1.

Reference Number: P/00453/05 - TCP/26900

Parish/Name:  Cowes - Ward/Name: Cowes Castle East

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

Officer:  Mr J Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598

Applicant:  Mr T Smith

 

3 pairs of semi-detached houses, 1 No. detached house & a 4 storey block of 11 flats with parking at lower ground floor level;  formation of vehicular access

site of Mornington, Mornington Road, Cowes, PO318BL

 

PAPER B1

The application is recommended for conditional permission subject the Section 106 Agreement.

 

 

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

 

This is a major application.

 

 

1.1     DETAILS OF APPLICATION

 

1.1    This is a full application seeking permission for a total of 18 units in the form of three pairs of semi detached houses, one detached house (all with on plot parking) and a four storey block of 11 flats.  All are designed in a modern idiom.

 

1.2    Two of the pairs of semi-detached houses plus the detached house are sited on the Queens Road frontage with the detached house being set on the corner of Queens Road and Mornington Road. A further pair of semi detached houses are situated in the south western corner where the site extends to the rear. The block of flats has part of its side elevation facing Mornington Road set immediately to the north of property number 4 Mornington Road.

 

1.3    The semi detached house are three storeys in height finished in gabled end roofs to reflect the roof scape of the adjoining property and continues the existing building lines to the west. The dwellings to be finished in buff/yellow stock brick with this finish being on the front elevation and rear elevation with the side elevations being finished in self coloured acrylic render under a standing seam zinc roof which has a dark grey matt finish. Properties will provide four bedroomed accommodation with its living accommodation being at first floor to take advantage of sea views.

 

1.4    The proposed three storey detached house which again provides four bedroomed accommodation is to be finished in self coloured acrylic render in its entirety under a roof terrace with low parapet walls. Building is also provided with a double attached garage under a flat roof forming a terrace at first floor level. The roof terrace area includes a glazed staircase enclosure providing access to that roof terrace.

 

1.5    The block of flats provides a total of nine two bedroomed units on the ground, first and second floor and a pair of three bedroom units at third floor level. Entrance to the flats is on the south facing elevation. Block is to be finished in a self colour acrylic render with the third floor having a glazed feature on its north facing elevation.

 

1.6    The existing vehicular access from Queens Road is to be stopped up. Vehicular entrance onto Mornington Road, the southern end of the site, is to be enhanced and an additional access to be formed in approximate location of the existing pedestrian access. The road system serving the development will be a one way system with the ingress being the most southerly access point with the egress being the more northerly access in Mornington Road. Proposal provides a parking provision based on one parking space per unit in respect of the flats and the three pairs of semi-detached houses. Eight of the parking spaces serving the flats are within a basement location. With regard to the detached house this provides parking for a maximum of four parking spaces, two within the garage and two situated adjacent the garage.

 

1.7    Application has been accompanied by a full landscaping scheme which indicates a scheduled list of new shrub and hedge planting and includes the felling of virtually all trees on site including three of the four TPO'd trees and the large Horse Chestnut Tree in the north eastern corner of the site. The application has been accompanied by a full arboricultural report itemising the general health of the existing trees on the site likely impact of the development on any of the retained trees and their future maintenance.

 

1.8    Application has been accompanied by a geotechnical report in respect of the ground conditions prepared by a geotechnical engineer who concludes that….”any additional weight provided by the construction of the proposed buildings will be beneficial and therefore there should be a small net gain in stability as a result of the development."

 

1.9    In terms of financial contributions and provision of affordable housing, the site proposal because it exceeds the 15 units threshold will require provision of affordable housing to be addressed. Applicants have in discussion with the Council’s Housing Initiative Officer agreed such a provision should be dealt with through a financial contribution as opposed to on site provision in this case. In this regard £260,000 has been agreed. In terms of other financial contributions, proposal will require education payments, open space payments and transport infrastructure payments.

 

2.       LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

 

2.1     A 0.33 hectare site on the south western corner of Queens Road with Mornington Road and therefore having frontages onto both of those roads. Site falls from south to north towards the sea and accommodates a number of trees and shrubs primarily around its edge with three of these being the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.

 

2.3     The northern boundary onto Queens Road in the form of a low brick wall in poor state of repair. Eastern boundary in the form of intermittent broken fencing and foliage whilst the south and west boundaries are also a mix of hedging and fencing. Abutting to the south is a mixture of large established dwellings and flats which front Cliff Road which runs parallel with Queens Road. Beyond are further substantial dwellings which front Baring Road further to the south all of which reflect the steep sloping topography of this area.

 

2.4     In terms of properties which immediately abut there is a pair of established semi-detached properties abutting the western boundary with the immediate abutting property being number 29 Queens Road. This property has a number of windows facing the site within its east facing elevation. Abutting in part the southern boundary is a two storey detached property, number 4 Mornington Road.

 

          Opposite the site on eastern side of Mornington Road is a substantial area of treed open space which stands slightly elevated above the surrounding roads.

 

2.5     Members will be familiar with the characteristics of the Cowes frontage which consists of a range of predominantly residential properties with Queens Road being set back behind The Green. In terms of the character of the street frontage to the west of the site these are in the form of houses closer to the road and are made up of a mix and varied range of established and modern development. In general the houses occupy the full width of their sites interspersed with access road from serving further established and more modern development set further back up the slope.

 

3.       RELEVANT HISTORY

 

3.1    Although there is no planning history in respect of redevelopment to the site, a report was considered by the Development Control Committee in November 2004 following demolition of the building known as Mornington which stood on the site. That report indicated the following:

 

·              Property Mornington was Listed Grade II in December 2003.

 

·              Following an appeal by the new owner to English Heritage the building was de-listed in June 2004.

 

·              Following that de-listing the local residents who had instigated the listing process requested the Department to reconsider that decision. However that request was unsuccessful with the Department concluding there were no grounds to re-open the case on the basis of the additional information that was submitted.

 

·              In terms of events surrounding the demolition proper notification was received for the demolition under the Building Act.

 

·              An application for prior determination was submitted on 13 October 2004 pursuant to the GPDO 1995. (This type of application assumes that planning permission is not required for the demolition of the building and that the works would therefore be permitted development.)

 

·              A differing view was taken and the applicants were advised that necessary formal planning application was required to demolish Mornington and that the demolition did not constitute permitted development.

 

·              This contention was disputed by legal representatives of the site owners.

 

·              Property was demolished without further warning on the morning of 12 November 2004.

 

·              All this process was prior to the extension of the Conservation Area which was since taken place and encompasses the site.

 

3.2     In view of both the unusual and regrettable circumstances which existed at that time and the dispute between Local Planning Authority and the owners as to whether or not planning permission or prior notification was the correct procedure, there was little if any action which the Council could pursue following the demolition. An enforcement notice requiring the rebuilding of the property would have been unrealistic and unreasonable given the condition of the property at the time of its demolition. It was understood at the time that an application was pending for the re-development of the site which has occurred by the submission of the current application. Members were recommended to note the report and take no further action, a recommendation which was supported by the Committee.

 

4.       DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

 

4.1    National policies covered in PPG3 - Housing March 2000, PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development, PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment, PPG14 - Development on Unacceptable Land, Landslides and Planning.

 

          4.2     PPG3 emphasises the following:

 

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

 

·               Give priority to reusing previously developed land in urban areas taking pressures off green field sites.

 

·               Create more sustainable patterns of development ensuring accessibility to public transport, jobs, education etc.

 

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

 

·               Emphasise the need for good quality designs.

 

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

 

·               More than 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling are likely to reflect Government’s emphasis on sustainable residential development.

 

4.3     PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development, ( this replaces PPG1 – General Policies and Principles) emphasizes the following:

 

·              Good design to ensure attractive usable and durable and adaptable places contributing positively to making places better for people.

 

·              Designs which are inappropriate in their context failing to improve character and quality of an area should not be accepted.

 

·              Good design should:

 

·     Address the connections between people and places by considering the needs of people to access jobs and key services.

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

·     Be integral part of the process for ensuring successful safe and inclusive villages, towns and cities.

·     Optimize the potential of the site to accommodate development

·     Respond to local context and create and enforce local distinctiveness

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

 

          4.4     This document re-emphasises PPG1 policies which should:

 

·       Avoid unnecessary prescription or detail.

 

·       Should concentrate on guiding the overall scale, massing, landscaping, layout and access of the new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and local areas more generally.

 

·       Should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes.

 

·       Should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain developments or forms or styles

 

·       Should take full account of the needs of the disabled.

 

          4.5     PPG15 – emphasises the following in respect of this application

 

·               Importance of environmental stewardship in providing protection for all aspects of the historic environment.

 

·               Objectives of planning process should be to recognize the need for economic growth with the need to protect the natural and historic environment.

 

·               Local Authority should ensure that they can call on sufficient specialist conservation advice to inform their decision making and to assist owners and other members of the public.

 

·               Emphasis on the need for pre-application discussions.

 

·               Need to involve the expertise of English Heritage.

 

·               Applicants should be expected to provide written information and/or drawings indicating their understanding of the context of the area.

 

·               Makes specific reference to Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Building Conservation) Act 1990 which requires special attention needs to be paid to ensuring preservation and enhancement of the character or appearance of s conservation area.

 

          4.6     PPG14 emphasises the following:

 

·               In relevant areas policies should seek to minimise the impact of landslides on development by controlling or restricting development where appropriate.

 

·               Policies should outline the considerations which will be given to landsliding, including the criteria and information requirements which should be used in determining planning applications.

 

·               Where appropriate planning applications should be accompanied by a Slope Stability Report which demonstrates that the site is stable or can be made so, and will not be affected by or trigger landsliding beyond the boundaries of the site.

 

          4.7     Local Plan Policies

 

         Site is within development envelope boundary and is within the recently extended Cowes Conservation Area.

 

                   Strategic Policies S1, S2, S6 and S7 are appropriate.

 

                   Other relevant policies are as follows:

 

                   G1 – Development Envelopes for Town and Villages

                   G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development

                   D1 – Standards of Design

                   D2 – Standards for Development Within the Site

                   D3 – Landscaping

                   D14 – Light Spillage                                

                   B6 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

                   B7 – Demolition of Non-Listed Buildings in Conservation Areas

H4 – Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements

                   TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines

                   TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

                   TR6 – Cycling and Walking

                   U11 – Infrastructure and Services Provision

                   U2 – Ensuring Adequate Education and Social Community Facilities etc.

 

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

 

                   Four trees on the site are subject to Tree Preservation Orders.

 

4.9    Site’s location and density of development results in the following contributions:

 

·                In this case a financial contribution sufficient to enable a housing association to provide an agreed number of units either by a new building or the purchase of existing stock.

 

·                The payment of a transport infrastructure sum at the rate of £750 per unit.

 

·                A payment of £2,145 per unit being a payment towards ensuring adequate educational facilities are available to service the development.

 

·                A payment of £290 per unit covering the upgrading of local open space and recreational facilities.

 

5.       CONSULTEE RESPONSES

 

5.1    Internal consultees

 

          Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

 

5.2     The Council’s Conservation and Design Team Leader, who has been heavily involved in the pre-application negotiations, comments as follows:

 

“The scheme for the re-development of this site is very different from what existed there previously. Having said that, the proposal is for an elegantly contemporary scheme which picks up references from the surroundings but does not try to slavishly copy an earlier style.

 

"The views form both land and water and also within the site have been considered within the design process, in relation to surrounding conservation areas.

 

"Mornington House was a lovely old house but had become ruinous, and its site had become overgrown. Had that not been the situation, its demolition may well not have been an economic pressure and thus it might have remained within the conservation area. Given the condition of the House and the site prior to demolition it was hardly a visual asset to the conservation area.

 

"Whilst very different, I am satisfied the proposal is certainly no worse that what existed previously in terms of the character and appearance of the conservation area, and in my view is an enhancement. On that basis I am content to support the scheme.”

 

5.3     Architects Panel considered the application and their majority decision was that they were “generally happy with the mix of architecture and felt it was quite an exciting development”.

 

5.4     Negotiations have been undertaken with the Council's Housing Development and Initiatives Officer which has resulted in a financial contribution being provided in respect of provision of affordable housing, with a figure of £260,000 being agreed.

 

5.5     External Consultees

 

·              The Environment Agency raises no objection to the proposed development.

 

·              Site's location with the Conservation Area requires consultation with English Heritage with the applicants making a presentation to that Agency, the outcome of which are the following comments:

 

·       EH welcomes the change of pitch and use of stock bricks in respect of the two pairs of semi-detached houses fronting Queens Road.

 

·               Architect's sketch perspective montage view from the east showed an acceptable relationship with the two adjacent large buildings, although emphasis is placed on the role played by tree planting to frame the views.

 

·               EH emphasised the need to show the impact in respect of the closer view from the shore, with there being some concern regarding the effect of the combination of the large block of the frontage buildings on that view.

 

·               EH has some concerns regarding the practicality of retained trees, although accepts that this requires an arboricultural judgment.

 

·               EH notes that scheme wishes to ensure view of the sea, which is clearly desirable, and is anxious that this should not be at the expense of good contextual design.

 

·               In order to address the integration of the development into the spatial context and landscape arrangements architects have increased the level of tree planting, which the applicants have addressed.

 

·                With regard to the above, further communication received from English Heritage as follows:

         

·        ... The proposals show better tree planting plans which if they are substantial species would provide the landscape setting framework in the longer term.  If these ideas hold reality with the Arboricultural Officer then I am generally content for you to deliberate accordingly. ...

 

·                EH emphasise the need to ensure that pedestrian and vehicle movement was provided in a shared form.

 

·                EH makes a general comment that they fully understand the rationale behind the proposed development but continue to have reservations regarding potential impact of the larger block and emphasises the requirement of PPS1 to improve and reinforce the character of the area, which in this case is a Conservation Area.

 

·                EH however are content that further negotiations or decisions are made by the Local Planning Authority without further reference to them subject to receipt of any revised plans covering the above.

 

          5.6     Parish/Town Council comments

 

Cowes Town Council objected to the proposal on the grounds of over development of the site, the development within the conservation area be out of keeping with the surround properties, that it is lacking in architectural merit and reference is made to the Council wishing to have trees on the site made a subject of a TPO.

 

          5.7     Third Party representation

 

Application has been subject of 30 letters of objection, 7 from residents of Queens Road, 4  from residents of Cliff Road, 4 from residents from Malcolm House off Queens Road, 2 from residents of Castle Road and 1 each from residents of Mornington Road, Birmingham Road, Trinity Church Lane, Sun Hill, Ward Avenue, Granville Bridge Road and Baring Road. Remaining letters of objection are from the Isle of Wight Society, the CPRE, National Trust, Solent Protection Society and Island Watch. Points raised are summarized as follows.

 

·             Proposal represents over development, excessive in density and will appear cramped in the streetscene

 

·             Architectural approach totally inappropriate involving a mix of styles, out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the area.

 

·             The contemporary designs involve the use of modern materials totally inappropriate again to the prevailing pattern of the area.

 

·             Mass and height of the flat block is over dominant and will be overbearing particularly in respect of the immediate neighbouring properties in Mornington Road and Queens Road.

 

·             Proposal result in loss of trees which provide valuable amenity value and wildlife habitat with particular reference to red squirrels.

 

·             Proposal fails to satisfy the test of enhancement of the conservation area which is particularly concerning given that the site is situated in the recently extended conservation area.

 

·             The site is subject to severe ground instability problems and concerns are expressed that a development of this density could adversely impact on the existing slope stability and ground conditions.

 

·             Proposal will have an adverse impact on existing drainage infrastructure.

 

         Within the letters reference is made to the process of events which lead to the demolition of the property Mornington.

 

6.       EVALUATION

 

6.1    Members will note that this application has inevitably proved contentious, not the least of which is due to the general concerns which resulted from the listing and de-listing of the property Mornington and its subsequent demolition. There are obviously a number of issues which require attention and these are as follows :

 

          6.2     Principle

 

The site falls into the category of a brown field site, appropriately located and therefore the principle of development on the site would be difficult to resist in planning terms. There will always be pressures for development on sites of this prominence and location. Those pressures may have been equally as great even had Mornington been retained. Obviously the loss of Mornington has widened the options for the site if now being  a vacant site, but that is history and of no weight now.

 

          6.3     Density

              

This is a substantial corner site of 0.31 hectares in an area where there is both open space and large detached units mixed with flat conversions and relatively new flat developments. The resultant density of the proposal is 58 units per hectare, which is marginally above the 30 to 50 units per hectare level suggested in PPG3 is considered to be acceptable.  To claim that this is unacceptable it will be necessary to show how the density causes demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.

 

6.4     Whilst acknowledging the concerns expressed regarding the density, it is important that the scheme should not be judged on this basis alone. Any development which includes flats, will inevitably have an impact on the density figure. However, the main test in respect of any development is whether or not it functions satisfactorily in terms of arrangement, space about provision of parking, provision of amenity land and its service by an appropriate road layout could result in a greater footprint of development and increase mass and height. Therefore to refuse this application on the grounds of excessive density alone would be unsustainable.

