1.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT OTHER THAN PART 1 SCHEDULE
AND DECISIONS ARE DISCLOSED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.
2.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE IN
THE FIRST INSTANCE. (In some
circumstances, consideration of an item may be deferred to a later meeting).
3.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT
CONTROL COMMITTEE AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO ALTERATION IN THE LIGHT OF FURTHER
INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE OFFICERS AND PRESENTED TO MEMBERS AT MEETINGS.
4.
YOU ARE ADVISED TO CHECK WITH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
(TEL: 821000) AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON ANY ITEM BEFORE
YOU TAKE ANY ACTION ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.
5.
THE COUNCIL CANNOT ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY
ACTION TAKEN BY ANY PERSON ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
The various documents, letters and other correspondence referred to in the Report in respect of each planning application or other item of business.
Members are advised
that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of
the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and, where necessary, consultations have taken
place with the Crime and Disorder Facilitator and Architectural Liaison
Officer. Any responses received prior
to publication are featured in the report under the heading Representations.
Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, following advice from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, in recognition of a duty to give reasons for a decision, each report will include a section explaining and giving a justification for the recommendation.
LIST OF
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
REPORT TO
COMMITTEE - 04/04/2006
|
1. |
P/00190/06 TCP/13981/D |
Ryde |
Refusal |
|
|
Salvation
Army and IWC Public Car Park, Green Street/, Station Street, Ryde, PO33 Demolition
of the Salvation Army Hall & development of a direct access hostel for the
homeless & new public car park |
|
|
|
2. |
P/00307/06 TCP/26900/A |
Cowes |
Conditional Permission |
|
|
site
of, Mornington, Mornington Road, Cowes, PO318BL 3
pairs of semi-detached houses, 1 detached house & a 3 storey block of 8
flats over parking at lower ground floor level; alterations to vehicular
access & construction of vehicular access (revised scheme)(revised
description)(readvertised application) |
|
|
|
3. |
P/00382/06 TCP/27529 |
Newport |
Conditional Permission |
|
|
land
adjacent, 11 Hampshire Crescent, Newport, PO30 Demolition
of single storey extension; end of terrace house (revised scheme)
(readvertised application) |
|
|
|
4. |
P/00386/06 TCP/13203/B |
Newport |
Conditional Permission |
|
|
23
Terrace Road, Newport, PO301EE Demolition
of dwelling & garage; outline for 2 houses & 4 flats; alterations to
vehicular access |
|
|
|
5. |
P/00503/06 TCP/21888/F |
Shalfleet |
Refusal |
|
|
Shalfleet
Garage Co Ltd, Shalfleet Service Station, Main Road, Shalfleet, Newport,
PO304ND Detached
chalet bungalow, (revised scheme) |
|
|
|
1. |
Reference Number: P/00190/06 - TCP/13981/D Parish/Name: Ryde - Ward/Name: Ryde North West Registration Date: 09/02/2006 - Full Planning
Permission Officer: Miss S Wilkinson Tel: (01983) 823552 Applicant: The Salvation Army Trustee Co Ltd Demolition of the Salvation Army
Hall & development of a direct access hostel for the homeless & new
public car park Salvation Army and IWC Public Car
Park, Green Street/Station Street, Ryde, PO33 The application is recommended for
Refusal |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This is a major application that has proved to be contentious and is within a prominent location within the Ryde development envelope.
1. Details
of Application
1.1 Application seeks full planning
permission for the demolition of the Salvation Army Hall and development for a
27 bedroomed direct access hostel for the homeless and new public car park.
1.2 Details of how the establishment is
proposed to be operated by the applicants are attached as an appendix to this
report.
1.3 The building is proposed to be sited
along the southern elevation of the site fronting Green Street and turning the
corner with a focal feature into Station Street. The proposed building siting
results in the car park being located to the rear of the building, using the
existing access and providing a pedestrian access onto Green Street.
1.4 The proposed development is a mix of two
and three storey development with projecting gables, hipped and gabled roofs,
both pitched and flat roof dormers and feature Juliet balconies on some of the
front elevation windows. The proposed materials in the streetscene illustrative
plans show a mix of facing render, red brick and buff quoins, with a slate roof
tile.
2. Location and Site Characteristics
2.1 The site is situated on the corner of
Green Street and Station Road with the predominant element of the building
running parallel to Green Street. A recent development has been undertaken
opposite the site on the Station Road elevation comprising a two storey
building. The streetscene off Station Road comprises predominantly two storey
small scale terrace housing in a mix of red brick, stone and render. The Police
Station is also located on this road however, its design is considered atypical
within this location and therefore not a specific reference point. The
character of Green Street is similar however, comprising semi-detached units
but all at two storey stepping down with the natural slope of the road.
2.2 There are major land level changes on the
site sloping south westwards with a fall of approximately 4.5 metres over a
length of 50 metres.
2.3 The existing Salvation Army building,
proposed for demolition, sits on the south eastern corner of the plot
neighbouring No. 21 Green Street. The rest of the site is currently a Council
owned public car park.
3. Relevant History
3.1 No relevant history exists on this site.
4. Development Plan Policy
4.1 National Policy Guidance
4.2 The following Strategic Policies with the
Unitary Development Plan are applicable:
·
S1 - New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas
·
S2 – Development will be encouraged on land that has previously been
developed
·
S6 - All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design
4.3
The following Unitary Development Plan Policies are applicable:
·
G1 - Development Envelopes for towns and villages
·
G4 - General Locational Criteria
·
G10 – Existing Surrounding uses
·
D1 - Standards of Design
·
D2 - Standards for Development within the Site
·
H11 – Houses with multiple occupancy
·
TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development
·
TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines
·
U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision
4.4 The site is located within the
development envelope of Ryde.
5. Consultee and Third Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
·
Additional highway information has been received possibly overcoming
previous objections; therefore highway comments will be contained within late
representations.
·
Environmental Health Department have requested conditions be attached to
any approval.
5.2
Others
·
80 letters of objection have been received outlining issues which can be
summarised as follows:
·
Proximity of site to nearby schools
·
Impact of the development on the current car park facilities
·
Number of similar facilities in the Ryde area
·
Development may lead to the closure of evening clubs and activities
increasing the number on the streets
·
Fear of crime
·
Increase in the current high crime in the area
·
Affect on Ryde regeneration
·
Increased traffic
·
Hazards to all highway users
·
Proposal represent over development of the site
·
Noise pollution
·
Privacy issues
·
Contaminated land
·
Pressure of doctors and other services
·
Proposal not suitable in residential area
·
Loss of light to neighbouring properties
·
Design
·
Such uses should be allocated within the Island Plan and not considered
at this time
·
Impact on tourism
·
Loss of community facility
·
Loss of an existing building of historic merit
·
Overlooking
·
Affect on local businesses
·
Capacity of current infrastructure
·
Impact of development on neighbouring property
·
23 letters of support have been received in respect of the application
on the grounds of principle due to the need for such a facility.
·
20 letters of the objection were received on the basis of an application
for a 42 bedroomed hostel on the basis of miss-information that has been
provided by means of negative pamphletting.
6. Evaluation
6.1 The
determining factors in considering this proposal are considered to be as
follows:
·
Impact of the development on the character of the area and amenities of
neighbouring properties.
·
Whether the proposal is within a suitable location.
·
Fear of Crime
·
Highway impacts of car park changes.
6.2 Impact of the development on the character of the area and amenities of neighbouring properties.
The site is located
adjacent to the Ryde Conservation Area. The Conservation and Design Team Leader
was asked to comment in relation to the appropriateness of the design within
the context of the area within which the building is proposed. As such the area
has been characterised as one of modest and unadorned 2 storey terraced and
semi-detached dwellings with shallow pitched slate roofs, with the
semi-detached pairs stepping gently down the hill in a regular rhythm and
pattern so that the change in level is accommodated gradually.
6.3 It is considered that the scheme fails to
respect the character of the area and the Conservation and Design Team Leader
objected for the following reasons:
·
The width of each element on the street frontage which, being wider than
existing units, does not address the slope of the street sympathetically,
having window cills at abnormally high and low distances from ground level as a
functions of the attempts to keep the corridors level.
·
The use of broken eaves lines interrupting the simplicity of roof forms
and introducing uncharacteristic dormers and gables with steep pitches.
·
The mix of gables and differing styles of dormers along with parapets
and hips leading to an over busy and confused roof form.
·
The mix of materials within elements
·
The use of metal grills to windows and their inconsistent positioning
relative to the windows adding to the confused appearance of the scheme.
