PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE -

TUESDAY, 6 SEPTEMBER 2005

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES

WARNING

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.

Background Papers

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 ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 6 SEPTEMBER 2005

01	P/02074/04 CAC/10858/L	Ryde	Conditional Permission
	26 Bellevue Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO33 2AR Conservation Area Consent for demolition of building; construction of a three storey building to form 14 flats with accommodation within roof space; alterations to vehicular access, parking area and landscaping (revised scheme)
02	P/02104/04 TCP/10858/K	Ryde	Condition Permission
	26 Bellevue Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO33 2AR Three storey building to form 14 flats with accommodation within roof space; alterations to vehicular access, parking area and landscaping (revised scheme)
03	P/00973/05 TCP/21625/A	Brighstone	Conditional Permission
	land at Cheverton Chalk and Gravel, Cheverton Shute, Shorwell, Newport Continued extraction of chalk in previously worked area and extension of chalk quarry westward into new area (revised site boundary)
04	P/00974/05 TCP/21625/B	Brighstone	Conditional Permission
	Cheverton Chalk and Gravel, Cheverton Shute, Shorwell, Newport, PO30 3JE Extension of gravel pit
05	P/00975/05 TCP/21625/B	Brighstone	Conditional Permission
	Cheverton Chalk and Gravel, Cheverton Shute, Shorwell, Newport, PO30 3JE Continued extraction of flint gravel hogging and extension of extraction area, proposed tipping of inert materials and reclamation of land, part OS parcel 0001, Limerstone Down
06	P/01111/05 TCP/23793/D	Ventnor	Conditional Permission
	Westfield Holiday Park, Shore Road, Ventnor 3 storey building to form 17 flats (revised position); retention of 3 flats
07	P/00160/04 TCP/06159/T	Freshwater	Conditional Permission
	106 School Green Road, Freshwater, Isle Of Wight, PO40 9AY Demolition of building; outline for six dwellings; formation of pedestrian access
08	P/00750/05 TCP/26996	East Cowes	Conditional Permission
	area seaward side of Venture Quays, Castle Street, East Cowes Demolition of slipway and suspended deck structure and its replacement with a solid waterfront apron extension, including a hoist dock, concrete crane pad and docking pontoons (revised plans)
09	P/00854/05 TCP/11878/E	Shanklin	Refusal
	Alverstone House, 32, Luccombe Road, Shanklin, PO37 6RR Continued use of dwelling as private school; vehicular access and parking
10	P/01028/05 TCP/03605/U	Seaview	Conditional Permission
	Seaview Hotel and Restaurant, High Street, Seaview, Isle Of Wight, PO34 5EX Demolition of public toilets; detached building to form additional hotel accommodation to include seven additional bedrooms and associated facilities; alterations to vehicular access
11	P/01122/05 TCP/03605/V	Seaview	Conditional Permission
	Seaview Hotel and Restaurant, High Street, Seaview, Isle Of Wight, PO34 5EX Continued use of buildings for guest and staff accommodation and associated office space (The Studio, Methuen Suite and Jasmine Cottage)
12	P/01036/05 TCP/10228/V	Ryde	Conditional Permission
	Jalna, Appley Rise, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO33 1LE Demolition of dwelling; erection of eight flats in two blocks and one semi-detached house with parking and alterations to access (revised scheme)
13	P/01037/05 CAC/10228/U	Ryde	Conditional Consent
	Jalna, Appley Rise, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO331LE Conservation Area Consent for demolition of dwelling in connection with erection of eight flats in two blocks and one semi-detached house with parking and alterations to access (revised scheme)
14	P/01060/05 TCP/26954/A	Calbourne	Refusal
	Downsview, Lynch Lane, Calbourne, Newport, PO30 Demolition of single storey extension; proposed single/2 storey extension to provide additional living accommodation (revised scheme)

1 & 2.

Reference Number: P/02104/04 - TCP/10858/K & P/02074/04 – CAC/10858/L Parish/Name: Ryde - Ward/Name: Ryde North East Registration Date: 05/10/2004 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr J Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Applicant: Mr J Tilden-Smith Three and four storey building to form 14 flats; alterations to vehicular access, parking area and landscaping (revised scheme) Conservation Area Consent for demolition of building; construction of a three and four storey building to form 14 flats; alterations to vehicular access, parking area and landscaping (revised scheme) 26 Bellevue Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO332AR

The applications are recommended for conditional permission subject to an S106 agreement and Conservation Area Consent.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a major application which proved to be contentious by reason of conflicting policy considerations, the site's location with the Conservation Area. It can be considered concurrently with the Conservation Area Consent application.

1. Details of application

1.1 These two applications seek full permission and Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the existing building and for its replacement with 14 flats. Plans show a 3/4 storey building of three distinct elements. Constructed in masonry with hipped, slated roofs, stone margins to windows or stone faced quoins and plinths but with a majority of the elevation finished in painted render.

1.2 The three elements comprise three storeys of 6 flats on the western side, a four storey block on the eastern side comprising 8 flats and a four and half storey "tower" feature linking the two containing stairs, landing and lift shaft.

1.3 The flats are a repeated and handed layout comprising two bedrooms, kitchen/living room and two bathrooms with a gross floor area of approximately 85 sq.m. The building is proposed to be sited as a direct replacement of the existing, the two major blocks being set back from the highway by 5m and 2m respectively. Pedestrian access is shown to be directly off Bellevue Road via a footbridge since the site levels are beneath those of the road. Vehicular access to serve the premises are shown by that existing further to the east but joined with the existing development known as Holm Oak, situated fronting East Street just to the north-east of the site. The remainder of the site is shown to be landscaped but with a communal garden area situated in the north-west corner of the site. Car parking includes only 5 spaces but sufficient space for 14 cycles and bin store.

1.4 Details of Justification for Demolition of Existing Building

Situated in a Conservation Area and comprising the demolition of a substantial building, Conservation Area Consent is required for the demolition of the existing structure. Accompanying the application are three alternative Feasibility Studies, each with the intent of retaining the existing building and comprising the conversion of the existing building into apartments; the converting/upgrading including the partial reroofing of the flat roofed areas to convert the building into apartments; and the partial demolition of the existing building and conversion of the remaining structure and proposed extension forming additional self-contained flats.

1.5 Each of these alternatives have financial implications and conclude that the three alternatives are all uneconomic and therefore unviable. The building is in a poor state of maintenance and is deteriorating but appears to be structurally sound.

2. Location and site characteristics

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

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

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

3. Relevant history

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

4. Development Plan policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance

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

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

PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) refers to development within Conservation Areas, especially regarding demolition of non-Listed buildings.

4.2 UDP Policy

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

4.3 The site is not within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but it is within the designated Conservation Area.

5. Consultee and third party comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

Highways Engineers recommend conditions if approved but wish to limit the use of the access in connection with this development to a level commensurate with the approved use. Accordingly recommends a maximum of 5 car parking spaces.

The Property Services Department have reviewed the supporting documentation regarding the three alternative Feasibility Studies and have concluded that the building costs explained therein are reasonable and that the sales values are also realistic.

Conservation and Design Team comments. Extensive negotiations have taken place between the agents and Conservation Team which have culminated in the present revised application. The resultant scheme is thought to be the best that can be achieved via the current application.

5.2 External Consultees

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

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

· Environmental Health Officer raises concern regarding passage of sound between flat units.

5.3 Town Council Comments - not applicable.

5.4 Neighbouring Properties

8 letters of objection to the demolition of the existing building and its replacement with either the originally submitted or the revised scheme on grounds of inadequate car parking; increased traffic on a narrow highway thus causing traffic danger and congestion. Access rights to East Street, alternative uses should be explored; new building of excessive height; installation of further windows which could create exacerbated loss of privacy; unnecessary demolition and that the building should be converted into flats. Excessive and adverse visual impact on the Conservation Area; destruction of a building of architectural merit; noise pollution; loss of habitats and loss of stone walls; change of character for the Conservation Area; inaccurate plans; development out of keeping with the Conservation Area and creation of a precedent for further similar proposals, and adverse effect on the railway tunnel.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main issues relating to this application are:

· Policy and principle.

· The justification for demolition of properties in a Conservation Area.

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

· Traffic and access implications.

· Effect on adjoining properties, and

· Proximity to the tunnel.

6.2 Site is located within the development envelope and in an area of predominantly residential use. Purely in land use terms the residential use of the land is acceptable in principle and in policy terms, the utilisation of brownfield sites and the best use of urban land are consistent with governmental and local policies. Given the area of the site the overall density is acceptable.

6.3 The first step in any redevelopment in a conservation area is justifying the demolition of an existing building. PPG15 makes it quite clear that the general presumption should be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. It is expected that proposals to demolish such buildings should be assessed against the same broad criteria as proposals to demolish Listed buildings. However, in less clear cut cases, where a building makes little or no such contribution, the Local Planning Authority will need to have full information about what is proposed for the site after demolition. It is usual for the demolition to be prohibited until there are acceptable detailed plans for redevelopment. It is also usual that, in the event that both planning permission and Conservation Area consent for the demolition and redevelopment of the site within a Conservation Area, that demolition is prevented until a binding contract for the commencement and implementation of the replacement development has been provided.

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

6.5 In this instance schemes have been put forward by the agent to see if conversion to flats for example would make the retention of the building economically and practically viable. These have proved to be unviable.

6.6 Turning to the design of the replacement, your officers are of the opinion that after extensive negotiations the scheme which has emerged is the best that can be achieved via the current application. Members will be aware that Ryde has a fairly distinctive design style and is well known for its roofscapes and design articulation, in particular the Italianate tower with lanterns and the overall majesty of many of its buildings. To complement this a design on this site should be capable of integrating well with the understated simple, elegant late Regency/early Victorian style. In its determination the Committee will be mindful of the exhortations of PPS1 (see para 4.1 above). Notwithstanding the recommendation, if Members consider the design to be, on balance, inappropriate they may refuse but equally will need to refuse the Conservation Area Consent application.

6.7 No details appear to have been submitted in respect of the bin store. OK it's only a minor point but what is quite clear is that it is of insufficient size to accommodate 14 separate bins unless the users of the far bins climb across the other ones. Maybe communal bins are the answer, but it is at this level of detail that one should be designing in a Conservation Area.

6.8 In terms of traffic and access, the conflict seen here is that the existing establishment had sufficient parking for 5 vehicles to be used in connection with the operational requirements of the former use, the former nursing home. The provision of a greater capacity of car parking would inevitably lead to an increased use of the vehicular access onto Bellevue Road which, in turn, would warrant the improvement of the access by the formation of visibility splays and the removal of the brick and stone boundary wall running along the Bellevue Road frontage. This would have significant impacts in the Conservation Area and therefore it is felt that the development should be provided with only the same level of car parking that the former nursing home use would have generated. This limited provision meets with the approval of the Highways Engineers who recognise that in this location, a lesser parking provision may be made due to the UDP policies and advice in PPG13 (Transport).

6.9 However, the proposed cycle parking bays are totally unacceptable. They are not covered, enclosed or secured. They are not conveniently located for persons entering or leaving the building and neither are they in what might be termed "defensible space". Their location and layout is an open invitation to theft contrary to 'Designing Out Crime'. If Members are minded to view the application favourable this aspect and the bin store will need to be delegated back to officers for further consideration prior to the issue of any approval.

6.10 Turning to the effect on adjoining properties, in effect the pair of semi-detached houses located to the west of the site, Nos. 24 and 24A Bellevue Road, are those which are most likely to be affected; despite the fact that the adjoining property has a blank gable facing the site, the possible effects of overlooking of the rear garden could be significant if windows were included but the design scheme shows false windows, windows that appear to have been subsequently blocked up, a feature which occurs in some older buildings. It is important to include this feature since, otherwise, the elevation would be blank and plain. Otherwise the development is unlikely to affect the surrounding properties more than the existing building.

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

6.12 A S106 obligation is required to cover education and open space contributions.

7. Conclusion and justification for recommendation

7.1 Situated in the Conservation Area and comprising a comparatively large building mass, the site is underlain by the railway tunnel which places a constraint on the site, forcing development into the south-west corner due to the route of the tunnel beneath. The loss of the building in the Conservation Area has been investigated and treated as though the building were Listed, as required by PPG15. The existing building is not Listed but its style does make a positive contribution to the character of the area, however, in practical terms, the retention of the building appears economically unviable as the most valuable use of the structure, for residential purposes, has proved to be economically unviable. Without redevelopment the site is most likely to fall into further disrepair and dereliction, detracting further from the Conservation Area.

7.2 The use of the site and the building as a nursing home has already ceased, as upgrading of the accommodation to meet necessary standards is also uneconomic and impractical. Since there is no policy to prevent the loss of nursing homes, there is no policy objection to the use of the site for an alternative and suitable purpose which, in this location, is residential use.

7.3 Whilst a fairly substantial development, it is apparent that only 5 car parking spaces would be provided. This restriction on parking is important since although it provides only one space for approximately 3 flats, the restriction is a result of discussion with the Highways Engineer who does not wish to see any increase in the use of the vehicular access which is very poor in terms of visibility, exacerbated by the fact that there is no footway adjoining the site's boundary. In order to increase the capacity of the site for car parking, it would be necessary to remove the stone boundary wall which presently forms an important feature in the Conservation Area if visibility is to be improved. The loss of the stone wall is felt to be inappropriate therefore a restriction on the capacity of the car park is proposed.

7.4 Your officers, after much deliberation and negotiation are of the opinion that under the present circumstances this is the best scheme likely to emerge. It is only just on the margins of acceptability. If Members are of a like view the proposed development would therefore be consistent with policies G1, D1, D2, B6, B7, H1, H5 and TR7 of the Unitary Development Plan and also consistent with PPG15 regarding planning and the historic environment.

8. Recommendation

Conditional permission (subject to S106 agreement) for P/02104/04 and Conservation Area Consent for P/02074/04/.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
2	No development shall take place until [samples of materials/details of the materials and finishes, including mortar colour] to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	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.
4	Front boundary wall of the site abutting Bellevue Road shall be retained, repaired and enhanced in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on site. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Notwithstanding condition 4 above, no development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings hereby permitted are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the details submitted for a maximum of 5 cars and 16 bicycles to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Notwithstanding condition 4 above, 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. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until these works have been carried out in accordance with the approved details and the works shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details. These details shall include the provision to restrict parking on the site to 5 car parking spaces, hard and soft surfacing materials, extent of hard and soft landscaping, proposed and existing functional services above and below ground, Reason: To ensure that parking provision within the site is limited to 5 spaces and to comply with policies TR16 and TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	The works hereby authorised shall be begun not later than 3 years from the date of this consent. Reason: As required by s18 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended.
9	The works of demolition hereby authorised shall not be commenced until a binding contract for the carrying out of the works of redevelopment of the site has been entered into and planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment for which the contract provides. Reason: In order to protect the special character of the area and to prevent the site remaining vacant for a significant period of time and to comply with policies B1 to B8 (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Conditions/Reasons for Conservation Area Consent:

1	P06	The works hereby authorised shall be begun not later than 3 years from the date of this consent. Reason: As required by s18 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended).
2	P05	The works of demolition hereby authorised shall not be commenced until a binding contract for the carrying out of the works of redevelopment of the site has been entered into and planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment for which the contract provides. Reason: In order to protect the special character of the area and to prevent the site remaining vacant for a significant period of time and to comply with policies B1 to B8 (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

3.

Reference Number: P/00973/05 - TCP/21625/A Parish/Name: Brighstone - Ward/Name: Brighstone and Calbourne Registration Date: 18/05/2005 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr S Cornwell Tel: (01983) 823575 Applicant: Mr D Newnham Continued extraction of chalk in previously worked area and extension of chalk quarry westward into new area (revised site boundary) land at Cheverton Chalk and Gravel, Cheverton Shute, Shorwell, Newport, PO30

This application is recommended for conditional permission.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This application involves major development relating to minerals extraction within a designated landscape area.

1. Details of application

1.1 This is a full application seeking permission to work a section of a previously worked area as well as extending the extraction operation into a totally new but adjoining area.

1.2 Cheverton Chalk Quarry has been worked for a significant number of years and currently stretches approximately 500 metres along the northern side of the valley. Whilst the eastern and western ends have been worked out the central section which bites deeper into the hillside has not yet been fully worked and it is an area in this vicinity with a face approximately 80 metres by 60 metres in depth which is the subject of the current application.

1.3 The proposed extension area lies immediately up the valley to the west, occupying an area approximately 200 metres long by 60 metres. The northern edge of the site follows an irregular line reflecting the need to avoid a badger sett and an area of open grassland where the Early Gentian flower has been located. The presence of the sett was known and taken into account when submitting the original plan. However, the emergence of the presence of the Early Gentian has resulted in a revision to the submitted plan to leave this area undisturbed.

1.4 Information with the application indicates that the floor of the quarry is of approximately 97 metres aod, with the top being approximately 140 metres aod. The submitted plans show the proposal for the extension to run a level quarry floor in for approximately half of the depth of the site, with the back section tiered to ensure the stability of the ground beyond. A 15 metre freeboard is shown as being left at the top of the quarry face to the applicant's property boundary.

1.5 Applicant estimates that the reserve is approximately 190,000 tonnes, which at an extraction rate of approximately 9,000 tonnes per year gives a 20 year life.

1.6 The mineral is won by machine, no blasting takes place. The intention is to follow the same working hours as previous, which are 0700 hrs to 1800 hrs on Monday to Friday, 0700 to 1300 hrs on Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

1.7 Applicant indicates that the quarry provides a unique chalk prized for its hardness and low moisture content. It is also suggested that it offers material with different characteristics, with the central section in the previously worked area providing larger pieces of chalk which are suitable for construction purposes whilst the extension area is anticipated to provide material of a lower diameter suitable for use as sub base or to be crushed for liming agricultural fields. Applicant has provided a list of the top ten customers as well as indicating that they supply 42 farms with lime and chalk and have a further 100 customers who are builders, ground workers and private individuals.

1.8 At the end of the working life the intention is to allow the quarry face and floor to regenerate naturally. This is a process which has already commenced in those areas which have been previously worked out. To mitigate the loss of the grassland, the applicant is proposing to undertake long term management of the remaining grassland areas to stop any further degradation from scrub encroachment.

1.9 Given the nature of the proposal and its location within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, application was accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement which addresses the following issues.

- Agriculture and soils

- Archaeology

- Dust

- Ecology

- Hydrology

- Noise

- Impact on people

- Traffic

- Visual impact.

Within the Statement each area has been taken in turn and the proposal tested and assessed against it.

2. Location and site characteristics

2.1 The application site relates to the northern slope of a dry valley which runs up in a westerly direction from the Newport to Shorwell Road. Access is obtained by a roadway running to the north of the group of buildings which forms Cheverton Farm. The site is approximately 1.5 km west of the main road. The linking roadway is a combination of tarmac, concrete and compacted stone. In addition to the chalk quarry applicant also operates a waste transfer station from a substantial building in the bottom of the valley and from parts of the quarry which have now been worked out. A roadway runs through the quarry following the bottom of the valley in a westerly direction providing access to the gravel pit which lies at the head of the valley.

2.2 To the north and south is agricultural land but not within his control.

2.3 The proposed extension area, which occupies part of the south facing slope of the valley, consists of both some open grass areas and areas overgrown with gorse and scrub. It is part of an unmanaged degrading semi-natural calcareous grassland. This belt continues in a westerly direction along this side of the valley slope.

3. Relevant history

3.1 Planning permission granted for chalk extraction in part of the worked area in April 1982 for a temporary period expiring 31 March 1989. Consent granted for extraction of stone from a 1.1 hectare site to the south-west of the current application site granted in April 1984 which expired 31 December 1989.

Continued extraction of chalk and extension to approved extraction area was granted temporary consent in July 1992 and expired 30 September 2002.

3.2 In October 2003 planning permission was granted for change of use of building from agricultural/plant use to waste transfer station for the sorting and recycling of inert builder's waste and storage of processed material within two identified areas of the chalkpit and in a series of bunkers. One of the identified areas lies immediately to the north of the main building which was the subject of the application and the second area occupies the western arm of the original extraction area. That consent expires on 30 September 2008.

4. Development Plan policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance

· PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development. Sets out general framework of Government's national policies on different aspects of land use planning. States sustainable development is core principle underpinning planning. Emphasises requirement for and implementation of plan led system. States where Development Plan contains relevant policies applications should be determined in line with Plan. Promotes the protection and enhancement of the environment.

· PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Government's objectives include raising quality of life and environment in rural areas as well as promoting more sustainable patterns of development. Decisions on development proposals should be based on sustainable development principles ensuring integrated approach to consideration of factors including effective protection and enhancement of the environment as well as prudent use of natural resources. Document advises that AONB has been confirmed by Government as highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. When determining applications for development in countryside should consider need for development, if opportunity exists for it to be relocated outside designated area or met in some other way and any detrimental effects on the environment.

· PPS9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. Requires Local Authorities to protect and positively enhance biodiversity. Promotes features that support biodiversity and geological conservation in and around development. Local Authorities should refuse schemes where significant harm to wildlife and geological features cannot be prevented, mitigated or compensated.

· PG16 - Archaeology and Planning sets out policy on archaeological remains on land giving advice on the handling of archaeological remains and discoveries including weight to be given to them in planning decision and the use of planning conditions.

· PPG23 - Planning and Pollution Control - sets guidance on the relevance of pollution controls in the exercise of planning functions. Stresses need to avoid duplication of controls which are the statutory responsibility of other bodies. Regarding Development Control considerations gives guidance and weight to be given to these factors in determination.

· PPG24 Planning and Noise - Gives guidance for local authorities on the use of planning powers to minimise adverse impact of noise and considerations to be taken into account in determining planning applications both for noise sensitive development and for those activities which will generate noise. Recommends appropriate levels for exposure for different sources of noise and advice on use of conditions to minimise impact.

· MPG1 - General Considerations and the Development Plan System. Sets out the Government's basic policy on minerals and planning issues and offering guidance on factors to be taken into account in determining individual planning applications.

· MPG2 - Minerals Planning Guidance - Applications, Permissions and Conditions. This note provides guidance on aspects of the development control system of particular relevance on the preparation and determination of individual planning applications. It promotes the concept of pre-application consultation and the identification as to whether an Environmental Assessment is required. Guidance considers the procedural aspects for determining an application and if considered acceptable the type and scope of conditions that should be imposed.

· MPS2 - Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Minerals Extraction in England. Sets out policies and considerations Minerals Planning Authorities expected to follow in both preparation of both local development frameworks and in considering applications for minerals development. Contains technical annexes on particular environmental effects, specifically dust and noise.

4.2 Unitary Development Plan Policies

A wide spectrum of policies apply to this proposal which are identified below. Of specific note is the reference to this site in Appendix E (Minerals Sites) with the following reference: "Downland site. Site visible from Worsley Trail to south. Cannot be readily screened. Arable farmland to north, scrub to east and west, grazing land to south. No reason why consent should not be renewed within current approved area if extraction not completed. Scope for limited expansion of site."

4.3 Strategic Policies

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

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

S12 - Sufficient land will be made available for mineral extraction to provide for the needs of the Island over the planned period and longer term.

4.4 Detailed Policies

G4 - General Locational Criteria of Development

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

C8 - Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration

B9 - Protection of Archaeological Heritage

M1 - Availability of Mineral Resources

M2 - Criteria for Defined Mineral Workings

P1 - Pollution and Development

P5 - Reducing the Impact of Noise

W1 - General Waste Disposal

W2 - Landfill

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

U19 - Safeguarding of Aquifers and Water Resources

5. Consultee and third party comments

5.1 Internal consultees

· Highway Engineer - no highway conditions requested.

· Ecology Officer -

Although no designated sites are involved, proposed chalk extraction area has high biodiversity value. Consequently, proposals been subject of pre- and post-application discussions.

Quarry adjoins narrow south facing slope of unmanaged calcareous grassland of which about two-thirds is scrubbed over. Open third is of high conservation value. Largest block at western end home to a population of Early Gentian, a plant legally protected by national and EC legislation. Revised proposal would allow for retention of this block.

Chalk grassland extends beyond application site. If approved advise management of chalk grassland area through Section 106 Agreement. Management Plan should be implemented once agreed to stop scrub encroaching into area of Early Gentian.

Badger Report submitted as part of application. Revision to extraction area can only help protect them and the sett. Applicants should be reminded by a letter that extraction within 30 metres of entrance of an active sett requires a licence issued by English Nature and that works must be overseen by a licensed badger worker.

One of the quarry faces proposed for extraction is home to an established breeding pair of ravens (one of only four Island sites). They appear tolerant of activity. Ravens protected at nest site by Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Have protracted nesting period commencing early February. Advise condition imposed no chalk extraction in immediate vicinity of the occupied nest site.

A pair of Peregrine Falcons nest on part of the old quarry face not in any extraction area. Applicants should be advised by letter it is an offence to disturb nest site under Wildlife and Countryside Act.

· County Archaeological and Historic Environment Service - I have considered this application and find that it concerns a site of archaeological interest. The applicant has a prior arrangement with the County Archaeological Service whereby the Archaeologist monitors the topsoil stripping as each parcel of land is prepared to gravel extraction. This agreement has worked well in the past and, given the time scale and methodology of the proposed works, the County Archaeologist is willing to continue this agreement. Consequently, in order that archaeological features can be adequately recorded recommend that any approval which may be granted is made subject to conditions.

· Isle of Wight AONB Lead Officer -

(Summary) Given that this quarry has been in existence since the 1950s (before the designation of the Isle of Wight AONB in 1963) we accept the principle of mineral extraction on this site is established. This quarry also provides an important supply of local materials, provides economic benefits to the local economy, and is generally in accordance with national planning policy guidance and statements, and indeed a policy objective of the AONB Management Plan. We accept that the extraction and loading are short lived sporadic events, which provided they are controlled by appropriate conditions would not significantly impact on the quiet enjoyment of the AONB. Provided that the nature conservation interest can be conserved, we are generally satisfied that this proposal will have minimal impact on the landscape character of the area.

With regard to the restoration of the sites, we support the proposed restoration of the chalk extraction site as set out in the Environmental Statement. For the restoration of the gravel extraction site, our preferred option would be partial restoration as described in paragraph 6.2 of the Environmental Statement leaving a 6 metre bare quarry face for the benefit of biodiversity and to provide a record of geological information. We are also content that this would be a visual reminder of man's relationship with the landscape and that AONB landscapes are living and dynamic.

· Environmental Health Officer - request conditions.

5.2 External consultees

· Environment Agency - to be reported.

· The Countryside Agency - has no formal representations to make in this instance.

5.3 Parish Council comments

Brighstone Parish Councillors considered the above application at their meeting on 8 June. They are of the opinion that continued extraction, particularly of the unique chalk to the Island, and the gravel, is necessary and are pleased that reinstatement of disused sites is taking place. Councillors support the application.

5.4 One letter has been received from the owners of farm surrounding site making the following comments.

· Wish to express concern. Understand previous planning permission ceased 2002 but extraction has continued.

· In 2001 due mainly to not following planner's recommendations landslip occurred and crack appeared in our land above landslip. Despite approaches to landowner nothing done to resolve problem. Negotiations at present through solicitors. Part of agreement so far is creation of buffer zone. Such an area should be included above new extraction area.

· If chalk face stepped to prevent similar problem and area around badger's sett avoided, seems large scar on landscape for relatively small amount of chalk.

· After heavy rain excessive water floods our land.

· Traffic already very considerable with chalk and gravel lorries, recycling builders' waste, service traffic and customers' vehicles together with equestrian and motor cycle trials events. All add to seven days a week often outside permitted hours.

5.5 Islandwatch - object to application, while recognising site designated for mineral extraction believe there are legally protected species on or adjacent site for chosen extension.

5.6 Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust: concerned that application would have detrimental input on protected bird and plant species present on site. Trust been informed that Early Gentian protected under schedule 8 of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is present on site. Trust request that extension of quarry and extraction of chalk takes place in an area of site away from areas where protected species are present.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The determining considerations with regard to this application are firstly whether the proposal conforms with national guidance as expressed through the Planning Policy Guidance Notes, Planning Policy Statements, Mineral Planning Guidance Notes and Mineral Policy Statements. Secondly, on the basis that the proposal was the subject of detailed pre-application discussions at which time the requirement for an Environmental Statement was identified it is considered that it would be appropriate to test the proposal using those primary topic areas that were identified at that stage against the detailed policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan. Following on from the above the third consideration would be to examine whether in the processing of the application other factors have come to light which warrant further consideration including any points made during the consultation process.

6.2 Firstly, with regards to the national guidance, the protection status given to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is now considered to be as great as that which applies to a National Park. On that basis, a clear justification is required before allowing any development within such an area. It is generally recognised that by their very nature mineral deposits can only be worked where they occur. Given the characteristics of the Isle of Wight this has placed the majority of our mineral sites within designated landscape areas.

6.3 Whilst there are other chalk quarries on the Island it must also be recognised that the nature of the deposit at Cheverton generates a unique type of material which makes it particularly suited to certain specialised projects. On that basis, the site passes the test of importance that justifies the location within a designated landscape area generating a material that could not otherwise be sourced locally but would have to be imported with all the requirements associated with such an activity.

6.4 Secondly, with regards to the topic areas identified in the Environmental Statement, these are outlined below and assessed against the relevant planning policies.

· Agriculture and soils. The soils have already been stripped from the previously approved extension area. The proposed extension site comes under class 3b-4 agricultural land and accordingly would not result in the loss of good agricultural land and therefore does not conflict with Policy C14 (Safeguard Best Agricultural Land). The floor of the quarry will return to agricultural use at the end of the extraction process.

· Archaeology. With regards to this specific site there are not considered to be any archaeological features within the proposed extension area. The Council's Archaeologist does however intend to monitor the topsoil stripping exercise (where any finds would be evident) and accordingly, the proposal would be in accordance with Policy B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage).

· Ecology. That section of the previously approved extraction area which is to be finally worked out as part of this proposal does contain one element of conservation value which is the nesting of two ravens. The Environmental Impact Report survey indicates that these have frequented the quarry for the past five years, occupying two nests, one with the proposed central extraction area with the other nest outside. The Report acknowledges that the ravens are protected species and recommends that extraction in the vicinity of the active nest should be avoided during the breeding season which runs for approximately 6½ weeks from February or March. This proposal is supported in the assessment by the Ecology Officer.

The Peregrine Falcon nest was observed in a section of the chalk face which has already been worked out, and other than an informative there is no need to limit operations in that area.

Regarding the proposed extension site, the assessment recognises the presence of an active badger sett in the north west part of the site and a potentially inactive sett in the north east part of the site. Although included within the red lined site a protection zone is identified to exclude work close to the setts. If over time the setts are abandoned he could seek the necessary licence consent to close them up and work out the whole area. At the time of the survey it did not pick up the presence of the Early Gentian Violet in the largest of the remaining open grassland areas within the application site. As consequence of this the application plan has been revised to exclude this area from being excavated.

As a mitigating factor, applicant has offered to undertake active management of two remaining areas of calcareous grassland and submitted a Draft Management Plan with the stated aim of arresting the decline of calcareous grassland and setting out a series of actions to control scrub encroachment. This proposal is considered to be an active benefit for the conservation value of the area and on the basis that the management also applies to the Early Gentian area carries the support of the Council's Ecology Officer. Under those circumstances it is considered that the proposal does not conflict with Policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration). With regards to the proposed management agreement, on balance this can be achieved by condition rather than a legal agreement and given the recognition of the presence of the Early Gentian the management should commence as soon as the agreement is signed.

· Dust and noise. Given the low key nature of the extraction (no blasting is involved) and its location any problems associated with dust generation are considered to be negligible. The nearest residential properties are at Cheverton Farm approximately 600 metres to the north east and at Cheverton Cottages 700 metres to the south east. There are not considered to be any ecological features in sufficient proximity to be harmed by any dust. In periods of dry weather dust control methods could be implemented.

With regards to noise generation, this will result from the machinery associated with the extraction process from crushing which is limited to April to October and from general traffic associated with the site. Again, given the distances involved to nearby residential properties and the proposed operating hours which have been set out by the applicant it is not considered that any disturbance will arise. I am conscious of the closer proximity of a number of well used footpaths but on balance consider that the noise generated by any machinery in the quarry base or any vehicles driving to or away from the pit would not be significantly different that hearing any agricultural machinery operating on surrounding land.

Given the circumstances outlined above it is not consider that the proposal would be contrary to Policies P1 (Pollution and Development) or P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise).

Hydrology. The site operates at a significant level above the water table (approximately 65m+). On the basis that general operational controls are in place relating to the storage of any fuels there should be no threat to the quality of the water aquifers from the extraction process.

Accordingly, the quarry proposal does not conflict with Policy U19 (Safeguarding of Aquifers and Water Resources).

· Traffic. All vehicle movements associated with this site share the same access as the gravel pit and Waste Transfer Facility off the main Newport to Shorwell Road and utilises a private roadway. This is the arrangement that has existed for a substantial number of years. Given this arrangement the proposal does not conflict with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development).

· Visual Impact. As part of the pre-application discussions the applicant was encouraged to undertake a Visual Impact Assessment of the existing and proposed operation, both from the Worsley Trail to the south and from the east including the roadway running up to the Chillerton Mast from Cheverton Shute and from Newburn Down, which is the high ground lying to the north of the Chillerton TV mast. This exercise has consisted of assessment from 8 viewpoints.

The majority of the existing quarry is in view from the Worsley Trail at a distance of approximately 600 metres. This is the closest that the public footpath comes to the site (assessment viewpoint No. 2). From this position the lower section of the extension area is screened by an intervening hillside. To the west of this point the views begin to be more oblique, with the lower section of the new extraction site continuing to be screened by the intervening land.

Viewpoints 5 to 8 are positions on the concrete roadway running up towards Cheverton Down and on the bridleway above West Ridge Down and Newborn Down. Whilst on a number of occasions an unobstructed view of the existing quarry and the proposed extension area are provided, these are at an oblique angle and involve distances in the region of 2 to 3 kilometres.

From none of the viewpoints assessed does any of the operations break the skyline. When viewing the site it is noticeable that the eastern and western arms, which have been worked out, are less bright than the active working face in the centre and are also beginning to show signs of vegetation establishing on the faces.

Taking all factors into consideration, excavations on site are not considered to be significantly detrimental to the general character of the landscape or the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be contrary to Policies C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) or Policy C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty).

6.5 The third factor to consider is whether or not any of the representations have raised issues that have not been addressed above. Members will note that of the representations received only the one from the local landowner has raised some points of concern relating to the expiry of the original permission, the stability of the worked faces, drainage and traffic issues.

The adjoining landowner is correct in the statement that the original permission to work this site expired in September 2002. When this was noted in June 2003 the operator was advised that any continued works were unauthorised. At that time a decision was taken that on the basis he was continuing to extract within the previously approved area and that the UDP identified the continued working of the quarry, as a proposal that would be likely to gain support, it was not felt appropriate to take any immediate enforcement action. Since that time the discussions with the landowner have focused on the nature of the application that is now before Members.

With regards to the concern over the stability of the quarry face and the impact that this has had on the adjoining land to the north, the site operator has provided a copy of a Report that had been commissioned on this subject. The Report notes that the site is being worked leaving the walls with a batter angle of repose between 65º to 78º. It concludes that the walls have been worked in a manner that would leave them in a stable condition. The area of failure resulted because of too steep an angle, that the ground was riddled with rabbit holes, that the land behind provided run off into the area and because of the geological characteristics of this particular corner of the site. The Report recommends a proposal to regrade the top of the area to a shallower angle, and once regraded the land should be topsoiled and pinned with a geotech style membrane and sown with a deep rooted grass mix. The site operator has also positioned some material at the foot of this corner of the site to further stabilise the ground behind. Under these circumstances it is considered appropriate to leave any further discussions on this matter with regards to compensation between the two parties concerned as a civil matter.

With regards to the concerns over drainage and traffic, on the basis that the quarry lies in a low section of the valley it is unclear how drainage problems would occur. Concerning traffic levels, the Highway Engineer has considered the proposal and raises no objection.

Both Islandwatch and the Wildlife Trust have raised concerns over the impact of the operation on protected species. These points have been addressed in the revised details and will also be covered in the conditions.

7. Conclusion and justification for recommendation

7.1 This report relates to a proposal to continue working an area where planning permission has already been approved in the past for the winning of chalk but has not been worked out during the life of the consent, and for an extension to the operational area, extending the quarry in a westerly direction. Based on the level of extraction the applicant calculates that the existing and extended area would give the operation a life of approximately 20 years.

7.2 The proposal would open up the new extraction area whilst the central section of the old site is still being worked, as they provide different types of material. To mitigate for the loss of any calcareous grassland in the extended area the landowner has offered to enter into a management agreement on other land which he owns to control scrub invasion. This management would also apply to the area of the original application site on which the Early Gentian flower was located and has now been excluded from the proposal. The intention is to allow the quarry face to naturally regenerate and Members will note that the walls are already providing a site for nesting birds.

7.3 The proposal has been the subject of detailed pre-application discussions which has resulted in the submission of an Environmental Statement. This was requested given the location within a designated landscape area. However, it has been recognised that with the expense in generating this statement that the applicant will be looking for a planning concept with a 20 year life rather than the previous consent which had a limited 10 year life.

7.4 Clearly, one of the benefits of engaging in the detailed pre-application discussions which identified the main considerations to be included within any Environmental Statement is that this process has anticipated all the concerns that were likely to be raised by any of the consultees, and this is reflected in the representations outlined in this report. A number of concerns have been raised by an adjoining landowner, but they are not considered that they raise any fundamental issues that would warrant withholding consent. Those concerns raised by Islandwatch and the Wildlife Trust have also been addressed and resolved.

7.5 This scheme has been tested against both the Government's policy statements and guidance notes and against the Council's own Unitary Development Plan policies. The site is recognised in the UDP as one with planning permission for continued extraction of the 1996 approved site is likely to be given with reference to an appropriate extension. On balance the proposal currently in front of the members reflects this statement.

8. Recommendation

That subject to appropriate conditions the application is approved.