 

          6.5     Mass Height and Design

 

This certainly represents the most important and controversial of the various issues and as always with these, the issue of design is an element of subjectivity when assessing this matter.  In terms of design, the general concerns of local residents and other agencies and organisations are noted. The test of any development within the conservation area is whether or not it successfully preserves and enhances the character of that area. As advised in PPG15 the Council has sought available expertise from the Architects Panel and it is important to note that the Conservation and Design Team Leader has played an important role in the negotiations in respect of this scheme. Both her comments and the Panel’s comments are supportive of the proposal in architectural terms.  The comments of English Heritage are reported at para. 5.5 above.

 

6.6     The scheme has been designed by qualified Architects, with the design approach having been fully justified within the design statement. It would therefore be appropriate to summarise the design objectives, which indicate the reasons for the design approach.

 

·              Aim to produce a well designed contemporary building in the form of a range of individual buildings that sit well into the grain of the semi-urban area.

 

·              Purposely avoid the production of a pastiche of the earlier building Mornington.

 

·              Ensure that the proposal provides a mix of dwelling types, providing a range of accommodation.

 

·              Reference also made to pre-application discussions and the general alterations and changes which resulted from those discussions.

 

·              Reference made to “increased sense of space and landscaping between the buildings….” and a “more free-flowing route through the site”.

 

·              The position and design of the detached house, along with its location, has been carefully considered to give “a more forceful turning point on the corner of the site”.

 

·              The general aim is to provide a nautical/seaside style, using a palette of materials selected to remain crisp and clean in a harsh saline environment.

 

·              The intention is to create “an elegant, restrained, high quality development”.

 

6.7     In terms of the dwellings themselves, the design statements make specific reference as follows:-

 

·               Detached residence faced towards north-eastern corner, former restrained but contemporary property on the corner of the two roads.

 

·               Pairs of semi-detached houses on the frontage facing Queens Road, with gable-end roofs, pick up the gable-end roofs of the adjoining properties and continues the building line along Queens Road.

 

·               The four-storey block of flats faces north over the detached property and also faces Mornington Road.

 

6.8     The Architect’s aim is to “create an environment which contributes positively, with good quality contemporary architecture to the conservation area, whilst being integrated into the grain of the existing built environment.”

 

6.9     The design statement emphasises the role in the design approach played by hard and soft landscaping, making particular reference to the retention of trees along the boundary of Mornington Road, which, when linked with new tree planting within the site, are intended to soften the visual transition from the adjacent wooded open space area to the east, to a more urban area to the west.

 

6.10   Finally, in terms of design, the impact on adjoining properties have been considered as  follows:-

 

·              A possible overlooking has been made no worse than with the previous house on the site.

 

·              A semi-detached house in the north-western corner has no side windows facing onto the adjoining property.

 

·              Flats generally have all windows from habitable rooms facing north-east, or west, thus avoiding any overlooking of adjoining property to the south.

 

·              Nearest adjacent property to the south in Mornington Road has no windows facing the site, with this property already having overlooking windows further from the south.

 

·              Efforts have been made with planting and positioning of the building to ensure that overlooking is not exacerbated.

 

·              Views of the Solent from adjoining properties will be affected, although we suggest that the effect could be much worse had a more intensive type of development been proposed.

 

6.11   There will always be differences of opinion on whether a designer has successfully justified design decisions and the resultant proposal has achieved the aims to produce a development, which makes a visual contribution to both the prominence of the site and its location in the extended conservation area.  Given the well-structured design statement to establish its contextual analysis, it is conceived to be in accordance with both PPS1 and in terms of local policies, Policy D1 (Standards of Design).

 

6.12   Finally on this issue, Members’ attention is drawn to advice in PPS1, which discourages planning authorities to be unnecessarily prescriptive and “should not stifle innovation, originality, or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain forms or styles”.  Specifically the document states that, in terms of architecture, the planning authority “should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes.”  Given the above assessment and recognising the procedures which have been exercised by the Architect along with the content of the design statement, this proposal has broadly met the test of ensuring preservation and enhancement of the conservation areas, in compliance with Policy B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) and PPG15.

 

6.13   In terms of mass and height, obviously this is an inherent part of the architectural design process.  The semi-detached houses and detached house are three storeys in height, which in terms of the context of the area is more than compatible. The Architect has resisted the temptation to consider a taller building on the corner, with the detached house being almost under-stated. None of the units, including the semi-detached pairs, could be deemed to be excessive in mass and scale, particularly when compared with the prevailing pattern of mass and scale which immediately adjoins to the west.

 

6.14   Whilst the flat block is clearly the largest of the mix of structures on the sit, its position behind the properties which front Queens Road, reduces its potential impact when viewed from Queens Road. Even when viewed when approaching from the east along Queens Road, the block will be seen through the trees which stand on the substantial area of open space opposite the site. Also, the flat block itself has been designed to sit into the slope of the site, having a semi-basement area for parking. Therefore in mass and height terms, this proposal is not excessive, with there being reasonable space about and between the various elements to reduce any potential over-dominance, or overbearing nature.

 

6.15  Members will note the involvement of English Heritage has been fairly extensive, with there being direct contact with them by the applicant.  The result is amendments to the scheme which address the impact of the development on Queens Road and the introduction of a more intensive landscaping proposal which essentially augurs necessarily to provide the transition link between the open space opposite the site and the proposed development.  It is accepted that English Heritage still have some reservations, particularly regarding the flat block, however they are content for the Planning Authority to negotiate following submission of any revised proposals.  This has occurred with the submission of the revised plans which include the more intensive landscaping proposals.  Providing the landscaping proposals are carried out in accordance with the submitted revised scheme and tree planting using heavy standards where appropriate is used, then this will have addressed that element of concern by English Heritage.

 

6.16  It is important for members to note that in terms of design advice this proposal has gone through all the recognised procedures using professional advice on these matters.  The result is support by the Council's own Conservation and Design Team, support of the Architects' Panel and general support of English Heritage subject to the reservations already referred to.  I therefore consider that I can go no further on this matter and recommend the application on the basis of the advice obtained.  It is important to note this process for a number of the objections relate to design, and any proposal to refuse the application on this basis would need to be fully justified under the auspices of support from professional consultees and agencies if an inevitable Appeal is to be sustained.  It is also important to recognise that the architects have supported their proposal with a Design Statement justifying their architectural approach, which again is a requirement for these types within Conservation areas.

 

          6.17   Parking Provision/Access

 

Both parking provision and access are considered to be acceptable, both in terms of the one-way system being proposed in terms of access of Mornington Road and the provision of at least one parking space per unit, which this scheme achieves.

 

          6.18   Drainage and Ground stability

 

In terms of the concerns expressed regarding ground stability, the applicant has used the services of a fully qualified geotechnical Engineer with considerable experience of slope stability in Cowes, having both submitted reports on other sites and more significantly acted as a Consultant to the Council in vetting reports.  The submitted Geotechnical Report has been vetted by an independent geotechnical engineer who is satisfied that methodology within the report is acceptable in terms of the requirements under PPG14.  They rightly point out that more detailed calculations will be required at the building regulations stage in respect of structural or stabilising performance of the proposed solutions.  With regard to foul drainage, this is to discharge into an existing combined system in Queens Road, with an initial investigation suggesting that there is sufficient capacity within that sewer to accept the level of drainage generated by this proposal.

 

          6.19   Effect on landscape/Wildlife Habitat

 

Inevitably a development of this type, replacing a large detached unit with extensive garden areas, will result in loss of trees. In this case one existing TPO tree is to be retained on the site, with the remainder to be removed. This loss of trees, however, is offset by a proposed landscaping scheme submitted by a Landscape Architect, specifying shrub, particularly tree planting, all strategically placed, in part along the Queens Road frontage and along the Mornington Road frontage.

 

6.20  Although there are concerns regarding the loss of mature trees on this site, the application has been accompanied by a very detailed arboricultural report which has assessed the merits of all the main trees on the site, particularly those prominently located along Mornington Road frontage and on the corner of Mornington Road with Queens Road.  Development and trees do not necessarily make good bedfellows and this proposal is no exception. The most prominent tree on the corner of the site (Horse Chestnut) has been carefully inspected and indicates that there has been a recent increase in the degree of lean to this tree.  The collapse of the nearby retaining wall and the subsequent loss of soil may have contributed to this increase. Significantly the report indicates that the tree is in an unsafe condition and poses a major risk of falling onto the pavement and the public highway. Even if it avoids such a collapse, there is sufficient evidence of disease to suggest that the tree would decline in any event.  In view of this the tree has been felled.  Obviously the tree loss will be felt in the short term, but replacement planting which will be carried out as part of this development will, in time, adequately compensate for that loss and provide appropriate visual amenity. 

 

6.21   The one TPO tree to be retained (Acacia) stands on the Mornington Road frontage located in front of the flat block.  The application is accompanied by an indication that that tree will be suitably protected during construction works, with details being indicated of the type of fencing to be used. All this is an indication that the applicants have seriously considered the existing landscape/proposed landscape issues in respect of this development, acknowledging their importance as part of the holistic approach to development proposals, which is essential for schemes of this importance.  This approach is further emphasised by the additional landscaping proposals following English Heritage's involvement.

 

          6.22   Environmental Impact

 

·        The level of concern expressed by local residents is noted. However, these concerns have been addressed in this report and where appropriate, fears can be allayed through use of appropriate conditions, or under the auspices of a Section 106 Agreement. Any potential overlooking issues can be addressed by way of a condition removing permitted development rights to insert windows in locations that may result in such overlooking. In this regard I make particular reference to the west facing elevation within the pair of semi-detached properties in the southwestern corner of the site. Whilst noting concerns regarding loss of view and other issues relating to potential rights of way, these are not planning material considerations, although the applicant has been advised of the concerns of the neighbouring property in respect of that right of way.

 

·        Members should note that the existing retaining wall along the Queens Road frontage was structurally unsound, caused to some extent by the nearby tree roots, and has had to be made safe, with most of that wall being demolished.  Within that wall is a letterbox which has been retained on site although agreement has been reached with the Post Office to collect and store the letterbox for reinstatement within any new scheme.  The applicants are aware of the importance of retaining this letterbox in situ and the above is an indicator that the Post Office are aware of the situation.

 

7.       Conclusion and justification for recommendation

 

7.1    Having due regard and appropriate weight to the matters discussed in the Evaluation section your officers are satisfied that compliance has taken place in respect of the extensive number of policies which apply, both local and nationally, to this application.  The duty to ensure preservation and enhancement of conservation areas has been addressed through the extensive design procedures described in this report.  Whilst fully recognising the subjectivity of design issues, the advice in PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development - is quite clear, particularly in relation to policies avoiding unnecessary prescriptions, and should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and certainly should not stifle innovation, originality or initiatives through what would be deemed to be unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles.  The suggested amendments by English Heritage have, if anything, contributed to the quality of the scheme and whilst recognising some continued reservations from English Heritage, in overall design terms the proposal has received the unfettered support of both the Council's own Conservation and Design Team and the Architects' Panel.

 

7.2    All other issues relating to landscape access, impact on neighbouring properties and Section 106 requirements have also been satisfactorily dealt with.

 

8.      Recommendation

 

To grant conditional permission subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement covering the following

 

·               Financial contribution £260,000 towards provision of affordable housing

·               Financial contribution of £13,500 towards transport infrastructure.

·               Financial contribution of £38,610 towards education.

·               Financial contribution of £5,220 towards upgrading of local recreation and open space facilities.                   

 

 

Conditions/Reasons:

 

 

1

 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from date of this permission.

 

Reason:  To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

 

2

 The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be initiated by the undertaking of material operation as defined in Section 56(4)a-d of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the development until planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the said Act relating to the land has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority and the Local Planning Authority has notified the person submitting the same that it is to the Local Planning Authority's approval.  The said planning obligation will provide for:

                   Financial contribution £260,000 towards provision of affordable housing

Financial contribution of £13,500 towards transport infrastructure.

Financial contribution of £38,610 towards education.

Financial contribution of £5,220 towards upgrading of local recreation and open space facilities.

 

Reason:  To ensure the provision of affordable housing, education facilities, open space and recreation facilities and transport infrastructure, in compliance with Policy U2 (Ensuring Adequate Education, Social and Community Facilities for Future Population) and Policy H14 (Locally Affordable Housing as an Element of Housing Schemes) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

3

 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwellings hereby approved shall be as specified on applicant's drawing Nos. 1039/011 Rev.A (semi-detached houses), 1039/041 (detached house) and 1039/031 (flats).  All development shall be carried out in accordance with those agreed details.

 

Reason:  In the interest of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

4

 Hard and soft landscaping and boundary treatments shall be carried out in accordance with Landscape Plan Drawing No. HED.597.01 Rev.B, existing survey, tree removal and protective fencing, Drawing No. HED.597.02 and Planting Plan Drawing No. HED.597.03 as produced by Hyland Edgar Driver, Landscape Architects and Urban Designers. Such landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the phasing scheme to be submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority providing a programming and approximate timing of the landscape work in any particular area having regard to the timing of the commencement in that area of any part of the development hereby approved.  None of the dwellings served by the landscaped areas shall be occupied until the landscape proposals relating to those areas have been fully implemented.

 

Reason:  To ensure that development is carried out in a properly phased manner and of an appropriate landscape quality in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

5

 Tree protection work shall be carried out prior to any other works commencing in respect of the retained tree indicated on the submitted plan and such protection work shall be in accordance with the details indicated on applicant's Drawing No. HED.597.02.  Such protection work shall be maintained during the course of construction works during which period the following restrictions shall apply.

 

a)                No placement or storage of materials.

b)                No placement or storage of chemicals.

c)                No placement or storage of excavated soil.

d)                No lighting of bonfires.

e)                No physical damage to bark or branches.

f)                 No changes to natural ground drainage in the area.

g)                No changes in ground levels.

h)                No digging of trenches for surfaces, drains or sewers.

i)                 Any trenches required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major routes are left undamaged.

 

Reason:  To ensure the trees and groups of trees to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

6

 Development shall not begin until details of improvements to the sight lines at the junction of Mornington Road and Queens Road have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be occupied until those sight lines have been provided in accordance with the approved details.  Nothing that may cause an obstruction to visibility shall at any time be placed or be permitted to remain within the visibility splays shown in the approved sight lines. 

 

Reason:  In the interest of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

7

 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no gates shall be erected [other than those expressly authorised by this permission/other than gates that are set back a minimum distance of 5 metres from the edge of the carriageway of the adjoining highway.]

 

Reason:  In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

8

 No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the space has been laid out within the site in accordance with Drawing No. GA1039002 Rev. J and 1039/030 for a maximum of 27 cars and 15 bicycles to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear.  This space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition.

 

Reason:  In the interest of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (HIghway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

9

 Development shall not begin until details of the design, surfacing and construction of any new roads, footways, accesses and car parking areas, together with details of the means of disposal of surface water drainage therefrom have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason:  To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

10

 No dwelling shall be occupied until the parts of the service roads which provide access to it have been constructed, surfaced and drained in accordance with [the approved plans/details which have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority].

 

Reason:  To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

11

 The development shall not be occupied until sight lines have been provided in accordance with the visibility splay shown green on the plan attached and forming part of this decision notice.  Nothing that may cause an obstruction to visibility shall at any time be placed or be permitted to remain within that visibility splay.

 

Reason:  In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

12

The southernmost vehicular access off Mornington Road shown on the approved plan Ref. No. G81039002J shall only be used as a means of ingress to the site and the northernmost vehicular access as shown on the aforementioned approved plan shall only be used as a means of egress from the site.  No building shall be occupied until a Traffic Management Plan showing details of the measures to be applied to ensure that drivers use the appropriate means of ingress and egress has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and has been put into effect in accordance with the approved details.  The measures shall be retained in place at all times.

 

Reason:  In the interest of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

13

 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no means of access shall be provided between the development hereby approved and Queens Road other than that expressly authorised by this permission.

 

Reason:  In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

14

 The dwellings hereby approved shall not be occupied until highway improvements comprising the reconstruction of the highway footway bounding the application site within Mornington Road have been carried out in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:  To ensure an adequate standard of access to the proposed development in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

15

 No occupation shall take place of any of the units hereby approved until lighting has been installed in the car parking area serving the unit in accordance with details to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Such lighting scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall be subject of an appropriate Management Plan.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the future occupiers and adjoining property owners in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and Policy D14 (Light Spillage) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

16

 A Landscape Management Plan including long term design objectives and management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas other than privately owned domestic gardens shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation of the development or any phase of the development, whichever is the sooner.

 

Reason:  To ensure the long term maintenance of hard and soft landscaped areas to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

17

 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification, no windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be inserted in the west facing elevations of Plots 5 and 6, and in the south facing elevations of the upper floors within Flats 8 to 18 without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining properties in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

18

 No development shall take place until a detailed scheme including calculations for capacity studies have been submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul water disposal.  Any such agreed foul water disposal system shall indicate connections at points on the system where adequate capacity exists to ensure any additional flow should not cause flooding or overload the existing system.