·
The relationship of the 3 storey element with the remainder of the
scheme, with the existing properties, and with the topography which renders it
over tall and over-dominant.
6.4 The 3 storey element of the scheme would
have not only a visual impact on the character of the area but lead to an over
dominant feature on the corner of what is not currently a prominent junction
where on would expect such features. This aspect also includes a steeply
pitched roof with at flat element, which increases the dominance of the
structure.
6.5 The
2 storey part of the building would due to the land level changes have an impact
on the neighbouring property. Although the current Salvation Army building is
at a closer proximity and at a higher level in places to the proposed building
it is set back from the highway and therefore does not over shadow the windows
within the side elevation of no. 21 Green Street. The scheme currently under
consideration also incorporates a pedestrian access to the car park, which will
run alongside and passed the side windows of no. 21 which are at ground level
and could be damaged.
6.6 Whether the proposal is within a
suitable location
A number of objections
have been received referring to the proximity of the development to schools in
the area, the existence of other similar developments within the Ryde area and
the location of the scheme within a residential area close to the town centre.
In respect of the location of the site within a residential area, the use of
the building for the basis of planning is ‘sui generis’, in terms of the Uses
Class Order. The proposal is nevertheless for residential accommodation and
therefore its location within an existing residential area is acceptable. It is
a requirement that the use is located close to the town centre and in a
sustainable location close to transport links in order that residents can access
the building easily and will be able to travel to any jobs etc as required. The
proximity of the school is not a planning consideration when viewed in respect
of use classes. However, fear of crime must be considered. Although there are
other similar facilities in the Ryde area this is the only one for this age
group.
6.7 Fear of Crime
Within the Crime and
Disorder Act planning has a responsibility to consider the crime and disorder
implications of a scheme and the fear of crime. In respect of this scheme it is
evident from the current level of objection that it has lead to an increased
fear of crime. However, one must consider whether this is something that is
perceived from the misinformation that has been circulated in relation to the
scheme. The main level of fear has been associated with the proximity of the
site to schools, specifically Greenmount Primary. However, hostels such as that
proposed have been located within residential areas and close to schools in
other town around the country and as this is a managed hostel within which the
residence will gain training to reintegrate into the workplace it is not
considered that there is a risk. Additionally as many residents will be housed
within the hostel following referral and will have undergone a full police
check with the same procedure being undertaken by those who enter through the
direct access route. No known sex offenders will be accommodated. Those who are
accepted have other general social issues. Acceptance to the hostel will be for
the purpose of rehabilitation and assistance to find self financed
accommodation. Residents are therefore unlikely to be a threat. One cannot give
an assurance that there will be no crime and disorder implications form the
scheme, as this could be said of any residential development. However, in this
instance a successful structured programme manages the accommodation. If any
residents are of concern they will be managed by multi-agency protection panel
arrangements (MAPPA). MAPPAs provide help to improve current social concerns in
other areas in which they have been used.
6.8 Comments have been made in respect of
current crime levels in the area. However, a development cannot be expected to
aid current problems within the area it is located. Additionally, there is no
proof that the development would lead to increased crime.
6.9 Consultation has been undertaken with the
Safer Communities Partnership whose concerns in regards to the scheme where
based on the proposed pedestrian access to the car park and not the principle
of the scheme. The access is also a concern of officers and the highway
engineer due to the location of a window in the side elevation of no. 21 Green
Street and the crime/fear of crime implications of incorporating a narrow alley
that does not provide a significant ‘short cut’.
6.10 Concerns have also been raised that the
police station is not policed 24 hours a day. To our understanding this is not
the case and although the front desk is closed overnight the station is
continually staffed.
6.11 Highway impacts and changes to the car
park
Information has been provided that when provided spaces that comply with
the standards required under DB32 Section 3.90 – 3.99 no car parking spaces
will be lost by way of the development.
The development has not been submitted with additional parking provision. This was considered as acceptable due to residents not having vehicles. Staffing numbers are not considered to be of level that would require additional parking from the current public car park.
7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation
Having due regard and
appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report,
it is considered that the hostel is proposed in a suitable location, close to
public transport facilities and in an accessible location for residence who
will not be mobile by way of vehicles. The site is within an area identified
within the Isle of Wight Homelessness Strategy as in need of such a facility.
It exhibits one of the greatest levels of homelessness on the Island and the
Housing Strategy states that the Council hope to establish a direct access
hostel in partnership with the Salvation Army.
The hostel will be managed via a structured programme and there is no
justification for a belief that the use would lead to increases in crime.
However, the design of the proposal is considered as unsuitable of the area
within which it is located leading to a development that represents an
overdevelopment as well as being out of character with the prevailing pattern
of development in the surrounding locality.
8.
Recommendation - Refusal
Reason
for Refusal:
The proposal by reason of
its size, design and external appearance, would be an intrusive development,
out of scale and character with the prevailing pattern of development in the
locality as well as having a detrimental impact on the amenities currently
enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring property. As such the proposal
would be contrary to Strategic Policy S6 (Development will be expected to be of
a High Standard of Design) and Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and D2
(Standards of Development Within the Site) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan
|
2. |
Reference Number: P/00307/06 - TCP/26900/A Parish/Name: Cowes - Ward/Name: Cowes Castle East Registration Date: 07/02/2006 - Full Planning
Permission Officer: Mr J Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823552 Applicant: X Mornington LLP 3 pairs of semi-detached houses, 1
detached house & a 3 storey block of 8 flats over parking at lower ground
floor level; alterations to vehicular access & construction of vehicular
access (revised scheme)(revised description)(readvertised application) site of, Mornington, Mornington
Road, Cowes, PO318BL The application is recommended for
Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This is a major application and is before Members due to its controversial nature.
1. Details
of Application
1.1 This is the resubmission
of a previous proposal refused by the Development Control Committee in August
2005 and represents a reduction in the scale of the development scheme
comprising a full application for a total of fifteen units in the form of three
pairs of semi-detached houses, one detached house and a three-storey block of
eight flats.
1.2 Two of the pairs of
semi-detached houses are sited on the Queens Road frontage with the detached
house sited on the corner of Queens Road and Mornington Road. The third pair of semi-detached houses is
located in the south western corner of the site, the rear of the site and the
block of flats is proposed to be sited almost centrally in the site.
1.3 The semi-detached houses
are three storeys in height with gable features facing Queens Road and set with
a depth of frontage to reflect the existing pattern of development
adjoining. Dwellings are proposed to be
finished in a buff/yellow stock brick but with side elevations in self-coloured
acrylic render under a zinc sheet roof with a dark grey matt finish. Those properties are shown to provide four-bedroom
accommodation with living accommodation at first floor to maximise the sea
views.
1.4 The proposed three-storey
detached house of four bedroom accommodation is shown to be finished in
self-coloured acrylic render under a flat roof terrace with low parapet walls
with attached garage with a further terrace at first floor level. The high roof terrace includes an oval
glazed staircase enclosure for access.
1.5 The flats located
centrally in the site provide a total of six two-bedroom units on ground and
first floor but with 2 no. three-bedroom units on second floor level. Again the block is shown to be finished in
self coloured acrylic render, the second floor with a glazed feature on its
north facing elevation. This proposal
differs from the previous submission by the omission of 3 no. flats and an
entire floor and the omission of balcony features which, in the previous
scheme, “wrapped around” the side elevations for a short distance.
1.6 The existing vehicular
access from Queens Road is to be closed but with a new vehicular access onto
Mornington Road at the southern extent of the site and the addition of another
access closer to Queens Road in the position of the former pedestrian
access. Within the site the access
arrangements are proposed to be a one-way system with the entrance at the
southerly access point and the egress towards the north, both in Mornington
Road.
1.7 Development allows for a
single parking space for each of the flats and for each of the semi-detached
houses. The flatted development includes
eight car parking spaces in an undercroft (lower ground floor) and the site
plan shows the additional three car parking spaces to the west of the block of
flats, for visitors. The detached house
has provision for four car parking spaces, two within a garage and two adjacent
to the garage.
1.8 Application is
accompanied by a landscaping scheme and tree survey with a schedule of new tree
and hedge planting proposing the felling of majority of the trees on site with
the exception of two middle aged trees.
1.9 Application is also
accompanied by a geotechnical report in respect of the ground conditions which
concludes that ” … any additional weight provided by the construction of the
proposed buildings will be beneficial and therefore should be a small net gain
in stability as a result of the development.”
