect of extensions of dwellings. Limits are guidelines and not prescriptive. There should be a general principle of approval rather than reject.

2. Considerable weight applied to perceived shortcomings on design and/or external finishes. Decisions in this field often subjective and electorate through Members could have different and equally well founded views on application.

3. Reference to situation regarding third party representations not understood.

4. Overall proposal falls comfortably within the criteria set out in Policy H7 of the Unitary Development Plan and case for refusal is far from proved.

1. Details of Application

1.1 This is a full application.

1.2 The proposal is a revised scheme comprising a two-storey extension to the north elevation of the existing dwelling to form a double garage with two bedrooms over. The application seeks approval for an extension of reduced size to the previously refused scheme. Agents covering letter states Colemans House does not possess a garage and garage proposal is replacement of brickwork constructed double garage which was removed by previous owner.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 The site lies on the south side of Stroud Wood Road approximately 500 metres west of the Upton Cross junction and is within a rural area. The property is sited well back from the highway on a large site, which is considerably higher than road level and is bounded by an area of woodland to the east. Due to the relatively open nature of the land to the north and west, and the raised nature of the site, the property forms a prominent feature within the rural landscape particularly when seen from the westerly stretch of Stroud Wood Road.

2.2 The property consists of an old stone and brick built dwelling which has had substantial additions over the years. A large proportion of the eastern brick built section of the dwelling is an addition. A conservatory and other single storey extensions have been added to the southwest part of the original dwelling.

3. Relevant History

3.1 TCP/2507B/R/BR2079 approved on 14 February 1972 for a part single part two storey side extension.

3.2 TCP/5207F/M/3592 approved on 7 December 1987 for extension to form conservatory, potting shed and double garage.

3.3 TCP/25289- P/02263/02 approved on 17/01/2003 for Alterations, extension at first floor level to form bedroom; new chimney stack, including demolition of double garage.

3.4 TCP/25289/A- P/00761/05 refused on 13/06/2005 for Alterations; two storey extension to form double garage and shower with two bedroom and bathroom over.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 Development national policies are contained in PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development); PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas).

4.2 Relevant Unitary Development Plan policies:

· S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

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

· G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

· G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements

· C1 - Countryside will be protected from inappropriate development

· D1 - Standards of Design

H7 - Extension and alteration of existing properties.

4.3 Isle of Wight Council Supplementary Planning Guidance – Extending Your Home.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal consultees

Highways – No highway implications

5.2 External consultees

Scottish and Southern Energy (Overhead power lines) – No comment

Forestry Commission SE England Conservancy (Near Ancient Woodland) – No comment.

5.3 Town or Parish Council comments

None received.

5.4 Neighbours comments

None received.

5.5 Others

Online comment supporting the application from Cowes resident on the basis that the scheme is in keeping with the character of the area, is of appropriate scale and is subservient to the original dwelling. Also that the plot size is sufficient size to support the resulting dwelling without any adverse impact on the surrounding countryside. Interestingly, this is from a person seeking an extension whose application is reported elsewhere on this agenda.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main issues relating to this application are:-

· Policy and Whether or not the proposal conflicts with guidance within the Council’s SPG – Extending Your Home

· The impact of the proposal on the character of the existing dwelling.

· The impact of the proposal on the rural character of the area and landscape.

6.2 The cumulative impact by way of scale, design and position of the proposed addition to a dwelling that has already been substantially extended would be detrimental to the character of the existing dwelling.

6.3 The proposal would be detrimental to the rural character of the area and the landscape by reason of its prominence within the landscape and the physical impact it would cause and would conflict with the intention of the Local Planning Authority to protect the natural beauty of the landscape.

6.4 Members are advised that application TCP/25289/A- P/00761/05 refused on 13/06/2005 was for a scheme of similar type but larger than the revised scheme currently under consideration. However, the revised scheme does not overcome the reasons for refusal on Policy grounds. The Isle of Wight Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance- Extending Your Home advises that volume increases of less than 35% of the volume of the original dwelling are more likely to be acceptable if the dwelling is within the countryside. The resultant dwelling in this case, should this development be approved and carried out, would be far in excess of the advised 35% volume increase, taking into account the previous additions. Officers consider that this degree of incremental increase to a dwelling which is visible from the public domain, in open countryside and outside of any development envelope should not be supported, and that it would be clearly contrary to the adopted policy.

6.5 Colemans House consists of three distinct elements: -

· the original Victorian house;

· the side extension, most of which was permitted in 1972, and which effectively doubled the size of the property; and

· the single storey 1987 elements on the opposite side of the original house.

6.6 The 2003 permission which, part of which was to “finish” the upper floor of the 1972 extension and provide it with a pitched roof in place of the original flat roof, significantly improved the overall appearance of the building. Some of the built volume of the 2003 permission was compensated for by the demolition of the double garage permitted in 1987.

6.7 Although no detailed volume calculations have been made, the extensions already permitted have clearly more than doubled the size of the original house, which for planning purposes (for example as cited in the GPDO) is anything post 1948. Accordingly the currently proposed extension is contrary to adopted policy and to the recently adopted SPG.

6.8 It is accepted that there are no issues relating to impact on the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of nearby properties by way of overlooking, overshadowing or loss of outlook.

6.9 Letter of support and Members comments have been taken into consideration but overriding consideration is adopted Policy.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 Members should carefully consider the Policy implications of this application. The UDP and SPG guidance is adopted policy. It is considered that the changes in the current proposal although reduced compared to the previously refused scheme are not sufficient to overcome the reasons for refusal of that application and that any addition by way of extension would likely be contrary to Policy. If Members are minded to approve the application, the current policies and guidance will be undermined. It is your officers view therefore that the appropriate test of these policies is through the appeal process.

7.2 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations, your officers consider that the proposal is unacceptable by reason of size, scale, siting, design, cumulative increase in relation to the original dwelling and resultant impact on the landscape character.

8. Recommendation

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The proposed two storey extension, by reason of its position, size, design and external appearance and cumulative increase would be an intrusive development out of keeping with the scale and character of the original and existing dwelling. Accordingly it is contrary to Policies S6 (Be of A High Standard of Design), D1 (Standards of Design), H7 (Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties) and G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance – Extending Your Home.
2		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 C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the isle of Wight unitary Development Plan.

01	P/01036/05 TCP/10228/V + P/01037/05 CAC/10228/U			Ryde		Conditional Permission + Conservation Area Consent
	Jalna, Appley Rise, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO33 1LE Demolition of dwelling; erection of eight flats in two blocks and one semi-detached house with parking and alterations to access (revised scheme) Plus Conservation Area Consent for demolition of dwelling in connection with erection of eight flats in two blocks and one semi-detached house with parking and alterations to access (revised scheme)
02	P/00281/05 TCP/02329/E			Sandown		Refusal
	Parklands Holiday Apartments, 9 Winchester Park Road, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO36 8HJ Demolition of flats; erection of 3 storey block of 14 flats with roof terraces, parking and alterations to vehicular access
03			P/01410/05 TCP/26744/B	Ryde		Conditional Permission
			11 Riboleau Street, Ryde, PO332JT Demolition of house; construction of a pair of semi-detached houses (revised scheme)
04			P/01060/05 TCP/26954/A	Calbourne		Refusal
			Downsview, Lynch Lane, Calbourne, Newport, PO30 Demolition of single storey extension; proposed single/2 storey extension to provide additional living accommodation (revised scheme)
05		P/01485/05 TCP/25289/B			Ryde		Refusal
		Colemans House, Stroud Wood Road, Ryde, PO33 4BZ Alterations; 2 storey extension to form double garage with 2 bedrooms over (revised scheme)