 

Reason:  To ensure an adequate system of foul water drainage is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

19

 Steps including the installation and use of wheel cleaning facilities in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be taken to prevent materials being deposited on the highway as a result of any operation on the site.  Any deposit of material from the site on the highway shall be removed as soon as it is practical by the site operator.

 

Reason:  In the interests of highway safety and to prevent mud and dust from getting on the highway and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

20

 All construction traffic related to development hereby approved shall be directed to leave the site by means of a prominent signage, the details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Such signage shall be erected at the junction between the site access road and the highway before the access road is first used.  The signage shall be retained in a clean and legible condition for the duration of the development and any sign that is damaged beyond repair or removed shall be immediately replaced.

 

Reason:  In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

2.

Reference Number: P/01549/04 - TCP/25822/A

Parish/Name:  Newport - Ward/Name: Osborne

Registration Date:  20/07/2004  -  Full Planning Permission

Officer:  Mr C Hougham Tel: (01983) 823576

Applicant:  Red Funnel Group Ltd

 

Formation of trailer park to accommodate 28 freight trailers and associated facilities; formation of vehicular access, (revised plans)

reduced site area, land off, Whippingham Road, East Cowes, PO32

 

 

PREAMBLE

 

This application has been submitted by Red Funnel Group Ltd. This report and the report prepared in connection with the application submitted by Wightlink Limited for a similar development on adjacent land, should be read in conjunction with each other, but with the strict understanding that they are not joint applications and each application should be judged on its individual merits. This is despite the fact that there are a number of similarities between the two applications in terms of the proposed development.  Many of the policies and planning issues to be considered are the same, the applications are on adjoining land and, if approved, will be served by the same access off the A3021 Whippingham Road near its junction with the A3054. The sites are roughly equidistant between the ports of East Cowes and Fishbourne.  Members should also give due regard to the cumulative effect of both applications.

 

 

This application is recommended for temporary conditional planning permission, subject to a s106 Obligation and reference to the ODPM as a departure from the local development plan (i.e UDP).

 

 

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

 

This application seeks approval for a major transportation infrastructure project outside the built up area which has generated a substantial number of letters of objection to the scheme. The proposed development raises a number of strategic and local issues which combined requires a determination by this Committee.

 

 

1.       Details of application

 

1.1    This is a full application and Members will find attached to this report a copy of the amended site plan for the reduced scheme which was formally advertised and publicized in mid January 2005. Also appended is a plan that identifies the respective site areas of the two applications submitted by Red Funnel and Wightlink which were determined almost a year ago and the site of the present application.

 

1.2     This is the second application on the site and in its original form sought detailed planning permission for a commercial freight trailer park on land known as the Clangor site (1.58 hectare) capable of accommodating 47 trailers. The submitted drawing showed a purpose designed commercial vehicle access onto Whippingham Road (A3054) just a few metres away from an existing hard standing and gated access. This scheme has since been amended.

 

1.3     The application was supported by a detailed and comprehensive report prepared by the applicant’s agents which focused on the location of the site and the proposed scheme; a noise assessment, highway design matters; matters relating to surface materials and surface water drainage. The agent also submitted a covering letter explaining that he and his clients had given due regard to comments and observations made in respect of the refused first application (see para 3.1) and highlighting the following amendments incorporated in the second application.

 

·       Overall site area reduced by 20% from 1.96 hectares to 1.58 hectares.

 

·       Revised layout designed to accommodate 47 trailers rather than the 60 trailers originally proposed; the trailer bays removed were those closest to Brickfield Cottages.

 

·       Omission of these trailer bays negated the need for diversion of the existing watercourse and the formation of the balancing pond/wet area.

 

·       Other than for the site exit visibility splays, the existing tree belt surrounding the application site is substantially undisturbed, affording much improved screening of the site operation when viewed from the south, east and west.

 

1.4     The submission of the application led to an informal challenge to a decision taken by the LPA not to require an Environmental Statement. The application was also affected by an application for a village green status on a larger area of land which included the application site.

 

·      In accordance with the Regulations (see Relevant History) the LPA identified that this was Schedule 2 Development under category 10 (c) Infrastructure Projects (Construction of Intermodal Transhipment Facilities and Intermodal Terminals) and conducted a screening opinion and subsequently concluded that Environmental Impact Assessment was not required for the development. The relevant documentation appears on the public file. This decision and the subsequent opinion were challenged in written submissions principally by the local branch of the CPRE and subsequently the local branch of the Isle of Wight Society which necessitated a detailed response explaining that their protestations were based on incorrect information in terms of overall site area (cumulative or otherwise) and also relied on an interpretation heavily influenced by the precedent argument which does not feature in the aforementioned legislation.

 

·      The application under the Land Registration Act 1965 to register a village green on land that includes the application site was considered by the Regulatory Appeals Committee at a meeting held on 9 December 2004. The total area of land was in excess of four hectares and the report advised that it consisted of two distinct areas; an open area, sometimes know as Pointfield and a smaller area to the north west referred to by the applicant as Queens Brickyard which was also open but surrounded by woodland. Members considered a detailed and comprehensive report and accepted the Officer’s recommendation to partially accept the application and register part of the site as a village green. This resulted in the applicant amending the application yet again so that the site area was not affected by the designated village green.

 

1.5     The current revised application relates to a substantially reduced area of land of 0.78 hectare providing a trailer park capable of accommodating up to 28 trailers. Members will note from the appended plan that the proposed access onto the A3021 and the purpose designed access road remain unchanged but the reduced site area shows three areas devoted to trailer parking as opposed to the pentagon or star shaped arrangement that featured as part of the original submission.

 

1.6     Notwithstanding the fact that this was a reduced scheme the application was re-advertised and the subject of an extensive neighbour notification exercise which included all of those individuals notified about the original submission plus many others who had submitted representations.

 

1.7    The amended application was supported by a statement prepared by the applicant’s agent in which he said:

 

“….revised application site has an area of 0.78 hectare and will accommodate 28 trailer spaces, i.e. a 50% reduction in site area and a 40% reduction in trailer spaces when compared to the current application (which itself was a significant reduction compared to the original 60 space application submitted in August 2003).

 

“The revised scheme will obviously have the advantage of less noise impact on the nearest residential properties, Brickfield Cottages – not only in terms of reduced trailer numbers, but also because the nearest “on-site” trailers will be approximately 120 metres away, rather than the 90 metres of the earlier application. Other advantages from the planning perspective will include less trailer traffic at the proposed new road junction onto Whippingham Road, A3021 and less hard surfacing/disturbance of the existing surface water drainage regime.”

 

1.8    Members will note that since the submission of the revised plans there has been a delay prior to reporting the matter to this Committee. This is for a number of reasons:

 

·        Submission of additional information in the form of an Acoustic Impact Assessment which has been assessed by the Environmental Health Officer.

 

·        Consultation with the Head of Engineering Services resulting in the submission of amendments and additions in respect of the access arrangements.

 

·        Consultation with the Contaminated Land Officer.

 

·        Allowing adequate time for all parties with an interest in the application to consider the revised scheme.

 

2.       Location and site characteristics

 

2.1     Application relates to an irregularly shaped former landfill site situated on the south western side of Whippingham Road (A3021) within the triangle of land bounded by Whippingham Road, East Cowes Road and the Racecourse.

 

2.2     This is low lying land below the level of the metalled section of the highway and is relatively well screened by mature hedgerows and trees which includes the frontage onto Whippingham Road.

 

2.3     The revised site area is considerably reduced from the initial submission. The site area of the original submission was 1.58 hectares and when the application was amended, this area was reduced to 0.78 hectare, coupled with a considerable reduction in the capacity of the site. The amended site has a frontage onto Whippingham Road of about 90 metres and when including the necessary visibility splays a frontage of in excess of 250 metres with a maximum overall depth of approximately 115 metres.

 

3.       Relevant history

 

3.1     Members of this Committee will recall that both Red Funnel and Wightlink ferry operators submitted detailed applications during the second part of 2003 to develop two adjacent trailer parks on land within the triangle bounded by Whippingham Road, East Cowes Road and the Racecourse.

 

3.2    The application submitted by Red Funnel, on a much larger site than the one presently under consideration, made provision for a trailer park capable of accommodating up to 60 trailers with a purpose designed access off Whippingham Road, an access road and a controlled access point. The  LPA considered that it should have been accompanied by an Environmental Statement and in the absence of such a statement, the application was deemed to be refused under the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England & Wales) Regulations 1999, in particular Part 3 (7) sub part (4) and (5); advising them that he would treat this as a decision of the Authority for the purposes of paragraph 4 (c) of Article 25 of the Town & Country Planning (General Procedure Development) Order 1995. The applicants had no right of appeal under Section 78 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1999.

 

3.3    An application by Wightlink on a substantial area of land adjacent to and partially overlapping the site of the application currently under consideration presented a number of complicated issues which resulted in the LPA forming a view that under the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England & Wales) Regulations 1999 the application should have been accompanied by an Environmental Statement. As the application did not include the necessary information, permission was refused under delegated powers on the following (abridged) grounds:

 

The information accompanying this application is inadequate and deficient in detail in respect of the strategic location and in particular the cumulative effect within the vicinity and the Island as a whole so that the Local Planning Authority is unable to consider fully the effects of the proposal on the impact of nearby resident, residents and Fishbourne and the burden or otherwise placed on the existing highway network, including traffic at the ports and in the absence of further details it is considered that the proposal is contrary to strategic planning policies S1, S2, S3, S4 and S11 and local planning policies TR1, TR8, TR12 and TR15 of the Unitary Development Plan.

 

         3.4     There was no appeal against this decision.

 

4.       Development Plan Policy

 

4.1     Members will appreciate the interpretation and application of strategic and local planning policies is the key consideration in the determination of all planning applications and particularly where the Council, as Local Planning Authority, is examining what could be argued to be a virtually unique proposal within the countryside outside the built up area.

 

4.2    National Policy and Guidance – While there is generic, overarching PPG and PPS advice including RPG9 which covers many of the issues to be considered, there is nothing specifically related to trailer parks.

 

4.3     However, the South East Plan Core Document, public consultation draft of January 2005 does contain some draft policies which must be weighed in the balance even if the weight that they can be given is not very great. For instance IW1 encourages economic regeneration and inward investment, IW2 improvements to the strategic cross Solent links which are reliant on their remaining well managed and efficient and IW3 supports the timely implementation of the infrastructure required to support further growth. But set against these is IW4 relating to the need to maintain and enhance the quality and character of the rural environment.

 

4.4    Such is the nature of the proposed development that a wide range of strategic planning policies are considered to be relevant to the determination of the application which effectively presents Members with ‘tests’ to be applied in this case.

 

·       New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas

 

·       Development will be encouraged on land which has been previously developed (brownfield sites), rather than undeveloped (greenfield) sites

 

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

 

·       The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

 

·       Proposals for development which on balance, will be for the overall benefit to the island, by enhancing the economic, social or environmental position will be approved, provided any adverse impacts can be ameliorated.

 

4.5     Local policies - In terms of local planning policies, Members should give due regard and appropriate weight to the following policies:

 

·       G1 (Development Envelopes for towns and villages) states that land outside the development envelope boundaries is considered to be countryside where development, other than exceptions specified in other policies or proposals, will be resisted.

 

·       G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) and G5 (Development outside defined settlements) states that applications for new development will be permitted providing they satisfy a wide and comprehensive range of key criteria and also states that outside defined settlements, development may exceptionally be permitted if it requires a rural location (or benefits the rural economy) is of an appropriate scale, well designed and landscaped. The policy identifies a number of different types of development which inevitably cannot be an exhaustive list and does not include a commercial trailer park. Even then there is further criteria in terms of agricultural or landscape quality; loss of areas of conservation value, adversely affecting the amenities of the area etc. where development of the countryside will not be permitted.

 

·       G10 (Potential Conflict between proposed development and existing surrounding uses) states, in part that development proposals may be refused permission if they are considered incompatible with existing, adjoining or nearby activities.

 

4.6    The section of the UDP that deals with design and standards for development highlights that are landscapes are precious and all too easily compromised by insensitive development both in design and setting. This particular section highlights potential impacts on environment and the need for landscaping and also underlines two key issues relevant to this particular case.

 

·        D11 – (Crime and Design) – Development Proposals should be designed to reduce the opportunities for crime and should include measures to promote safe public access through areas and a high level of visibility in to, out of and across both public and private areas.

 

·        D14 – (Light Spillage) - Planning applications for development which includes or requires external lighting when approved, will be subject to conditions to ensure that a) the lighting scheme proposed is the minimum required for the task; b) light spillage is minimise, particularly skyward; c) there will be no dazzling or distraction to drivers using nearby highway; d) the lighting is screened from view from coastal, estuarine and navigable waters; e) on the edge of settlements or in the countryside, the lighting is screened from view from neighbouring countryside and f) it is designed so as not to unreasonably affect neighbouring property.

 

4.7    Clearly local planning policies developed to protect the countryside are relevant to this application but the proposed development of this former landfill site is not affected by a number of these important policies as they relate to specially designated areas and/or particularly vulnerable locations in terms of nature conservation or landscape which would include the loss of trees and hedgerows. However, although there is not a policy that can be directly linked to the establishment of a trailer park in this type of location, due regard must be given to Policy C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) which says:

 

·                Planning applications for appropriate development in the countryside must maintain and protect the landscape whether viewed from the land or sea, and should be for the benefit of the rural economy and the people who live there. Development which may be acceptable in the countryside must take account of the landscape character and the local distinctiveness of the area.

 

4.8    There is also the issue of pollution, in terms of not only the proposed use of the site but also the previous use of the land which means that policy P1 (Pollution and Development), Policy P2 (Minimise Contamination from Development) and Policy P3 (Restoration of Contaminated Land) are all relevant to this particular determination. Of more concern to a number of individuals opposed to the proposed development is the risk of loss of amenity due to noise and consequently the relevant policy becomes particularly important.

 

·        P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) the Council will only approve proposals for development which are sensitive to noise where these are located away from sources of noise and conversely where proposal for potentially noisy activities are likely to adversely impact upon sensitive development, details of mitigating measures will need to accompany planning applications and may become subject of conditions of approval.

 

4.9     Finally there are the local transport policies which include TR1 (Integrated Transport Network) whereby the Council will seek to encourage and develop an integrated and effective transport network. Development schemes in conformity with this proposal will be acceptable in principle.

 

4.10   In my view policies TR4, TR7, TR8 and TR13 are all relevant but particular attention should be given to the following three policies:

 

                            TR10 (Cross Solent Ferry Links)

                            TR11 (Traffic Management Schemes for Ferry Terminals)

                            TR15 (Bulk Freight Handling and Distribution Facilities)

 

4.11  These policies and the supporting text in the UDP and the Local Transport Plan will be referred to in the latter part of this report.

 

5.       Consultee and Third Party Comments

 

5.1    Environment Agency commenting on the initial submission raise no objection to the application but have asked that a specific condition be imposed which will mean that no development shall be carried out until a scheme for the provision of a surface water regulation system is designed, agreed and implemented in combination with the under laying of an impervious hardstanding with dedicated drainage to foul sewer or sealed tanks as well as oil interceptors and bunding for any oil/chemical storage tanks or containers.

 

5.2    Head of Engineering Services supports the application in terms of the overall objective to improve strategic transportation. The applicant’s agent complied fully with the requirements and specifications set out by the Highway Engineer who does not object to the application, but requires the imposition of conditions if Members are minded to grant permission. However, he has made a further strong recommendation that in his view egress from the site should be via the proposed exit point onto the Racecourse which features in the Wightlink application.

 

5.3    Contaminated Land Officer has asked for the imposition of a detailed and comprehensive planning condition with the objective of protecting the environment and preventing harm to human health by ensuring that, where necessary, the land is remediated to an appropriate standard in order to comply with Part IIA of the Environmental Protection 1990.

 

5.4    Environmental Health Officer has submitted a detailed response in which he says:

 

“The overall conclusion is that the noise from the site, both of lorry movements and of refrigeration, will result in noise levels within the nearest noise – sensitive premises that would be lower than the guideline levels of BS8399. You should be aware that there will be a slight loss of amenity, due to increase noise levels, and that noise from the proposed use will be audible and nearby dwellings. However, I cannot sustain an objection to the proposal in its current form on noise ground, provided that a suitable condition is applied.”

 

5.5    The condition recommended by the Environmental Health Officer will require refrigeration equipment to be connected to the site electrical system as soon as possible after arrival, operating thereafter on electrical power at all times and not switched over to diesel power until immediately before the trailer is removed from the site.

 

5.6     Ecology Officer comments that the surrounding woodland is of considerable biodiversity value and if the application is approved the area should be fenced off to prevent any encroachment.