The previous scheme which sought consent for 18 units on the site, if
approved, would have been subject to financial contributions and the provision
of affordable housing as the site exceeded the 15 units’ threshold. The applicants had been in discussion with
the Council’s Housing Initiative Officer and it was agreed that a financial
contribution would be made as opposed to on-site provision amounting to a sum
of £260,000. Other financial
contributions for education payments, open space and transport infrastructure
payments were also applicable. As the
previous application was refused and the subsequent resubmission has resulted
in the reduction in numbers of units by three to fifteen in total, the development
equates to the 15 units threshold and therefore financial contributions and
provision of affordable housing (or contributions thereto) are still
applicable. Bearing in mind the
reduction in numbers a result of the previous refusal, a pro rata payment would
be appropriate.
2. Location and Site Characteristics
2.1 The site has an area of
0.33 ha and is located on the south western corner of Queens Road with
Mornington Road at Cowes. It has road
frontages to both. The site falls from
the south to the north towards the sea and is currently occupied by the remains
of the demolished building and a number of trees which are the subject of a
Tree Preservation Order.
2.2 The northern boundary
onto Queens Road is a low brick wall, the east a mix of broken fencing and
foliage whilst the south and west boundaries are a mix of hedging and
fencing. Adjoining the site to the
south is a mixture of large, established dwellings of varying ages and designs
which front Cliff Road which runs parallel to Queens Road. Beyond there are further substantial
dwellings fronting Baring Road located in the coastal slope. To the west fronting Queens Road there are a
number of large properties forming a significant seafront development. These dwellings are of varying and diverse
styles.
2.3 Immediately adjoining the
site to the west is a three-storey pair of semi-detached properties which
adjoin the boundary with the site closely and on the east side of Mornington
Road there is a substantial area of open space which is slightly elevated from
the adjoining roads, an area of treed amenity space.
2.4 The seafront development
consists of a range of predominantly residential properties made up of a mixed
and varied range of established and modern development.
3. Relevant History
3.1 Members will recall the
history of this site from the previous application, the history of this site.
The former building known as Mornington was listed in December 2003 but,
following an appeal to English Heritage, the building was delisted in June
2004. A subsequent reconsideration of
the delisting was unsuccessful and that amid some dispute, the property was
eventually demolished in November 2004, an action which took place before the
extension of the Conservation Area which now encompasses the site.
3.2 Irrespective of the
unusual and regrettable circumstances surrounding the demolition of the
building it was considered that an Enforcement Notice requiring the rebuilding
of the property would have been unrealistic and unreasonable due to the
building’s condition and it was resolved that no further action would be taken
in advance of the consideration of the then application for redevelopment.
3.3 The application for
redevelopment of the site with three pairs of semi-detached houses, one
detached house and a four-storey block of eleven flats with parking at lower
ground floor level and for formation of vehicular access was refused by the
Development Control Sub Committee on 9 August 2005 on grounds of an
inappropriate and unsympathetic design, out of character with the Conservation
Area and on grounds of the general scale, mass and height of the flats being
overdominant and overbearing on the local area which would have resulted in an
incompatible development in the Conservation Area. This decision was taken by the Committee contrary to your
officers’ recommendation for approval.
4. Development Plan Policy
4.1
National policies covered in:
§
PPG3 – Housing March 2000
§
PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development
§
PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment
§
PPG14 – Development on Unstable Land.
4.2
Specifically PPG3 emphasises the need to provide a range and mix of
house sizes, using brownfield sites, creating more sustainable patterns of
development and supporting the efficient use of land (densities 30-50 units per
ha), good quality design, determination of designs in context rather than
isolation and reduced levels of parking.
4.3
PPS1 advocates sustainable development, good design including
sustainability, integration into the urban and natural environment, optimising
the potential of sites, responding to local distinctiveness and appropriate
landscaping.
4.4
PPS1 re-emphasises PPG1 policies to avoid unnecessary prescriptional
detail, not to impose architectural style or particular taste nor stifle
innovation but should take account of needs for the disabled.
4.5
PPG15 emphasises importance of environmental stewardship for historic
environment, recognise economic growth and take account of specialist
conservation advice to inform their decision making process and emphasises the
need to ensure preservation and enhancement of the character or appearance of
Conservation Areas.
4.6
PPG14 seeks to minimise impact of land slides by controlling development
where appropriate, and to take account of slope stability reports regarding
such sites that are affected.
4.7
Local plan policies.
Site is located within
the existing development envelope and within the Cowes Conservation Area as
extended.
·
Strategic policies S1, S2, S6 and S7 are appropriate and more detailed
policies are as follows:
o
G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages
o
G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development
o
D1 – Standards of Design
o
D2 – Standards for Development Within the Site
o
D3 – Landscaping
o
D14 – Light Spillage
o
B6 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
o
B7 – Demolition of Non Listed Buildings in Conservation Areas
o
H4 – Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined
Settlements
o
TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines
o
TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development
o
TR6 – Cycling and Walking
o
U11 – Infrastructure and Service Provision
o
U2 – Ensuring Adequate Education and Social Community Facilities etc.
4.8
Site is within Zone 2 of Council’s parking policies requiring a maximum
of 0 – 50% of parking guidelines, based on one car parking space per bedroom.
4.9
Four trees on the site are subject to a Tree Preservation Order.
4.10
The nature of the application means that a financial contribution
towards social housing would be payable and contributions towards transport
infrastructure, education facilities and open space provision or maintenance
would be applicable.
5. Consultee and Third Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
·
Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved.
·
Council’s Conservation and Design Team Leader who was originally
involved in the negotiations on the formal scheme has considered the revised
submission and quotes “it is still a simple and elegant solution which relates
to the growing, variety and scale locally without resulting to pastiche.
Materials are noted on submission and tie the proposal to its setting. Care
will be needed for the colour and detail to ensure that the new buildings
remain sharp and ‘clean’ and do not appear dowdy. “
The previous scheme,
refused by the Committee was also supported by the Conservation and Design Team
Leader who commented at the time as follows:
“The scheme for the
redevelopment of this site is very different from what existed there
previously. Having said that, the proposal is for an elegantly, contemporary
scheme which picks up references from the surroundings but does not try to
slavishly copy an earlier style.”
The views from both land
and water and also within the site have been considered within the design
process in relation to surrounding conservation areas.
Mornington House was a
lovely old house but had become ruinous and its site had become overgrown. Had
that not been the situation, its demolition may well not have been an economic
pressure and that it might have remained within the conservation area. Given
the condition of the house and the site prior to demolition it was hardly a
visual asset to the conservation area.
Whilst very different, I
am satisfied that the proposal is certainly no worse than what existed
previously in terms of the character and appearance of the conservation area
and in my view is an enhancement. On that basis, I am content to support the
scheme.
With the original
submission, negotiations were undertaken with the Council’s Housing Development
and Initiatives Officer which resulted in an agreement for the payment of the
financial contribution in respect of the provision of affordable housing.
Irrespective of the reduction of the numbers of dwellings from 18 to 15, the
affordable element may reduce from six to five units (30%) but as a
contribution for off site provision he is unable to accept a further reduction
to be made below the figure of £260,000 which was previously agreed. In
addition he confirms that the £260,000 will only be able to purchase three
units off site in the Cowes area.
·
Environmental Health Officer points out need to ensure adequate sound
insulation.
5.2 External Consultees
·
Environment Agency raises no objection.
·
English Heritage commented on the original submission in a constructive
manner and revisions were made to that scheme culminating in their general
comment that they fully understood the rationale behind the proposed
development but did have reservations regarding potential impact of the larger
block and emphasised the requirement of PPS1 to improve and reinforce the
character of the area. Concluded by stating that the organisation was content
that further negotiations or decisions are made by the Local Planning Authority
without further reference to them subject to the receipt of any revised plans
covering points previously made.
·
Southern Water point out that there is insufficient capacity in the
existing foul system and that alternative and additional drainage arrangements
should be made in order to achieve an appropriate form of foul sewage disposal.
5.3 Town or Parish Council Comments
·
Cowes Town Council continues to object to the proposal on grounds of
overdevelopment, inappropriate design in a conservation area.
5.4 Neighbours
·
21 letters of objection from local residents on grounds of four storeys
too high; excessive density; additional traffic generated by the development;
arguing that the proposal represents the same layout and footprint as
previously refused; inappropriate design; too important a site requiring lower
density, suggesting lowering of buildings at the rear; development represents
unnecessary development; loss of light and air; dominant appearance the
development representing contrasting styles; inappropriate materials and the
development out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the
locality; one writer suggests the rebuilding of the original as a punitive
step; inclusion of balconies inappropriate feature in this location and
development on unstable land.