In addition that an informative letter is sent with the decision notice advising the applicant about the protected status of the badger sett, the Peregrine Falcon nest site and the Raven nest site.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Extraction of minerals shall cease by 30 September 2025 and restoration shall be completed by 31 December 2027 unless otherwise approved by the Mineral Planning Authority. Reasons: To comply with Section 91 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.
2	The site shall be progressively reclaimed in accordance with the conditions of this permission and shall be restored in its entirety by 31 December 2027 or within 12 months from the cessation of minerals operations as defined in this permission whichever is the earlier. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3	Prior to any works commencing in the extension area as identified in the application, a plan showing the proposed phased working of this area shall be submitted for agreement. Working of the site shall then be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme and the programme. Reason: To minimise the visual impact of the extraction on the surrounding area and to comply with policies C1 (Protection of Open Countryside) and C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Before any excavations are undertaken in the extension area as defined within the application a scheme and programme shall be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority for agreement in writing of arrangements providing for the installation of robust ground markers around the site boundary and shall include details of: (a) a plan showing the location of the ground markers (b) the type and number of ground markers to be used which may include posts, fencing or other means, and (c) the method of protection of the ground markers. The agreed arrangements shall be implemented in the their entirety within one week of the Mineral Planning Authority's written agreement, and retained throughout the period of this permission. No change to the marker positions shall take place without the written agreement of the Mineral Planning Authority. All plant movement and any extraction shall be confined to the designated area. Reason: To ensure that the extraction operation is confined to the approved area and to protect the surrounding nature conservation interests in accordance with policy C8 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	A copy of this permission and the approved plans showing the method and direction of working and restoration shall be displayed in the operator's site office at all times during the life of the site. Any subsequent approved amendments shall also be displayed. Reason: To ensure that operators and contractors working at the site are familiar with the requirements of the scheme and the permission.
6	Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 19 and 21 of Schedule 2 of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending, replacing or re-enacting that Order): (a) no fixed plant or machinery, buildings, structures or erections or private ways shall be erected, extended, installed, rearranged, replaced, repaired or altered at the quarry complex without the prior planning permission from the Mineral Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities of the area and to comply with policies D1 (Standards of Design) and M2 (Defined Mineral Working) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Except in emergencies to maintain safe quarry working (which shall be notified to the Mineral Planning Authority at the earliest opportunity, together with details of the emergency and the operations carried out) or unless the Mineral Planning Authority has agreed otherwise in writing: No operations, other than servicing, environmental monitoring, maintenance and testing of plant shall be carried out at the site except between the following times: 0700 and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays 0800 and 1300 hours Saturdays No servicing, maintenance and testing of plant shall be carried out at the site between 0800 and 1700 hours on any date (and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays); No operations for the formation and subsequent removal of material from (…) (eg. any environmental banks and soil storage areas) shall be carried out at the site except between the following times: 0700 and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays 0800 and 1300 hours Saturdays No operations other than environmental monitoring and water pumping at the site shall take place on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	The developer shall afford access at all reasonable times to any archaeologists nominated by the Local Planning Authority and shall allow them to observe all groundwork and to record [items/features] of archaeological significance and finds. Notification of the opening up and information as to whom the archaeologist should contact on site shall be given in writing to the address below (or to any alternative address notified to the developer by the Local Planning Authority) not less than 14 days before the commencement of any work: County Archaeologist County Archaeological Centre 61 Clatterford Road Carisbrooke Newport Isle of Wight PO30 1NZ Reason: In order to ensure access by specified archaeologists during the permitted operations and to comply with policies B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) and B10 (Parks and Gardens and Landscapes of Historic Interest) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	Vehicle access to the site for any purposes shall be confined to utilising the existing roadway which serves the site and which joins the B3323 immediately north of Cheverton Farm, and no vehicle access shall be obtained via the Worsley Trail. Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenities of the locality and to comply with policies C1 (Protection of Landscape Character), C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	The excavations shall be undertaken utilising an excavator and no blasting shall take place. Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policies C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) and C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	No chemicals, oil or fuel shall be stored on the quarry floor. Reason: To minimise any threat and to protect the quality of groundwater and to comply with policy U19 (Safeguarding of Aquifers and Water Resources) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	Within one month of this decision notice a Management Plan for the calcareous grassland at Cheverton Farm setting out the aims and objectives for the management of the open grassland lying to the west of the extension site and including the area excluded from the planning application, identified on Drawing No. 470/15 titled Extent of the Calcareous Grassland adjacent the Cheverton Chalk Quarry shall be submitted and approved in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority. The submitted plans shall also include the time of year when the management measures shall be undertaken. The agreed scheme shall then come into effect immediately and remain in force hereafter. Reason: To compensate for any loss of nature conservation interest from the excavation site and to enhance the nature conservation value of other land within the operator's control and to improve on biodiversity in accordance with policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13	Topsoil shall be stripped, handled and stored to be retained and available for use during the restoration proposals. No plant or vehicle shall cross any area of unstripped topsoil except where such trafficking is essential and unavoidable for purposes of essential/emergency access. Reason: To prevent loss or damage of soil and to ensure that it is reused at the restoration of the site.
14	All topsoil and subsoil shall be stored in mounds not to exceed 3 metres in height unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority. The mounds shall be constructed with the minimum amount of soil compaction to ensure stability and shape so as to avoid collection of water in surface undulations. The material shall not be moved or added to until required for restoration purposes. Reason: To prevent loss or damage of soil and to ensure that it is reused at the restoration of the site.
15	Prior to soil stripping and formation of storage mounds, a scheme for grass seeding and management of all the storage mounds that will remain in situ for more than three months shall be submitted for the written approval of the Mineral Planning Authority. Seeding and management of the storage mounds shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To prevent loss or damage of soil and to ensure that it is reused at the restoration of the site.
16	The site/quarry complex shall be reclaimed and managed in accordance with the scheme to be submitted and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority at ........... The scheme shall include details of: (a) the nature of the intended after use of the site. (b) the ripping of the quarry floor and the respreading over the floor of the excavated area of overburden/subsoil and topsoil previously stripped on the site. (d) a proposal to level out the whole of the western arm of the quarry between the two extraction areas and the access roadway that runs through this area. the ripping of any compacted layers of final cover to ensure adequate drainage and aeration, such ripping should normally take place before placing of the topsoil. (e) the machinery to be used in soil respreading operations. (f) grass seeding of reclaimed areas with a suitable herbage mixture. Reason: To ensure that the site is restored to a visually acceptable condition and to comply with policies C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) and C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
17	An agricultural aftercare scheme outlining the strategies shall be submitted for the written approval of the Mineral Planning Authority at least 3 months before spreading of subsoil commences. The strategy shall provide for: (a) a 5 year period of aftercare in accordance with Annexe A of NPG7, specifying the steps to be taken and the period during which they are to be taken, and who will be responsible for taking those steps. The scheme shall include provision of a field drainage system and provide for an annual meeting with the Mineral Planning Authority. (b) a detailed annual programme, in accordance with annexe A of NPG7 to be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the site is restored to a visually acceptable condition and to comply with policies C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) and C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
18	As part of the restoration scheme the chalk faces of the quarry shall be left undisturbed and allowed to develop a vegetation cover naturally and to be exposed to natural processes. Reason: To ensure that the site is restored to a visually acceptable condition and to comply with policies C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) and C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
19	Not to undertake any extraction operations or vehicle movements from ....... for a period of 6 and a half weeks within X metres of the Raven nest. Reason: To avoid any disturbance to the nesting areas during the breeding season and to comply with condition 8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
20	Not to undertake any extraction of chalk below X metres above Ordnance Datum. Reason: To minimise any threat and to protect the quality of groundwater and to comply with policy U19 (Safeguarding of Aquifers and Water Resources) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

4 & 5.

Reference Number: P/00974/05 - TCP/21625/B & P/00975/05 - TCP/21625/C Parish/Name: Brighstone - Ward/Name: Brighstone and Calbourne Registration Date: 18/05/2005 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr S Cornwell Tel: (01983) 823575 Applicant: Mr D Newnham Extension of gravel pit Cheverton Chalk and Gravel, Cheverton Shute, Shorwell, Newport, PO303JE

These applications are recommended for conditional permission.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Both applications involve major schemes relating to minerals extraction within a designated landscape area.

1. Details of Application

1.1 Application ref: TCP/21625/B is a full planning application seeking permission to extend the size of an existing gravel pit.

1.2 Planning Application ref: TCP/21625/C is a full application seeking permission to renew the temporary permission granted in 1994 which expires 30 September 2005 for the excavation of a gravel pit.

1.3 On the basis that the extension site would be a continuation of the renewal site it is proposed to refer to both in the general description below and elsewhere in this report.

1.4 The previously approved site measures approximately 85 metres by 200 metres, with the depth of workings shown as up to approximately 9 metres. All the top soil has been stripped but the depth has not been fully worked out. The previous permission allowed for the tipping of inert material to restore the site back to its original levels. However, no imported material has been brought onto the site.

1.5 The material to be excavated is flint hogging which lies in a plateau deposit. The material, once excavated, is graded on site using mobile plant but is not washed. The material is used in building and engineering developments including roadways and gabion baskets. Its angular characteristics make it good material in stabilisation works. The estimated annual extraction rate of 3,750 tonnes of gravel per year gives an estimated life of 20 years. Actual figures are obviously dependant on the demand. Any sorted material is stock piled in the pit bottom.

1.6 On the basis that the existing site has not been worked out within the life of the consent the first application seeks to continue working this area whilst the second proposal is to extend the working area into a new section of ground approximately 80 metres wide and between 40 to 45 metres long in a northerly direction. Cross sectional plans show an anticipated depth of 8.25 metres. Applicant advised that the area is likely to be worked in two or three strips each approximately 15 metres wide.

1.7 Plans indicate option of restoring the site with material approximately 2 metres deep utilising the waste from the extraction process (approximately 25%) which would result in a 6 metre face being left around the edge of the quarry, or alternatively if the operator obtains a Waste Management licence, proposal would then be to restore the site back to its original levels. This option would require some 92,000 tonnes of inert fill material and would be undertaken in association with the Waste Transfer Facility operated by the same individual within the building close to the chalk quarry. Which ever option is adopted the land returns to agricultural use.

1.8 Vehicle access to the site would be via the existing roadway which runs down to the chalk quarry and continues through to the Newport to Shorwell Road meeting the highway adjacent Cheverton Farm.

1.9 Operating hours would be 0700 - 1800 hours Monday to Friday and 0700 - 1300 hours on Saturday with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

1.10 The whole operation would take place in three phases:

Phase 1 The 'existing' pit is worked out and the screen bund is formed alongside the building on the south side of the pit and landscaped.

Phase 2 Excavators move into the new area with soil stored along boundaries.

Phase 3 Importation waste (subject to licence)

1.11 Given the nature of the proposal and its location within an Area of Outstanding Natural beauty, application was accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement which addresses the following issues:

- Agriculture and soils

- Archaeology

- Dust

- Ecology

- Hydrology

- Noise

- Impact on people

- Traffic

- Visual impact

Within the statement each area has been taken in turn and the proposal 'tested' and assessed against it.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 The sites lie at the head of a dry valley which runs westward for a distance of approximately 1.2 kilometres off the Newport to Shorwell Road (B3323).

2.2 The site consists of the existing active gravel pit whilst the proposed extension area to the north is currently agricultural grazing land (Class 3) bounded by post and wire fencing.

2.3 Immediately to the south is a large agricultural cattle building. Some 200 metres further away in this direction is the Worsley Trail. The north west corner of the existing quarry represents the crest of the ground levels in the area with the land falling gently away to the north before rising again into Brighstone Forest which lies some 300 metres away from the application site. The general character of the area is one of open rolling downland.

3. Relevant History

3.1 Records indicate that gravel extraction was approved in the southern part of the extraction site (but now worked out) in December 1950.

3.2 Continued extraction of flint gravel hogging and extension to extraction area together with proposed tipping of inert material and reclamation of land was granted conditional planning permission in August 1996. That permission expires 30 September 2005.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance

· PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development. Sets out general framework of Government's national policies on different aspects of land use planning. States sustainable development is core principle underpinning planning. Emphasises requirement for and implementation of plan led system. States where Development Plan contains relevant policies applications should be determined in line with Plan. Promotes the protection and enhancement of the environment.

· PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Government's objectives include raising quality of life and environment in rural areas as well as promoting more sustainable patterns of development. Decisions on development proposals should be based on sustainable development principles ensuring integrated approach to consideration of factors including effective protection and enhancement of the environment as well as prudent use of natural resources. Document advises that AONB has been confirmed by Government as highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. When determining applications for development in countryside should consider need for development, if opportunity exists for it to be relocated outside designated area or met in some other way and any detrimental effects on the environment.

· PPS9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. Requires Local Authorities to protect and positively enhance biodiversity. Promotes features that support biodiversity and geological conservation in and around developments. Local Authorities should refuse schemes where significant harm to wildlife and geological features cannot be prevented, mitigated or compensated.

· PPG16 - Archaeology and Planning sets out policy on archaeological remains on land giving advice on the handling of archaeological remains and discoveries including weight to be given to them in planning decision and the use of planning conditions.

· PPG23 - Planning and Pollution Control - sets guidance on the relevance of pollution controls in the exercise of planning functions. Stresses need to avoid duplication of controls which are the statutory responsibility of other bodies. Regarding Development Control considerations gives guidance and weight to be given to these factors in determination.

· PPG24 Planning and Noise - Gives guidance for local authorities on the use of planning powers to minimise adverse impact of noise and considerations to be taken into account in determining planning applications both for noise sensitive development and for those activities which will generate noise. Recommends appropriate levels for exposure for different sources of noise and advice on use of conditions to minimise impact.

· MPG1 - General Considerations and the Development Plan System. Sets out the Government's basic policy on minerals and planning issues and offering guidance on factors to be taken into account in determining individual planning applications.

· MPG2 - Minerals Planning Guidance - Applications, Permissions and Conditions. This note provides guidance on aspects of the development control system of particular relevance on the preparation and determination of individual planning applications. It promotes the concept of pre-application consultation and the identification as to whether an Environmental Assessment is required. Guidance considers the procedural aspects for determining an application and if considered acceptable the type and scope of conditions that should be imposed.

· MPS2 - Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Minerals Extraction in England. Sets out policies and considerations Minerals Planning Authorities expected to follow in both preparation of both local development frameworks and in considering applications for minerals development. Contains technical annexes on particular environmental effects, specifically dust and noise.

4.2 Unitary Development Plan Policies

A wide spectrum of policies apply to this proposal which are identified below. Of specific note is the reference to this site in Appendix E (Minerals Sites) with the following reference: "Downland site adjacent arable farmland to south, west and north and grazing/downland to east. Site visible in part from Worsley Trail to south. Site to be restored to arable use by tipping and grading of inert waste. No reason why consent should not be renewed within current approved area if extraction not completed. Scope for limited expansion of site."

4.3 Strategic Policies

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

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

S12 - Sufficient land will be made available for mineral extraction to provide for the needs of the Island over the planned period and longer term.

4.4 Detailed Policies

G4 - General Locational Criteria of Development

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

B9 - Protection of Archaeological Heritage

M1 - Availability of Mineral Resources

M2 - Criteria for Defined Mineral Workings

P1 - Pollution and Development

P5 - Reducing the Impact of Noise

W1 - General Waste Disposal

W2 - Landfill

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

U19 - Safeguarding of Aquifers and Water Resources

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal consultees

· Highway Engineer - No highway conditions requested.

· County Archaeological and Historic Environment Service - I have considered this application and find that it concerns a site of archaeological interest. The applicant has a prior arrangement with the County Archaeological Service whereby the Archaeologist monitors the topsoil stripping as each parcel of land is prepared to gravel extraction. This agreement has worked well in the past and, given the time scale and methodology of the proposed works, the County Archaeologist is willing to continue this agreement. Consequently, in order that archaeological features can be adequately recorded recommend that any approval which may be granted is made subject to conditions.

· Isle of Wight AONB Lead Officer - (Summary). Given that this quarry has been in existence since the 1950s (before the designation of the Isle of Wight AONB in 1963) we accept the principle of mineral extraction on this site is established. This quarry also provides an important supply of local materials, provides economic benefits to the local economy, and is generally in accordance with national planning policy guidance and statements, and indeed a policy objective of the AONB Management Plan. We accept that the extraction and loading are short lived sporadic events, which provided they are controlled by appropriate conditions would not significantly impact on the quiet enjoyment of the AONB. Provided that the nature conservation interest can be conserved, we are generally satisfied that this proposal will have minimal impact on the landscape character of the area.

With regard to the restoration of the sites, we support the proposed restoration of the chalk extraction site as set out in the Environmental Statement. For the restoration of the gravel extraction site, our preferred option would be partial restoration as described in paragraph 6.2 of the Environmental Statement leaving a 6 metre bare quarry face for the benefit of biodiversity and to provide a record of geological information. We are also content that this would be a visual reminder of man's relationship with the landscape and that AONB landscapes are living and dynamic.

· Ecology Officer - Agree comments in environmental statement that current ecological interest of gravel quarry site is low. However, old quarry workings have considerable potential to provide bio-diversity gains as acknowledged in statement. A partial restoration of site would allow biodiversity gains to be expressed as well as providing some diversity in local landscape. If approved advice that any restoration scheme does not provide full restoration but allows for retention of some quarry faces and naturally vegetated quarry edges.

· Environmental Health Officer - request conditions.

5.2 External consultees

· Environment Agency - No objection in principle to the proposal. Infilling of void space will require formal permit from Agency.

· The Countryside Agency - has no formal representations to make in this instance.

5.3 Parish Council comments

Brighstone Parish Council considered the above application at their meeting on 8 June. They are of the opinion that continued extraction, particularly of the unique chalk to the Island, and the gravel, is necessary and are pleased that reinstatement of disused sites is taking place. Councillors support the application.

5.4 One letter has been received from local landowner making the following points:

· Concerns relate to drainage, as after heavy rain excess water floods up onto our land

· Traffic to chalk pit already very considerable with chalk and gravel lorries, skips, recycling of builders' waste, service traffic and customers for retail business of hard landscaping materials, stone, sleepers, paving stones etc., and associated with equestrian and motor cycle trials events. All these are adding to constant traffic seven days a week and are often permitted hours.

· Before considering this application we feel these problems need resolving and if permission is given the conditions imposed should be strictly adhered to. Also at present there is little protection above the quarry to prevent a potential accident occurring.

· We are seriously concerned that our land is jeopardised by this planning application.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The determining considerations with regard to both applications are firstly whether the proposal conforms with national guidance as expressed through the Planning Policy Guidance Notes, Planning Policy Statements, Mineral Planning Guidance Notes and Mineral Policy Statements. Secondly, on the basis that the proposal was the subject of detailed pre-application discussions at which time the requirement for an Environmental Statement was identified I consider that it would be appropriate to test the proposal using those primary topic areas that were identified at that stage against the detailed policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan. Following on from the above the third consideration would be to examine whether in the processing of the application other factors have come to light which warrant further consideration including any points made during the consultation process.

6.2 Firstly, with regards to the national guidance, the protection status given to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is now considered to be as great as that which applies to a National Park. On that basis, a clear justification is required before allowing any development within such an area. It is generally recognised that by their very nature mineral deposits can only be worked where they occur. Given the characteristics of the Isle of Wight this has placed the majority of our mineral sites within designated landscape areas.

Whilst gravel and flint are available elsewhere on the Island it must also be recognised that the nature of the deposit at Cheverton generates a unique type of material (angular) which makes the material particularly suited to certain specialised projects, particularly those involving stabilisation work. On that basis, this site passes the test of importance that justifies the location within a designated landscape area generating a material that could not otherwise be sourced locally but would have to be imported with all the requirements associated with such an activity.

6.3 Secondly, with regards to the topic areas identified in the Environmental Statement, these are outlined below and assessed against the relevant planning policies.

· Agriculture and soils. The site comes under class 3 agricultural land and accordingly would not result in the loss of good agricultural land and therefore does not conflict with Policy C14 (Safeguard Best Agricultural Land). Members should also note that at the cessation of the use (whichever restoration scheme is implemented) the site will be reinstated to agriculture.

· Archaeology. With regards to this specific site there are not considered to be any archaeological features within the proposed extension area. The Council's Archaeologist does however intend to monitor the topsoil stripping exercise (where any finds would be evident) and accordingly, the proposal would be in accordance with Policy B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage).

· Ecology. Given the existing use of the site as agricultural pasture, the land has no ecological importance and therefore there is no breach of Policy C9 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration). Potentially the lower level restoration proposal could raise the ecological value of the site and this is favoured by both the Ecology Officer and the AONB Lead Officer. It would also be encouraged by the recently issued PPS9 on Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.

· Dust and noise. Given the low key nature of the extraction and its location any problems associated with dust generation are considered to be negligible. The nearest residential properties are at Cheverton Farm approximately 1.9 kilometres to the east and away at Limerstone to the south. There are not considered to be any ecological features in sufficient proximity to be harmed by any dust.

With regards to noise generation, this will result from the machinery associated with the extraction process. Again, given the distances involved to nearby residential properties and the proposed operating hours which have been set out by the applicant I do not consider that any disturbance will arise. I am conscious of the closer proximity of a number of well used footpaths but on balance consider that the noise generated by any machinery in the quarry base or any vehicles driving to or away from the pit would not be significantly different that hearing any agricultural machinery operating on surrounding land.

Given the circumstances outlined above it is not considered that the proposal would be contrary to Policies P1 (Pollution and Development) or P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise).

· Hydrology. The site operates at a significant level above the water table. On the basis that general operational controls are in place relating to the storage of any fuels there should be no threat to the quality of the water aquifers from the extraction process. Equally, on the basis that the materials are screened but not washed there is no need to consider disposal of any waste water.

With regards to the restoration proposal, providing this is confined to inert material this should cause no threat to groundwater contamination. Accordingly, neither quarry proposal nor the infilling proposal conflicts with Policy U19 (Safeguarding of Aquifers and Water Resources).

· Traffic. All vehicle movements associated with this site share the same access as the chalk quarry off the main Newport to Shorwell Road and access the gravel site utilising a private roadway. This is the arrangement that has existed for a substantial number of years. Given this proposal I do not consider that the proposal conflicts with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development).

· Visual Impact. As part of the pre-application discussions the applicant was encouraged to undertake a Visual Impact Assessment of the existing and proposed operation, both from the Worsley Trail to the south and from the roadway running up to the Chillerton Mast from Cheverton Shute and from Newburn Down, which is the high ground lying to the north of the Chillerton TV mast.

From the south the site operation currently benefits from a combination of a favourable topography, the fact that the excavation has gone down below the line of site and also by the presence of the substantial cattle building on its southern edge. The combination of these factors together with the developing bund, provides an effective screen to the existing site and will do so to the extension.

From the east, the barn and bund are less effective at screening the site. However, given the distance involved and the colour of the deposit concerned, the visual impact of that section of the quarry which can be seen is not considered to be significant.

Taking all factors into consideration, excavations on site are not considered to be significantly detrimental to the general character of the landscape or the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be contrary to Policies C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) or Policy C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty).