 

5.7    Architectural Liaison Officer (i.e. Crime and Disorder) commented on the initial submission expressing a concern that there was the potential for the site to become a crime “honey-pot” with high valued loads parked overnight or for a few days. He makes a number of recommendations in terms of the desirability (or otherwise) to naturally screen the site, the need for security fencing, appropriate lighting, possibility of CCTV and various facilities including the small gatehouse being suitable for the “lone worker” situation.

 

5.8    Wootton Bridge Parish Council have objected to the application on the basis that its outside the development envelope but appear to be principally concerned with the issue of precedent and the cumulative affect of any future additional applications on the environment through traffic generation and noise/light pollution.

 

5.9    On the original application local branch of CPRE submitted a comprehensive letter of objection copied to the Local Government Office, the MP and others raised a number of non-planning issues including their interpretation that all departure applications have to be determined by GOSE and that the application should have been the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment (see Details of Application). Comments which concentrated on the planning issues, as opposed to procedural matters, include conflict with strategic policies; agricultural diversification; traffic movement; noise; pollution; light pollution; landscape/wildlife; human rights and anticipated future impact.

 

5.10  The Barn Owl Trust comments that they have records of Barn Owls roosting or nesting within 1,000 metres of the site and asks that certain issues be taken into account and, where necessary, included as conditions should the application be approved , including a full survey prior to any development taking place, in the evidence of any barn owl activity or development to be carried out within time specified within the Wildlife and Countryside Act together with alternative roosting and nesting places to be provided in accordance with their guidelines. They also express concern about the loss of rough grassland habitat and ask that consideration be given to some form of mitigation.

 

5.11  There were over 90 letters of objection to the original application mostly from residents living in East Cowes Road, Whippingham and Wootton although there were also comments from people living in Newport and East Cowes. For obvious reasons, it is important to focus on the representations that have been received in respect of the amended application but nevertheless it should be pointed out that the initial submission attracted comments about the rural location of the site, the impact on the natural environment, increase in heavy traffic and the potential for both noise and light pollution for people living in the locality.

 

5.12  The revised application has attracted around 75 letters of objection as well as letter opposing the proposed development from the Isle of Wight Society and Islandwatch and a petition objecting to the application which includes a number of residents that live in the locality but the majority of the signatories, although Island residents, do not live in the vicinity of the site. The petition statement says:

 

“We, the undersigned declare our objection to inappropriate development of greenfield sites when brownfield sites are available. In particular, we are against the proposed location of the drop trailer parks, car marshalling areas, ancillary services; and associated or similar development at land bordered by the Racecourse, Whippingham Road and East Cowes Road or other such land not designated for development of any kind which is detrimental to the character of the area. It is considered the trailer park should be at ferry ports or in their immediate vicinity.”

 

5.13   Members, of course, will need to give due regard to a petition of this size but would also need to give appropriate weight to the number of signatories that would not be directly effected by this development, if approved, and the fact they are supporting a statement which takes a broader view on the subject and is not exclusively directed at this particular application although it is reasonable to assume that the signatories would be opposed to this particular development even in the much reduced form which is the subject of this report. Members will also note that this petition was compiled prior to the amendments to the application and the reduction in the overall size of the trailer park.

 

5.14   The issues raised in the letters of objection can be summarised in the following terms:

 

·       Inappropriate development in the countryside

 

·       Potential increase in traffic flow and traffic congestion

 

·       Potential traffic hazard

 

·       Loss of visual amenity

 

·       Threat to local environment and natural habitats

 

·       Loss of trees and hedgerows

 

·       Undesirable precedent for other developments of a similar nature.

 

6.       Evaluation

 

6.1     Determining factors in this particular case relate to interpretation and application of strategic and local planning policies in combination with the overall principle of allowing development of this nature outside the built up area, potential traffic generation and access arrangements, impact on the rural character of the area, possible loss of trees/hedgerows, the impact on the nearby properties in terms of noise and light pollution and the issue of precedent. This is essentially a three stage process: first has the need been established that a scheme of this nature is required sufficient to override normal safeguards, second, if so, is this the best or correct location and third, if so, can the impact be mitigated?

 

6.2     As an aide memoir Members are reminded that the size and scale of the overall project to develop the site as a trailer park has already been amended on two occasions.

 

·       The first application (since refused) was for an area capable of accommodating 60 trailers on 1.96 hectares.

 

·       The original version of this second application was for an area capable of accommodating 47 trailers on 1.58 hectares.

 

·       The amended scheme now under consideration, is for an area capable of accommodating 27 trailers on 0.78 hectare.

 

6.3     When looking at the application from a wider perspective Members will be conversant with the difficulties faced by this particular operator at the terminal facility at East Cowes particularly the practical day to day problems of handling an ever increasing amount of freight brought onto the Island through this ferry port. There are, however, emerging proposals to regenerate East Cowes which if adopted may take several years to come to fruition. In the meantime it cannot be gainsaid that the current Red Funnel vehicle marshalling facilities are less than adequate.

 

6.4     The applicants are cognisant of the problem and the consequent increase in loss of amenity for residents living in the vicinity of the ferry terminal and so have attempted to address the matter. An application to use land adjacent to GKN at Osborne, unauthorised use of a vacated site on the waterfront and an application on another recently cleared site which was approved for a temporary period subject to the applicants carrying out certain highway improvements to ensure that large articulated vehicles can negotiate the existing mini roundabout just a few metres away from the existing terminal at the junction of Dover Road/Well Road with Castle Street are just some of the short term measures adopted.

 

6.5     Further evidence of the applicants adopting a positive approach to the problem has been the identification of this particular site as a possible location for a relatively small trailer park designed with the intention of alleviating some of the pressures at the terminal particularly throughout the night.

 

6.6     It is considered that there is a sustainable argument for this kind of facility in a strategic location close to the main centres population and the existing terminal, at least on a temporary basis until a more permanent solution comes forward in the form of alternative freight handling arrangements or a new or enlarged port facility. However, while the location of this site from a transportation aspect has clear advantages due weight has to be given to its location in the countryside outside the built up area when examining the desirability of the proposed development particularly in the context of strategic and local planning policies. Certainly the initial conclusion is that the proposed development of this site as a transport facility is in conflict with the broad strategic policies which seek to concentrate development within urban areas and expects new development to be located in or adjacent to the defined development envelopes of the main towns to protect the countryside from inappropriate development.

 

6.7     Members will have to balance what appears to be fundamental objections to the development of this rural site against the strategic aim that the development which is for the overall benefit of the Island by enhancing the economic, social and environmental position will be approved, providing any adverse impacts can be ameliorated. Failure to address the issues now will lead to an increasing deterioration in the areas adjacent to the ferry terminals and also impact adversely on the Island’s wellbeing, albeit this might not be apparent for many years and perhaps be difficult to quantify. On the other hand Members must be sure that the application site is the most appropriate for a permanent trailer park if they are to grant planning permission. Also, a location which may be suitable for a limited period may be considered sub-optimal for a permanent consent. Members are advised there is no right or wrong answer because any decision involves balance, judgement and trade-offs.

 

6.8     In locational terms the site of a freight trailer park must, ideally, be off a main road, in relatively close proximity to the vehicle ferry terminals (both of which are located on the north and north east of the Island) and where disturbance to individual residents is minimised. Balanced against this is the need to protect and enhance the open countryside.

 

6.9     The side is close to the junction of the A3021 (the road to East Cowes) and the A3054 leading to Fishbourne. It is roughly equidistant between the two terminals and a not dissimilar distance from Newport. There is adequate highway capacity and little nearby residential property. Given that the traffic handled by the trailer parks will be accessing the terminals in any event the only reasonable locations are along or immediately off the A3021 or the A3054.

 

6.10   Local planning policies contained in the UDP conveniently highlight the range of issues that need to be taken into account in the determination of this application ranging from general location criteria for new development; issues relating to noise, pollution light spillage and crime/design; protection of the landscape and key transport issues. The major difficulty in interpretation and application of local planning policies in this particular case is the unique nature of the proposed development and the fact that there is not a (comparable) benchmark to work to in terms of assessing the overall benefits against any possible damage to the local environment.

 

6.11  Notwithstanding the fact this site is outside the development envelope boundary some weight has to be given to the fact that it is a low lying area which is relatively well screened that was formally used as a landfill site and is not within, or has any significant impact upon, any specially designated areas providing the advice from the Ecology Officer is taken into account. As such, it can be argued that the development of the site will not be in conflict of several of the criteria set out in Policy G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) as it is apparent that the use of the land as a trailer park will not protrude above prominent ridges or skylines; will not expand out of any natural valley or depression; will not intrude into prominent views; will not intrude into the setting of any significant landmark or adversely affect any area noted for its quality of landscape or importance ecologically.

 

6.12   The unique nature of the proposed development is underlined in policy G5 which in the “exception criteria” does not identify a trailer park but again it does identify criteria which would render a particular proposal in the countryside unacceptable. However, these would not apply in this particular case as the proposal does not involve the loss of any agricultural land; it is unlikely to cause loss or damage to identified areas of conservation or wildlife value; and is most unlikely to contribute to the merging or harm the setting of any settlements.

 

6.13   In terms of visual amenity and the landscape quality the fundamental objective contained in Policy C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) will need to be applied as this particular site is not affected by many of the policies which relate to nationally and/or locally designated sites. Nevertheless the issues of trees and hedgerows is an important determining factor as development that would result in the loss or damage to trees and hedgerows which contribute to the character or amenity of the area, should not be approved, unless the Council is satisfied that there is an overriding need for the development and appropriate replacement planting is undertaken on site.

 

6.14   Critical to the outcome of this application is the interpretation and application of Policy TR11 (Traffic Management Schemes for Ferry Terminals) which states that the Authority will approve appropriate land use proposals or traffic management schemes which would help to address the traffic and marshalling problems associated with the Island’s cross-Solent ferry terminals subject to three specific criteria:

 

·        The suggested schemes in keeping with the surroundings;

 

·        It is appropriate in scale and operation for the location proposed;

 

·        It would not have an unacceptable detrimental or adverse environmental impact on the wider area in general.

 

6.15  The supporting text with this particular policy describes how the Council recognises the impact that cross-Solent ferry terminals and their operation can have on both the immediate surrounding area and the road network and how the Council will support measures which reduce the effects experienced at the island cross-Solent terminals, particularly those experienced at the roll-on roll-off terminals during summer months, insofar as this effects both the character and the amenities of the immediate area.

 

6.16  Members may also wish to consider the Local Transport Plan, particularly the section D8 which deals with the issue of freight. The focus of the Council’s freight policies seeks to achieve the positive management of lorry movements and at the same time wherever possible protect the environment from the unnecessary intrusion of large commercial vehicles. While every opportunity is taken to reduce the environmental consequences of lorry movements, the Island does not have an extensive highway network and without a rail option, it is not always possible to avoid environmentally sensitive areas. This section of the LTP also covers out of hours deliveries and highlights the fact that transport industry recognises the environmental issues raised and advances in vehicle and engine technology together with the best practice measures are helping to reduce the noise and nuisance of night time deliveries and road usage. Nevertheless, there are some locations on the Island which will remain particularly sensitive to the environmental consequences of out of hours deliveries particularly where ferry ports, delivery destinations and routes are located within or close to residential areas.

 

6.17  The observations in the preceding paragraph and various initiatives all contribute to a Sustainable Distribution Strategy specifically SD4, SD5 and SD6.

 

·        to maintain essential access for freight traffic, whilst at the same time protecting sensitive areas from environmentally damaging traffic, where a more appropriate route may be available.

 

·        to direct lorry traffic to use appropriate routes and where necessary arrange the routing of abnormal and other heavy loads away from sensitive areas.

 

·        to work in partnership with the ferry operators so as to improve access to port interchanges and where possible reduce the environmental impact upon surrounding areas.

 

6.18   In terms of the operation of the site, the Transportation Consultants employed by the applicant’s agents have made the following observations.

 

“….site would be used by Red Funnel primarily for storage of trailers, prior to shipment off the island from East Cowes. Some incoming trailers from East Cowes may also be held at the site prior to onward transfer elsewhere on the island, although this would be a smaller number as many lorry movements from the ferry would still go straight to the company’s Riverway depot.

 

“….not only would the number of vehicle movements into and out of the site be small in comparison with the passing traffic flows but the great majority of them would be undertaken by drivers employed by Red Funnel, giving the company a high degree of control over the operation.”

 

6.19  Ferry operator anticipates that a majority (about 66%) of articulated vehicles leaving the site will make a left turn towards East Cowes.

 

6.20  Highway considerations in terms of the design (and geometry) of the proposed access and the operational arrangements have been discussed and agreed with the Highway Engineer who is recommending certain conditions to be imposed if the application is approved.

 

6.21  Having dealt with the more strategic policies/principal implications, the likely impact of the development in a rural area and transportation/highway matters there remains a number of more detailed issues which also need to be considered.

 

6.22  Crime and Disorder.  The comments from the Architectural Liaison Officer relate to the original submission for a larger site and a greater number of trailers. Nevertheless, the present legislation requires us to give this particular aspect careful consideration and appropriate weight to the comments submitted by the Architectural Liaison Officer. The major difficulty would appear to be that the suggested security measures may conflict with the mitigation which needs to take place to ensure that the development of the site does not have a serious detrimental effect on the amenities of the area arising from visual intrusion (or obtrusiveness) and potential noise and light pollution. It is apparent that a large part of the responsibility for the security of the site must rest with the applicants and it is anticipated that the scheme will require extensive secure fencing, adequate lighting and constant supervision aided by modern technology. The layout and design of the 27 bays means that a surveillance within the site should not present any major difficulties and consequently a balanced approach to the development would mean that, in my view, much of the existing natural screening and possible future screening should be used to mitigate against the use of a trailer park particularly during hours of darkness without compromising security

 

6.23  Noise Pollution. A significant element of the Design Statement put forward at the time of the initial submission by the applicant’s agent includes an Acoustic Impact Assessment prepared by noise and vibration control specialists on behalf of the applicant. They recognise that the proposed site is set into a rural area, well removed from large residential areas although concern has been expressed that noise from activities within the site would adversely affect the residents of Brickfield Cottages. Their assessment was designed to determine the acoustic impact, if any, on the occupants of these properties by establishing the existing ambient noise climate affecting the development site; to measure noise levels due to activities similar to those proposed for the site; to predict the residual noise levels at residential properties, due to these activities and to assess the predicted levels in accordance with the guidelines set out by the Local Authority and in BS4142.

 

6.24  In the Design Statement the agent points out this assessment was carried out in connection with the original application for a 60 space trailer park. The conclusion was that the day time and night time noise levels created by the proposed development would be within acceptable limits set out in PPG24 “Planning and Noise”, World Health Organisation recommendations and the relevant British Standards. They concluded, therefore, that the original submission of this application for 47 trailers with the parking bay areas physically further removed from Brickfield Cottages was likely to have a even less impact in terms of possible noise pollution.

 

6.25  The applicants have commissioned further work during the time the application has been lodged with the Council culminating in a report dated 1 February 2005 and, the key element of this latest report is the section which deals with the prediction of noise associated with use of the park and the measures to be taken in terms of the position and orientation of the reduced number of parking bays, the design and erection of an acoustic fence and operational controls in combination with the distance between the application site and Brickfield Cottages and other residential properties further away in East Cowes Road.

 

6.26  The critical factor on this particular issue is the consultation with the Environmental Health Officer (see Consultee Responses) and Members will note that no objection has been raised and recommending that certain conditions be imposed if the application is to be approved.

 

6.27  Light Spillage. It is recognised that there is increasing awareness and concern about light spillage or pollution and this is why it is important to apply the criteria specified in Policy D14 in terms of the design of the scheme or the imposition of appropriate conditions. Essentially, the criteria requires the lighting scheme should be the minimum required for the specific task; light spillage should be minimised; no distraction for users of nearby public highways; should be screened from neighbouring countryside and designed so as not to unreasonably effect any neighbouring properties.

 

6.28  The agent has confirmed that the external lighting scheme will comply with the current British Standards and available guidance and that the appearance will take into account the environmentally sensitive rural area and the proximity of existing residential properties. He advises that consideration has been made to assist drivers to follow routes into and around the site together with providing sufficient illumination during the hours of darkness to allow drivers to respond to signage and manoeuvre vehicles safely where speed is restricted to less than 30 mph and vehicles normally drive with dipped headlights. He further advises that the proposed “luminaires” shall be of a floodlight type fitting with the lamp source being of a high pressure sodium discharge type, which offers long life and resistance to failure due to vibration and shock. The specified luminaire shall be protected against dust, weather and corrosion and will be mounted in the horizontal plain to minimise obtrusive light at night and otherwise darkened environment.

 

6.29  Members are faced with a difficult decision which in the simplest terms involves the “urbanisation” of a relatively small site outside the built up area to assist with the operation of one of the two larger ferry terminals on the Island to reduce level of inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by residents living in the vicinity of the ferry terminal particularly at night when there is a significant number of commercial vehicle movements.