5.5 Others
·
Solent Protection Society objects to the development on grounds being
inappropriate design and overdevelopment.
·
Island Watch object on similar grounds.
6. Evaluation
6.1 In August of last year
the previous application was refused on the grounds that the contemporary
architectural design approach, particularly in respect of the detached house
and flat block, had not been sufficiently justified in relation to the
character of the Cowes Conservation Area and was therefore inappropriate and
unsympathetic and out of character with the area, contrary to policies
contained within the UDP.
6.2 In addition, second
reason for refusal made reference to the prominence of this corner site and
that the general scale of the flat block building, especially in terms of its
mass and height was excessive and over dominant from both sea and land and thus
incompatible with the character of the Conservation Area.
6.3 As with the previous
application determination of this application is contentious due to the recent
history of the site involving the demolition of the building but the
determining factors are still considered to be:
·
Policy in principle
·
Density
·
Mass, height and design
·
Highway issues including parking and access
·
Drainage and ground stability
·
Effect on landscape/wildlife habitat
·
Environmental impact
·
Social housing implications
6.4 Following previous consideration and the
reasons for refusal, this revised application differs from the previous one
following the revisions which include the loss of three of the flats by the
removal of one storey of the flats building; some fenestration changes and the
removal of the balcony features on the side elevations.
6.5 In essence, therefore, determination of
this application turns solely on matters relating to the density of the
proposed development, its design, height and massing.
6.6 Matters relating to the policy and
principle, land stability issues, traffic, drainage, social housing, nature
conservation issues and trees did not feature in the reasons for refusal and
largely, these issues are considered to be satisfactorily dealt with.
6.7 The reasons for refusal have been
addressed by the resubmission of this application with a reduction in the
height of the flatted development by one storey and the removal of three of the
flats. The omission of three flats will have implications regarding traffic,
parking and access but as these issues were considered satisfactory at the
previous stage, any reduction would amount an improvement. In removing one
floor of three flats the height and mass of the flatted block has addressed
English Heritages original comments on the proposal and significantly reduces
the visual impact of that block when seen from any direction.
6.8 Only minor design changes have been made,
essentially to fenestration detail and the removal of the “wrap around”
balconies with the remaining balcony features only on the north elevation.
6.9 In design terms, the scheme blends a
contemporary design with more traditional features in the gable ends of the
houses representing a continuation of the style and features already prevalent
on the Queens Road frontage.
6.10 The proposed changes have been welcomed by
the Council’s Conservation Officer who considers the scheme to be fully
supportable.
6.11 To recap on the others issues of
determination, the principle of development on this site is unquestioned as it
falls within the category of a brownfield site which is an area of
predominantly residential use.
6.12 In terms of the density, the site is of .31
hectares and in the previous scheme the development computed at 58 dwellings
per hectare but with a reduction of the scheme, the development now envisaged
computes at 48 dwellings per hectare. This falls within the 30-50 units per
hectare suggested in PPG3 and as it involves flatted development in addition to
housing, the density is inevitably towards the higher end of the range. The
scheme is still considered to provide adequate amenity land and parking with
sufficient space around the buildings.
6.13 As with the previous scheme, both parking
provision and access are considered to be acceptable both in terms of the one
way system proposed and the level of parking provided within the development.
6.14 With regard to ground stability it is clear
that a geotechnical engineer with considerable experience of slope stability in
Cowes has been involved in the design process and the findings have been vetted
by an independent geotechnical engineer who is satisfied with the methodology
and although more detailed calculations would be necessary at the building
regulations stage, it is clear that there is a clear need to retain weight on
this site to assist the stability of the ground to prevent land slippage.
6.15 Since submission of this revised
application, it is apparent that Southern Water have identified that there is
insufficient capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to
service the proposed development. Accordingly additional off site sewers or
improvements to existing sewers will be required to provide sufficient capacity
to service the development. In making these observations, Southern Water will
require necessary sewerage infrastructure to be installed to service this
development. They also point out that there are no separate surface water
sewers in the area and it is recommend that an alternative means of surface
water disposal should be used. Both of these matters can be the subject of
conditions to require such installation prior to the commencement or occupation
of the development.
6.16 As with the previous application, the
current, marginally reduced scheme will inevitably have some impact on the
local landscape, due in part to the loss of some TPO trees but, again, this is
off set by a proposed landscaping scheme as part of the development.
6.17 The effect on adjoining properties through
overlooking can be addressed by the imposition of planning conditions and,
similarly, the retention of the letter box facility can be ensured by the
incorporation of the feature into the new scheme.
7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation
7.1 The loss of Mornington House was regrettable and previous decisions taken have accepted the building’s loss. Its replacement with a suitable scheme is important to ensure that a gap in the conservation area does not remain but it is clear from the reasons for refusal in the previous scheme that Members were dissatisfied with the former scheme in terms of its design, mass, height in this prominent conservation area location. The reasons for refusal have been addressed by the agents who have submitted this revision and determination turns on those issues. As before, the duty to ensure preservation and enhancement of conservation areas has been addressed through the extensive design procedures described in the previous report and whilst recognising the subjectivity of design issues, the advice in PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development – is quite clear, particularly in relation to policies avoiding any unnecessary prescriptions which should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and certainly should not stifle innovation, originality or initiatives through what would be deemed to be unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. The revisions to the scheme have incorporated suggestions by English Heritage and, in this second scheme, have contributed to the quality of the scheme and have reduced the overall mass and height of the main structure on the site.
7.2 There are other issues which relate to matters of contributions and social housing but these may be dealt with by the inclusion of a Section 106 Agreement to ensure the appropriate payments are made for transport infrastructure, towards education and upgrading of local recreation and open space but, in this instance, to receive a financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing off site.
8. Recommendation
To grant conditional
permission to include the completion of a Section 106 Agreement covering the
following:
·
Financial contribution of £260,000 towards provision of affordable
housing off site.
·
Financial contribution of £11,250 towards transport infrastructure.
·
Financial contribution of £32,175 towards education.
·
Financial contribution of £4,350 towards the upgrading of local
recreation and open space facilities.