6.4 The third factor to consider is whether or not any of the representations have raised issues that have not been addressed above. Member will note that all the representations received only the one from local landowner has raised some points of concern relating to drainage and traffic issues. I do not believe that the gravel quarry lying as it does below the surrounding ground levels could generate any drainage concerns. With regards to the traffic issues, the Highway Engineer has considered the proposal and raised no objection.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 This report relates to two proposals. Firstly, to continue working an area where planning permission has already been approved in the past for the winning of gravel and flint hogging but has not been worked out during the life of the consent, and secondly for an extension to the operational area, extending the quarry in a northerly direction. Based on the level of extraction the applicant calculates that the extended area would give the operation a life of approximately 20 years.

7.2 The proposal would also involve the restoration of the site back to agriculture. Two scenarios are put forward, the first involving limited infilling operations drawing on the waste material generated from the extraction process and grading which would leave an exposed gravel face around the base of the quarry, or a second proposal with the applicant obtaining a waste disposal licence through which he would seek to reinstate the site back to its original levels.

7.3 The proposal has been the subject of detailed pre-application discussions which has resulted in the submission of an Environmental Statement. This was requested given the location within a designated landscape area. However, it has been recognised that with the expense in generating this statement that the applicant will be looking for a planning concept with a 20 year life rather than the previous consent which had a limited 10 year life.

7.4 Clearly, one of the benefits of engaging in the detailed pre-application discussions which identified the main considerations to be included within any Environmental Statement is that this process has anticipated all the concerns that were likely to be raised by any of the consultees, and this is reflected in the representations outlined in this report. A number of concerns have been raised by an adjoining landowner, but they do not raise any fundamental issues that would warrant withholding consent.

7.5 With regards to the restoration of the site and the two options that have been presented by the applicants, members should note that with the onset of recycling and given the costs of obtaining the licence this site has not seen the importation of any material. As a consequence, the void space effectively represents the whole of the site. When this situation arose at Knighton Sandpit where a previous consent had also intended importation of inert material to restore the site to its former levels, the plans associated with the most recent consent were negotiated to acknowledge that the site would not be reinstated to its full capacity.

7.6 Whilst there may be some justification in the importation of material by vehicles which are collecting materials it is not considered that it would be appropriate simply to create a disposal site. Accordingly, whilst conditioning the final restoration details it would not be inappropriate to express the Council's support for the lesser scheme that would involve partial infilling of the site leaving an exposed face around the pit.

7.7 This scheme has been tested against both the Government's policy statements and guidance notes and against the Council's own Unitary Development Plan policies. The site is recognised in the UDP as one with planning permission for continued extraction of the 1996 approved site is likely to be given with reference to an appropriate extension. On balance the proposals currently in front of the members reflects this statement.

8. Recommendation

That subject to appropriate conditions both application are approved.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby approved shall cease on 30 September 2025 and no further extraction or importation of waste materials shall take place after that day. Restoration shall be completed by 31 December 2027 unless otherwise approved by the Mineral Planning Authority. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	The permission hereby granted applies to the area of land shown within the red line on plan number 470/2 and relates to the excavation of gravel and flint hoggin and the restoration of the site and its aftercare. The development shall be commenced before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission and shall thereafter have a life expiring on 30 September 2025, excluding the duration of the requirements set out in any conditions below. A minimum of 7 days' notice in writing shall be given to the Local Planning Authority prior to the development being commenced. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3	A copy of the approved scheme of working and a copy of this permission shall be displayed at the site offices at all times for operators and contractors working at the site to refer to. Reason: To ensure that operators and contractors working at the site are familiar with the requirements of the scheme and the permission.
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 fixed plant or machinery, buildings, structures and erections, or private ways shall be erected, extended, installed or replaced at the site, without the prior agreement in writing of the Local Planning Authority; Reason: To protect the amenities of the area and to comply with policies D1 (Standards of Design) and M2 (Defined Mineral Working) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Vehicle access to the site shall be from the applicant's access track which serves the existing chalk extraction operation and which joins the B3323 immediately north of Cheverton Farm. No vehicle access shall be obtained by the Worsley Trail. Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenities of the locality and to comply with policies C1 (Protection of Landscape Character), C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and TR7 (Highway Conditions for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Any imported waste material to be tipped within the site shall be confined to inert, non-toxic, non-putrescible material. Reason: To protect the groundwater from pollution and to comply with policy U19 (Safeguarding of Aquifers and Water Resources) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	The developer shall afford access at all reasonable times to any archaeologists nominated by the Local Planning Authority and shall allow them to observe all groundwork and to record [items/features] of archaeological significance and finds. Notification of the opening up and information as to whom the archaeologist should contact on site shall be given in writing to the address below (or to any alternative address notified to the developer by the Local Planning Authority) not less than 14 days before the commencement of any work: County Archaeologist County Archaeological Centre 61 Clatterford Road Carisbrooke Newport Isle of Wight PO30 1NZ Reason: In order to ensure access by specified archaeologists during the permitted operations and to comply with policies B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) and B10 (Parks and Gardens and Landscapes of Historic Interest) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	The site shall be restored and managed for agricultural purposes in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before 2010. The scheme shall include details of: The nature of the intended afteruse of the site; The sequence of phasing of (backfilling and) restoration showing clearly their relationship to the working scheme; The restoration proposal shall make an allowance for an exposed 5 metre face on the western, eastern and northern sides of the quarry. In addition, a 4 metre wide zone shall be created at the foot of the eastern, western and northern faces through the installation of a post and wire fence line, with the area between the fence and the foot of the exposed face left to regenerate naturally. The respreading over the floor of the excavated area of overburden, subsoil and topsoil previously stripped from the site, in that order [specify details, depths and placement of respreading materials as necessary]; The ripping of any compacted layers of final cover to ensure adequate drainage and aeration; such ripping should normally take place before placing of the topsoil; The machinery to be used in soil respreading operations; Drainage of the restored land including the formation of suitably graded contours to promote natural drainage and the installation of artificial drainage; The reinstatement of the plant site and access roads by clearing plant, buildings, machinery and concrete or brickwork, deep cultivation in both directions to remove rocks and other obstructions, replacing of subsoil and then topsoil previously stripped from the sites; Grass seeding of restored areas with a suitable herbage mixture; A timetable for implementation and aftercare; and upon approval such scheme shall be implemented as approved unless a variation has been agreed in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the site is restored in an orderly manner to a condition capable of beneficial afteruse and in the interests of the amenities of local residents and to comply with policies M8 (Restoration and Aftercare) and M2 (Defined Mineral Workings) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	Within the first 2 years after the date of the consent a landscaping scheme to cover the planting of the southern bund shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall detail the numbers, species and positions on planting. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons after the submission of the scheme. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	No extraction shall take place below the levels shown on drawing number 470/7. Reason: To protect the groundwater from pollution and to comply with policy U19 (Safeguarding of Aquifers and Water Resources) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	The storage of any materials or mobile plant shall be confined to the base of the gravel pit. Reason: To protect the visual character and appearance of the locality and to comply with policy C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) and C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13	Except in emergencies to maintain safe quarry working (which shall be notified to the Local Planning Authority at the earliest opportunity, together with details of the emergency and the operations carried out) or unless the Local Planning Authority has agreed otherwise in writing: No operations, other than water pumping, servicing, environmental monitoring, maintenance and testing of plant shall be carried out at the site except between the following times: 0700 and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays 0800 and 1300 hours Saturdays No servicing, maintenance and testing of plant shall be carried out at the site between 0800 and 1700 hours on any date (and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays); No operations for the formation and subsequent removal of material from (#) (eg. any environmental banks and soil storage areas) shall be carried out at the site except between the following times: 0700 and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays 0800 and 1300 hours Saturdays No operations other than environmental monitoring and water pumping at the site shall take place on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
14	All topsoil shall be stripped, handled, stored in accordance with a scheme which shall have been approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority before the commencement of and soil stripping takes place on site. Reason: To prevent loss or damage of soil and ensure that it is re-used in the restoration of the site.

6

Reference Number: P/01111/05 - TCP/23793/D Parish/Name: Ventnor - Ward/Name: Ventnor East Registration Date: 08/06/2005 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr J Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Applicant: Westfield Lodges Holiday Centre 3 storey building to form 17 flats (revised position); retention of 3 flats Westfield Holiday Park, Shore Road, Ventnor, PO38

The application is recommended for conditional permission.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a major submission which has proved to be contentious.

1. Details of application

1.1 This is a full application for retention of some works already undertaken and for the erection of a further block of 17 holiday flats in a revised position and of a different appearance from the previous scheme.

1.2 Permission was granted for the erection of an extension to the existing building and for the reconstruction of part of the holiday centre a few months ago, and the work was commenced. This proposal seeks to retain the works already implemented, but which has not been implemented strictly in accordance with the existing permission, and for the erection of a free-standing building instead of an extension, again, to comprise 17 flats for holiday purposes.

1.3 The plans show the building works which have already been implemented having a lower pitched roof, but higher eaves, the change being made due to the need to increase the thickness of the floor above the swimming pool which was retained on ground floor. The first floor accommodation comprises 3 holiday flats.

1.4 Revised plans of the free-standing building show the new structure to be only 0.7 of a metre from the existing building and to comprise three storeys of accommodation, again for holiday purposes, arranged in single and two bedroomed units of varying sizes.

1.5 The new building is shown to be 32 metres long and a maximum of 16 metres deep, constructed in brickwork with some rendered panels of the elevation under gabled roofs clad in concrete tiles.

1.6 New building is shown to be located on the east side of the existing structure with car parking, sufficient for one vehicle per unit situated immediately adjoining to the north.

2. Location and site characteristics

2.1 Westfield Holiday Centre is located off Shore Road and occupies a site of approximately 1.1 hectares. It comprises several holiday chalets and bungalows which sit in a significant depression in this coastal location located off Shore Road.

2.2 The land rises to the south where it meets the cliff edge and then falls steeply to the shore. To the west are holiday bungalows known as Westfield Bungalows which are masonry holiday bungalows, not within the ownership of the application site.

2.3 Further to the north are two terraces of holiday units and immediately to the north of the building is Westfield Mansion, a two storey, Grade II Listed building of majestic appearance, but one that dominates the application building due to significantly higher land levels.

3. Relevant history

3.1 In June 2004, the partial demolition of the holiday centre (retaining the swimming pool), for an extension over the pool building and for a further three storey extension to form 17 holiday flats, was withdrawn.

3.2 In November 2004 a planning application for a revised scheme of partial demolition of the holiday centre (retaining the swimming pool) for an extension over the pool building and a three storey extension to form 17 holiday flats was approved. This permission included conditions, amongst others, restricting the occupation of the holiday flats to holiday accommodation; restricting the height of the building to a height commensurate with the then existing building; and requiring a further survey of ground conditions to be undertaken prior to commencement of works on site.

3.4 At one time it was understood that the holiday centre, the mansion and all of the holiday bungalows were within one ownership.

4. Development Plan policy

4.1 National Policy Guidance

PPG20 (Coastal Planning) recognises tourism as a rapidly expanding activity but steers developments towards existing urban areas.

PPG21 (Tourism) supports developments which expand and improve the tourism industry, accommodation etc.

4.2 UDP Policy

Shown in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan to be outside the designated development envelope but as an existing tourist accommodation centre to which policy T6 applies.

T6 states:

"Planning applications for the expansion of existing permanent accommodation sites, as defined on the proposals map, will be approved where the following criteria can be met:

(a) they adjoin or are directly related to the existing built facilities;

(b) they do not detract from their surroundings;

(c) they enhance the environment, or improve the visual appearance of the site;

(d) new or replacement units are appropriate in design and appearance, and the resulting density of the site does not adversely affect the rural character of the area."

4.3 Policy TR7 relates to highway issues, access and parking.

4.4 The site is not within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but the cliff is a Site of Importance to Nature Conservation.

5. Consultee and third party comments

5.1 As with the previous application, Engineers consider that as traffic speeds are very low and the fact that the access has been subject to higher levels of usage in the past, conditions are recommended if approval is granted.

5.2 Ventnor Town Council see no reason why planning permission should not be granted.

5.3 External Consultees

NATS - no objection.

5.4 Neighbours

Letters from Westfield Mansion and Westfield Residents' Association objecting to the development on grounds that the development that has occurred already has not been built in accordance with the approval, that it is too high, objecting to the building in phases, objecting to the excavation into the southerly bank; development is more visible with greater visual impact, access is inadequate in terms of width, visibility and construction, and inadequate access is maintained to existing cesspit for servicing.

19 letters of objection (some duplicated) objecting to the development on grounds of visual impact; development resulting in a higher building and one of greater mass, increased traffic, overdevelopment, inadequate access and ground instability.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main issues relating to this application are:

Policy and principle

Design, height and mass

Traffic generation

Effect on Westfield Mansion

Geotechnical considerations.

6.2 In terms of policy and principle, Policy T6, supported by PPG21 (Tourism) encouraged the improvement and enlargement of existing tourist sites, especially for accommodation. This is a site which is outside the designated development envelope but is an established and annotated tourist accommodation site. The principle of additional accommodation has already been granted last year and therefore there are considered to be no policy and principle objections to the scheme.

6.3 This scheme has been submitted as an alternative to the previously approved scheme last year which authorised the erection of an extension for 17 holiday flats and, in addition, the rebuilding of part of the holiday complex over the existing swimming pool which, in itself, was shown in the plans to accommodate a further three holiday units. This alternative scheme has been submitted due to difficulties found with the ground conditions on the footprint of the then extension. A geotechnical engineer has recommended to the developer that the original scheme would straddle a plane of differing geological strata which would be likely to result in differential settlement and possibly failure. He has also recommended that the additional accommodation be free-standing and not attached to the original part of the complex for similar reasons.

6.4 The design of the building is fairly traditional, with pitched roofs and gables, and comprises 17 holiday flats of differing accommodation but, essentially, either one or two bedroomed.

6.5 The proposed new building is of comparatively large proportions and will inevitably have some visual impact on the landscape. However, it is situated in a trough where the contours form a valley running east to west. Consequently the building will not be visible from the beach and is significantly lower than the adjoining properties to the north.

6.6 The height of the existing building and the proposed new building has proved to be a matter of controversy. At the time the application was approved last year, the plans showed that the proposed ridge height would not exceed the height of the ridge of the original building. However, objections have been received which claim that the building is higher, but it should be remembered that as the new building as constructed is considerably narrower than the old part of the superstructure, the ridge of the new part of the building is moved further south. When viewed from an elevated position, the movement of the ridge away from the viewer gives the appearance that the ridge is higher. Accordingly there appears to be very little difference, if any, in heights of the structure as constructed and the original building.

6.7 The new building proposed in this application is moved significantly in a southerly direction, further away from the adjoining property, known as Westfield Mansion. Due to the resiting, forward of its originally approved position, it will inevitably be more visible from Westfield Mansion despite the greater distance and, to a certain extent, the natural growth will not be so effective in screening. However, I consider the marginal difference between the siting of this proposal and that previously approved will not be significant visually and will not have a significantly greater impact on the setting of the Listed Building.

6.8 In terms of traffic generation, as with the previous application, the Highway Engineers accepted that the use of the holiday centre, as it was, if resumed at the intensity previously would be likely to generate higher levels of vehicular flow and accordingly recommended conditions if consent was forthcoming. In effect this development is an alternative to that previously approved and therefore it is not anticipated that the volumes of traffic will be any greater.

6.9 In terms of the effect on Westfield Mansion, it should be remembered that Westfield Mansion is a Grade II Listed Building and developments which affect its setting must be considered carefully to ensure that the character of the Listed Building is not adversely affected to such a degree that would warrant refusal. Prior to the demolition of a substantial part of the holiday centre, the view from the mansion to the former holiday centre was of a poorly proportioned, probably 1960s building with a low pitched roof, a building having a multitude of colours and in much closer proximity to the common boundary between the properties. At one time the Westifleld Mansion and the Westfield Holiday Centre were one property but the mansion has been subsequently converted into residential flats and disposed of in separate ownerships. The replacement two storey structure is of considerably lesser mass since it is significantly shallower and constructed in more traditional materials. The subsequent effect is less than before.

6.10 The new building clearly increases the built mass on site but is further from Westfield Mansion and at a significantly lower level. Outlook from the Mansion towards the sea will be unchanged although it is accepted that the new building would be visible. However, it is not felt that an adverse effect on the setting of the Listed Building is sufficient to warrant refusal.

6.11 In terms of the geology, a geotechnical engineer has been engaged by the prospective developer as a result of the condition attached to the former permission, carried out an investigation into ground conditions which concluded that the former siting straddled a plane between differing strata and consequently recommended the developer alter the scheme to account for this feature. Irrespective of the work done as described above, I consider it appropriate again to impose the condition requiring survey work and the result of such survey work to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration regarding ground conditions.

7. Conclusion and justification for recommendation

7.1 The application seeks an alternative scheme to that which was approved last year resulting in 20 holiday flats as an extension or enlargement to this established holiday centre, a development which is supported by UDP policy. Whilst close to Westfield Mansion, a Grade II Listed Building, the ground level is significantly lower and the setting of the Listed Building is felt not to be sufficiently adversely affected such as to warrant a refusal of permission. In traffic terms the potential and lawful use of the holiday centre could have resumed and the traffic flow involved in a fully functioning holiday centre unlikely to be in excess of that which is currently proposed, and on that basis the Highway Engineers have not expressed resistance to the proposal.

8. Recommendation

Conditional permission

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	No development shall take place until [samples of materials/details of the materials and finishes, including mortar colour] to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	None of the accommodation hereby permitted shall be used other than as holiday accommodation. Reason: To ensure that the development remains for holiday purposes and to comply with policies T1 (Tourism) and T3 (Holiday Accommodation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The height of the building hereby permitted shall not exceed that described in the plans. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Within 1 month of the date of this permission details shall be prepared by a competent person of the retaining wall or works where it adjoins the boundary of the site with Westfield Mansion and such details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its approval in writing. Reason: To ensure as a result of the development that the land is not destabilised in accordance with Policy G7 (Unstable Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Notwithstanding condition 5 above, details of boundary works including the means of the closing off of the former means of access from Westfield Mansion shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the approved details shall be implemented and completed prior to the occupation of the building hereby permitted Reason: To ensure as a result of the development that the land is not destablilised in accordance with policy G7 (Unstable Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	The use hereby permitted shall not commence until parking and turning provision, in accordance with the parking layout as shown on the approved plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice, has been provided, surfaced and drained in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	The holiday accommodation hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a new sewage treatment plant has been installed in accordance with details to be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise the risk of pollution and to comply with policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	Within one month of the date of this permission, a survey of ground conditions shall be undertaken and the results provided to the Local Planning Authority. The survey shall be taken at such points and to such depth as the Local Planning Authority may stipulate. A scheme of remedial, preventive and precautionary measures to deal with the stability of the site and adjoining land shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before the development hereby permitted commences and the scheme as approved shall be fully implemented and completed before any [residential] unit hereby permitted is first occupied. Reason: To ensure that any adverse ground conditions encountered may be satisfactorily overcome and the site developed for [residential] purposes and to comply with policy G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

7.

Reference Number: P/00160/04 - TCP/06159/T Parish/Name: Freshwater - Ward/Name: Freshwater Afton Registration Date: 23/01/2004 - Outline Planning Permission Officer: Mr A White Tel: (01983) 823550 Applicant: Mr M McNulty Demolition of building; outline for six dwellings; formation of pedestrian access 106 School Green Road, Freshwater, Isle Of Wight, PO409AY

The application is recommended for conditional permission.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This Report was first considered by the Development Control Committee in June 2004 at the request of the former local Member. Although he did not object to the principle of redeveloping this site, he was concerned that the proposal made no provision for on site parking, meaning that residents would park outside the proposed dwellings, resulting in standing vehicles which may add unduly to the hazards of other road users. Members attached some weight to the concerns expressed by the local Member and therefore decided to defer consideration to enable negotiations to take place on this particular issue. Numerous meetings and discussions have taken place during the intervening period, and the purpose of this report is to update Members on the current situation and to seek a resolution.

1. Details of application

1.1 Outline permission is sought for demolition of buildings and for residential development of 6 dwellings with siting and means of access to be considered. Application is accompanied by illustrative plans which indicate two pairs of semi-detached houses and a semi-detached pair comprising a house and a bungalow. The dwellings are shown to be sited in a stepped fashion having a minimum distance off the back edge of footpath of 1 metre. The split pair of house/bungalow is situated at the western end of the site and is partly angled in order to take account of the prominent location of that part of the site. The house which forms part of this pair is shown to have a wider frontage onto School Green Road in order to create a reasonable degree of separation between proposed dwelling and existing chalet bungalow to the rear.