 

6.30  While there are strategic and local planning policies that would support the view that development of this nature (and appearance) is inappropriate in the countryside and should be resisted, there are more specific policies, particularly TR10 (Cross-Solent Ferry Links) and elements of the Local Transport Plan, which lead the practitioner and the decision maker to reflect on the benefits of this scheme now that it has been reduced from a proposal to use almost two hectares of land to accommodate 60 trailers down to the latest amended proposal which takes up a site of considerably less than one hectare for 28 trailers.

 

6.31  In the circumstances it is suggested that if Members are satisfied that there is a need for this type of facility because of difficulties in connection with the operations of the existing terminal, then it would be necessary to examine the site’s more specific and detailed aspects of the overall scheme in order to make a judgement as to whether this is an appropriate site not just in terms of its location in transportation terms but the likely or potential impact on the rural character of the area and residential properties in East Cowes Road. In the latter context views will have to be formulated on the degree of loss of rural character, not just in terms of the overall site but also the surrounding area and the potential threat to East Cowes Road residents.

 

6.32  This report has focussed on analysing the various issues and my conclusion is that the nature and proposed use of the site is unlikely to protect and enhance the rural character of the area but due regard has to be given to the landscape/ecological value of the site, as opposed to neighbouring land, the existing level of natural screening and the opportunity to carry out additional screening which is likely to be reasonably effective within a short period of time as the site is at a lower level than the metalled section of Whippingham Road. On balance, if Members accept the argument set out by the applicants, that the provision of this type of facility away from the existing ferry terminal is desirable, then it would seem that this particular site has a number of significant advantages as well as lending itself to possible mitigation to a point where qualified support can be given to the application. While it may be a finely balanced argument, it may be difficult to sustain an objection to the proposed development on grounds of visual amenity and significant harm to the rural character of the area.

 

6.33  Issues relating to possible noise pollution/light spillage and the former use of the land as a landfill site can be addressed by conditional control giving due regard and appropriate weight to the comments of the Environmental Health Officer and the Contaminated Land Officer. However, whilst the site can be bunded and screen planted and with acoustic fencing, all of which would reduce the visual and audible impact, the greatest concern is with light pollution. Notwithstanding any assurances and desk studies, anything other than low level, low height lighting will likely impact adversely on the amenity of this rural area.  Concerns about crime prevention can be addressed by adequate perimeter access controls (target hardening) and suitably manned on site security rather than via high level high intensity lighting

 

6.34  In similar terms since the traffic consultant has been able to satisfy the requirements of the Head of Engineering Services in terms of the position and geometry of the proposed access onto the classified road and the overall layout of the proposed development it would be difficult to object to the application on grounds relating to traffic and highway considerations particularly as the A3021 Whippingham Road is and will continue to be the only viable heavy vehicle route to the existing Red Funnel terminal at East Cowes.

 

6.35  Members of this Committee will be familiar with the advice offered on numerous occasions that applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise: this particular case is not an exception to that particular rule. Consequently, the fundamental policy objection to development in the countryside outside the built-up area cannot be set aside with any degree of ease despite the fact that there is a sustainable need for this type of facility and a clear argument that if this type of facility is to be provided within the countryside that this site may well be the most suitable. Any impact arising from the development is reduced by the location of the site and its distance from the nearest residential properties and can be further mitigated against and controlled by the imposition of appropriate conditions.

 

6.36  By the same token this cannot at the present time be considered to be a permanent solution to the problem and despite the obvious cost to the applicant of developing the site in terms of the construction of the access, the laying of the access road, hard surfacing of the trailer parking area, provision of fencing /lighting and possibly additional landscaping it would not be prudent of Council, as Local Planning Authority, to support the establishment of a permanent facility on this site. Therefore Members are invited to consider granting a temporary planning permission for a period of not less than five years. It is further recommended that the temporary period be controlled via an s106 Obligation to secure compliance. Ideally, in terms of its longevity, it would be linked closely to the timing of any facilities to be provided in the emerging scheme for East Cowes at which time a proper review of this freight trailer park can be conducted.

 

6.37  To ensure that any activities on the site remain as per any permission which may be granted it is essential that all permitted development rights are withdrawn for at least the duration of the permission, in particular those granted by Part 17 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 and any allied or subsequently re-enacted provisions.  It is suggested that this be incorporated into the s106 obligation rather than via a condition.

        

6.38  Having referred to the Town & Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation) (Departures) Directions 1999 it is my view that the Council has handled this departure application in an appropriate manner but under Annex 2, paragraph 7 (4) there would appear to be a sustainable argument for referring any decision to grant (temporary) permission to Government Office for the South East which gives the ODPM the opportunity to “call in” the application.

 

7.       Conclusion and justification for recommendation

 

7.1    Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this detailed and comprehensive report, I am satisfied that the development of this site to provide a freight trailer park facility represents and acceptable development but only on a temporary basis given the current state of flux in respect of the proposals for East Cowes.

 

8.       Recommendation

 

Conditional permission (Subject to s106 to secure the removal of the development at the end of the permitted period, removal of PD rights and a financial bond to secure compliance in default and reference to ODPM as the proposed development is a departure from the approved development plan.)

 

Conditions/Reasons:

 

1

 The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition on or before June 2010 in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: The use is not of a type considered suitable for permanent retention and to comply with policies S6 (Standards of Design) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

2

 The use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Red Funnel Limited and shall be for a limited period, being the period of five years from the date of this permission or the period during which the [land/premises/address] are occupied by Red Funnel Limited, whichever is the shorter.

 

Reason:  If there had been no discernable benefits in terms of the operational arrangements at the existing terminal the application may not have been approved.

 

3

 No [equipment, raw materials, finished or unfinished products or parts, crates, packing materials, derelict vehicles, vehicle bodies or waste materials] shall be stacked or stored on the site at any time except within the buildings or storage areas identified for those purposes on the approved plans.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the visual appearance of the site and the visual amenity of the surrounding area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

4

 Development shall not begin until details of the design, surfacing and construction of any new roads, footways, accesses and car parking areas, together with details of the means of disposal of surface water drainage therefrom have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason:  To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

5

 The development shall not be occupied until sight lines have been provided as in application on the approved plan (reference number 203-6(Drawing number 09 Rev.C)).  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.

 

6

 Soft landscape works shall include [planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities; an implementation programme].

 

Reason:  To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

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

 [The use hereby permitted shall not commence until details of any floodlighting to be installed have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason:  In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

10

 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/before the building(s) hereby permitted (is/are) occupied/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.

 

11

 In this condition "retained hedge or hedgerow" means an existing hedge or hedgerow which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars.

 

No retained hedge or hedgerow shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained hedge or hedgerow be reduced in height other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

If within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development the whole or any part of any retained hedge or hedgerow is removed, uprooted, is destroyed or dies, another hedge or hedgerow shall be planted at the same place and that hedge or hedgerow shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained hedge or hedgerow shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and particulars before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site.  Nothing shall be stored or placed in any fenced area in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered nor shall any excavation be made or fire be lit, without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:  To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing hedges or hedgerows and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

12

 Parking of vehicles and trailers fitted with refrigeration equipment shall not be permitted unless the refrigeration equipment is connected to the site electrical system as soon as possible after arrival; shall operate on electrical power at all times; and shall not be switched over to diesel power until immediately before leaving the site. Such refrigeration equipment shall not be run on diesel power while on site, except as provided for above.

 

Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby residents.

 

13

 The acoustic fence shown on the submitted drawing shall be designed in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and thereafter erected in accordance with those agreed specifications before the site is brought into use as a trailer park.

 

Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby residents.

 

 

14

 No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local PLanning Authority:

 

A desk top study documenting all previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with National guidance as set out in Contaminated Land Research Report Nos. 2 and 3 and BS10175: 2001;

 

and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

 

a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as appropriate by the Desktop Study in accordance with BS10175: 2001 - "Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice",

and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

 

a remediation scheme to deal with any contaminant including an implementation timetable monitoring proposals and a remediation verification methodology. The verification methodology shall include a sampling and analysis programme to confirm the adequacy of decontamination and appropriately qualified person shall oversee the implementation of all the remediation.

 

The construction of building shall not commence until the investigator has provided a report, which shall included confirmation that all remediation measures have been carried out fully in accordance with the scheme. The report shall also include results of the verification programme a post - remediation sampling and monitoring in order to demonstrate that the required remediation has been fully met. Future monitoring proposals and reporting shall also be detailed in the report.

 

Reason: To protect the environment and prevent harm to human health by ensuring that where necessary the land is remediated to an appropriate standard in order to comply with Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

 

15

 No development shall take place until a scheme for the drainage and disposal of surface water from the development hereby approved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme as approved shall be completed before any [residential] unit hereby permitted is first occupied.

 

Reason:  To ensure that surface water run-off is satisfactorily accommodated and to comply with policies G6 (Development in Areas Liable to Flooding) and G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

16

 Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals or other potential pollutants shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls.  The volume of the bunded compound must be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank/container plus 10%.  If there is multiple storage, the compound must be at least equivalent to the combined capacity of the tanks/containers and associated pipework plus 10%.  All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund.  The drainage system of the bund must be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata.  Associated pipework must be located above ground and protected against accidental damage.  All filling points and tank overflow pipes must discharge downwards into the bund.

 

Reason:  To minimise the risk of pollution and to comply with policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

 

17

 Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstanding shall be passed through an oil interceptor that has been constructed in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Roof water shall not be permitted to pass through the interceptor.

 

Reason:  To minimise the risk of pollution and to comply with policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

18

 The site shall not be used for overnight accommodation for drivers whose vehicle is parked on the site.

 

Reason:     This is a trailer park and not a lorry park with facilities or provision for overnight accommodation.

 

 

19

 The site shall only be used for the parking of freight trailers awaiting collection or despatch and which have been or are booked onto a Red Funnel vehicle ferry service within a 24 hour period of being first parked on site. For the avoidance of doubt the site shall not be used for overspill or other parking of cars, caravans or non freight trailers.

 

Reason:     This is an exception site granted planning permission to assist in the movement of freight vehicles to and from the Island.

 

 

 

 

 

3.

Reference Number: P/02545/04 - TCP/25724/A

Parish/Name:  Newport - Ward/Name: Osborne

Registration Date:  06/12/2004  -  Full Planning Permission

Officer:  Mr C Hougham Tel: (01983) 823576

Applicant:  Wightlink Limited

 

Formation of trailer park to accommodate 60 freight trailers and associated facilities; formation of vehicular access; storm water attenuation pond and landscaping (revised scheme).

land to north west of roundabout, Racecourse, Newport, PO30

 

 

PREAMBLE

 

This application has been submitted by Wightlink Limited. This report and the report prepared in connection with the application submitted by Red Funnel Limited for a similar development on adjacent land, should be read in conjunction with each other, but with the strict understanding that they are not joint applications and each application should be judged on its individual merits. This is despite the fact that there are a number of similarities between the two applications in terms of the proposed development.  Many of the policies and planning issues to be considered are the same, the applications are on adjoining land and, if approved, will be served by the same access off the A3021 Whippingham Road near its junction with the A3054. The sites are roughly equidistant between the ports of East Cowes and Fishbourne.  Members should also give due regard to the cumulative effect of both applications.

 

This application is recommended for temporary conditional planning permission, subject to an s106 Obligation and reference to the ODPM as a departure from the local development plan (i.e UDP).

 

 

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

 

This application seeks approval for a major transportation infrastructure project outside the built up area which has generated a very substantial number of letters of objection to the scheme. The proposed development raises a number of strategic and local issues which when combined with the level of opposition requires a determination by this Committee.

 

 

1.       Details of application

 

1.1    This is a full application and Members will find attached to this report a copy of a site plan for a reduced scheme, which was formally advertised and publicised in December 2004. Also appended is a plan that identifies the respective site areas of the two applications submitted by Wightlink and Red Funnel which were determined almost a year ago and the site of the present application.

 

1.2     This is the second application on this site and in its original form application sought detailed planning permission for a 80 space commercial freight trailer park as well as overspill parking for 120 cars and associated facilities including an area devoted to marshalling on land to the north-west of the roundabout with frontage onto the Racecourse and Whippingham Road (A3021), which was refused permission in May 2004.

 

1.3    This amended application is for a reduced scheme with sufficient capacity for up to 60 trailer units and no facility at all for the marshalling of cars all on 2.43 hectares.

 

1.4    Application is supported by detailed drawings and a detailed report (or Design Statement part of which is attached as an Appendix) prepared by agents, which deals with a variety of issues including the rationale of the design, traffic movements, highway design, surface water control, lighting and CCT security, landscaping and noise assessment.

 

1.5     This amended application and supporting detailed layout plan shows a commercial freight trailer parking area for up to 60 units occupying approximately 50% or less of the overall site area along a substantial part of the frontage onto the Racecourse, served by a purpose designed access onto East Cowes Road, which will also serve the proposed development by Red Funnel, but with a separate purpose    designed exit (or egress) only onto the Racecourse, approximately 80 metres from the roundabout. The layout plan includes details about the construction of the individual access/exit points in terms of visibility splays; control of commercial traffic within the site and landscaping/planting.

 

1.6    Members are advised that the earlier, refused application envisaged parking for up to 80 trailers with an “overflow marshalling area” for short-term passenger car parking capable of accommodating up to 120 vehicles.

 

1.7    This application and the other application by Red Funnel led to an informal challenge to a decision taken by the Local Planning Authority not to require an Environmental Statement.

 

·       In accordance with the Regulations (see Relevant History) the Local Planning Authority identified that this was Schedule 2 Development under category 10 (c) Infrastructure Projects (Construction of Intermodal Transhipment Facilities and Intermodal Terminals) and conducted a screening opinion and subsequently concluded that Environmental Impact Assessment was not required for the development. The relevant documentation appears on the public file for the submission made by Red Funnel. This decision and the subsequent opinion were challenged in written submissions principally by the local branch of the (CPRE) and subsequently the local branch of the Isle of Wight Society which necessitated a detailed response explaining that their position was based on incorrect information in terms of overall site areas (cumulative or otherwise) and also relied on an interpretation heavily influenced by the precedent argument which does not feature in the aforementioned legislation.

 

1.8    Members will note that since the submission of this application there has been a delay prior to reporting the matter to this Committee. This is for a number of reasons.

 

·       The submission of detailed information in terms of a noise assessment, which has been considered by the Environmental Health Officer.

 

·       Consultation with the Head of Engineering Services.

 

·       Allowing adequate time for all parties with an interest in the application to consider the amended scheme.

 

Although dealing with two separate applications, it was clear that the most pragmatic approach was to deal with both applications at the same time.

 

2.       Location and site characteristics

 

2.1     The application relates to an irregularly shaped area of open land situated to the west of the roundabout with substantial frontage onto both the Racecourse (A3054) and Whippingham Road (A3021).

 

2.2    The site is partially screened by existing hedgerows along both road frontages.

 

2.3    The amended scheme is for a reduced proposal but on virtually the same overall site area as the original submission, but with the significant difference that a large part of the area is now retained for proposed landscaping/planting to mitigate against the visual impact of the trailer park and the associated facilities.

 

3.       Relevant history

 

3.1    Members of this Committee will recall that both Wightlink and Red Funnel ferry operators submitted detailed applications during the second part of 2003 to develop two adjacent trailer parks on land within the triangle bounded by Whippingham Road, East Cowes Road and the Racecourse.

 

3.2    The application submitted by Wightlink on a substantial area of land adjacent to and partially overlapping the site of the Red Funnel application concurrently under consideration presented a number of complicated issues which resulted in the LPA forming a view that under the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England & Wales) Regulations 1999 the application should have been accompanied by an Environmental Statement. As the application did not include the necessary information, permission was refused under delegated powers on the following (abridged) grounds:

 

The information accompanying this application is inadequate and deficient in detail in respect of the strategic location and in particular the cumulative effect within the vicinity and the Island as a whole so that the Local Planning Authority is unable to consider fully the effects of the proposal on the impact of nearby resident, residents and Fishbourne and the burden or otherwise placed on the existing highway network, including traffic at the ports and in the absence of further details it is considered that the proposal is contrary to strategic planning policies S1, S2, S3, S4 and S11 and local planning policies TR1, TR8, TR12 and TR15 of the Unitary Development Plan.

 

3.3    There was no appeal against this decision.

 

3.4    An application by Red Funnel, on a much larger site than the one presently under consideration, made provision for a trailer park capable of accommodating up to 60 trailers with a purpose designed access off Whippingham Road, an access road and a controlled access point. The  LPA considered that it should have been accompanied by an Environmental Statement and in the absence of such a statement, the application was deemed to be refused under the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England & Wales) Regulations 1999, in particular Part 3 (7) sub part (4) and (5); advising them that he would treat this as a decision of the Authority for the purposes of paragraph 4 (c) of Article 25 of the Town & Country Planning (General Procedure Development) Order 1995. The applicants had no right of appeal under Section 78 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1999.

 

4.       Development Plan policy

 

4.1     Members will appreciate the interpretation and application of strategic and local planning policies is the key consideration in the determination of all planning applications and particularly where the Council, as Local Planning Authority, is examining what could be argued to be a virtually unique proposal within the countryside outside the built up area.