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
permitted by this planning permission shall not be initiated by the undertaking
of material operation as defined in Section 56 (4) a - d of the town and
Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the development until a planning
obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the said Act relating to the land has
been made and lodged with the 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 obligation will provide for: 6. A financial
contribution of £260,000 towards the provision of affordable housing. 7. A financial
contribution of £11,250 towards transport infrastructure. 8. A financial
contribution of £32,175 towards education. A financial
contribution of £4,350 towards the upgrading of local recreation and open
space facilities. Reason: To ensure the provision
of affordable housing, education facilities, open space and recreation
facilities and transport infrastructure, in compliance with U2 (Ensuring
adequate education, social and community facilities for future population)
and Policy H14 (Locally Affordable Housing as an element of housing schemes)
of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
The materials to be
used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwellings hereby
approved shall be as specified on the applicant's drawings hereby approved or
as agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. All development shall
be carried out in accordance with those agreed details. Reason: In the interest of the
amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of
the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
Hard and soft
landscaping and boundary treatments shall be carried out in accordance with
existing survey, tree removal and protective fencing, drawing no. HED 597.02C
and planting plan drawing no. HED 597.03C as produced by Highland Edgar
Driver Landscape Architects and Urban Designers. Such landscaping shall be
carried out in accordance with the phasing scheme to be submitted to and
agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing providing a progamming
and approximate timing of the landscape work in any particular area having
regard to the timing of the commencement in that area of any part of the
development hereby approved. None of the dwellings served by the landscaped
areas shall be occupied until the landscape proposal, relating to those
areas, has been fully implemented. Reason: To ensure that
development is carried out in a properly phased manner and an appropriately
landscape quality and in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and D3
(Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
Tree protection work
shall be carried out prior to any other works commencing in respect of the
retained tree indicated on the submitted plan and such protection work shall
be in accordance with the details indicated on applicant's drawing no. HED
597.02.C. Such protection work shall be maintained ruing the course of
construction works 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 in 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
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) of
the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
Development shall not
begin until details of improvements to the sight lines at junction of
Mornington Road and Queens 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 splays
shown in the approved sight lines. Reason: In the interest of
highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) 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 gates shall be erected [other than those expressly
authorised by this permission/other than gates that are set back a minimum
distance of 5 metres from the edge of the carriageway of the adjoining
highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
8 |
No dwelling hereby
permitted shall be occupied until spade has been laid out within the site in
accordance with Drawing no. GA1039.002K and GA1039.030E for a maximum of 24
cars and 15 bicycles to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may
enter and leave the site in forward gear. This pace shall not thereafter be
used for any purposes 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 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 there from 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. |
|
10 |
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. |
|
11 |
The development shall
not be occupied until sight lines have been provided in accordance with the
visibility splay shown green on the approved plan. Nothing that may cause an
obstruction to visibility shall at any time be placed or be permitted to
remain within that visibility splay. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
12 |
The southern most
vehicular access off Mornington Road shown on the approved plan Ref No. GA
1039.002K shall only be used as a means of ingress to the site and the
northern most vehicular access shown on the aforementioned approved plan
shall only be used as a means of egress for the site. No building shall be
occupied until a traffic management plan showing the details of the measure
to be applied to ensure that drivers use the appropriate means of ingress 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 measure shall be retained in place at all times. Reason: In the interest of
highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) 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 means of access shall be provided between the development
hereby approved and Queens Road other than that expressly authorised by this
permission. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
14 |
The dwellings hereby
approved shall not be occupied until highway improvements comprising the
reconstruction of the highway footway bounding the application site with
Mornington Road 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
standard of access to the proposed development in compliance with Policy TR7
(Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
15 |
No occupation shall
take place of any of the units hereby approved until lighting has been
installed in the car parking area serving the units in accordance with
details to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Such lighting scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
details and shall be the subject of an appropriate management plan. Reason: In the interest of the
future occupiers and adjoining property owners in compliance with Policy D1
(Standards of Design) and Policy D14 (Light Spillage) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
16 |
A Landscape Management
Plan including the long term design objectives and management
responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas other than
privately owned domestic gardens shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning authority prior to occupation of the
development or any phase of the development, whichever is the sooner. Reason: To ensure the long term
maintenance of hard and soft landscape areas and to comply with Policy D1
(Standards of Design) and Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
17 |
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 inserted in the west facing elevations of Plots 5 and 6
and in the south facing elevations of the upper floors within flats 8 to 15
without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the
adjoining properties and in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design)
of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
18 |
No development shall
take place until a detailed scheme (including calculations of capacity
studies) for foul water drainage from the site have been submitted to and
agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing. Any such agreed foul water
disposal system shall indicate connections at points on the system where
adequate capacity exists to ensure any additional flow should not cause
flooding or over load the existing system. Reason: to ensure an adequate
system of foul water drainage is provided for the development incompliance
with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
19 |
No development shall
take place until a detailed scheme (including calculations of capacity
studies) of a means of storm water disposal have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any such agreed
storm/surface water disposal system shall indicate any connections at points
on the system where adequate capacity exists to ensure any additional flow
should not cause flooding or overload the existing system. Reason: To ensure an adequate
system of surface/storm water drainage is provided for the development in
accordance with policy Ull (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IW
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
20 |
Steps including the
installation and use of wheel cleaning facilities in accordance with details
to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
shall be taken to prevent materials 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 it is practical by the site operator. Reason: In the interest of
highway safety and to prevent mud and dust from getting on the highway and to
comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Consideration) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
21 |
All construction
traffic related to the development hereby approved shall be directed to leave
the site by means of prominent signages, the details of which shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such
signage shall be erected at the junction between the site access road and the
highway before the access road is first used. This signage shall be retained
in a clean and legible condition for the duration of the development and any
sign that is damaged beyond repair or removed shall be immediately replaced. Reason: In the interest of
highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the
IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3. |
Reference Number: P/00382/06 - TCP/27529 Parish/Name: Newport - Ward/Name: Parkhurst Registration Date: 13/02/2006 - Full Planning
Permission Officer: Miss S Gooch Tel: (01983) 823552 Applicant: Platinum Property Services Ltd Demolition of single storey
extension; end of terrace house (revised scheme) (readvertised application) land adjacent, 11 Hampshire
Crescent, Newport, PO30 The application is recommended for
Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The application is regarded as being contentious having attracted a large number of representations.
The Local Member, Councillor G Price, has requested that this application is considered by the Development Control Committee for the following reason; inadequate drainage.
1. Details
of Application
1.1 Full planning permission is sought for
the demolition of a single storey extension on the end of no. 11 Hampshire
Crescent and the construction of a two storey dwelling that would create a
short terrace of three units. The proposed dwelling will have a depth of 7
metres, a width of 7.2 metres with a hipped roof to a height of 6.6 metres.
Internal accommodation will comprise of dining room/sitting room, kitchen, hall
and w.c. at ground floor with three bedrooms, bathroom and en suite at first
floor.
1.2 The bulk, scale and mass of the proposed
dwelling would mirror the adjoining existing semi-detached house with a porch
feature on the eastern elevation. Window arrangements have been designed also
to mimic those within the immediate locality.
1.3 The existing parking area will be
retained for the new dwelling and a replacement parking area will be provided
in front of 11 Hampshire Crescent. Both parking areas will be clearly defined
by drop kerbs and separated by a 0.6 metre post and chain fence.
1.4 The existing 1.8 metre high boundary
fencing will be extended further east following the line of the existing
pavement which will enclose the proposed garden area for the new dwelling.
2. Location and Site Characteristics
2.1 The site is located in a residential
estate that lies immediately to the south of Albany Prison. The estate was
constructed in the 1960s and comprises of semi-detached and terraced property.
2.2 Application site is situated on the
corner plot at the junction of Hampshire Crescent and Sherwood Road.
.
2.3 Site is an irregular shaped piece of
ground measuring at its longest depth 26.4 metres by 9.9 metres. It consists of
the side garden and parking area of 11 Hampshire Crescent, which is a
semi-detached house.
2.4 The character of the area is essentially
derived from the original layout of the estate which consists of semi-detached
or terraced properties with car parking provided in garage blocks located at
various positions within the estate. There is a feel of an open plan estate
with properties set back from the road frontages although in recent times this
space has been used to provide off street parking spaces.
3. Relevant History
3.1 There is no relevant planning history
which relates to the application site.
3.2 Other relevant decisions in this
locality:
·
Proposed two bedroomed terraced house adjacent 1 Sherwood Road, Newport
allowed on appeal subject to conditions February 2005.
·
Demolition of single storey extension and construction of end of
terraced house adjacent 9 Northumberland Road, Newport approved October 2004.
4. Development Plan Policy
4.1 National Policy Guidance
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 alternative high quality living environments in which people
chose to live and work.
4.2 The Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan (UDP) identifies the application site as being within the development
envelope for Newport, no other specific policy designation applies. Relevant
UDP 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.
·
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 Define
Settlements
·
H5 - Infill Development
·
TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development
·
TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines
·
U11 - Infrastructure and Services
4.3 The application site is within Parking
Zone 3 of the UDP where parking provision is 0-75% 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 conditional approval.
5.2 Third Party/Neighbours
·
Ten letters of objection have been received. The points raised can be
summarised as follows:
o
New 1.8m high boundary fence and location of house will further restrict
visibility on this corner and hazardous to highway users.
o
Inadequate drainage system
o
Parking in this area is limited
o
Infringement of light
o
Emergency vehicles will have to weave in and out of parked cars.
o
Will block views
o
Construction traffic will damage local roads
·
Concern was also expressed regarding party boundary wall and that
proposal would result in devaluation. However, these matters are not relevant
to the determination of the application.
6. Evaluation
6.1 The application site is
within the development envelope for Newport, therefore the principle of a new
dwelling is considered acceptable providing the issues set out below are
satisfied.
6.2 I am satisfied that the site
is of adequate size to accommodate development compatible with the surroundings
without detracting from the amenities of the area or of neighbouring
properties. In particular, site is of adequate width to accommodate building of
similar proportions to the applicant’s property and whilst creating a terrace
of three dwellings, this would not be out of keeping with the general pattern
of development in the area.
6.3 When viewing the
properties within the prison estate, the character of the wider area is extremely
varied in type, design and aged of development. In this context, I do not
consider that the creation of a terrace of three dwellings would conflict with
the character of the area.
6.4 The proposed
dwellinghouse would be virtually identical in terms of design to the existing
semi-detached property. Overall I am of the opinion that the design of the
proposed dwelling is appropriate for its location and would be visual
acceptable within the streetscene.
6.5 Whilst I note the
introduction of this end of terrace house would bring it closer to the northern
boundary, I do not consider its siting would be harmful to the surroundings.
One characteristic of the area is setting boundaries back from the immediate
inside edge of the footpaths. On balance I consider that this characteristic
has merit and not withstanding the information shown on the submitted plans, I
believe that if the application is supported by Members, conditions should be
imposed to the effect that any new boundary feature on the frontage to Sherwood
Road is set back retaining the open grass strip along that boundary of the
property. With this limitation imposed, I am still of the opinion that proposal
will allow for a spacious feel and therefore consider the proposal would not
appear cramped.