1.2 The proposed scheme does not make provision for on site parking. Agent has confirmed that each of the proposed dwellings would provide a maximum of two bedrooms.

2. Location and site characteristics

2.1 Application relates to site on southern side of School Green Road presently occupied by single storey building previously used as a bakery. Area is characterised by a mix of uses although premises immediately adjacent to the site are residential. School Green Road is one of the main thoroughfares into Freshwater and is lined on either side by a mixture of established or modern developments, either two or three storeys in height. There is an existing detached chalet style dwelling (Green End) located to the rear of the site with that property directly abutting recreation ground known as Stroud playing fields.

3. Relevant history

3.1 P/01078/02–TCP/06159S – Full application for three pairs of semi-detached houses refused in August 2002 on grounds of a) cramped arrangement of dwellings, b) intrusive development out of scale and character having adverse effect on immediate adjoining dwellings and c) proposal would give poor arrangement of dwellings in relation to the property to the rear adversely affecting the outlook from that property. This decision was not subject of an appeal.

4. Development Plan policy

4.1 PPG3 (Housing) can be summarised as follows:

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

· Give priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas to take pressures off development of greenfield site.

· Create more sustainable patterns of development ensuring accessibility by public transport to jobs, education and health visit facilities.

· Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities, with 30-50 units per hectare quoted as being appropriate levels of density.

· Document advises that new housing development should not be viewed in isolation but should have regard to immediate buildings and wider locality.

· More than 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling are unlikely to reflect the Government's emphasis on sustainable residential development.

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

4.3 Site is within the development envelope boundary for Freshwater as shown on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The following policies of the said Plan are considered to be relevant:

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

S2 - Developments will be encouraged on land which has been previously developed (brownfield sites).

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

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

G1 - Development envelopes for towns and villages.

G4 - General locational criteria for development.

D1 - Standards of design.

D2 - Standards for developments within the site.

H4 - Unallocated residential development.

H5 - Infill development.

TR7 - Highway considerations for new development.

TR16 - Parking policies and guidelines.

4.4 Site is located within Parking Zone 3 of the UDP which restricts parking to 0-75% of the maximum non-operational parking provision. In the case of residential development, maximum provision is one space per bedroom and it is confirmed that the proposal before Members would comprise of 5 two bedroom dwellings and a single one bedroom bungalow.

4.5 Reference is also made to the Housing Needs Survey, the conclusions of which acknowledge the need for single person accommodation, although there continues to be an ongoing demand for two or three bedroom units to meet statutory homeless requirements.

5. Consultees and third party comments

5.1 Internal consultees

5.1.1 Highway Engineer confirms that visibility from the site would be some 40 metres to the east and 50 metres to the west. Within the 30 mph speed limit, 90 metres is the minimum visibility required, unless it can be proven that actual vehicle speeds are slower than 30 mph. For the above levels of visibility to be acceptable, the 85%ile vehicle speeds would have to be no higher than 23 mph. The most recent speed survey from outside the nearby school shows westbound 85%ile speeds of 32 mph and eastbound of 31 mph. It is quite possible that vehicle speeds may be slightly higher there than outside the application site as the road is slightly straighter, although the Highway Engineer does not believe that the difference is that much. On this basis, the Highway Engineer would recommend refusal to a vehicular access on grounds of inadequate visibility. Although the previous use of the site as a bakery would have generated some vehicular movements, 6 dwellings would generate significantly more. It is therefore unlikely that the applicant could justify sub-standard visibility for the proposed development on the previous levels of usage.

5.1.2 Whilst the Highway Engineer would generally favour one space per dwelling in a Zone 3 location such as this, he does recognise that a satisfactory access cannot be achieved to serve this number of units. Therefore, considering that proposal is for six modest homes offering a total of eleven bedrooms, the proximity to a nearby public car park and reasonable access to public transport, he confirms that a no parking scheme is, on balance, acceptable in this instance.

5.2 Parish Council comments

5.2.1 Freshwater Parish Council object on grounds of gross overdevelopment of the site, increase of traffic on an already dangerous and busy road, entrance/exit would be on the corner of a dangerous road and development would be within 100 yards of a school entrance creating an additional hazard.

5.3 Neighbours and local residents

5.3.1 Application is subject of 3 letters of objection from residents of School Green Road the points raised summarised as follows:

· Proposal represents excessive development which will generate a level of car ownership increasing on street parking in the area adding to hazards for highway users.

· A reduced density with on site parking would appear to be a better solution.

· Initial proposals did not indicate the changing levels in respect of the application site in relation to the property to the rear. (Revised Plans now indicate section).

· One objector points out that the site has been known to be subject to flooding.

· Any houses on this property would result in overlooking of the property to the rear from first floor accommodation.

· One objector makes reference to inadequacy of drainage system in the area to accept additional discharge from development to this site.

· Reference made to a specific plant species (White Butterbur) being a rare marsh plant unique to this area. (Consultation been carried out with Council’s Senior Countryside Officer who confirms the species are not protected).

6. Evaluation

6.1 Determining factors in considering this application are as follows:

· Principle

· Density

· Layout

· Parking

6.2 This is a brownfield site within the defined development envelope boundary and therefore, in terms of principle, is considered to be a suitable candidate for residential development. Accordingly, proposal accords with policies S1, S2, G1 and H4 of the UDP.

6.3 In terms of density and layout, proposal constitutes intensive use of site but nevertheless would be reflective of prevailing pattern of development which in some instances is tight knit. Each of the proposed dwellings would have its own amenity space and the proposed layout would not compromise spatial characteristics of street scene, which generally comprises terraces and semi-detached buildings. Accordingly, officers are satisfied that site is of a sufficient size to accommodate six dwellings without appearing cramped. It is also worthy of note that design and layout was not regarded as an issue of concern when this application was originally considered by Committee in June 2004.

6.4 In terms of parking, the applicant has investigated ways of making on site provision since Members raised this as a concern. However, as said above, the provision of an access onto this section of School Green Road would fall well short of visibility requirements. Accordingly, the Highway Engineer would have no alternative but to recommend refusal on grounds of inadequate access if parking were to be provided for this development. Members are therefore presented with something of a dilemma, whereby the only likelihood of this prominent and unattractive brownfield site being developed with housing is if a zero parking scheme is accepted.

6.5 With regard to the issue of zero parking, it is acknowledged that the failure to provide parking is causing concern to local residents. However, the location of this site adjacent the main thoroughfare into and out of Freshwater, its position within Zone 3 of the parking policy (0 – 75% of guidelines) and the fact that lack of parking was not cited as a reason in respect of the 2002 refusal suggests that it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on the basis that it fails to provide any on site parking. Any such refusal would be likely to render this site as undevelopable as parking is simply not an option.

6.6 In addition to the above, Members are also requested to consider the following points in favour of a zero parking scheme. Firstly, the site is within a short and level walking distance of a public car park, the village centre and a local supermarket. Secondly, the site fronts onto a main road which is used by the local bus service. Thirdly, following negotiations, the applicant has confirmed that the proposed dwellings would offer modest one and two bedroom accommodation, although a condition in this respect may be difficult to enforce given the fact that internal subdivision is beyond Planning control. Revised plans have therefore been submitted showing a reduced footprint which in turn restricts floor space to a point where it can only practically provide two bedrooms. One of the reasons that officers are suggesting that any properties on this site should not provide any more than two bedroom accommodation is precisely because zero parking schemes are likely to function more readily with the smaller type of unit as opposed to the family sized unit. Obviously there can be no guarantees, but any purchaser or occupier of these properties would do so with the knowledge that there is no on site parking provision. It is recommended that siting be deleted from the application and become an issue to be considered at reserved matters stage.

6.7 With regard to any on street parking availability, the side of the road onto which this site fronts is subject to parking restrictions by virtue of a single yellow line which effectively restricts any parking on this side to over night only but does allow short term loading and unloading from the road during the day which obviously is of some importance when the site was used as a bakery. Given the pressures that residential use is likely to place within this limited parking zone, it may be considered appropriate to seek a traffic order to ban parking entirely.

6.8 This would involve the submission of a formal request through the Highways Department which would go through a public consultation procedure with the order being advertised in the local press. Comments would not only be invited from the public but also from the Parish Council and local Councillor. Comments of the Traffic Section of the Highways Department along with the police would also be taken into account. The whole process could take up to 3 months to conclude. The outcome of such an order would not necessarily be certain to ban even limited parking on this side of the road as this could be deemed to be simply transferring that parking to roads in the vicinity where no parking controls are exercised. It is assumed that this would be a number of material considerations that would be taken into account in assessing the merits of any such traffic order to ban parking in its entirety on this side of the road. Because the need for such controls is driven by this application, it would be only correct for the applicant to pay for any costs involved in this exercise. This can be achieved through a legal agreement.

6.9 Bearing the above points in mind, lack of parking should not necessarily be seen as a negative in this instance, but should be seen as an ingredient towards achieving a sustainable housing scheme within a built up location where essential and desirable services/facilities are easily accessible to the future occupants of this development.

7. Conclusion and justification for recommendation

7.1 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that this outline proposal does effectively address the reasons for refusal in respect of the 2002 application. Whilst acknowledging the concerns relating to no on-site parking, it must be considered that parking is not possible in this instance owing to the fact that an acceptable access cannot be provided onto this section of School Green Road. Therefore, considering the objective of reducing the reliance on the motor car and the relatively short distance between the application site and local facilities such as the car park, shops, leisure centre, etc., a no parking scheme is considered to be acceptable in this location and fully in accordance with local and national policies.

8. Recommendation

To grant conditional permission.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3	Approval of the details of the design and external appearance and the landscaping of the site shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory development and be in accordance with policies S6 (Standards of Design), D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards of Development within the Site) and D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The development hereby permitted shall not be initiated by the undertaking of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4)(a)-(d) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the development until a planning obligation pursuant to the Section 106 of the said Act relating to the land has been made and lodged with the Planning Authority that 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 require the applicant/developer to apply for and obtain a Traffic Regulation Order to ban parking immediately outside of the application site and to pay the Council's administration costs in the respect. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	The existing access to the site shall be stopped up and abandoned and the footway crossings/kerb shall be reinstated on completion of the new access. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	No development shall take place until a detailed scheme including calculations and capacity studies have been submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water disposal. Any such agreed foul and surface water disposal system shall indicate connections at points on the existing system where adequate capacity exists or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not case flooding or overload the existing system. No dwelling shall be occupied until such agreed systems have been completed. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul and storm water drainage is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating a 2 metre high screen close boarded fence along the south eastern boundary. Such fencing shall be completed before occupation of any of the dwellings on the site. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining property in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	The dwellings hereby approved shall not be occupied until a wall has been erected along the highway boundary in accordance with a scheme to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The wall shall be retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Second recommendation

That letter be sent to applicant advising that the illustrative plans were afforded little weight and in no way commit the Council to that form of development in a future reserved matter application.

8

Reference Number: P/00750/05 – TCP/26996 & P/02074/04 – CAC/10858/L Parish/Name: East Cowes - Ward/Name: East Cowes North Registration Date: 18/04/2005 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Roger Prescott, Halcrow (Consultants) South of England Development Agency (SEEDA) Demolition of slipway and suspended deck structure and its replacement with a solid waterfront apron extension, including a hoist dock, concrete crane pad and docking pontoons (revised plans) Area seaward side of Venture Quays, Castle Street, East Cowes, PO32

The application is recommended for full planning consent, subject to conditions.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Although this is a minor application, it has given rise to a number of objections from local individuals and groups, who have alerted the attention of the local Member. In addition, the application raises some complex technical issues that may provide precedent and input into the forthcoming outline planning application for the comprehensive redevelopment area for East Cowes.

1. Details of application

This is a full application, submitted by SEEDA. It seeks to extend the existing apron in front of the complex of industrial buildings on the site. In addition, it seeks to install a hoist, and to establish pontoons.

In detail, the proposal comprises the demolition of the existing deck slipway and apron. It seeks to replace these with a new apron (using the demolished material) and to extend its size by about 4,500 square metres by reclamation of land from the inter-tidal and sub-tidal areas to create a larger apron.

The new structure will be used to store and handle wind turbine blades of up to 70m in length, which would be transferred by the hoist onto a special shallow draft transporter barge, the "Bladerunner 2", that would take the blades to Southampton and thence to windfarms in the UK and overseas. The site is proposed to be occupied by the Vestas turbine manufacturer, which has a lease with SEEDA for use of the site for a further 5 years. It is understood that the shallow draft of the special craft avoids the need for dredging of the site or of any access channel within the Medina Estuary.

The pontoon system allows for the safe and stable docking of the Bladerunner barges, but will also provide three spurs, capable of providing docking/berthing for boats using the Venture Quays waterfront, including the Offshore Challenges, and will provide additional secure berthing during special events. The pontoon system is an integral element of the emerging masterplan for the redevelopment of SEEDA's land within East Cowes.

2. Location and site characteristics

2.1 The site lies immediately north of the Red Funnel vehicular ferry terminal. The landward part of the site is one which was, itself, reclaimed in the early twentieth century, and which has been used for maritime industrial purposes for many years. The main building to the east of the site, the Columbine Building, was formerly used by GKN for hovercraft manufacture, and is easily recognisable by its Union Flag motif, easily visible to visitors to the Island and from West Cowes. The building will remain under this proposal.

2.2 The proposed pontoon system extends north-west into the estuary by 80 metres and then turns in a northerly direction for 30 metres.

2.3 Under the current Masterplan, the activities of Vestas would no longer take place, and the site would be occupied by a mixture of marine industry and the proposed Maritime Heritage Experience museum. The masterplan proposals would allow for enhanced public access along this stretch of the estuary, in contrast to the continued lack of access, necessitated on health and safety grounds, under the present application. The Masterplan proposals would require further reclamation of land.

2.4 The application site includes the steps which allow access down to the foreshore from the Esplanade. The steps would not be demolished through this application, but public access across this private land would not be possible because of the proximity of the industrial operations by Vestas. Railings are proposed to be erected along this boundary, which would be demarked by a revetment.

3. Relevant History

None which is directly relevant to the current proposal.

4. Development Plan policy

National policy guidance, RPG or RSS

PPS 9 Nature Conservation Biodiversity and geological conservation

This Government policy is brand new, having been issued in August 2005, replacing the former PPG9 on Nature Conservation. It seeks to ensure that planning decisions are based on up-to-date information about the environmental characteristics of their areas, and an assessment of the potential to sustain and enhance biodiversity and geological resources.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 16: Planning and the Historic Environment

PPG16 stresses the importance of archaeological remains, as they are ‘irreplaceable,’ ‘finite’ and ‘non-renewable.’ It states that, “…the key to informed and reasonable planning decisions…is for consideration to be given early, before formal planning applications are made, to the question whether archaeological remains exist on a site where development is planned and the implications for the development proposal” (paragraph 12). It calls for ‘positive planning and management’ and notes that, “…appropriate planning policies in development plans and their implementation through development control will be especially important” (paragraph 14).

PPG 20 The coast

This government guidance describes the importance of this finite and dynamic resource. It considers that the key policy issues for coastal planning are:

- conservation of the natural environment;

- development, particularly that which requires a coastal location;

- risks, including flooding, erosion and land instability; and

- improving the environment, particularly of urbanised or despoiled coastlines.

PPG25 Development and Flood Risk

Relevant sections of this guidance concern the reducing of risks caused by flooding. Reducing the vulnerability of the country to the dangers and damage caused by unmanaged floods contributes to the achievement of a better quality of life and the objectives of sustainable development. Local planning authorities should, therefore, address the problems which flooding can cause by:

· recognising that the susceptibility of land to flooding is a material planning consideration;

· giving appropriate weight to information on flood-risk and how it might be affected by climate change in preparing development plans and considering individual proposals for development;

· consulting the Environment Agency, which has the lead role in providing advice on flood issues at a strategic level and in relation to planning applications, and other relevant organisations;

· applying the precautionary principle to decision-making so that risk is avoided where possible and managed elsewhere;

· improving the information available to the public about the risks of locating human activities in areas susceptible to flooding;

· taking into account the responsibility of owners for safeguarding their own property as far as is reasonably practicable;

· recognising that flood plains⁵ and washlands⁶ have a natural role as a form of flood defence as well as providing important wildlife habitats and adding to landscape value; and

· recognising that engineered flood reduction measures may not always be the appropriate solution, since they can have economic and environmental costs and impacts on the natural and built environment, need maintenance and replacement and cannot eliminate all risk of flooding.

Regional Planning Guidance RPG9, March 2001

Sections of the RPG (which remains the appropriate regional guidance until the South East Plan, which is emerging at present, is approved in Spring 2006), which are relevant to this application include:

i) Wider Countryside including Coastal and River Environment Policy E4

ii) The identification of the Isle of Wight as a Priority Area for Economic Regeneration (PAER)

UDP policy – Site falls within the development envelope for the area and is within/adjoins the Solent Maritime SAC. As such, the following policies are relevant:

S10 - Designated and Defined Areas

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development, especially the following criteria: a; b; d; e; h; and Ij

G6- Development in Areas Liable to Flooding

G11 - Coastal Development

B9 - Protection of Archaeological Heritage

E7 - Employment Sites With Deep Water Frontages

C8 - Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration

C9 – Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation

SPG – Cowes Waterfront – A Vision for the Medina Valley, sets out a regeneration framework for East Cowes, together with the whole of the Medina Valley.

5. Consultee and third party comments

Internal consultees

· Highways Engineer does not consider there to be any highways implications.

· Conservation and Design (see comments on Character and Appearance below)

· The Council’s Planning Archaeologist recommends that the developer be required to mitigate the effects of the proposed alterations by ensuring that specialist archaeological contractors undertake an agreed programme of structural recording of the sea wall as it becomes exposed during development.

External consultees

· Environment Agency

Flood risk - the Agency has no objection on flood risk grounds.

The Agency wish to draw attention to the fact that the proposal is not in accordance with the current Shoreline Management Plan, "hold the line" policy produced by the IWC for this area. The Agency advise that the Venture Quays reclamation should be considered in combination with SEEDA's wider proposals which potentially includes major shoreline land reclamation to provide new marshalling yards for a relocated ferry terminal. The Agency strongly recommend the Council is satisfied that the proposals set out in this application do not jeopardise the provision of sea defences which are needed to facilitate their aspirations for the regeneration of East Cowes.

The Agency maintains an objection on grounds of the loss of inter-tidal and sub-tidal habitat which, it argues, runs contrary to the Biodiversity Action Plan.

· English Nature (EN), in its letter of 6 June 2005, expressed concern because part of the application site lies within the Solent Maritime SAC. While EN did no wish to object to the proposal due to the loss of inter-tidal habitat, they reminded the Council that such habitat is finite, and therefore recommended that the Council should consider possible mitigation and enhancement to mitigate the loss. EN is, however, more concerned as to the effects of the proposal in combination with the other development projects proposed in the Medina system, not simply those proposed by SEEDA. EN also expressed some concern as to the potential effect of piling operations on fish populations.

· Cowes Harbour Commissioners - initial concern over potential impact on the future construction of an eastern fairway approach channel to the harbour, but this matter has since been resolved (see Section 6 below).

5.3 Town or Parish Council comments

· The East Cowes Town Council have objected on the grounds of potential hazards to shipping, and that the site is identified as part of the wider East Cowes Development Scheme.

Neighbours and third party comments

· Application has attracted a total of 11 letters of objection, 8 from local residents, and letters from Isle of Wight Society, Cowes Corinthian Yacht Club and East Cowes Sailing Club. Issues raised can be summarised as follows:

· Consideration of application should not be made in isolation of masterplan. Includes need to take account of cumulative effect on ecology of harbour.

· Force the relocation of Red Funnel operations.

· Proposal would preclude relocation of Red Funnel slightly to the north of the present site;

· Overdevelopment/domination. Not of "a height, mass and density which is compatible with surrounding buildings and uses."

· Safety - prevention of access onto site. Inadequate detail of boundary treatment.

· Visual impact on view from Columbine Road. Prefer to use stone and brick rather than rocks. Concrete visually obtrusive from road. Waterfront would be "industrialised". Loss of green lawn area by infill and storage of "commercial products".

· Development would cause the loss of stone and brick retaining wall - as used in listed coastguard complex.

· Fails to enhance the seafront, as required of Cowes Waterfront SPG 2003.

· Loss of public access (public steps to be lost).

· Insufficient benefits to be derived from development because of short term lets.

· Extension encroaches into an "area of safety for yachting". Noted that previous proposals for moorings rejected on safety. Concern over potential obstruction of narrow "highway" for entering or leaving Cowes Harbour. If cannot use, then only alternative for sailing craft is main fairway - not feasible because of tidal flow at some states of the tide.