 

4.2    National Policy and Guidance – While there is generic, overarching PPG and PPS advice including RPG9 which covers many of the issues to be considered, there is nothing specifically related to trailer parks.

 

4.3     However, the South East Plan Core Document, public consultation draft of January 2005 does contain some draft policies which must be weighed in the balance even if the weight that they can be given is not very great. For instance IW1 encourages economic regeneration and inward investment, IW2 improvements to the strategic cross Solent links which are reliant on their remaining well managed and efficient and IW3 supports the timely implementation of the infrastructure required to support further growth. But set against these is IW4 relating to the need to maintain and enhance the quality and character of the rural environment.

 

4.4    Such is the nature of the proposed development that a wide range of strategic planning policies are considered to be relevant to the determination of the application which effectively presents Members with ‘tests’ to be applied in this case.

 

·       New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas

 

·       Development will be encouraged on land which has been previously developed (brownfield sites), rather than undeveloped (greenfield) sites

 

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

 

·       The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

 

·       Proposals for development which on balance, will be for the overall benefit to the island, by enhancing the economic, social or environmental position will be approved, provided any adverse impacts can be ameliorated.

 

4.5     Local policies - In terms of local planning policies, Members should give due regard and appropriate weight to the following policies:

 

·        G1 (Development Envelopes for towns and villages) states that land outside the development envelope boundaries is considered to be countryside where development, other than exceptions specified in other policies or proposals, will be resisted.

 

·        G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) and G5 (Development outside defined settlements) states that applications for new development will be permitted providing they satisfy a wide and comprehensive range of key criteria and also states that outside defined settlements, development may exceptionally be permitted if it requires a rural location (or benefits the rural economy) is of an appropriate scale, well designed and landscaped. The policy identifies a number of different types of development which inevitably cannot be an exhaustive list and does not include a commercial trailer park. Even then there is further criteria in terms of agricultural or landscape quality; loss of areas of conservation value, adversely affecting the amenities of the area etc. where development of the countryside will not be permitted.

 

·        G10 (Potential Conflict between proposed development and existing surrounding uses) states, in part that development proposals may be refused permission if they are considered incompatible with existing, adjoining or nearby activities.

 

4.6     The section of the UDP that deals with design and standards for development highlights that are landscapes are precious and all too easily compromised by insensitive development both in design and setting. This particular section highlights potential impacts on environment and the need for landscaping and also underlines two key issues relevant to this particular case.

 

·        D11 – (Crime and Design) – Development Proposals should be designed to reduce the opportunities for crime and should include measures to promote safe public access through areas and a high level of visibility in to, out of and across both public and private areas.

 

·        D14 – (Light Spillage) - Planning applications for development which includes or requires external lighting when approved, will be subject to conditions to ensure that a) the lighting scheme proposed is the minimum required for the task; b) light spillage is minimise, particularly skyward; c) there will be no dazzling or distraction to drivers using nearby highway; d) the lighting is screened from view from coastal, estuarine and navigable waters; e) on the edge of settlements or in the countryside, the lighting is screened from view from neighbouring countryside and f) it is designed so as not to unreasonably affect neighbouring property.

 

4.7     Clearly local planning policies developed to protect the countryside are relevant to this application but the proposed development of this former landfill site is not affected by a number of these important policies as they relate to specially designated areas and/or particularly vulnerable locations in terms of nature conservation or landscape which would include the loss of trees and hedgerows. However, although there is not a policy that can be directly linked to the establishment of a trailer park in this type of location, due regard must be given to Policy C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) which says:

 

·             Planning applications for appropriate development in the countryside must maintain and protect the landscape whether viewed from the land or sea, and should be for the benefit of the rural economy and the people who live there. Development which may be acceptable in the countryside must take account of the landscape character and the local distinctiveness of the area.

 

4.8    There is also the issue of pollution, in terms of not only the proposed use of the site but also the previous use of the land which means that policy P1 (Pollution and Development), Policy P2 (Minimise Contamination from Development) and Policy P3 (Restoration of Contaminated Land) are all relevant to this particular determination. Of more concern to a number of individuals opposed to the proposed development is the risk of loss of amenity due to noise and consequently the relevant policy becomes particularly important.

 

·        P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) the Council will only approve proposals for development which are sensitive to noise where these are located away from sources of noise and conversely where proposal for potentially noisy activities are likely to adversely impact upon sensitive development, details of mitigating measures will need to accompany planning applications and may become subject of conditions of approval.

 

4.9    Finally there are the local transport policies which include TR1 (Integrated Transport Network) whereby the Council will seek to encourage and develop an integrated and effective transport network. Development schemes in conformity with this proposal will be acceptable in principle.

 

4.10  In my view policies TR4, TR7, TR8 and TR13 are all relevant but particular attention should be given to the following three policies:

 

                            TR10 (Cross Solent Ferry Links)

                            TR11 (Traffic Management Schemes for Ferry Terminals)

                            TR15 (Bulk Freight Handling and Distribution Facilities)

 

4.11   These policies and the supporting text in the UDP and the Local Transport Plan will be referred to in the latter part of this report.

 

5.       Consultee and third party comments

 

5.1    If the Environment Agency are consistent with the observations that they made in respect of the other application, they will raise no objection, but ask that a specific condition be imposed which will mean that no development should be carried out until the scheme for the provision for a surface water regulation system is designed, agreed and implemented in combination with the underlaying of an impervious hardstanding with dedicated drainage to foul sewer or sealed tanks as well as oil interceptors and bunding for any oil/chemical storage tanks or containers.

 

5.2    Head of Engineering Services supports the application in terms of the overall objective to improved strategic transportation and the Highway Engineer has submitted his observations, raising no objection to the application, but asking for certain conditions to be imposed if planning permission is granted. These conditions will include control over the design/servicing and construction of the access roads and the parking area; completion of this work before the site is brought into use and provision of adequate visibility splays including full details of the engineering works required in connection with the two junctions. His observations conclude with a strong recommendation from the Head of Services and himself that if both applications are granted, that both Wightlink and Red Funnel enter into a discussion to overcome any commercial/operational issues so that all HGVs will enter the site off Whippingham Road and exit across the frontage of the Wightlink development onto the Racecourse. He explains that although Highway Consultants for Red Funnel have provided the required visibilities, 85 percentile and supporting Stage 1 Road Safety Audit to support their application, the removal of the danger from collision between right turning traffic and speeding vehicles on the Whippingham Road should be a priority and can be achieved with the co-operation of all parties as a through route will be available across the site.

 

5.3    Environmental Health Officer has submitted a detailed response in respect of both applications, in which he says:

 

The overall conclusion is that the noise from the site, both of lorry movements and of refrigeration, will result in noise levels within the nearest noise – sensitive premises that would be lower than the guideline levels of BS8399. You should be aware that there will be a slight loss of amenity, due to increased noise levels, and that noise from the proposed use will be audible to nearby dwellings. However, I cannot sustain an objection to the proposal in its current form on noise grounds, provided that a suitable condition is applied.

 

5.4    The condition recommended by the Environmental Health Officer will require refrigeration equipment to be connected to the site electrical system as soon as possible after arrival, operating thereafter on electrical power at all times and not switched over to diesel power until immediately before the trailer is removed from the site.

 

5.5    Ecology Officer submitted detailed observations not dissimilar from those that he made in respect of the application on the neighbouring site.  He recognises that the amended application means that any impacts upon wildlife and natural features are significantly reduced when compared with the previous submission(s).  Nevertheless, he does raise certain issues which can be summarised in the following terms:

 

·        The proposal requires the removal of a small number of trees that could be of ecological significance as they may be home to protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

·        Evidence of badger activity in south-eastern corner of the woodland, close to the proposed access road; another protected species under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.

·        Likely impact of lighting on nocturnal creatures.

·        Proposals involve removal of certain sections of hedgerow which are not believed to be hedgerows which would qualify as important under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997.

 

5.6    Wootton Bridge Parish Council have commented on the application in terms of a request for further information covering a number of issues that can be summarised in the following form:

 

·        A need for an operational plan demonstrating how the site will be managed.

·        A need for details on lighting.

·        A need for details on the visual impact/screening.

·        Lighting effects on the environment.

·        Whether there will be any fuelling facilities on site.

·        Concern over highway safety issues associated with the proposed exit onto the Racecourse, with suggestion that this exit or slip-road be incorporated within the site coming out onto the nearby roundabout.

 

5.7    Local branch of CPRE submitted a comprehensive letter of objection, copied to various organisations and individuals including GOSE, the local MP and the Chairman of East Cowes Road Residents Association (ECRRA), including their interpretation of the need (or otherwise) of an environmental impact assessment; a detailed assessment of a dated planning history in respect of this site and the neighbouring (Selangor) site; an analysis of specific local planning policies and alleged breach of specific strategic policies; noise and emission pollution; highway movement and congestion; road degradation and vehicle pollution; lighting on site; landscape, wildlife and tourism and the public interest in human rights.

 

          5.8     The submission concludes with the following observation:

 

In conclusion, the LPA will be in no doubt that, in common with residents in East Cowes, Whippingham, Wootton and Fishbourne, and numerous concerned Islanders and community organisations, we are vigorously opposed to the development of this site for moving and storing freight containers. Approval would represent another ad hoc precedent setting situation which would fly in the face of a multitude of planning policies, some of which have been detailed (herein), and would violate the human rights of large numbers of people. The effects on the Island’s environment and on the communities involved certainly merits an unequivocal REFUSAL.

 

5.9    The Barn Owl Trust are concerned that any future development on this land does not have a detrimental impact on any resident owls, which have been recorded as nesting in woods adjacent to the site. They make similar observations to those they submitted in respect of the application on the neighbouring site and ask that if approval is granted, conditions should be imposed which will embrace the necessary degree of protection they think is appropriate to accord with the requirements of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, in combination with mitigation for any loss of rough grassland associated with this particular development.

 

5.10   The Chairman of the Isle of Wight Society has submitted representations very similar to those made by the CPRE in terms of the need (or otherwise) for an environmental impact assessment. They also object to the possibility of chemical pollution to local watercourses and believe that the proposed access point of the A3021 (Whippingham Road) is likely to create a traffic hazard, illustrating their argument with a scenario about road users leaving insufficient time to make a journey to the ferry terminal for a scheduled sailing and unfamiliar with the road on a dark and/or wet night, could result in a traffic accident. A second letter from the first correspondent’s wife, who is the Chairman of the local group, highlights the issues in respect of the access onto Whippingham Road and the egress onto the Racecourse, believing that both present a potential traffic hazard; loss of visual amenity and undesirable precedent; development is contrary to restrictive rural policies and light and noise pollution.

 

5.11  This application, although it is though a reduced scheme, has attracted a large number of letters of objection from individuals living in the vicinity of the site, East Cowes Road, Whippingham, Wootton, Medina Yacht Harbour and Fairlee and those living further afield, are nevertheless familiar with the site. At the time of preparing this report there were 141 letters of objection, in some cases multiple representations from the same property, which range from a simple reiteration of their objection to the earlier application to a more comprehensive analysis of the latest scheme and their reasons for their opposition to a grant of a permission.

 

5.12  In common with the application submitted by Red Funnel, this local opposition includes a number of representations from the East Cowes Road Residents Association (ECCRA) who have written directly to Planning Services and also to (former) Members of the Authority. ECCRA were responsible for the compilation of the petition in respect of the application by Red Funnel on the neighbouring land.

 

5.13   In common with the application on the neighbouring land, the issues raised in the letters of objection can be summarised in the following terms:

 

·        Inappropriate development in the countryside.

 

·        Potential increase in traffic flow and traffic congestion.

 

·        Potential traffic hazard in the vicinity in the access off Whippingham Road and the egress onto the Racecourse.

 

·        Loss of visual amenity.

 

·        Threat to local environment and natural habitats.

 

·        Loss of trees and hedgerows.

 

·        Potential for light/noise/chemical pollution.

 

·        Undesirable precedent for other development proposals of a similar nature.

 

6.       Evaluation

 

6.1     Determining factors in this particular case relate to interpretation and application of strategic and local planning policies in combination with the overall principle of allowing development of this nature outside the built up area, potential traffic generation and access arrangements, impact on the rural character of the area, possible loss of trees/hedgerows, the impact on the nearby properties in terms of noise and light pollution and the issue of precedent. This is essentially a three stage process: first has the need been established that a scheme of this nature is required sufficient to override normal safeguards, second, if so, is this the best or correct location and third, if so, can the impact be mitigated?

 

6.2    In this case Members should also give due regard and appropriate weight to a decision to refuse planning permission on the initial application, which principally arose from the LPA’s concern about strategic issues relating to the proposed development of this site and the neighbouring site. On this basis, the view was taken that the proposed development was in conflict with a range of strategic policies, (S1, S2, S3, S4 and S11) and a local transportation policies (TR1, TR8, TR12 and TR15) which deal exclusively with the need to provide an integrated transport network, the environmental impact of new infrastructure schemes and bulk freight handling and distribution facilities.

 

6.3     Members will have to satisfy themselves that this amended application for a reduced facility, within roughly the same site area, no longer sufficiently conflicts with these strategic local planning policies, in combination with any proposed mitigation, to a degree which would allow the Council, as Local Planning Authority, to grant approval subject to the application being referred to the ODPM.

 

6.4    The differences between the initial application and the proposal now under consideration have been dealt with in the earlier part of this report, but for the avoidance of any doubt, Members are asked to take into account the specific amendments which can be summarised in the following terms:

 

·        Original proposal for trailer park providing 80 spaces and an overflow marshalling area capable of accommodating 120 vehicles, has been reduced to a trailer park with 60 spaces.

 

·        Initial proposal would have resulted in only boundary landscaping, whereas amended scheme substantially reduces the hard surfaced area, leaving a significant part of the site on the East Cowes Road/roundabout frontage available for more comprehensive landscaping/planting.

 

6.5     When looking at the application from a wider perspective, Members will be conversant with the difficulties faced by this particular operator at the terminal facility at Fishbourne, particularly the practical day to day problems of handling an ever increasing amount of freight brought onto the Island through this ferry port and, to a much lesser extent, at Yarmouth. 

 

6.6    The applicants are cognisant of the problem and the consequent increase of loss of amenity for residents living in the vicinity of the ferry terminal and have attempted to address the matter through their working practices to reduce any potential traffic congestion in Fishbourne Lane and at the junction with the A3054 (Eleanors Grove) and to mitigate against potential noise and disturbance during anti-social hours, as current capacity requires them to work through the night on a 24 hour-a-day basis.

 

6.7    Both ferry operators seem to be adopting a responsible approach to the problem by the identification of these two sites as a possible location for two down-sized trailer parks, designed with the intention of alleviating some of the pressures at their terminals.

 

6.8    It is considered that there is a sustainable argument for this kind of facility in a strategic location close to the main centres population and the existing terminal, at least on a temporary basis until a more permanent solution comes forward in the form of alternative freight handling arrangements or a new or enlarged port facility. However, while the location of this site from a transportation aspect has clear advantages due weight has to be given to its location in the countryside outside the built up area when examining the desirability of the proposed development particularly in the context of strategic and local planning policies. Certainly the initial conclusion is that the proposed development of this site as a transport facility is in conflict with the broad strategic policies which seek to concentrate development within urban areas and expects new development to be located in or adjacent to the defined development envelopes of the main towns to protect the countryside from inappropriate development.

 

6.9    Members will have to balance, what appears to be fundamental objections to the development of this rural site, against the strategic aim that the development which is for the overall benefit of the Island by enhancing the economic, social and environmental position will be approved, providing any adverse impacts can be ameliorated. Failure to address the issues now will lead to an increasing deterioration in the areas adjacent to the ferry terminals and also impact adversely on the Island’s wellbeing, albeit this might not be apparent for many years and perhaps be difficult to quantify. On the other hand Members must be sure that the application site is the most appropriate for a permanent trailer park if they are to grant planning permission. Also, a location which may be suitable for a limited period may be considered sub-optimal for a permanent consent. Members are advised there is no right or wrong answer because any decision involves balance, judgement and trade-offs.

 

6.10   In locational terms the site of a freight trailer park must, ideally, be off a main road, in relatively close proximity to the vehicle ferry terminals (both of which are located on the north and north east of the Island) and where disturbance to individual residents is minimised. Balanced against this is the need to protect and enhance the open countryside.

 

6.11  The site is close to the junction of the A3021 (the road to East Cowes) and the A3054 leading to Fishbourne. It is roughly equidistant between the two terminals and a not dissimilar distance from Newport. There is adequate highway capacity and little nearby residential property. Given that the traffic handled by the trailer parks will be accessing the terminals in any event the only reasonable locations are along or immediately off the A3021 or the A3054.