6.6 In my opinion the
proposed garden area would likely be adequate to cater for the needs and
expectations of a family, given its size and is consequently comparative to
those in the locality.
6.7 In terms of blocking
views, I do not consider that the location at the end of terrace would result
in any loss of amenity or result in significant harmful effect on the living
condition of the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings particularly 9 and 11
Hampshire Crescent and 1/2 Cameron Close.
6.8 In relation to
infringement of light, no calculations of the effect of the proposal in terms
of daylight and sunlight have been submitted to substantiate the concern
expressed by residents. Adequate distance would exist to ensure that this is
not an issue.
6.9 In terms of drainage, no
evidence regarding the adequacy of drainage serving the area has been submitted
by the objectors. The agent has submitted a survey report prepared by Dyno Rod
which acknowledges that the drains are generally in good condition. In allowing
the appeal adjacent 1 Sherwood Close, the Planning Inspector noted the concerns
over foul drainage but did not consider that they were backed up by sufficient
evidence to justify withholding consent. The consultation with Southern Water
is still outstanding but at the present time I see no evidence to indicate that
the Local Planning Authority should adopt a different position then that held
on the other two local sites. Comments and responses to Southern Water views
will be outlined in the update and at the meeting.
6.10 Residents have expressed
concern about highway conditions in the area, particularly in relation to
parking, emergency vehicular access and inadequate visibility on this corner
plot. Following consultation with the Highways Department, no concerns are
raised subject to conditional approval. Plans clearly identify acceptable off
street parking which will reduce further potential on street parking arriving
in the locality.
7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation
7.1 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, it is considered that the application site is of sufficient size to accommodate an end of terrace dwelling without being detrimental to the amenities or privacy of neighbouring occupiers or the character and appearance of the area in general. Proposal can easily accommodate off street parking and in terms of drainage, it is my opinion that one dwelling would not add significantly to the flows to the foul system. The scale, mass and design of the proposed dwelling is considered to be appropriate for this residential area with no resultant hazards to other highway users. Accordingly, the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Unitary Development Plan.
8. Recommendation
Approval.
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The development hereby
permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from date of this
permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990. |
|
2 |
Notwithstanding details
submitted on Drawing No. 02-06.5 Rev. 1.6, the materials to be used in the
construction of the external surfaces of the dwelling hereby permitted shall
match those of the adjoining property (No. 8 Hampshire Crescent). 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. |
|
3 |
Notwithstanding details
submitted on Drawing No. 02-06.3 Rev. 106 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. |
|
4 |
All materials 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 materials shall be removed
from the site prior to the construction of the building proceeding beyond
damp proof course level or such other timescale to be agreed with the Local
Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of the
amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of
the IOW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
Development shall not
be undertaken unless drainage works for the disposal of foul and surface
water 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
system of foul drainage is provided for the development in compliance with
Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provisions) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
6 |
No building shall be
occupied until the means of vehicular access thereto has been constructed in
accordance with the approved plans, No. 02-06.3 Rev. 1.4. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed
development and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4. |
Reference Number: P/00386/06 - TCP/13203/B Parish/Name: Newport - Ward/Name: Newport South Registration Date: 14/02/2006 - Outline Planning
Permission Officer: Mr A White Tel: (01983) 823552 Applicant: Westmont Properties IOW Ltd Demolition of dwelling &
garage; outline for 2 houses & 4 flats; alterations to vehicular access 23 Terrace Road, Newport, PO301EE The application is recommended for
Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This report has been requested by the Local Member, Councillor M Cunningham, on grounds that proposal would constitute over development of the site as well as offering inadequate on-site parking provision.
1. Details
of Application
1.1 Outline permission is sought to demolish
an existing detached bungalow and to replace with a building comprising of two
houses and four flats including two covered parking spaces. External
appearance, siting, design and means of access are all matters to be considered
at this stage.
1.2 Submitted details show that the two
houses would front Terrace Road, stepping up to a three storey building
comprising of flats adjacent the junction with Drake Road before stepping back
down to two storey building that would extend through to the Drake Road
electricity sub station. Each of the two houses would offer three bedrooms
(including one in the roofspace), a rear garden measuring approximately 6
metres in length and its own allocated on-site parking space. Three of the four
flats would offer one bedroom, whist the remaining unit is shown to have two.
The submitted layout plan also indicates an area for bin and bicycle storage.
1.3 The suggested design is traditional in
its approach, and reflects the vertical proportions of nearby Victorian
architecture. The use of projecting bay windows on each road frontage is also
an attempt to recognise the distinctiveness of the surrounding area.
2. Location and Site Characteristics
2.1 This is a rectangular shaped site
situated on the corner of Terrace Road and Drake Road, directly opposite St.
Johns Church. It measures 19 metres by 18 metres and adjoins an electricity sub
station to the south and a semi-detached house (21 Terrace Road) to the west.
This site is approximately 0.5 metres higher than highway level.
2.2 This is primarily a mixed residential
area on the edge of the town centre. Dwellings are generally arranged as pairs
or terraces, with examples of both two and three storey buildings with a strong
Victorian influence. Accordingly, it is fair to say that the existing 1960’s
bungalow to be demolished is out of character in this location.
3. Relevant History
3.1 None.
4. Development Plan Policy
4.1 National Policy Guidance
PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable
Development) emphasises the following:
·
Good design to ensure attractive, usable and durable and adaptable
places contributing positively to making places better for people.
·
Good design should:
o
Be integrated into the existing urban form and natural built
environment.
o
Optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development.
o
Respond to local context and create and enforce local distinctiveness.
o
Be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate
landscaping.
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
pressure 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 design.
·
New housing development should not be viewed in isolation but should
have regard to immediate buildings in the wider locality.
4.2 Site is within the development envelope
boundary for Newport as identified on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan (UDP). The following policies of the UDP are considered to be relevant:
·
S1 - New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas
·
S2 - Development will be encouraged on land which has previously been
developed (Brownfield 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 of development within the site
·
D3 – Landscaping
·
H4 – Unallocated residential development to be restricted to defined
settlements
·
H5 – Infill development
·
TR7 – Highway considerations for new development
·
TR16 – Parking policies and guidelines
·
U11 – Infrastructure and services provision
4.3 Reference is also made to the Housing
Needs Survey which identifies, among other needs, a demand for smaller two and
three bedroom homes.
4.4 The site is located within parking Zone 2
of the UDP where parking provision is 0 – 50% of the non-operational
requirement is applicable.
5. Consultee and Third Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
·
Highway Engineer raises no objection subject to each of the proposed
houses being provided with one parking space. On balance, he considers that no
parking for the four flats is acceptable in this location.
5.2 External Consultees
·
English Heritage have viewed the application in light of the proposal
being directly opposite a listed church and duly confirms that it does not wish
to offer any comment on this particular proposal.
5.3 Third Party Representations
·
Five letters received, four from Terrace Road residents and the other
from an Albert Street resident, objecting on grounds that can be summarised as
follows:
o
Overdevelopment
o
Increased pressure on already limited on street parking, resulting in
even further congestion.
o
As it is, residents already have to walk a considerable distance between
car and home.
o
Additional on street parking could make access to Moreys’ Timber Yard
even more difficult.
o
Three storey is inappropriate.
o
Design is out of character.
o
Loss of light to properties on the opposite side of Terrace Road.
o
Loss of privacy from proposed flats, particularly in respect of
properties on the opposite side of Terrace Road.
o
Would breach established building line.
o
Disruption to traffic during construction period.
o
Further pressure on services, i.e. drainage, doctors and dentists.
6. Evaluation
6.1 The determining factors
in respect of this application are as follows:
·
Principle
·
Density
·
Scale and mass
·
Design
·
Impact on neighbouring property occupiers
·
Parking
·
Drainage
6.2 Site
is within the development envelope boundary for Newport and is regarded as a
brownfield site given its current residential status. Accordingly, the
principle of developing the site for residential purposes is considered to be
acceptable, subject to it meeting other criteria.
6.3 Site
is within close proximity of the defined town centre boundary, and within a
short and level walking distance of the many facilities on offer including the
proposed interchange facility. Accordingly, officers are of the opinion that
the application site has the locational attributes of being a suitable
candidate for high density residential development as discussed in PPG3 and
policy H6 of the UDP. Whilst the proposed density appears high in numerical
terms, it is generally the case that new developments containing flats will
give a distorted impression of the overall density. Arguably the main gauge in
respect of assessing density is whether the size of building required to
accommodate the six units of accommodation proposed is acceptable in this
context, both in terms of the likely impact on neighbours and within the
established street scene. It is also necessary to consider whether the
development would allow for sufficient amenity space and living conditions for
its future occupants.