· Lack of parking for Red-Jet passengers.

· No reference made to raising to comply with flood data.

· Concern over obtrusive nature of pontoon.

· Queries impact on hydrographic status of the harbour.

· Queries archaeological surveys carried out in and around site.

· Concern that this development would only have short term benefits that could be lost upon ultimate redevelopment of the Columbine building in the future.

The issues raised by neighbours and third parties have been explored through discussion with the applicant and its agents, with statutory consultees and with Council staff.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main issues relating to this application are:-

· The justification for the development and its relationship with aspirations of the masterplan;

· The effect of the development upon navigation within the harbour, on water recreation activities, and upon the operation of the Red Funnel ferries;

· The effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area, taking into account the proposed designation of an East Cowes Conservation Area;

· Access to and along the foreshore;

· The impact upon the nature conservation value of the estuary;

· Archaeological impacts;

· Flood defence and sea level rise and sediment movements; and

· Noise levels during construction

6.2 Vestas requires the facility with some urgency, because it is now facing increased demand for turbine blades, especially larger (70M) blades associated with offshore windfarms. Vestas manufactures the blades at its St Cross factory, but it is unable to store either the large blades or the required volume of blades there. Further expansion of that facility would impact upon the proposed Special Protection Area of the Upper Medina and a planning application there would be contrary to policy. In any event, access to that site by water is limited to a small part of each tidal cycle, and limits efficiency of working.

6.3 Vestas currently employs some 500 people, either directly or indirectly, on the Island. The facility has a reputation for high quality products and the company has a strong desire to retain its links with the Island. The Venture Quays site provides the best readily available access to deep enough water for transportation. While some of the shorter blades can be stored within the Columbine building, it cannot accommodate the longer blades, which thus would need to be stored in the open. Further expansion of the apron is also necessary to store the blades. The desire of Vestas to provide the facilities is both sincere and justified, and a delay in constructing the facilities as proposed would jeopardise their operations. Therefore, while it would normally be the practice to draw up and adopt a masterplan first, and then seek planning permission for component parts, this application is a justifiable exception to that practice.

6.4 Vestas have stated that they would prefer to remain at the Venture Quays site. However, their lease with SEEDA is only for 5 years, and the Masterplan proposals do not allow for the retention either of the Columbine Building or of the activities that Vestas undertake. Although no full search for alternative facilities for Vestas has been undertaken, it is not likely that many, if any, sites would be readily available at an affordable price for an industrial use that requires access to the water. Clearly, this application is in accordance with the UDP Policy E7, which states that “planning applications to develop existing employment/industrial sites which have deep water frontages will only be approved where this type of location is essential to the proposed marine related employment use.”

6.5 Members thus have to consider the effects of the proposals in the light of the relatively short-term nature of the proposals. They should also consider if the Masterplan proposals would be jeopardised by the present application. The applicants confirm that the apron proposed under this application is not a temporary structure and will ultimately form part of the proposed events space and heritage centre. They also indicate that "in the unlikely event that the masterplan does not come forward as envisaged, the proposed apron extension will continue to function as a commercial waterfront." There is therefore a degree of uncertainty over the long-term future, but the application should principally be judged on the assessment of its own effects.

The effect on navigation

6.6 As indicated in Section 5 above, the Cowes Harbour Commissioners were initially concerned that the original pontoon proposal, at right angles to the shore, would interfere with their aspiration for an eastern channel to provide an additional or alternative access to the harbour. The applicants thus modified the pontoon design to turn the seaward end of the main pontoon through about 45 degrees. In that way, the pontoon does not extend as far, and allows the concept of an eastern channel to remain viable. It now has minimal effect on mooring trots and makes access to the Red Funnel terminal easier than under the original proposals. Accordingly, the commissioners do not raise any objections to the revised proposals.

6.7 The Harbour Master, was also consulted about the loss of navigational water, although this is not a material planning consideration. He has advised that the ability to sail safety in the harbour would not be significantly affected by the proposals.

6.8 Red Funnel were consulted but no response has yet been received.

Character and appearance

6.9 The comments raised by the public, set out above, illustrate the concern over the size of the proposals. However, given the short-term nature of the works, and the fact that they are largely screened from views from the land, many of the comments about the impact on the character of the area are not justified. Nevertheless, there are some detailed comments that have been examined in full by the Council’s Conservation and Design staff. These led to a constructive meeting with the applicant’s landscape and urban design advisors, following which modifications have been sought. Moreover, the views from both sides of the Medina are likely to be more significant than those from land.

There was concern that the application did not provide any information as to how the structures will appear in context, including detail on materials, finishes, guarding, lights, and signs. Therefore, it is recommended that condition should be applied to ensure these details are approved before construction begins.

There was initially no information or illustration of how the proposed extension of the apron will address the existing sea wall, landing and Esplanade at the northern end of the red lined area, and how it will be viewed when approaching the seafront from Old Road. The grass area around the public toilets on the Esplanade is much used locally, but the applicants were able to confirm that this area would not be included within the red line showing the extent of the application. Indeed, revised drawings have been submitted to confirm the boundary and also a sketch has been to suggest that the northern end of the site would be marked by new railings. A condition is also recommended to ensure that the information is provided to show the accurate location and detail of those railings. A design with sharp tops would not be acceptable, given the danger to people, especially children, using the area.

There has been public and officer concern as to the future of the wall that runs parallel to the northern side of the Columbine Building. The stonework there is both substantial and detailed, and may indicate the location of a previous slipway, judging from an angle line of stonework within the wall. The stones within it may themselves be the relicts of previous structures nearby. It has now been confirmed by the applicant that this wall, which is of significant local interest will not be lost as a result of this application. However, it should be noted that it would almost certainly be lost through the implementation of the masterplan, as now suggested.

The northern eastern part of the application site is concurrent with the proposed East Cowes Conservation Area, which is not considered to be jeopardised by the proposals.

It is important to recognise that the proposed apron would be integrated into a new, accessible areas to be created through the implementation of the masterplan. These will need to be of a very high standard of design because they will be visited by many people – residents and visitors alike – and will be clearly visible not only from the water but also from land, upon the demolition of the present industrial buildings. SEEDA and their partners English Partnerships have stressed that they wish to use the new development of East Cowes as an exemplar of high quality design, to accord with a design code to be jointly drawn up with the Council.

Access to and along the foreshore

There is documentary evidence that the public uses the steps at the north-eastern end of the site to gain access to the foreshore. However, both the land above and below high water mark and there is no legal public right of way to use the steps. Therefore, SEEDA has every right to include the steps in its application site. Moreover, given that the site would be used to move heavy turbine blades by the use of powerful machines and a hoist, it is entirely appropriate that, for health and safety reasons, the public does not gain access to the site.

The steps would be demolished in order to reclaim additional land on which the maritime heritage museum would be located. Although the emerging masterplan proposals indicate that public access would run from south of the Red Funnel terminal across this site and then alongside the Esplanade, past the mouth of the estuary, there is no indication of any public access from such a route down onto the foreshore. Given that access is presently achieved by custom and practice, if not via a public right of way, it is recommended that negotiations with SEEDA on the masterplan and outline application for the full site seek a safe means of pedestrian access to the foreshore. The design of that access would allow for its use by pushchairs and by disabled persons, but not by vehicles. It would also need to be consistent with the emerging requirements for flood defence for the area.

Nature conservation issues#

English Nature did not wish to object to the development due to the loss of habitat, but this is not an opinion shared by the ecologist at the Environment Agency, who considers that the loss of habitat at the site itself is contrary to the provisions of the Biodiversity Action Plan, so that the Agency has raised a formal objection to the application.

The information provided by the applicant concerning the site itself suggests that the site is, indeed, not valuable of itself, and thus, notwithstanding the comments of the Environment Agency, it is recommended that there is not adequate evidence to refuse the application on that basis. This decision is taken in the light of the current advice contained in PPS 9, on the understanding that the impact of the application is not likely to be significant and mitigation and compensation measures can be provided through a strategy associated with the comprehensive redevelopment proposals.

However, there is certainly some justification in the argument that the incremental loss of inter-tidal and sub-tidal habitat within the Medina system would be both irreversible and damaging, especially as, to date, there are limited compensation (off-site) or mitigation (on-site) measures. English Nature had, in pre-application discussions, advised SEEDA that there would certainly be the need to undertake an Appropriate Assessment of the effects of the development in the light of the 1998 Habitats Regulations that apply to designations (or proposed designations) of sites of international importance for their birds or habitats. In this case, the principal designation is the candidate Special Area of conservation (cSAC). Accordingly, an Appropriate Assessment was undertaken by ABPmer, on behalf of SEEDA.

Under the Regulations, the Assessment has to be reviewed by the “appropriate” or determining authority, in this case the Council.

The ABPmer report details the interest features known or likely to be present in the Medina Estuary. This includes subtidal areas that will be lost as a result of the proposed development. These areas are described as being of low ecological value and, considering the fact that a relatively small designated area will be lost, it is agreed that this development will not, in itself, have a significant effect on the integrity of the European Site. However, in accordance with the Regulations, which came into effect in 1998, the total subtidal habitat lost since designation should be calculated and added to that which will be lost to current and proposed future developments, so that a true picture of subtidal habitat loss can be developed. This process would allow in-combination subtidal losses to be more thoroughly assessed and it can be established whether this will be considered a significant effect on integrity of the European Site.

Impacts upon other features of the cSAC are unlikely due to the lack of proximity to the area of the works. Changes in the hydrological and sediment regimes are predicted to be local and minimal and as such, features present further upstream of the development are unlikely to be impacted by the development.

The extent of the Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar within the Medina is restricted to the mid and upper reaches of the estuary. As such, the development is unlikely to directly affect any of the features of these designations. Indirect impacts through changes in the hydrological and sediment regimes have the potential to impact upon features of the SPA, however, modelling of these regimes suggests that changes will be local and minimal and therefore are unlikely to impact that far up the estuary.

The ABPmer report considers the Venture Quays development in-combination with other plans and projects in the area. Included are examples of completed, current and proposed developments. However, it is considered that the report needs to include developments as far back as 1998, when the area was first designated, and they have not been included. It is also important that the regeneration proposals for East Cowes, of which Venture Quays is part, are also included in the appropriate assessment. SEEDA has already advised the Council that the East Cowes regeneration masterplan will include extensive redevelopment of the waterfront requiring reclamation of inter-tidal and sub-tidal land. It is important that the effect of these proposals forms part of the in-combination assessment. It has already been shown that the estuary is being moved away from its ideal state of equilibrium and further developments, not considered in the ABPmer report, have the potential to increase this problem. The in-combination effects on tidal prism, hydrological and sediment regimes may differ significantly from that described in the present report if all proposals were included, and – indeed - could have a significant bearing on the assessment of any adverse effect on the integrity of the European Site.

The cumulative loss of subtidal habitat since designation should be calculated and summed with predicted losses as a result of future developments including the East Cowes regeneration proposals. That process would establish whether the in-combination loss of subtidal habitat should be treated as a significant effect.

The ABPmer report concludes that the Venture Quays Apron Extension would not represent an adverse effect on the integrity of the European Sites in isolation. The report also concludes that in-combination with other plans and projects the Venture Quays Apron Extension proposal is unlikely to contribute to any adverse effects caused by other schemes.

As stated above, it is agreed that the proposal is unlikely to cause a significant adverse effect on the European Sites in isolation. However, to reach a similar conclusion with regard to the in-combination effects it is important that other significant developments proposed for the area are considered as part of the appropriate assessment. This should especially include the proposals for the regeneration of East Cowes, of which the Venture Quays proposal is a part, but also development on both sides of the estuary. These have the potential to move the estuary further away from its ideal state, which may have an adverse impact upon the European Sites.

English Nature has been consulted on the Halcrow review of the Appropriate Assessment and accepts its conclusions. It considers that there are no grounds for objection to this application on the basis of the in-combination effects because it is entirely reasonable to ensure that a comprehensive Assessment, as outlined above, should be sought prior to the submission of the outline planning application for the regeneration area. That exercise would not only help to advise the Council on the acceptability of that application, but Identify a critical value that establishes how far the estuary can be moved away from its ideal state before significant impacts are likely to occur to the system and habitats, by suggesting if an area of inter-tidal habitat can be developed. The assessment would, as indicated earlier, be based upon calculated total intertidal and subtidal habitat loss since 1998 and the predicted future losses as a result of proposed developments.

It is considered that it would be inappropriate to impose a requirement for SEEDA to search for and establish a site to compensate for the loss of land associated with this application. However, EN is strongly of the opinion, supported by the Environment Agency, that the masterplan proposals to be submitted by SEEDA should require, as an essential element, a habitat compensation strategy, drawn up in co-operation with the two government advisors and the Council. That strategy would take account of potential effects of the development proposals on the Medina system as a whole. EN is concerned that SEEDA would be bound to draw up such a strategy and then to implement it.

No specific proposals for mitigation or compensation are recommended, therefore, in association with a consent for this proposal.

The concern by English Nature over the impact of vibration on fish stocks is considered under the section related to noise, below.

Archaeology

As has been stated earlier in this report, the land on which the present apron stands has been reclaimed in the recent past, and is thus unlikely to contain material of archaeological significance. However, the proposal does include reclamation from the river, and there is a possibility that the reclaimed area and adjacent riverbed may contain interesting features either because of boats and other material lost under water, or because sea level rise has covered parts previously dry land.

Accordingly, much of the research associated with this site has been related to the area below high water mark, and has included a detailed geophysical survey. Technical difficulties meant that the results of the survey were initially complex to interpret, but evidence now suggests that there is nothing significant within that area to prevent development or worthy of further investigation or recording prior to development.

The jurisdiction for archaeological issues below low water mark lies not with the Council, as is the case for the land above that mark, but with English Heritage (EH). Accordingly, the Council's planning archaeologist has maintained close liaison with EH since the application was submitted.

This liaison has been particularly important as a precursor to the outline application for the full redevelopment site, in order that a protocol for dealing with continuing desk-top and site-based research can emerge. Attention is particularly focussed upon the area as a whole because of the knowledge, proven through documentary records, that Henry VIII established a castle in East Cowes. The castle was demolished, and there is now no certainty as to where it once stood. Nevertheless, its site is almost certainly within the redevelopment area. If found, the site would become a Scheduled Ancient Monument, a designation that would preclude development in the immediate area. However, if it were found, the effect would be more likely to be positive than negative, as it could become the focal point of the redevelopment area.

Discussions are continuing between the council, English Heritage and the applicant's archaeologists on the method on on-site research to be adopted across the site to ensure that a representative examination is permitted while not proving too onerous, in terms of cost or time, to the applicants.

The Council's planning archaeologist considers that the stone wall that lies beneath the present apron, while not part of the Henrician castle, might be composed of stone from that structure. He therefore considers that examination and recording of the wall to learn from its construction may provide useful clues about the castle. The applicant has indicated that the wall will not be demolished as part of this development, but it is recommended that prior to construction works for the new development taking place, visual examination and recording should be permitted, and a condition is accordingly related to the permission granted to the applicants.

Flood defence and sediment movements

It is noted that the Environment Agency raises no objections in terms of flood risk. It does point out the proposal runs contrary to the “hold the line” policy of the Shoreline Management Plan, but the incursion into the estuary is minor, and it is recommended that it would be more appropriate to consider the impacts of the final proposals for the whole regeneration area against the emerging revised Shoreline Management Plan and the Council’s coastal defence strategy, in order that a co-ordinated response to flood defence emerges and can be programmed into the final development proposals. The Agency is concerned that the proposals should not have an adverse effect on the provision of sea defences for the full redevelopment area, but the statement on behalf of SEEDA that there would be no prejudicial effects is accepted by your officers, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

The Agency is concerned that there has been no assessment of the effects of SEEDA’s subsequent phases of development, and suggests that the baseline for assessing those effects on morphology should be the present situation, before Venture Quays is constructed. This suggestion is entirely reasonable, and SEEDA will be advised accordingly. It is not considered appropriate to impose a condition to that effect upon any planning consent.

The Agency raises an argument on the cumulative effects of development on the morphology of the river and on flood risk similar to arguments made by themselves and English Nature in respect of losses of habitat. Officers support the Agency’s concern over such matters, and its recommendation that a strategy should be prepared to manage the impact of such development. However, we do not consider that the preparation of such a strategy is a necessity for the permission of this application.

Noise levels during construction

The site is situated in an industrial area and therefore it is considered unreasonable to stipulate conditions limiting noise generation during operations, particularly as no new exceptionally noisy processes would be utilised. Should future complaints about the noise from the operations arise, existing statutory legislation (Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990) would allow a noise abatement notice to be served.

It is the generation of noise during construction which could potentially prove problematic, particular as the many of the works need to be undertaken at low tide. Therefore, it is considered to be onerous and unreasonable for construction works to be subject to a condition restricting times of work: this is likely to cause a significant slip in the construction programme. The principal receptors of noise generated would be houses at Old Road, Albany Road, Haresfield Road and Dover Road.

The subject of noise generation has thus been discussed by the council’s Environmental Health staff and advisors from Halcrow. They consider that, while there is evidence to suggest night time levels from construction should not exceed 45dB(A) Lmax at the façade of residential properties, such a tight limit would be difficult to achieve in practice.

British Standard 8233 recommends that peak night-time noise levels within bedrooms should not exceed 45dB(A) Lmax to avoid sleep disturbance. Similarly, the standard recommends that a continuous noise level of 35dB(A) Leq is considered ‘reasonable’ for bedrooms at night.

Therefore, it is suggested by Halcrow that maximum night-time noise levels, measured 3.5m from the at the point of reception, of 55dB(A) Lmax and 45dB(A) Leq would be reasonable, on the assumption that it would represent an internal noise level of 45dB(A) Lmax and 35dB(A) Leq when bedroom windows are open.

Accordingly, a “capping” condition to that effect is proposed at this site, and noise levels will be monitored during construction works, especially at night, to ensure it is not exceeded.

Although it is recognised that piling works would cause vibration, our advisors consider that effects on properties more than some 40-50m away from the source are unlikely to cause complaint.

English Nature also expressed some concern that piling works would have an impact on fish populations, because of vibration. The Medina does not, however, have a very important fish population. Also, the works are proposed to take place during autumn and early winter, when spawning does not occur, so the effect would not be significant if the piling works were to progress during that period. The applicant is requested to advise the Council if the piling programme were to extend into early spring, when fish spawning could be affected by vibration from piling.

The means of piling can alter the degree of vibration produced. A method known as vibropiling is known to be less disruptive than typical percussive piling. Details of the method of piling have been sought from the applicant, but not yet provided. Therefore, it is recommended that a condition is attached to any consent to require a method statement for piling to be submitted to and approved by the Council prior to development commencing.

7. Conclusion and justification for recommendation

7.1 The principal process to follow in drawing up a recommendation for determining this application was to balance the need for the development against the environmental consequences, both of construction and operation of the facilities. The argument for need has been highlighted by Vestas, as tenants of SEEDA. It has presented a strong case to utilise this important waterside location, especially as alternative sites are not readily available. Retention of Vestas’ activities on the Island is particularly important because of the implications on maintaining a vibrant economy. It is a cause for concern that the future of Vestas, not only at this site, but on the Island, after its lease expires in five years’ time, remains uncertain.

7.2 Issues in relation to appearance, archaeology, impact on navigation, access to the waterfront, and noise and vibration during construction have been clarified to the officers’ satisfaction during the negotiation process and through the submission of additional information, and through the proposed imposition of conditions.

7.3 Potentially more significant have been the inter-connected factors of potential effect on nature conservation, on flooding and on coastal processes. While the Environment Agency considers that the direct effects of this proposed development on the inter-tidal and sub-tidal habitat would be significant, it would be difficult to substantiate such an allegation.

7.4 However, the long-term effects on the coastal and estuarine system of the Medina and north coast of the Island arising from the many developments at the river-mouth remain unknown and give rise for concern. In addition to those developments proposed by SEEDA, there are many waterside proposals on both banks of the estuary which could potentially cause further loss of habitat of international importance, both directly and indirectly, and it is particularly the combination of developments which led to the Appropriate Assessment legislation and which has guided English Nature’s reasoned concern for this area. Thus, a full study of potential impacts will be required prior to the submission of the outline application for the regeneration area as a whole, so that a strategy governing development in and adjacent to the estuary can be developed in a more comprehensive manner.