 

6.12  Local planning policies contained in the UDP conveniently highlight the range of issues that need to be taken into account in the determination of this application ranging from general location criteria for new development to issues relating to noise, pollution, light, spillage and crime/design, protection of the landscape and key transport issues. In my view the major difficulty in interpretation and application of Local Planning policies in this particular case, is the unique nature of the proposed development and the fact that there is not a (comparable) benchmark to work to in terms of assessing the overall benefits against any possible damage to the local environment.

 

6.13   Notwithstanding the fact this site is outside the development envelope boundaries and it does not have the advantages of being a relatively well screened low-lying area such as the adjacent Red Funnel site, but it is screened to some extent by boundary hedgerows, it is not in a specially designated area for landscape quality (ie. AONB) and any potential ecological problems can be addressed by adherence to other legislation such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act as advocated by the County Ecology Officer. As such it can be argued that the development of the site will not be in conflict with several of the criteria set out in policy G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) as it is apparent that the use of the land as a trailer park will not protrude above prominent ridges or skylines; will not intrude into prominent views; will not intrude into the setting of any significant landmark or adversely affect any area noted for its quality of landscape or importance ecologically.

 

6.14  The unique nature of the proposed development is underlined in policy G5 which in the “exception criteria” does not identify a trailer park, but again it does identify criteria which would render a particular proposal in the countryside unacceptable, although this application would result in the loss of land which would appear to be capable of agricultural (grazing) use, although the applicant quite rightly describes the site as presently vacant land and part of a former landfill site.

 

6.15  In terms of visual amenity and landscape quality, the fundamental objective contained in policy C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) will need to be applied as this site is not affected by many other countryside policies which relate to nationally and/or locally designated sites. Nevertheless, the issues of trees and hedgerows is an important determining factor as development would result in the loss or damage to trees and hedgerows which contribute to the character or amenity of the area, should not be approved, unless the Council is satisfied that there is an overriding need for the development and appropriate replacement planting is undertaken on site.

 

6.16  Critical to the outcome of this application is the interpretation and application of policy TR11 (Traffic Management Schemes for Ferry Terminals) which states that the Authority will approve appropriate land use proposals or traffic management schemes that would help to address the traffic and marshalling problems associated with the Island’s cross-Solent ferry terminals, subject to three specific criteria:

 

·       The suggested schemes are in keeping with the surroundings.

 

·       It is appropriate in scale and operation for the location proposed;

 

·       It would not have an unacceptable detrimental or adverse environmental  impact on the wider area in general.

 

6.17  The supporting text with this particular policy describes how a Council recognises the impact that cross-Solent ferry terminals and their operation can have on both the immediate surrounding area and the road network and how the Council will support measures which reduce the effects experienced at the Island cross-Solent terminals, particularly those experienced at the roll-on roll-off terminals during summer months, insofar as this affects both the character and amenities of the immediate area.

 

6.18  Members may also wish to consider the Local Transport Plan (LTP) particularly Section D8 which deals with the issue of freight. The focus of the Council’s freight policy seeks to achieve the positive management of lorry movements and at the same time, wherever possible, protect the environment from the unnecessary intrusion of large commercial vehicles.  While every opportunity is taken to reduce the environmental consequences of lorry movements, the Island does not have an extensive highway network and without a rail option, it is not always possible to avoid environmentally sensitive areas. This section of the LTP also covers out of hours deliveries and highlights the fact that transport industry recognises the environmental issues raised and advances in vehicle and engine technology, together with the best practice measures, area helping to reduce and noise and nuisance of night time deliveries and road usage. Nevertheless, there are some locations on the Island which remain particularly sensitive to the environmental consequences of out of hours deliveries, particularly where ferry ports, delivery destinations and routes are located within, or close to, residential areas.

 

6.19  The observations in the preceding paragraph and various initiatives all contribute to a Sustainable Distribution Strategy, specifically SD4, SD5 and SD6.

 

·        To maintain essential access for freight traffic, whilst at the same time protecting sensitive areas from environmentally damaging traffic, where a more appropriate route may be available.

 

·        To direct lorry traffic to use appropriate routes and where necessary arrange the routing of abnormal and other heavy loads away from sensitive areas.

 

·        To work in partnership with the ferry operators so as to improve access to port interchanges and where possible reduce the environmental impact upon surrounding areas.

 

6.20   In this context the applicant’s agent has highlighted the growth in freight traffic and comments:

 

“A satellite trailer park would enable trailers to be removed immediately from the terminal on arrival, at busy times, in order to release more lanes for general marshalling purposes. These trailers would be held at the satellite trailer park until collected to meet the scheduled delivery time at the end location.

 

For shipments from Fishbourne to Portsmouth, trailers would be delivered directly to the satellite trailer park from where, at peak periods a “just in time” shipment policy can be operated to minimise trailer parking times at Fishbourne terminal prior to shipment. These arrangements will significantly improve traffic management at Fishbourne and will contribute towards a reduction in the number of times queues on the approach road to the terminal are experienced.

 

A number of major Island transport operators are experiencing a shortage of trailer storage space to meet their existing business requirements. The shortage of suitably located sites, which are also remote from residential development, is stifling growth opportunities for Island businesses and providing competitive advantages for mainland operators. A satellite parking facility will provide additional parking space to ease these problems. This will be of benefit, both to the business concerned and to the areas around the Island, which currently have to accommodate unsuitable trailer parking.

 

…traffic patterns exhibit the normal morning and evening peak flows on Fairlee Road and Lushington Hill, although the pattern for Whippingham Road is less “peaky”. On the available data the midday flows appear to be in the region of 500 – 650 Vehicles Per Hour (vph) with peak hour flows on Lushington Hill towards Fishbourne up to 900 vph. These flows are 5-day averages and the peak day data can be up to 20% greater.

 

Predicated commercial vehicle movements using the site will range between 70 and 90 per day. It is expected that the majority of movements will take place during the day/evening period (07.00 – 23.00). Movements are normally expected to be spread evenly throughout the day, with an average of around 4 per hour (daytime)  and 3 per hour (night time). The maximum number of movements in any hour is predicted to be 12 during the day and 6 at night, albeit these occasions will be rare. These flows are very small against the back ground flow and will not have a significant effect on the present traffic environment.”

 

6.21  Highway considerations in terms of the design (and geometry) of the proposed access and egress and the operational arrangements, have been discussed and agreed with the Highway Engineer who is recommending certain conditions to be imposed if the application is approved, but with a further overriding recommendation on both applications, which would eliminate egress onto Whippingham Road, with both this site and the adjacent site egressing onto the Racecourse.

 

6.22  Having dealt with the more strategic policies/principle implications and the likely impact of the development in a rural area and transport/highway matters, there remains a number of specific issues which also need to be brought into the equation for the determination of this application.

 

6.23   Crime and disorder.  The major difficulty would appear to be that the suggested security measures may conflict with the mitigation which needs to take place to ensure that the development of the site does not have a serious detrimental effect on the amenity of the area, arising from visual intrusion (or obtrusiveness) and potential noise and light pollution. It is apparent that a large part of the responsibility for the security of the site must rest with the applicant and it is anticipated that the scheme will require extensive secure fencing, adequate lighting and constant supervision aided to modern technology.  The layout and design of the trailer park means that surveillance within the site should not present any significant problems and consequently, a balance approach to the development would mean that, in my view, much of the existing natural screening, particularly on the frontage onto the roundabout and Whippingham Road, should help in the mitigation proposed in connection with the use of the site as a trailer park, particularly during hours of darkness, without compromising security.

 

6.24  Noise pollution.  It is not considered that this is an overriding consideration, as this particular site is a considerable distance away from the nearest residential properties. Nevertheless, the applicant’s agent has employed an expert who carried out a noise assessment in connection with the original scheme, which quite obviously can be applied to this amended application for a reduced size trailer park.  The summary of the findings is as follows:

 

Pre-development ambient noise levels have been measured and the results extrapolated to estimate background levels at the nearest residential property, Brickfield Cottages, East Cowes Road.  Measurements have also been made of noise levels produced by a typical tractor and trailer combination undergoing representative manoeuvres, and relevant operational noise indices at the residential properties have been extrapolated from the results.

 

The residential noise level expected to be provided by the new operation, have been assessed against a number of authoritative criteria for limiting residential noise levels and it is concluded from those results that the new noise should be regarded as acceptable.

 

The expert has “tested” his results against PPG24 (Noise) and British Standards 4142 and 8233:1999) and, in his view, any “noise from the development can therefore be considered to be no greater than that from existing commercial road traffic on the Racecourse and the A3054 and is likely to be indistinguishable from that noise.”

 

6.25  In common with the application submitted by Red Funnel, this proposal also makes provision for six trailer bays with power connectors for refrigerated trailers, in conjunction with acoustic fencing adjacent to the proposed egress out onto the Racecourse.

 

6.26  The critical factor on this particular issue is the consultation with the Environmental Health Officer and Members will note that he is not raising an objection, but recommending that certain conditions be imposed if the application is to be approved.

 

6.27  Light spillage.  It is recognised that there is increasing awareness and concern about light spillage or pollution and this is why it is important to apply the criteria specified in policy D14 in terms of the design of the scheme, or the imposition of appropriate conditions. Essentially, the criteria requires the lighting scheme should be the minimum required for the specific task; light spillage should be minimised; no distraction for users of nearby public highway; should be screened from neighbouring countryside and designed so as not to unreasonably affect any neighbouring properties.

 

6.28  In his design statement the agent has specified that the external lighting arrangement will provide a safe operating environment while also assisting with the security of the site. He confirms that the lighting will be designed to comply with BS5489 Part II and III and CIBSE Lighting Guide LG6 for the outdoor environment; a maintained average luminance level of 20 lux will be specified.

 

“…… lighting columns will not exceed the height of the mature trees in the surrounding woodland, with luminaires shielded to minimise light pollution outside the site boundary.  Control will be provided by photoelectric cells with over right control from within the gatehouse.”

 

6.29  In my opinion Members are faced with a difficult decision which in the simplest terms involves the “urbanisation” of part of a site outside the built up area to assist with the operation of one of the two larger ferry terminals on the Island to reduce the level of inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by residents living in the vicinity of the ferry terminal, particularly at night when there is a significant number of commercial vehicle movements.

 

6.30  While there are fundamental strategic and local planning policies that would support the view that development of this nature (and appearance) is inappropriate in the countryside and should be resisted, there are more specific policies, particularly TR10 (Cross-Solent Ferry Links) and elements of the Local Transport Plan, which lead the practitioner and the decision maker to reflect on the benefits of this scheme now that it has been reduced to 60 trailers on something that is probably just in excess of 50% of the overall site area.

 

6.31  In the circumstances it is suggested that if Members are satisfied that there is a need for this type of facility because of difficulties in connection with the operations of the existing terminal, then it would be necessary to examine detailed aspects of the overall scheme in order to make a judgement as to whether this is an appropriate site not just in terms of its location in transportation terms, but the likely or potential impact on the rural character of the area and residential properties in the locality.

 

6.32  This report has focussed on analysing the various issues and my conclusion is that the nature and proposed use of the site is unlikely to protect and enhance the rural character of the area, but due regard has to be given to the landscape/ecological value of the site, the existing level of natural screening and the opportunity to carry out additional landscape/planting which may, nevertheless, take a number of years before it is sufficiently mature to become effective in terms of a mitigation measure. While it may be a finely balanced argument, my opinion is that it may be difficult to sustain an objection to the proposed development on grounds of visual amenity and significant harm to the rural character of the area.

 

6.33  Issues relating to possible noise pollution/light spillage can be addressed by additional control if you give due regard and appropriate weight to the comments of the Environmental Health Officer. However, whilst the site can be bunded and screen planted and with acoustic fencing, all of which would reduce the visual and audible impact, the greatest concern is with light pollution. Notwithstanding any assurances and desk studies, anything other than low level, low height lighting will likely impact adversely on the amenity of this rural area.  Concerns about crime prevention can be addressed by adequate perimeter access controls (target hardening) and suitably manned on site security rather than via high level high intensity lighting.

 

6.34  In similar terms the information contained in the agent’s design statement has been able to satisfy the requirements of the Head of Engineering Services in terms of the position and geometry of the proposed access, any egress onto the two classified roads and the overall layout of the proposed development it would be difficult to object to the application on grounds relating to traffic and highway considerations, particularly as the road network in the vicinity of the roundabout will continue to be the most viable heavy vehicle route to the Fishbourne terminal as well as the terminal at East Cowes in a location almost equidistant from the two main towns of Newport and Ryde on a junction which offers the only viable means of access to the town of East Cowes.

 

6.35  Members of this Committee will be familiar with the advice offered on numerous occasions that applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise and I do not view this particular case as an exception to that particular rule. Consequently, the fundamental policy objection to development in the countryside outside the built-up area cannot be set aside with any degree of ease despite the fact that there is a sustainable need for this type of facility and a clear argument that if this type of facility is to be provided within the countryside that this particular site, the adjacent site or the immediate locality, may well be suitable. Any impact arising from the development is reduced by the distance from the nearest residential properties and can be further mitigated against and controlled by the imposition of appropriate conditions.

 

6.36   By the same token this cannot be considered to be a permanent solution to the problem and despite the obvious cost to the applicant of developing the site in terms of the construction of the access/egress, the laying of the access road, hard surfacing of the trailer parking area, provision of fencing/lighting and additional landscaping/planting, it would not be prudent for the Council, as Local Planning Authority, to support the establishment of a permanent facility on this site and therefore Members are invited to consider granting a temporary planning permission for a period of no less than five years. It is further recommended that the temporary period be controlled via an s106 Obligation to secure compliance. Ideally, in terms of its longevity, it would be linked closely to the timing of a suitable location for any facilities to be provided in the emerging Local Development framework (LDF) at which time a proper review of this freight trailer park can be conducted.

 

6.37   To ensure that any activities on the site remain as per any permission which may be granted it is essential that all permitted development rights are withdrawn for at least the duration of the permission, in particular those granted by Part 17 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 and any allied or subsequently re-enacted provisions.  It is suggested that this be incorporated into the s106 obligation rather than via a condition.

 

6.38 Having referred to the Town & Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation) (Departures) Directions 1999, it is my view that the Council has handled this Departure application in an appropriate manner, but under Annex 2, Paragraph 7(4) there would appear to be a sustainable argument referring any decision to grant (temporary) permission to the Government  Office for the South East, which gives the ODPM the opportunity to “call in” the application.

 

7.       Conclusion and justification for recommendation

 

7.1    Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this detailed and comprehensive report, I am satisfied that the development of this site to provide a freight trailer park facility represents and acceptable development but only on a temporary basis given the current state of flux in respect of the proposals for East Cowes.

 

8.       Recommendation

 

Conditional permission (Subject to s106 to secure the removal of the development at the end of the permitted period, removal of PD rights and a financial bond to secure compliance in default and reference to ODPM as the proposed development is a departure from the approved development plan.)

 

Conditions/Reasons:

 

1

 The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition on or before June 2010 in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: The use is not of a type considered suitable for permanent retention and to comply with policies S6 (Standards of Design) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

2

 The use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Wightlink Limited and shall be for a limited period, being the period of five years from the date of this permission or the period during which the [land/premises/address] are occupied by Wightlink Limited, whichever is the shorter.

 

Reason:  If there had been no discernable benefits in terms of the operational arrangements at the existing terminal the application may not have been approved.

 

3

 No [equipment, raw materials, finished or unfinished products or parts, crates, packing materials, derelict vehicles, vehicle bodies or waste materials] shall be stacked or stored on the site at any time except within the buildings or storage areas identified for those purposes on the approved plans.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the visual appearance of the site and the visual amenity of the surrounding area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

4

 Development shall not begin until details of the design, surfacing and construction of any new roads, footways, accesses and car parking areas, together with details of the means of disposal of surface water drainage therefrom have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason:  To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

5

 No dwelling shall be occupied until the parts of the service roads which provide access to it have been constructed, surfaced and drained in accordance with [the approved plans/details which have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority].

 

Reason:  To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

6

 The development, hereby approved, shall not be brought into use/operation until site lines have been provided in accordance with the visibility splay shown on the approved plan 4606(A1)/201.  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.

 

 

7

 Development shall not begin until details of the junction between the proposed service road and the highway have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; and the building shall not be occupied until that junction has been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason:  To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

8

 [The use hereby permitted shall not commence/No (building/dwelling) hereby permitted shall be occupied] until space has been laid out within the site and [drained and surfaced/#] [in accordance with drawing number (#)/in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing] for [# cars/bicycles] to be parked [and for (#) vehicles to be loaded and unloaded] [and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear].  The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition.

 

Reason:  In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

9

 Soft landscape works shall include [planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities; an implementation programme].

 

Reason:  To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

10

 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.

 

11

 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.

 

12

 [The use hereby permitted shall not commence until details of any floodlighting to be installed have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason:  In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

13

 No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected.  The boundary treatment shall be completed [before the use hereby permitted is commenced/before the building(s) hereby permitted (is/are) occupied/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.

 

14

 In this condition "retained hedge or hedgerow" means an existing hedge or hedgerow which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars.