6.4 It
is suggested by objectors that Terrace Road has two identifiable characters,
these being a mix of two and three storey buildings on the northern side and
only two storey on the southern side. Therefore, to introduce a three storey
element on the southern side of the road as proposed would be out of character.
Officers take the view, however, that the existing two storey properties occupy
a relatively short run along this frontage with a large gabled fronted factory
at the western end and the imposing listed church at the opposite end. To
introduce a limited section of three storey residential development on this
corner site would not, therefore, appear out of character, particularly when
considering the strong presence of three storey directly opposite. The
articulation of two and three storey buildings in this part of Newport is not
uncommon and the proposed transition between two and three storey is considered
to be a reflection of that theme. The proposed two storey element fronting
Terrace Road would have similar eaves and ridge height to the adjoining
property at number 21, whilst the proposed frontage onto Drake Road is shown to
be hipped in a similar fashion to the nearest neighbouring property on that
road frontage. The proposed development is also sufficiently distant and
separated from the listed church, meaning that its setting would not be
adversely affected by the proposal. It is also worthy of note that English Heritage
raise no objection in this respect. Bearing all of these points in mind,
particularly the manner in which the proposed building would be articulated, it
is considered that the proposed scale and mass would be acceptable in this
context and therefore compatible with surrounding buildings as required by
policy D1.
6.5 Regarding
design, the overall proportions are reminiscent of the predominant Victorian
theme in this part of Newport and strict control would be exercised over the
choice of materials. Furthermore, the agent was conscious of the corner nature
of the site at the design stage and has incorporated projecting bay windows on
each frontage in order to help turn the corner at the junction with Drake Road
and Terrace Road. Accordingly, it is felt that the proposal would harmonise
with its surroundings through using appropriate design whilst respecting the
distinctiveness of the surrounding area and therefore complies with policies G4
and D1 of the UDP.
6.6 Submitted
plans confirm that the two 3 bedroom houses would benefit from south facing
back gardens measuring in the region of 6 metres long. The occupants of the
proposed flats would have access to communal bin and bicycle storage
facilities, but not any garden space. Whilst a degree of private garden space
is always preferred, it is often the case that town centre flatted developments
such as this are unable to offer such an amenity. Accordingly, it is considered
that the proposed development would allow for a sufficient degree of amenity for
its future occupants and therefore complies with policy D1 in this respect.
6.7 Regarding
impact on neighbouring property occupiers, it is not considered that the
adjoining residents at No. 21 Terrace Road would be adversely affected as the
two proposed houses would barely project beyond the rear wall of the said
property. There are two Velux roof lights facing in the direction of No. 21
from one of the proposed flats but these are situated some 11 metres away from
the common boundary and can also be fitted with obscure glass. The main
objection in respect of the impact on neighbours relates to the potential for
loss of light and privacy to the occupants of properties on the opposite side
of Terrace Road. Although the development is shown to be situated due south of
the objectors, it is important to note that there will be distance of some 17
metres between buildings meaning that loss of light to properties on the
northern side of Terrace Road would not be significant. Furthermore, it is
considered that such distance would minimise the potential for overlooking and
subsequent loss of privacy. Accordingly, it is not felt the proposal would have
a significant impact upon the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring
property occupiers and therefore accords with policy D1 in this respect.
6.8 Regarding parking
provision, Members are advised that the application site is within Zone 2 of
the parking guidelines where it is a requirement to provide between 0 – 50% of
maximum no-operational parking provision. Given that development provides for a
total number of 11 bedrooms, the maximum number of spaces that would accord
with policy is six. The proposed scheme makes provision for two which would be
allocated to the proposed houses. Such parking provision would accord with the
requirements of UDP policy and would also reflect the wider objective of
Government guidance which seeks to reduce reliance on the motor car. Given that
the occupancy level of the proposed flats is likely to be lower than the houses
coupled with the accessibility of the site to the town centre and public
transport, it is considered that the proposed flats are, on balance, suitable
candidates for zero parking provision. This is a view shared by the Council’s
Highway Engineer. Members are therefore advised that the proposal is compliant
with parking policies contained in the UDP.
6.9 Regarding drainage, there
is no evidence to suggest that there is a capacity problem in the immediate
area. Given that this application only seeks outline permission, Officers are
satisfied that drainage can be covered be condition.
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 the proposed development comprising of two houses and six
flats would make efficient use of this brownfield site without resulting in
cramped development in the street scene or impacting unacceptably on the
amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring property occupiers.
7.2 The proposed design,
subject to strict control over materials, is considered to be in keeping within
this mixed residential area.
7.3 Parking provision,
whilst falling short of one space per unit, is considered to be acceptable
given proximity to the town centre and accessibility to public transport.
7.4 Given the circumstances
outlined above, the proposal is considered to comply with both national and
local policies.
8. Recommendation
This application is recommended for
Conditional Permission.
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Application for
approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning
Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this planning
permission. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the
expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the final approval of the
reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final
approval of the last such matter to be approved. Reason: To comply with Section
92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and to prevent the
accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions. |
|
2 |
Before any works or
development hereby approved is commenced on site details relating to the
landscaping of the site shall be submitted to, and approved by the Local
Planning Authority. These details shall comprise the ‘reserved matters’ and
shall be submitted within the time constraints referred to in condition 1
above before any development is commenced. Reason: To enable the Local Planning
Authority to control the development in detail and to comply with Section 92
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). |
|
3 |
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 Isle of Wight
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 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 this interests of
the amenities and privacy of neighbouring property occupiers and to comply
with policy 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 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 amenities and
privacy of neighbouring property occupiers and to comply with policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
The Velux windows in
the west elevation 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: To protect the
amenities of neighbouring properties and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards
of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
7 |
No dwelling hereby
permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in
accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority for 2 cars and 4 bicycles to be parked. The space
shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in
accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
8 |
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 Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
No development shall
commence until details of the boundary wall/railings to be erected along the
Terrace Road and Drake Road frontages have been submitted to and agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall only proceed in
accordance with the agreed details. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of
the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
No development shall
take place until 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. |
|
5. |
Reference Number: P/00503/06 - TCP/21888/F Parish/Name: Shalfleet - Ward/Name: Shalfleet and
Yarmouth Registration Date: 24/02/2006 - Full Planning
Permission Officer: Mr S Wiltshire Tel: (01983) 823552 Applicant: Mr & Mrs M Wheeler Detached chalet bungalow, (revised
scheme) Shalfleet Garage Co Ltd, Shalfleet
Service Station, Main Road, Shalfleet, Newport, PO304ND The application is recommended for
Refusal |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Cllr Burt, the Local Ward Member, has requested that this application is considered by the Development Control Committee for the crime and disorder issues that it raises.
1. Details of Application
1.1 The applicant seeks full planning
permission for the erection of a detached chalet bungalow on land to the rear
of Shalfleet Garage. The proposed
dwelling would have a footprint of 10.6 x 7.8 metres, and would provide 2
en-suite bedrooms to the first floor, with a living room, dining room, kitchen,
w.c and utility room on the ground floor.
The submitted plans show the bungalow would have a gabled roof to a
ridge height of 6.4 metres, with 3 dormer windows in the front roof slope and a
further 2 dormers to the rear.
1.2 The dwelling is proposed to be sited 12
metres to the rear of the main petrol filling station building, with a private
amenity area provided to the west.
Vehicular access to the site would be between the two main garage
buildings, which would lead to a car parking area on a hard standing to the
front of the proposed dwelling.
1.3 A supporting statement from the agent was
submitted with the planning application which seeks to justify the new dwelling
on security grounds, due to incidents of theft which have occurred at the
garage premises. These thefts have been
confirmed in a letter from Hampshire Constabulary dated 31 October 2005.
2. Location and Site Characteristics
2.1 The application site comprises Shalfleet
Garage, a petrol filling station with associated car sales area situated on the
A3054 to the east of Shalfleet. The
site is currently occupied by two single storey white painted buildings, with
forecourt canopy to the petrol sales area.
To the rear of the buildings is a graveled hardstanding area used for
the storage of motor vehicles. To the
east is an open air car sales area.
2.2 “Winchester”, a detached bungalow in
separate ownership, is situated adjacent to the western boundary of the
application site, with the land to the north, south and east of the application
site in agricultural use.