8. Recommendation

It is recommended that full planning consent is granted, subject to the following conditions:

Conditions/Reasons:

1	A10	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	B12	No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design and intensity of lighting at the application site, both during construction and operation. The intensity of illumination shall not exceed 1600 candela per m² and lanterns should be shrouded to prevent undue light pollution. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policies D6 (Advertisements in Defined Settlements) and D14 (Light Spillage) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	S03	No development shall take place until details of the materials and finishes to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	M33	No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the use hereby permitted is commenced in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Q40	The level of noise emitted from the site during the construction phase as measured 3.5m from the worst affected facade of the nearest noise sensitive receiver to the site shall not exceed: 70dB LAeq 1-hour between 0700 and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays; 45dB LAeq 5-min and 55dB LAmax at any other time]. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with policy P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	UN1	No development shall take place until the applicant or their agents has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological watching brief recording in accordance with a written scheme of investigatiion which has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To ensure that good practice is applied in the event of a feature of potential archaeological interest is discovered during construction operations.
7	UN2	No development shall take place until the applicant or their agents has secured the implementation of a programme of historic structure recording in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To ensure appropriate examination and recording of the form, status and condition of the wall lying under the present apron, during the period after that has been demolished and before construction of the new apron commences, so advantage can be taken of temporary high light levels.
8	UN3	To facilitate monitoring of the on-site archaeological works, notification of the start date and appointed archaeological contractor should be given in writing to the address below not less than 14 days before the commencement of works: The County Archaeologist County Archaeological Centre 61 Clatterford Road Carisbrooke Newport Isle of Wight PO30 1NZ Reason: To facilitate sound and constructive continuing dialogue between the applicant and the Council Archaeological Service.
9	UN3	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority details of methods of piling to be used, including hours of operation. Thereafter, development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed method and hours of operation. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Strategic Policy S10 (Designated and Defined Areas) and Policies C1 (Standards of Design), C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) and C9 (Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

9.

Reference Number: P/00854/05 - TCP/11878/E Parish/Name: Shanklin - Ward/Name: Shanklin South Registration Date: 03/05/2005 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr D Long Tel: (01983) 823854 Applicant: Priory School Continued use of dwelling as private school; vehicular access and parking Alverstone House, 32, Luccombe Road, Shanklin, PO376RR

This application is recommended for refusal and enforcement action.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a contentious application on a site with a background of public concern, consideration of which was deferred from the 15 June 2005 meeting.

1. Details of application

1.1 This is a full application.

1.2 The proposal is for the continued use of a former dwelling as a private school, including a new vehicular access and parking facility.

1.3 Although the majority of the details noted within the Committee Report of 15 June 2005 has not changed, the access arrangements from the highway have been altered. The existing access is proposed to be widened to accommodate two-way traffic by removing a number of trees with a turning circle created in the curtilage of the site. A school travel plan has been submitted and a land levels survey undertaken.

2. Location and site characteristics

2.1 Please refer to the Committee Report of 15 June 2005. The location and site characteristics are detailed within that Report, with no change whatsoever.

3. Relevant history

3.1 TCP/11878/D, continued use from dwelling to private school; vehicular access and parking. Application refused, 18 April 2005 for the reason detailed within the previous Committee Report.

3.2 P/00854/05. Continued use from dwelling to private school; vehicular access and parking. Application went before the Development Control Committee on 15 June 2005. Application deferred for the following reasons:

· Clarification on impact on protected trees.

· Further information on the School Travel Plan.

· A land levels survey.

4. Development Plan policy

4.1 The policies contained within sections 4.1 to 4.3 of the Committee Report of 15 June 2005 remain as existing, still being relevant to the determination of this application.

5. Consultee and third party comments

5.1 Internal consultees

· Highways recommend refusal upon the revised application for the following reasons:

i. The development would generate a significant increase in vehicular traffic entering and leaving the public highway.

ii. The access is unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of unacceptable visibility.

· The School Travel Plan Adviser (Highways) advises that the revised School Travel Plan meets the criteria set by the Department for Transport/Department of Education and Skills (DfT/DfES) and the “travelling to school” action plan. The set of criteria assesses all schools undertaking a School Travel Plan, being a requirement by the DfT/DfES.

· The Countryside Manager recommends approval. The use of the singular access to the school is more appropriate than the original plans.

5.2 Third party

The application has attracted 7 letters of objection, that have not raised any additional points to those summarised in the Committee Report of 15 June 2005.

The application has attracted an additional petition of 329 signatures of support, not addressing any additional points to those outlined within the Committee Report of 15 June 2005.

5.3 No other consultees mentioned within the previous Committee Report raised any additional points.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main issues relating to this application are:

· the principle of the change of use from a dwelling to a private school.

· highway considerations concerning access, visibility and generation of traffic onto public highway, and School Travel Plan.

· the removal of protected trees in the widening of the existing access to Alverstone House.

6.2 As noted within the Committee Report of 15 June, the Local Planning Authority accept the principle of the change of use from a dwelling to a private school.

6.3 Following completion of the levels survey it was clearly demonstrated that the proposed new access would not have been feasible, as your officers indicated at the time. The fall was around 3m and a suitable ramp and parking area could not realistically be created. The applicants have therefore dropped this proposal in favour of a modification to the existing access. This will consist of a turning head combined with an enlarged parking area plus a partially separated dedicated exit route but using the existing access point. However, the existing gates appear to be proposed to be retained and given their width and proximity to the back edge of the footway it is unlikely that a two way vehicular (not to mention a safe pedestrian) flow could be achieved. The revised access arrangements, albeit still not perfect or even acceptable, do at least allow retention of virtually all the trees on the Luccombe Road frontage, as previously sought by your officers, to the overall benefit of the general environmental character of the area.

6.4 However this revised access arrangement does not overcome the inadequate visibility this site possesses and the increased traffic movements to and from the site. The Highways Consultant for the applicant has suggested that the guidance used by the Council’s Highways Officer should not use strict parameters, allowing a certain amount of leeway to judge the correct visibility splay for this use. “Places, Streets and Movements” published by Central Government is nationally recognised standard guidance for residential development, although the standards are required for other uses. The Council's Highways Officer suggests that it is not fair to expect that a visibility splay is designed for each separate development and the guidance takes into account many variables including adverse weather conditions, road alignment, driving skill, surface grip and types of highway user. All these account to gain the correct visibility splay for a specific type of use. The agent’s consultants suggest that “the guidance given here needs to be assessed in the circumstances of each case. Sight lines should never be reduced to a level where danger is likely to be caused”. Your officers remain of the opinion that by lowering the visibility splay at this access to a level below that recommended by the Highways Engineer is to a reduced standard where likely danger will occur.

6.5 Members must note that this land use is extremely sensitive, and lowering the splay requirement would not be appropriate in this circumstance. The applicant wishes to reduce the visibility beyond the recognised standards which would be inappropriate for any use, especially a school.

6.6 The Highways Engineer suggests that pedestrians, cyclists, private cars, deliveries, school buses and residential traffic will have to co-exist within the highway at this location, and as such good visibility and inter-visibility is essential to allow the safe free flow of all traffic types. The agent’s highway consultants suggest that “delay to passing traffic is not really an issue”, but surely by acknowledging that delay to passing traffic is likely to occur if the splay is lowered, are they not inferring that “danger is likely to be caused”? It is also recognised that the speed survey was undertaken in February 2005, when the school was not in operation and would not have a bearing on the flows of traffic along Luccombe Road, where it was noted back in February that there are only 350 movements per day. Once the school had opened the trip rate along that road would have increased, due to the level of staff, pupils and associated trips. The agent’s highways consultant’s assertion that “the overall level of traffic here is very low” is therefore somewhat misleading.

6.7 The Council's School Travel Plan adviser has indicated that the School Travel Plan is in accordance with the guidance laid out by the DfT and DfES and has been signed off accordingly. It is noted that this is a laudable initiative that can help reduce traffic numbers in and around schools. But it does justify an inadequate access in terms of visibility in and out of the school. The Plan is a well-intentioned scheme that clearly is a sound investment in the health of pupils and a useful attempt to bring down the trip rates associated with the school run, but it still remains an essentially theoretical exercise reliant on wish fulfilment. Neither is it a justification to allow a development of this nature to be served off an access that is inadequate in any way. Members must note that a School Travel Plan will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to enforce as it relies on the school itself to regulate and encourage parents to adhere to the outline of the Plan. Members are invited to consider the following data from the Travel Plan. Currently around 60% of the 110 pupils come to school by car or taxi (a few car share) but when asked 62% said they would like to travel by bicycle. Given the location of the site on a narrow road up a steep hill and significant clusters of pupils living in the Sandown, Lake and Ryde areas, Members might ask whether this declared preference for cycling is actually achievable. Added to this is that the number who walk or come by bus is currently 40% (only 1% currently cycle) but their choice would be to reduce this number to about 20%. This may be a reflection of the inadequacy and perceived lack of safety on the current footway network.

6.8 Although annual inspections are carried out by the school, if it is failing in any area the Local Planning Authority cannot force the school to change their vehicular trip rate or mode of travel which, because of its Islandwide catchment area, naturally has a far greater proportion of carborne pupils than might be expected at a local neighbourhood school. It also relies on education of parents and children to act responsibly, and constant reinforcement of that message to maintain the ethos of the Plan. As such, if Members were minded to approve this application the Local Planning Authority would have no effective enforcement role or sanction within the implementation and regulation of this Travel Plan. This could potentially increase the vehicular movements within the area, increasing the danger of highway users on Luccombe Road.

6.9 The Countryside Service has no objection to the application, as the reasons outlined within the Committee Report of 15 June 2005 have been addressed to their satisfaction. By omitting the secondary access on the proposal, the protected trees along that frontage have been retained, keeping the integrity of the public visual amenity along Luccombe Road. It is noted that although a number of trees will be lost within the widening of the existing access to the school, the majority of these trees are set back within the site, not being highly visible from the public domain, or of a standard that is of little significance and can be replaced via a planning condition.

7. Conclusion and justification for recommendation

7.1 Although the principle of change of use is accepted, this is subject to consultee responses and their professional judgement on how the operation will affect the amenities of the area.

7.2 Since the deferral of the application by Committee on 15 June 2005 the agent has supplied a School Travel Plan sufficient to meet the requirements of the Department of Education and Skills and the Department for Transport. The School Travel Plan adviser therefore has no objection. Nevertheless it still remains an untried and untested proposal and hence is currently of a theoretical nature only.

7.3 The Countryside Service no longer objects to the application as the majority of protected trees within the area will be retained in the best possible way, and can be reinforced by a planning condition. Although the trees to be lost within the widening of the new access are protected, i.e. are set to the rear of the site forming little public visual amenity or are of a standard not suitable for protection.

7.4 Although a number of reasons for refusal within the last Committee Report have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, this does not outweigh the extreme importance of highway considerations within this application. Although the single access does alleviate some of the previous reasons for refusal in its current form it will not function any more efficiently or effectively than the current access and furthermore it still has inadequate visibility, creating adverse impacts to highway users. This is a sensitive use in a sensitive location and Members should be minded to refuse this application on this sole reason. Although the School Travel Plan is an encouraging asset to a school, this should not be a justification for allowing a development to be served off an inadequate access of any sort. Members must also note that the School Travel Plan is not enforceable and relies on the school itself to regulate and maintain the details outlined within that Plan. The Local Planning Authority will have no control, possibly increasing traffic movements in the area to the detriment of highway safety.

8. Recommendation

This application is recommended for refusal.

Should Members be minded to refuse the application the Local Planning Authority suggests that an enforcement notice is issued requiring the property revert back to an independent dwelling and that the date of compliance should be no later than 31 December 2005.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The proposed development would generate a significant increase in vehicular traffic entering and leaving the public highway to the detriment of highway safety and would add unduly to the hazards of highway users and would therefore be contrary to policies TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
2	The access is unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of unacceptable design and visibility and would therefore be contrary to Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

10.

Reference Number: P/01028/05 - TCP/03605/U Parish/Name: Seaview - Ward/Name: Seaview & Nettlestone Registration Date: 26/05/2005 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr P Stack Tel: (01983) 823575 Applicant: Seaview Hotel & Restaurant Demolition of public toilets; detached building to form additional hotel accommodation to include seven additional bedrooms and associated facilities; alterations to vehicular access Seaview Hotel & Restaurant, High Street, Seaview, Isle Of Wight, PO345EX

This application is recommended for conditional planning permission.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application TCP/3605/U involves Council owned land and therefore falls to be determined by the Development Control Subcommittee.

1. Details of application

1.1 This is a full application involving removal of the two detached single storey flat roofed public toilet blocks which are located on the eastern side of Rope Walk approximately some 50 metres north of junction with West Street and their replacement with a hotel annexe. Existing rendered buildings straddle rear service road to hotel which provides access to parking area and also allows for pedestrian access to rear of premises.

1.2 Property is owned by Council on which appropriate notice has been served and application seeks to demolish existing buildings and replace with new build comprising two/three storey building which whilst maintaining roadway provides cantilevered accommodation over and alongside service road. New building would have footprint of approximately 10.25 metres depth by 14 metres width with average height to eaves of 5.9 metres above ground level and ridge height some 8.5 metres above ground level. These levels reflect revised plans subsequently received showing drop of approximately half a metre from original submission.

1.3 New build would provide for seven bedrooms to be used as additional hotel accommodation with building having benefit of internal stairway and lift. Ground floor also includes store building, and centrally located refuse store and small staff changing room. Access to first and second floor accommodation will be gained via doorway located in Rope Walk elevation.

1.4 In terms of design the proposal seeks to provide simple double gabled featured elevation onto front walk with slight set back to central cantilevered section and provision of Dormer and Velux windows within roof slop. Apart from two small high level windows at ground floor level there are no side facing window openings proposed.

1.5 Concerning external finish, details show building to comprise brick ground floor finish with rendered walls over underneath slate roof. In terms of parking, space for 11 vehicles is shown within central courtyard which retains existing provision.

1.6 In connection with development, applicant advises the Council have entered into contract with owners of hotel for long lease of site of public toilets which subject to planning approval being granted such toilet facilities being reprovided within main hotel building. Contract requires facilities to be maintained by hotel and be open to public between hours of 0700 and 1900 hours daily except for the period from 22nd to 28th December inclusive. Agent indicates that in practice opening hours will be longer than this and toilets will be clearly marked and will provide modern, clean and attractive facilities to much higher standard than currently exists.

2. Location and site characteristics

2.1 Hotel premises has main frontage elevation onto High Street but does have return frontage onto Rope Walk which provides service/visitor access to rear parking area between existing toilet blocks.

2.2 Hotel premises encompasses adjoining property known as Bank Place, which is itself Grade II Listed building, and entire application site is located within Seaview Conservation Area and development envelope.

2.3 In terms of general character of development, fronting Rope Walk buildings are a mix of styles and size, and whilst generally speaking is of two storey height there is example of three storey development within locality. Several buildings are located close to highway edge and do not benefit from any off-street parking provision.

3. Relevant history

See TCP/3605V.

4. Development Plan policy

4.1 National Policy is covered in PPG4 – Industrial and Commercial Development in Small Firms, PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment, and PPG21 – Tourism.

4.2 The following UDP policies are considered relevant in this case.

S1 - New development will be concentrated within the existing urban areas.

S2 - Development will be encouraged on land which has been previously developed (brownfield sites).

S5 - Proposals for development which on balance will be for the overall benefit of the Island by enhancing the economic, social or environmental position will be approved provided any adverse impacts can be ameliorated.

G1 - Development envelopes for towns and villages.

G4 - General locational criteria.

G10 - Potential conflict between proposed developments and existing surrounding uses.

D1 - Standards of design.

D2 - Standards for development within the site.

B6 - Protection and enhancement of Conservation Areas.

B7 - Demolition of non-Listed buildings in Conservation Areas.

T1 - Promotion of tourism and extension of season.

T3 - Criteria for developments for holiday accommodation.

TR7 - Highway considerations for new developments.

TR16 - Parking policies and guidelines.

5. Consultee and third party comments

5.1 Internal consultees

· Conservation and Design Team Leader comments that in context the properties on either side are two storey, with properties opposite single or two storey in mass. Hotel buildings within the yard are one, one and a half and two storey high and lane fronting site is narrow with no footway. The only three storey buildings are some distance away and address a wider part of the lane, they do not read with this site. Roofs in the row are distinctive in that they are hipped with ridges running from front to back and valleys between the properties. Opposite are rear gardens, parking, a garage and a sub-station, and there is a distinct building line on either side of the site, and in the lane as a whole buildings are set close to the back of kerb line.

In respect of proposal, which has been revised following pre-application negotiations, she advises that applicant’s agents have taken on board pre-application advice and have reduced scheme to two storeys plus attics. The eaves are the same height as the property adjoining on one side and a little higher than those on the other, in line with a slight fall in level. Given the variety of heights and styles in this area the scheme is not out of scale and is quite simple in its design. Care will be needed in detailing and the choice of materials, and it may be helpful to be specific about relative slab and eaves heights in numerical terms to ensure that the relativity is measurable. In her opinion the proposal is certainly no worse than the existing situation here, and may well be held to be an enhancement in terms of the South Lakeland case.

· Environmental Health Officer has no adverse comments to make in respect of this application.

· Highway Engineer comments that revised plan has been received showing existing and proposed levels of visibility available. The plan confirms that the proposed building does not impinge on existing visibility splays and can therefore be supported.

In terms of parking provision and UDP policy, Highway Engineer points out that document states that hotel use requires a minimum of one parking space per residential staff. Application does not detail how many residential staff there are on site and as such it is difficult to calculate whether the level of parking shown is appropriate to serve proposal. It should also be borne in mind that existing 11 parking spaces also serve hotel rooms, restaurant and staff. UDP states that an A3 (restaurant) use should have a minimum parking provision of one lorry space. Even whilst bearing in mind that Seaview falls within Zone 3 of parking guidelines which are flexible in requiring between 0 and 75% of normal requirements he does not feel that he could raise a sustainable objection to application on grounds of inadequate parking. This is due in part to very low minimum parking requirements contained within UDP and it is likely that hotel and restaurant attracts a large proportion of its trade and staff from the local area. As such he does not require any further information relating to staffing levels in order to calculate parking provisions.

5.2 External consultees

None.

5.3 Parish Council comments

Parish Council objects to application on the following grounds:

· Development constitutes urban development in a rural location representing material over intensification of site.

· Area has been Conservation Area since 1974 and although there is a three storey building in the street this was constructed prior to that date.

· Size of the proposed development will have detrimental effect on character and appearance of area when compared with existing building.

· Amenities of adjoining properties will be adversely affected, i.e. overlooking causing a loss of privacy as Rope Walk is a narrow thoroughfare.

· It is believed that there will be a considerable increase in noise and unpleasant smells because of the growth and number of deliveries and collections.

· Whilst the proposal allows for increase of seven bedrooms, there are no plans for additional car parking in an already congested village.

5.4 Neighbours

39 letters of objection have been received from local residents and businesses. Points of objection are summarized as follows.

· Development is out of keeping with character and scale of Conservation Area, dwarfing surrounding properties.

· Inappropriate building form in Conservation Area.

· Increase in access width will allow larger vehicles to service to rear of hotel.

· Existing problems concerning deliveries to rear resulting in blockage of Rope Walk.

· Existing parking problem which will be exacerbated by increased accommodation and no resultant increase in parking provision on site.

· Increased problems with deliveries to front of site and impact on highway circulation.

· Choice of materials is significantly different from that used in locality.

· Loss of amenity by reason of overlooking.

· Proposal will result in loss of privacy and light to surrounding residential occupiers.

· Health risk and increase in level of noise and smell, and general concern concerning increase in pollution levels.

· Potential conflict in highway safety terms with pedestrians using Rope Walk.

· Loss of toilet facilities and lack of similar replacement facility and availability within hotel.

One writer expresses no objection in principle to removal of toilets, however expresses concern concerning the detail of proposed replacement building.

Reference is also made to views expressed in Parish Plan, however the contents of such a document should be given limited weight given that such views appear to be contrary to tourism policies contained within the adopted UDP which is of primary importance in consideration of this proposal.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main planning considerations relating to this application are:

· Specific Development Plan policies contained within the UDP.

· Appropriateness of development in terms of scale, mass, design and detailing and its impact on the locality.

· Impact on surrounding residential occupiers.

· Implications in terms of highway and parking issues.

6.2 Development planning system obliges Planning Authorities to determine application in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Of principal importance therefore are the relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan which have been referred to in section 4.2.

6.3 Proposal in seeking to increase accommodation on established site is supported by tourist related policies, provided the impacts of such a proposal both on the locality in terms of Conservation Area status and immediately adjoining residential occupiers are not unduly impacted upon, these issues being covered by the relevant Plan policies for design standards and protection of conservation areas.