3. Relevant History
3.1 This site has a long history of
applications submitted for planning consent since the petrol service station
was granted permission on appeal in 1960.
The most relevant applications to the consideration of the current
proposal are set out below.
|
TCP/6788/D |
Erection of a dwelling. |
Refused - 21.3.68 Appeal dismissed– 29.11.68 |
|
TCP/6788/E |
Erection of bungalow |
Approved – 20.3.68 |
|
TCP/6788/J |
Erection of a dwelling. |
Refused – 8.6.73 |
|
TCP/6788/P |
Removal of occupancy condition on
bungalow, to allow occupation by persons other than the owner / occupier of
Shalfleet Garage. |
Refused – 6.7.82 |
|
TCP/6788/S |
Removal of occupancy condition on
bungalow, to allow occupation by persons other than the owner/occupier of
Shalfleet Garage. |
Refused – 9.4.87 Appeal allowed – 13.11.87 |
|
P/01833/05 |
Detached house. |
Refused – 23.11.05 |
4. Development Plan Policy
4.1
The Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan shows the application site to
be outside the Development Envelope Boundary to Shalfleet and within an area
where the Countryside policies of this Plan apply. No other policy designations apply to the application site.
4.2 The relevant policies of the UDP are as
follows;
·
S1 New development will be
constructed within existing urban areas
·
S4 The Countryside will be
protected from inappropriate development
·
S6 Development will be expected to
be of a high standard of design
·
G1 Development envelopes for towns
and villages
·
G4 General locational criteria
·
G5 Development outside defined
settlements
·
C1 Protection of landscape
character
·
D1 Standards of design
·
D2 Standards of development within
site
·
H4 Unallocated residential
development
·
H9 Residential development outside
development boundaries
·
TR7 Highway
considerations for new development
·
TR16 Parking
4.3 Government guidance contained within
Planning Policy Statement 7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) (PPS 7)
sets out the Government’s objectives for rural areas. This guidance seeks to promote sustainable patterns of
development though focusing new development in, or next to, existing towns and
villages whilst controlling new house building (including single dwellings) in
the Countryside.
5. Consultee and Third Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
·
Environmental Protection Officer – The Environmental Protection Officer
has no objection to the proposal, subject to the imposition of a condition attached
to any permission granted which relates to the submission of a report relating
to ground conditions.
·
Highways Engineer - Comments that the parking for the proposed dwelling
needs to be shown on a site plan.
However, due to the nature of the site there is plenty of parking around
the garage business, and visibility from the accesses is fine.
5.2 External Consultees
·
None.
5.3 Parish Council Comments
·
Shalfleet Parish Council objects to the application on grounds that it
is contrary to the conditions previously requested by the Parish Council in
regard to P/1833/05.
[Previous
comments – Shalfleet Parish Council has no objection provided it is acceptable
development within the AONB and that it is firmly tied to the business and will
not at a later date be sold as a separate residence.]
5.4 Neighbours
·
No letters of representation have been received from local residents
[note - reply date 24 March 2006]
5.5 Others
·
A letter has been received from the CPRE which objects to the proposal
on grounds that the application for a new residence on this site is completely
contrary to planning policy and that the justifications claimed have no
material significance in planning terms.
6. Evaluation
6.1 Principle
of Development - The application site is located outside the Development
Envelope boundary for Shalfleet, where applications for new residential
development will be assessed against the criteria set out within Policy H9
(Residential development outside development boundaries) of the UDP. The proposed dwelling does not constitute
acceptable infill development, and does not fulfill the other criteria of
Policy H9. In consequence the erection
of a new dwelling in this location is not considered to be acceptable in
principle.
6.2 A supporting
statement submitted on behalf of the applicant states that the new dwelling is
required for security purposes due to a number of thefts which have occurred at
the garage premises. A letter from
Hampshire Constabulary dated 31 October 2005 (on file P/01833/05) confirmed
several incidents of theft from the garage in the early hours of the morning
which have been reported to the police.
There is no information on the scale and nature of the incidents
referred to.
6.3 Advice in
PPS7 requires Local Planning Authorities to apply the same stringent levels of
assessment to applications for occupational dwellings as they apply to
applications for agricultural and forestry workers’ dwellings. PPS7 advises that the provision of a new
dwelling for the purposes of security to prevent theft will not be a sufficient
justification to override the strong policy considerations.
6.4 “Winchester”,
the detached bungalow situated adjacent to the western boundary of the
application site, was originally within the ownership of Shalfleet Garage. In 1987 an Inspector allowed on appeal, the
removal of the condition which tied the occupancy of this bungalow to the
garage, on the basis that the garage did not require a residential unit on
site. This bungalow is adjacent to the
garage site, and thus already provides some degree of surveillance to the
garage.
6.5 CCTV cameras
have been installed on the eastern elevation of the car sales building. Details of other security measures which
have been taken at this site in attempt to eliminate the problem of thefts have
been requested of the applicant.
6.6 It is
considered that the justification for a new dwelling on the basis of site
security alone is insufficient to outweigh the policies of the UDP and
Government Guidance within PPS7. To allow
such a proposal on security reasons could create a dangerous precedent and make
it more difficult for the Local Planning Authority to resist future proposals
for new dwellings in the Countryside on these grounds.
6.7 Members
should note that in a similar case, a planning application (ref. P/01691/04)
for the erection of mobile home adjacent to the access road into Porchfield
Business Park, for the security requirements of the business park, was refused
planning permission in July 2004 and subsequently dismissed on appeal.
6.8 Siting and
Design – The application proposes the erection of a detached bungalow with
dormer windows in the front and rear roof slopes serving first floor living
accommodation. The submitted plans show
the dwelling would be sited in close proximity to the rear of the main garage
building, and with its relatively low eaves and ridge height would be seen from
public viewpoints as forming part of the group of garage buildings and adjacent
bungalow.
6.9 “Winchester”,
the neighbouring bungalow, has private amenity space as well as a conservatory
to the rear. The proposed dwelling
would be sited 12 metres from the side boundary with this dwelling, and set
back 15 metres to the rear. The
separation distance between these properties is considered to be acceptable,
and the proposed dormer windows in the front roof slope would not directly
overlook the rear of this neighbouring dwelling, any views being at an oblique
angle.
6.10 It is
considered that the siting and design of the proposed dwelling would be
visually acceptable within the street scene, and would have a satisfactory
relationship with the neighbouring property.
6.11 Access and
Parking – The proposed dwelling would be served via the existing vehicular
access to the garage, with a hardstanding parking area for this dwelling to the
rear of the main garage building. In
addition there are large areas of hardstanding associated with the garage / car
sales use.
6.12 The Highways
Engineer has commented that the parking to serve the proposed dwelling needs to
be shown on a site plan. However, due
to the nature of the site there is plenty of parking around the garage
business, and visibility from the accesses is fine. As such the provision of off-street parking to serve the proposal
could be adequately controlled through a condition.
7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation
7.1 The applicant seeks full planning
permission for the erection of a dormer bungalow on land outside the
development envelope boundaries on the grounds that it is essential to provide
security for the existing garage business.
Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material
considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that the approval
of planning permission for the dwelling is not in accordance with the strategic
and local policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and Government
advice contained within PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas). The need for the dwelling on grounds of
security for the existing business is not considered to be so significant as to
outweigh the overriding policy objections.
8. Recommendation
8.1 Refuse the planning application for the
following reasons:
Reasons:
|
1 |
The Local Planning
Authority is not satisfied that the provision of residential accommodation at this site for the purposes of
security provides sufficient justification to outweigh the policies contained
within the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and Government advice in
Planning Policy Statement 7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) which
seek to resist inappropriate development in the Countryside, and it has not
been demonstrated why the proposal should be permitted as acceptable
development outside of the defined settlement boundaries. In consequence the proposal is contrary to
Policies S1 (Development within existing urban areas), S4 (The Countryside
will be protected from inappropriate development), G1 (Development envelopes
for towns and villages) and R9 (Residential development outside defined
settlements) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and Government
advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 7 (Sustainable Development
in Rural Areas). |
|
2 |
The site lies outside
the designated development boundary and the proposal, which comprises an
undesirable extension/incursion/intensification of development and would be
prejudicial to the rural character of the area and therefore contrary to
Policy S1 (Concentrated Within Existing Urban Areas), Policies G1
(Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages), G2 (Consolidation and
Infilling of Scattered Settlements Outside Development Envelopes) of the Isle
of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
ANDREW ASHCROFT
Head of Planning Services