6.4 In seeking to increase accommodation proposal complies with Strategic and Local policies which seek to concentrate development within existing urban areas on brownfield sites whilst enhancing tourist economy. Therefore in terms of land use the proposal is supported in the main by Unitary Development Plan policies.

6.5 Turning to more site specific issues, consideration should be given to potential impact of development on character of Conservation Area and Members will be aware of the requirements of section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) act 1990 which requires Authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

6.6 As Conservation and Design Team Leader points out, revised scheme has reduced eaves level of proposal, resulting in same or similar levels with immediately adjoining residential properties. Given the variety of heights and styles in the area the scheme is not considered out of scale and quite simple in design terms. Lack of similar two/three storey developments immediately adjoining site is not a reason per se to refuse scheme. Members will have to consider whether scale, design and detailing of scheme proposed is inappropriate for its location and relationship with adjoining properties. Clearly proposal, in removing existing toilet blocks, represents opportunity to improve street scene. Simplistic design of proposal is not considered to present any serious constraint to development of this site and external treatment finish is not inappropriate and has been used on other development in locality.

6.7 In terms of direct impact on immediately adjoining residential occupiers, it is relevant to note the changes to the built form and compare existing with proposed.

6.8 The new building would be set away from side boundaries by a minimum of 0.15 metres whereas existing toilet block is built hard to existing boundaries. In terms of footprints, the front section of building projects an additional 2 metres towards Rope Walk frontage with an additional projection of approximately 1 metre from the line of the existing rear wall to the toilet blocks. The driveway between the blocks is shown to be increased from an existing 2.7 metres to 3.2 metres.

6.9 In terms of increase in height, top of parapet to existing toilet block is approximately 4.5 metres above ground level, with eaves to proposed building increasing this height by an additional 1.5 metres. This would result in new eaves level approximately 1 metre above adjoining property to north and just below eaves level of property to immediate south. Given distances to existing property and relatively limited number of window openings in side elevation and orientation it is considered that proposal will not cause undue loss of light to either property, which themselves have benefit of rear additions which project beyond line of the rear main wall of the proposed building. Furthermore, given that proposed building is separated from existing development by passageways and footways, this would help further minimise the impact and ensure no undue overdominance of those properties is experienced.

6.10 With regards potential overlooking from rearward facing first and second floor windows, proposed building would have total of six windows at first floor level of which two are to en suite bathroom facilities. Remaining four windows serve two bedrooms whilst second floor windows comprise two single bedroom windows in gable end features. Given use to which rooms will be put and fact that rooms will principally look over communal parking area and rear of hotel, it is not considered that level of overlooking would be sufficiently serious to warrant refusal in this instance. This opinion is reinforced by the fact that immediately adjoining land to north is used as storage yard and therefore impacts on residential amenity are reduced further.

6.11 Clearly the proposal involves an intensification of use resulting in an increase in seven bedrooms from the current operation which comprises a total of sixteen bedrooms (plus 44%). Whilst this represents significant intensification Members have to balance the need for this type of facility on Island against potential impacts of increased usage and likely disturbance associated with such level of usage. Commercial considerations are not a planning issue which can be taken into account when determination of this application, which must be assessed purely in land use terms. Having considered the matter carefully your officers feel it difficult to substantiate a case that such a type and level of usage would adversely impact on residential amenity, particularly given fact that in considering fallback position it is considered unlikely that infill development for residential purposes would be considered unreasonable, and as such could have greater impact on locality than current proposal.

6.12 Given thrust of adopted parking policy and advice contained within PPG13 (Transport) which seeks to reduce car usage, proposal complies with zonal parking requirements. With on street parking restrictions and limited parking available within hotel premises, car usage to a certain extent is self-limiting and it should be noted hotel premises is located approximately 200 metres from nearest public car park. With regards to deliveries, agent states that it is unlikely that there would be increased numbers of delivery visits, with most deliveries occurring Monday to Friday between 0730 and 1430, with occasional deliveries on Saturday. Most deliveries are to front of hotel with only beverages being delivered via Rope Walk. Most deliveries it is stated are completed within 10 minutes. Given these comments it will be difficult to conclude categorically that proposal will increase delivery movements and difficulties above level currently experienced.

6.13 Concerning replacement toilet facilities, agent advises that whilst contract with Council requires toilets to be open for a minimum period of 0730 to 1900 hours, toilets will be available at times when the hotel is open, usually from 0700 to 2330 or later. Members will appreciate that any contract entered into between the hotel operator and the Council in respect of the location of replacement toilet facilities is not directly relevant to the consideration of this application and the implementation and commitment to any such agreement, whilst clearly dependent on the outcome of the planning application, is a matter for the Property Services section of this Authority.

7. Conclusion and justification for recommendation

7.1 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this Report I am satisfied that on balance the development of this site to provide additional hotel accommodation, impact on Conservation Area in general and adjoining residential occupiers in particular is not considered sufficient to sustain a recommendation to refuse permission and application is recommended accordingly.

8. Recommendation

To grant conditional permission.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	No development shall take place until details of the materials and finishes to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed. Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The accommodation hereby permitted shall only be used as guest accommodation annexe in connection with the operation of Seaview Hotel and for no other use without the express written prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residential property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	The northern eaves level of the building hereby approved shall not exceed the existing eaves level of the adjacent residential property 'Spencer' by more than 0.9m without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and amenities of adjacent residential occupiers and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The storeroom at ground floor level shall only be used for storage purposes and no other use without the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and amenities of adjacent residential occupiers and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	The building hereby approved as hotel accommodation shall not be sold off separately or sub-let from the main hotel complex without the written prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and amenities of adjacent residential occupiers and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Each unit of accommodation shall provide no more than two bed spaces unless the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained for any such variation. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and amenities of adjacent residential occupiers and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	The proposed hotel annexe building shall not interrupt the existing visibility splays as shown on the approved plan (ref. no. 36-2003.B). 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.
10	No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with drawing no. 36-2003.2 for four bicycles to be parked. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

11.

Reference Number: P/01122/05 - TCP/03605/V Parish/Name: Seaview - Ward/Name: Seaview & Nettlestone Registration Date: 09/06/2005 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr P Stack Tel: (01983) 823575 Applicant: Seaview Hotel & Restaurant Continued use of buildings for guest & staff accommodation & associated office space (The Studio, Methuen Suite & Jasmine Cottage) Seaview Hotel & Restaurant, High Street, Seaview, Isle Of Wight, PO345EX

This application is recommended for conditional planning permission.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Given that application TCP/3605/U (previous item) is also being determined in respect of this site it is considered appropriate for Members to consider both submissions at the same Committee meeting, but on the understanding that each will be determined on its merits in accordance with adopted policies.

1. Details of Application

1.1 This is a full application seeking retrospective consent for the continued use of specific parts of the existing premises as office space and accommodation for hotel staff within Jasmine Cottage to use the Methuen Suite for guest accommodation and a studio flat previously built as manager’s flat as hotel accommodation.

1.2 With regards the Methuen Suite and Jasmine Cottage, these premises form the rear part to Bank House. The two storey element which comprises Jasmine Cottage is used as office accommodation at ground floor level with conservatory used specifically as manager's office, stairway leading to first floor accommodation provides bathroom and two further rooms which are used either as additional office floor space or provide sleeping accommodation for staff. Jasmine Cottage comprises single storey element which adjoins southern boundary of site and provides bed-sit unit used as guest accommodation. Whilst there are linking doorways to main property, Bank House, it is understood that these units operate independently with main access gained through west facing French windows.

1.3 To the rear of hotel is a studio flat which was originally built as manager's accommodation. It is understood this has been used for some considerable period of time as ancillary hotel accommodation. This building adjoins northern boundary of application site.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 Premises are located on western side of High Street with return frontage and service yard accessed via accessed via Rope Walk. The application site includes Bank House a Grade II Listed building which building which adjoins main hotel premises and also fronts High Street.

2.2 Methuen Suite and Jasmine Cottage form rear section of Bank House located close to southern boundary of application site. Whilst Methuen Suite utilises ground floor accommodation Jasmine Cottage occupies two floors of accommodation.

2.3 The suite is located to the rear of the main hotel premises and adjoins the northern boundary of the application site.

3. Relevant History

3.1 Various minor alterations and additions approved.

3.2 More recently consent granted in 1993 for two storey extension to provide manager’s accommodation, replacement beer store and new external staircase. This consent restricted the manager’s accommodation to be retained with the hotel as staff accommodation and not be sold off separately or sub let from main building.

3.3 In 1999 consent granted for change of use of dwelling to hotel accommodation. This involved Myrtle Cottage which adjoins northern boundary of site.

3.4 More recently planning consent granted for demolition of side wall of kitchen extension to enlarge kitchen and provision of glazed link. Development approved in October 2004. Listed Building Consent obtained at this time.

3.5 Three applications submitted in November 2004 seeking Lawful Development Certificates for accommodation within hotel premises. These applications were withdrawn at the request of the agent.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Policies covered in PPG4 – Industrial and Commercial Development and small firms, PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment and PPG21 – Tourism.

4.2 Site lies within Development Envelope Boundary and Seaview Conservation Area with Bank House comprising Grade II Listed Building. The following policies are considered relevant to consideration of this application:

G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns & Villages

G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 – Standards of Design

B3 – Change of Use of Listed Buildings

B6 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

T1 – Promotion of Tourism and Extension of the Season

T2 – Tourist Related Development

T3 – Criteria for Development of Holiday Accommodation

TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· Highway Engineer does not wish to comment on application.

· Environmental Health Officer has been consulted and confirmed that no complaints concerning noise have been received.

5.2 External Consultees

· None

5.3 Parish Council comments

19 letters have been received from local residents objecting the proposal on the following grounds:

· Undesirable impacts on and use of listed building

· Potential problems from use of rear garden by occupiers/staff of accommodation concerned

· Contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policy

· Increased problems relating to noise, pollution and traffic

· Lack of increase in off street parking

· Inappropriate development for conservation area.

· Resultant lack of privacy

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main issues relating to this application are:

· Planning policy

· Potential impact on Conservation Area and Listed Building.

· Any potential impacts on residential occupiers.

· Highways.

6.2 In terms of policy UDP generally supports and promotes tourist development provided such proposals minimise any detrimental or adverse impacts (Policy T1). Policy T3 also supports development of holiday accommodation where they are associated with an existing permanent accommodation site and that development will be retained for holiday use only. Additionally Policy T2 supports other tourist related developments other than accommodation which would include provision of infrastructure, i.e. staff and office accommodation. Similarly Policy T8 supports in principle ancillary development associated with tourism uses.

6.3 In terms of policy implications in respect of Conservation Area and Listed Building, Policy B6 and Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires applications to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Conservation Areas whilst Policy B3 supports applications for change of use of Listed Buildings provided that alternative will not detrimentally affect long term of structure of building and will preserve any historic or special architectural features it possesses. Advice in PPG15 states that generally best way of securing upkeep of historic buildings and areas is to keep them in active use. For the great majority this means economically viable uses, and new and even continuing uses will often necessitate some degree of adaption. Guidance goes on to state that whilst best use will very often be use for which building was originally designed, not all original uses are viable or even necessarily appropriate, nature of uses can change over time so that in some cases the original use may now be less compatible with building than an alternative. PPG15 guidance therefore suggests that provided the fabric interior and setting of the historic building is maintained then appropriate alternative uses are acceptable. Conservation Officer confirms that uses themselves are not harmful to character or setting of Listed Building.

6.4 With regards impacts on residential amenity, whilst retrospective nature of application is disappointing this is not a material consideration as Section 73A of Planning Act does provide formal procedure for Local Planning Authorities to grant planning permission with retrospective effect. I understand that these uses have existed for some time, and in particular the Studio apartment has, it is alleged, been used as guest accommodation for the majority of time since it was approved in 1993. Furthermore the hotel use on this site has existed for a long period of time without any significant complaint or objection.

6.5 Whilst merits of application should be judged as if fresh submission it is relevant to note that no formal complaints have been received by the Environmental Health Division of this Authority in respect of noise levels emanating from the hotel premises. Methuen Suite provides small bedsit unit immediately adjoining southern boundary of site with staff accommodation more centrally sited with doorways and window openings facing into main site. Studio apartment has been used as a single bedroom guest accommodation and is accessed from central courtyard area. It should be noted that proposal only involves additional two units of guest accommodation, with the remainder of accommodation comprising office floor space and occasional overnight staff accommodation. Given the long established nature of hotel premises it is considered that these uses in themselves, given their location and use to which the buildings are put, are unlikely to have detrimental impacts on residential amenity for adjoining occupiers. Consideration should also be given to fallback position as it is likely that any alternative use of this accommodation would be for some form of ancillary accommodation in connection with established hotel premises and would inevitably involve commercial use of some sort. Such alternative use may well involve more intensive use of site, for example by utilising existing office accommodation and occasional staff accommodation as additional guest accommodation, thereby further intensifying use of site.

6.6 In terms of highway implications, Highway Engineer's reluctance to comment is understandable given comments contained in previous paragraph, as any alternative use of buildings would have similar implications in terms of parking provision and application of parking policy within adopted UDP.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 Given established commercial nature of site it is considered that proposal, in seeking to retain two guest units and existing office and staff accommodation facilities, would have no material impacts on general locality in terms of Conservation Area status, is neutral in terms of its impact on the Listed Building and would not unduly harm amenities of surrounding residential occupiers.

8. Recommendation

To grant conditional permission.

Conditions/Reasons:

1

The accommodation hereby approved within Jasmine Cottage shall only be used for hotel administrative purposes and as staff accommodation and for no other use without the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the future commercial activity of the existing hotel premises and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

2

The garden area to the immediate rear (west) of the Methuen Suite and Jasmine Cottage shall not be used as a sitting out area or for any ancillary use in connection with the operation of the hotel without the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the future commercial activity of the existing hotel premises and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

12

Reference Number: P/01036/05 - TCP/10228/V Parish/Name: Ryde - Ward/Name: Ryde St Johns West Registration Date: 27/05/2005 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr A White Tel: (01983) 823550 Applicant: Mr J W Hetherington Demolition of dwelling; erection of eight flats in two blocks and one semi-detached house with parking and alterations to access (revised scheme) Jalna, Appley Rise, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO331LE

This is a Joint Report with P/01037/05 – the application is recommended for conditional permission.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

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

1. Details of application

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

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

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

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

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

2. Location and site characteristics

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

3. Relevant history

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

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

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

4. Development plan policy

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

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

· optimize the potential for site to accommodate development.

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

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

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

4.3 PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) states that special attention must be paid to ensuring preservation and enhancement of the character and appearance of Conservation Areas and states that applicants should be expected to provide written information and/or drawings indicating their understanding of the context of an area.

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

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

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

S10 - Areas of historic value.

G1 - Development envelopes for towns and villages.

G4 - General locational criteria for development.

G5 - Development outside defined settlements.

D1 - Standards of design.

D2 - Standards for development within the site.

B6 - Protection and enhancement of Conservation Areas.

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

H5 - Infill development.

H6 - High density residential developments.

TR7 - Highway considerations for new developments.

TR16 - Parking policies and guidelines.

U11 - Infrastructure and services provision.

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

5. Consultee and third party comment

5.1 Internal consultees

· Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

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

5.2 Neighbours

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

· Inappropriate scale and mass.

· Too high.

· Out of character.

· Overlooking.

· Loss of light.

· Inadequate parking.

· High flood risk area.

· Inadequate drainage.

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

6. Evaluation

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

· Density

· Scale, mass and height

· Design

· Access and parking

· Drainage.

6.2 Members will be aware that local and national policies in respect of housing encourage the efficient use of land, with PPG3 advocating densities of between 30 to 50 dwellings to the hectare, and higher where good links to public transport can be achieved. Such advice is echoed in Policy H6 of the UDP. It is inevitable that flats result in higher densities, hence the proposed scheme would amount to some 81 dwellings to the hectare. Policy does not rule out densities in excess of 50 dwellings to the hectare, and it is relevant to note that the site does lie within a level walking distance of bus and railway stations as well as cross-Solent ferry terminals. Accordingly, the application site is considered to be a suitable candidate for high density development given accessibility to public transport and its location within a built-up area. However, the main test in respect of any residential development is whether or not the site can accommodate a given number of units without being at the expense of cramped development to the detriment of neighbouring property occupiers or the surrounding area in general. But to refuse this application on the grounds of excessive density alone would be unsustainable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Conclusion and justification for recommendation

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

8. Recommendation

Conditional permission be granted in respect of both applications.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	No development shall take place until samples of the materials and finishes to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	No development shall take place until details of balconies and decorative gable features, including materials, design and colour, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Area) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	No development shall take place until details, including material, dimensions and colour, of all windows and doors have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Area) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	No development shall take place until a detailed scheme, including calculations and capacity studies, have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water disposal. Any such agreed foul and surface water disposal system shall include connection points on the system where adequate capacity exists. Including any reasonable repairs which may be required, or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overload the existing system. No dwelling shall be occupied until such systems have been completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of drainage is provided for the development in accordance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	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); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with drawing number 2614-04-A (Rev 2) for 7 cars to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, the roadside boundary of the site shall be lowered to a maximum of 1 metre in height above existing road level over the whole frontage and shall be maintained thereafter at a height no greater than one metre. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	The lower half of all sash windows serving bedrooms and lounges in the west elevation identified yellow on the approved floor plans shall be fitted with obscure glass with a glass panel which has been rendered obscure as part of its manufacturing process to Pilkington Glass classification 5 (or equivalent of glass supplied by an alternative manufacturer) and shall be retained to this specification as obscure glazed hereafter and shall be fixed shut at all times. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property occupier and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	The two bathroom windows in the western elevation identified by brown on the approved floor plan shall be fitted with obscure glass with a glass panel which has been rendered obscure as part of its manufacturing process to Pilkington Glass classification 5 (or equivalent of glass supplied by alternative manufacturer) and shall be retained to this specification as obscure glazed hereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property occupier and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13	No development shall take place until details of any openings to those windows specified under conditions 11 and 12 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the height of opening sections above respective floor level. Development shall only proceed in accordance with the agreed details and shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property occupier and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
14	No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the dwellings hereby permitted are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

13.

Reference Number: P/01037/05 - CAC/10228/U Parish/Name: Ryde - Ward/Name: Ryde St Johns West Registration Date: 27/05/2005 - Conservation Area Consent Officer: Mr A White Tel: (01983) 823550 Applicant: Mr J W Hetherington Conservation Area Consent for demolition of dwelling in connection with erection of eight flats in two blocks and one semi-detached house with parking and alterations to access (revised scheme) Jalna, Appley Rise, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO331LE

This is a Joint Report with P/01036/05 - the application is recommended for conditional permission.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The works hereby authorised shall be begun not later than 5 years from the date of this consent. Reason: As required by s18 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
2	The works of demolition hereby authorised shall not be commenced until a binding contract for the carrying out of the works of redevelopment of the site has been entered into and planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment for which the contract provides. Reason: In order to protect the special character of the area and to prevent the site remaining vacant for a significant period of time and to comply with policies B1 to B8 (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	The existing dwelling shall be demolished, all resultant debris and material shall be carted away and the site left in a tidy and workmanlike condition within a period of three months from when demolition work first commences. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and to comply with policy B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

14.

Reference Number: P/01060/05 - TCP/26954/A Parish/Name: Calbourne - Ward/Name: Brighstone and Calbourne Registration Date: 14/06/2005 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mrs J Penney Tel: (01983) 823593 Applicant: Mr & Mrs S F Biles Demolition of single storey extension; proposed single/2 storey extension to provide additional living accommodation (revised scheme) Downsview, Lynch Lane, Calbourne, Newport, PO30

The application is recommended for Refusal.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

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

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

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

Chairman Councillor A Taylor subsequently submitted information:

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

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

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

4. Extension required as applicant has large family.

1. Details of application

1.1 This is a full application.

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

2. Location and site characteristics

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

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

3. Relevant history

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

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

4. Development Plan policy

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

4.2 Relevant Unitary Development Plan policy:

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

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

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

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements

C1 - Countryside will be protected from inappropriate development

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

D1 - Standards of Design

H7 - Extension and alteration of existing properties.

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

5. Consultee and third party comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

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

5.2 Town or Parish Council Comments

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

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

5.3 Neighbours

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

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

6. Evaluation

6.1 The main issues relating to this application are:

· Policy

· The scale, mass and design of the proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Conclusion and justification for recommendation

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

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

8. Recommendation

Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

1

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