 

No retained hedge or hedgerow shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained hedge or hedgerow be reduced in height other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

If within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development the whole or any part of any retained hedge or hedgerow is removed, uprooted, is destroyed or dies, another hedge or hedgerow shall be planted at the same place and that hedge or hedgerow shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained hedge or hedgerow shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and particulars before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site.  Nothing shall be stored or placed in any fenced area in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered nor shall any excavation be made or fire be lit, without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:  To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing hedges or hedgerows and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

15

 Parking of vehicles and trailers fitted with refrigeration equipment shall not be permitted unless the refrigeration equipment is connected to the site electrical system as soon as possible after arrival; shall operate on electrical power at all times; and shall not be switched over to diesel power until immediately before leaving the site. Such refrigeration equipment shall not be run on diesel power while on site, except as provided for above.

 

Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby residents.

 

16

 The acoustic fence shown on the submitted drawing shall be designed in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and thereafter erected in accordance with those agreed specifications before the site is brought into use as a trailer park.

 

Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby residents.

 

 

17

 No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local PLanning Authority:

 

A desk top study documenting all previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with National guidance as set out in Contaminated Land Research Report Nos. 2 and 3 and BS10175: 2001;

 

and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

 

a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as appropriate by the Desktop Study in accordance with BS10175: 2001 - "Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice",

and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

 

a remediation scheme to deal with any contaminant including an implementation timetable monitoring proposals and a remediation verification methodology. The verification methodology shall include a sampling and analysis programme to confirm the adequacy of decontamination and appropriately qualified person shall oversee the implementation of all the remediation.

 

The construction of building shall not commence until the investigator has provided a report, which shall included confirmation that all remediation measures have been carried out fully in accordance with the scheme. The report shall also include results of the verification programme a post - remediation sampling and monitoring in order to demonstrate that the required remediation has been fully met. Future monitoring proposals and reporting shall also be detailed in the report.

 

Reason: To protect the environment and prevent harm to human health by ensuring that where necessary the land is remediated to an appropriate standard in order to comply with Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

 

18

 No development shall take place until a scheme for the drainage and disposal of surface water from the development hereby approved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme as approved shall be completed before any [residential] unit hereby permitted is first occupied.

 

Reason:  To ensure that surface water run-off is satisfactorily accommodated and to comply with policies G6 (Development in Areas Liable to Flooding) and G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

19

 Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals or other potential pollutants shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls.  The volume of the bunded compound must be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank/container plus 10%.  If there is multiple storage, the compound must be at least equivalent to the combined capacity of the tanks/containers and associated pipework plus 10%.  All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund.  The drainage system of the bund must be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata.  Associated pipework must be located above ground and protected against accidental damage.  All filling points and tank overflow pipes must discharge downwards into the bund.

 

Reason:  To minimise the risk of pollution and to comply with policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

20

 Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstanding shall be passed through an oil interceptor that has been constructed in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Roof water shall not be permitted to pass through the interceptor.

 

Reason:  To minimise the risk of pollution and to comply with policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

4.

Reference Number: P/00212/05 - TCP/01532/W

Parish/Name:  Shanklin - Ward/Name: Shanklin South

Registration Date:  03/02/2005  -  Full Planning Permission

Officer:  Mr J Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567

Applicant:  Lentminster Developments Ltd

 

Erection of 4 detached 2 storey houses & 3 storey terrace of 4 houses (revised scheme)

West Coombe Lodge and West Coombe Hotel, Westhill Road, Shanklin, PO37

 

 

The application is recommended for conditional permission.

 

 

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

 

This was a major application on initial submission and the local member, Councillor Ms A Bishop, is a neighbouring property owner.

 

 

1.       Details of application

 

1.1    This is a full application for the erection of 4 detached two storey houses and a three storey terrace of 4 houses.  The scheme originally submitted was for 11 units in the form of three short terraces

 

1.2    Access to the site is from Westhill Road, located on the north side approximately 150 metres from its junction with Highfield Road and Pomona Road, Shanklin.  Access presently serves the former Westhill Manor, which is now in apartments, and various other individual detached and semi-detached houses and is part of a one way access/egress system, the egress being located approximately 100 metres to the west, again onto the north side of Westhill Road.

 

1.3    Plans show the development to comprise 4 detached houses with access directly off the existing access road, a terrace of 4 properties located to the extreme north end of the site, with a joint access off the main access into the Manor.  The houses will all be of four bedroom design, some incorporating integral garages, the others having detached garages.

 

1.4    It is proposed to use facing bricks with feature panels in smooth render, with bargeboards and windows in white uPVC and interlocking concrete tiles to the roof.

 

2.       Location and site characteristics

 

2.1    Access to the site is presently shared with No. 3 Westhill Road, a narrow driveway serving the premises which are presently used, or last used, as a hotel.  The building is rendered and painted, flat roofed and two storeys in height almost abutting the eastern boundary and, in addition, includes a small, former annexe of two storeys in height to the northern side.

 

2.2    Area is characterised by much long established development of large buildings in large sites fronting Highfield Road, some more modern bungalows located to the west, again off the driveway serving Westhill Manor, and the Manor itself which has undergone comparatively recent reconstruction and conversion into apartments.

 

3.       Relevant history

 

3.1    Change of use, alterations and extension at first floor level to form 8 self-contained flats refused August 2000 on grounds of loss of hotel accommodation and overlooking of adjoining properties.  Appeal allowed in December 2000.  Permission still valid.

 

3.2     Outline planning permission granted for demolition of hotel and dwelling and for the erection of 5 detached houses and garages approved in January 2004.  Proposal intended to use the existing access which is currently shared with No. 3 Westhill Road.

 

3.3     Other consents include new pitched roof to form a flat within the roof space of the existing hotel approved July 2001.  Subsequent Appeal allowed in December 2001.  Extension of first floor level, alterations and change of use to form manager's/owner's accommodation and 6 holiday flats approved November 2000.

 

4.       Development Plan policy

 

          4.1    National Policy Guidance

 

          PPGs 3 and 13 apply relating to housing densities and sustainability and regarding access and parking.

 

4.2    UDP Policy

 

         Policy G1 steers development toward areas within development envelopes. 

         Policies D1 and 2 seek high standards of design for all new development.

         Policy TR7 seeks to provide new development taking account of matters of highway safety.

 

4.3    The site is not with an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty nor a Conservation Area.

 

5.       Consultee and third party comments

 

          5.1    Internal Consultees

 

         Highway Engineer has identified some detailed shortcomings of the scheme and recommends revisions or conditions as appropriate.

 

          5.2    External Consultees

 

                   National Air Traffic Services Ltd - no objection.

 

          5.3    Town Council Comments

        

         Shanklin Town Council considered original proposal for 11 units to be overdevelopment.  No comments from the Town Council have been received regarding the revised scheme.

 

          5.4    Neighbours

 

          Prior to revision of the proposals from 11 terraced units to 4 terraced and 4 detached units there were 11 letters of objection from local residents and neighbours on grounds of additional traffic, inadequate access and visibility, generation of noise, overdevelopment, pedestrian dangers due to increased traffic, loss of trees, development of an inappropriate character and materials.

 

          Following revision and readvertisement 1 letter of support has been received and 1 letter of further objection on grounds of additional traffic through the Westhill Manor access system.

 

6.       Evaluation

 

          6.1    The main issues relating to this application are:

         

·               Policies and principle of development.

·               Traffic considerations, parking and highway implications.            

·               Numbers of dwellings.

·               Effect on adjoining properties.

·               Design and materials.

·               Effect on preserved trees.

 

6.2    In terms of policy and principle the site is located with the development envelope and surrounded by residential property.  There is, therefore, a presumption in favour of development which accords otherwise with policies and other considerations.  In addition planning permission has already been granted for the redevelopment of the site with 5 residential properties and, furthermore, a consent has been granted for the establishment by conversion of the existing building into 8 flats.  Accordingly, there can be no objection in principle to the redevelopment of this site with 8 units.

 

6.3    In terms of traffic and highway implications, 8 units of dwelling on the site have been approved previously and therefore levels of traffic have already been considered acceptable.  It is accepted that the dwellings proposed are larger, having more accommodation within them than the flats that were originally approved.  Despite that both PPG13 and UDP Policy TR7 encourage reduction in the reliance on the private vehicle and expound the virtues of reduced car parking accordingly.  This is reflected in the layout of the site which shows that at least two of the plots will have only one car parking space or garage whereas the other properties will have sufficient space for the parking of one vehicle within a garage and one outside.

 

6.4    The previous schemes for 5 dwellings and 8 flats were both proposed to be served with access off that existing which is shared with No. 3 Westhill Road.  This proposal seeks to use the existing access into Westhill Manor which comprises a one way system of ingress in a position close to the former access and egress approximately 100 metres to the west, the existing egress from the Westhill Manor complex of properties.  This land is within the ownership of the applicant and the one way system can be required as part of a planning permission.  This is seen as an improvement over the previous approvals and although the egress 100 metres to the west is not ideal due to restricted visibility it is felt that the access arrangements remain an improvement over a two way system via that existing access serving the hotel.

 

6.5    In terms of effect on the adjoining properties the original submission showed three storey buildings to be located with the rear face towards properties in Highfield Road.  This would have resulted in significant overlooking of those properties to an unacceptable degree.  3 two storey properties have already been approved on this part of the site where the 4 detached units are now proposed and, indeed, the site is presently occupies by the former hotel building which has permission to be changed into flats.  The two storey buildings are therefore less likely to have such an effect since the distance to the common boundary has been increased.

 

6.6    The terrace of dwellings located to the north of the site are two and three storey.  The centre pair are 2 three storey buildings but the easternmost and the westernmost dwellings comprises two storeys plus roof space accommodation.  The major aspect of this terrace is in a southerly and a northerly direction, the east and west elevations containing living room window at ground floor level but with only shower or bathroom windows at first floor.  Similarly the western elevation shows a bathroom window at first floor and a secondary bedroom window at second floor.  Apart from the secondary second floor bedroom window, other windows at first floor can be obscured glazed and therefore will not overlook the adjoining properties.

 

6.7    Plots 1 to 4 will have bedroom windows at first floor level.  However this is probably a reduced impact from the former hotel bedroom windows which were in much closer proximity to the common boundary.

 

6.8    In terms of design and materials, the design of the properties is consistent with modern urban residential development proposed in an area where there is a multitude of designs and styles, and as a replacement to the existing hotel, which is of poor and deteriorating appearance, an improvement is felt to result.

 

6.9    There would be no material change in the character of the area.  Part of the development is high density, detached properties, the other part, the terrace of houses, represents a comparatively large block but the area is characterised by a mixed form of development, some detached houses and some very large properties in a range of size of sites.  Whilst the overall height of the terrace is three floors, this is of modern proportions  stepped down at either end, and some of the adjoining properties are two storeys of Victorian proportions and therefore in terms of overall height would be little different.

 

6.10  The plans show 6 trees are to be lost, 5 of these trees are the subject of a group and individual T.P.Os, 3 of these are small Yews and form a small group, a Sweet Chestnut and a further Yew.  These trees can be replaced with trees of suitable species in appropriate positions to be agreed as part of compliance with condition.  The majority of trees within the site and adjoining the access road are to be retained and some new planting will be carried out to replace that lost.  The landscaping shown on the plans comprises turfed front gardens with tree planting within it.  This is considered to be adequate due to the comparatively intimate nature but it is necessary to ensure that existing trees and hedges remain where possible.

 

7.       Conclusion and justification for recommendation

 

7.1    This application has been revised to reduce numbers of dwellings on the site from 11 to 8, a site located within the development envelope and surrounded by residential property and a site which has had permissions for 8 flats and 5 dwellings respectively.  This increase in numbers is consistent with PPG3 in increasing densities but, as a result, some of the TPO trees on site will be lost.  This loss can, however, be offset by the replanting as part of the landscaping scheme.

 

7.2    In conclusion I consider the benefits outweigh the losses and that the development as proposed is consistent with Policies G1, D1, D2, D3, H4, H5 and TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

 

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 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

 Access to the site shall be from the eastern access to the Westhill Manor development, adjacent to No. 7 Westhill Road and egress from the site shall be from the existing egress from the Westhill Manor complex situated 100 metres to the west of the entrance adjacent to No. 30 Westhill Road only and shall operate as a one way system only.

 

Reason:  In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

4

 Before any of the dwellings hereby approved are occupied the existing access drive to the site shall be sealed off in accordance with details to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  Thereafter, no access to the development hereby approved shall be gained over that route and the existing access drive shall be retained for access to No. 3 Westhill Road only.

 

Reason:  In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

5

 No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site and drained and surfaced.  in accordance with drawing number 2020/SK/2 for 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.

 

 

6

 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.

 

7

 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.

 

8

 No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected.  The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings hereby permitted are occupied.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason:  In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

9

 The first floor windows in the eastern elevation of Unit 5 and the first and second floor windows in the western elevation of Unit 8 shall be glazed in obscured glass, and shall be retained as such thereafter.

 

Reason:  To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

10

 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 walls, fences, gates or other means of enclosure shall be erected forward of any wall of the dwelling that fronts onto a road or footpath.

 

Reason:  In the interest of the appearance of the locality and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

5.

Reference Number: P/00365/05 - TCP/14737/B

Parish/Name:  Niton - Ward/Name: Chale Niton and Whitwell

Registration Date:  22/02/2005  -  Full Planning Permission

Officer:  Miss L Frood Tel: (01983) 823595

 Applicant: Mr D Hirst

 

Demolition of garage; construction of carport; alterations to side boundary;  removal of condition 16 of consent TCP/14737A referring to retention of conifer hedge along the south eastern boundary; retention of boundary wall to north of site (revised plans), (revised description)

Bevois Farm, Laceys Lane, Niton, Ventnor, PO38

 

 

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

 

 

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

 

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

 

1.   Overdevelopment of the site

2.   Policy D1 and H7 seem to be infringed in several regards

3.   Concerned that a fire engine might not be able to get through should it need to.

 

 

1.       Details of application

         

1.1    This is a full application.

 

1.2    The proposal comprises demolition of garage adjacent to a property known as ‘Drifters’. and the construction of a carport which will link Bevois Farm house, and the adjacent barn and stables on site. Alterations to the southern boundary will involve the removal and replanting of the conifer hedge, realigning the side boundary. Permission is also sought for the retention of a boundary wall to the north of the site.  The position of the car port is such that it will be largely unseen from the public realm.

 

2.      Location and site characteristics

 

2.1    The site is situated to the east of Laceys Lane, nearing the junction with Newport Road. The boundary of the development envelope for Niton runs through the middle of the applicants land, the proposals outlined in this application are all situated within the development envelope boundary.

 

2.2    Laceys Lane contains a variety of dwelling types with predominantly bungalows to the south and two storey dwellings to the north of the site.

 

2.3     The site comprises a detached dwelling, and associated outbuildings  including a barn and stables, all within fairly close proximity. There is an existing vehicular access via Laceys Lane.

 

3.       Relevant history

 

3.1    TCP/14737/A – P/01068/02. Application for house and new covered way to form a link to the existing barn, shared access with ‘Drifters’; formation of parking and turning area; relocation of stables. Granted 18 October 2002.

 

4.       Development Plan policy

 

          4.1     Unitary Development Plan policies as follows:

 

·         S6 – Be of A High Standard of Design

·         G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development

·         D1 – Standards of Design

·         H7 – Extension and Alteration to Existing Properties

·         C8 – Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration

·         C12- Development Affecting Trees and Woodland

·         TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

 

5.       Consultee and third party comments

 

          5.1     Internal consultees

 

·       Highway Engineer is satisfied that there will be no highway implications as a result of this application.

 

·       Assistant Ecology Officer advised on suitable period for works to the hedge to avoid disturbance to nesting birds, condition applied.

 

          5.2     External consultees

 

·         None consulted

 

          5.3     Town or Parish Council comments

 

·         Niton and Whitwell Parish Council object to the application on the grounds that it is overdevelopment of the site.

 

          5.4     Neighbours

 

Nine letters received from local residents objecting to the application and raising the following issues:

 

·        Carport is overdevelopment of the site, excessive in both height and volume, which in future could easily be converted into further accommodation.

 

·     Carport at expense of the existing ‘Drifters’ garage which is in a more reasonable position in terms of access and proximity to road.

 

·     ‘Carport’ will cover disabled access to the property, prevent or hinder access for horses to the stables and is not easily accessible.

 

·     Concern over noise and smell from vehicle restoration, maintenance and horses if carport used as additional stabling.

 

·     Original consent given under TCP/14737/A removed ‘permitted development’ rights.

 

·     Fire risk – adjoining stable feed and bedding placing horses at risk.

 

·     Possible reverting property back to a commercial enterprise.

 

·     Wall to the north of the site is in breach of previous planning conditions, is now proposed to be used as an external wall to a carport and is oppressive, overbearing, and overshadowing, which along with the carport will have an adverse impact on the rear garden of ‘Sandstones'.

 

·     Concerns over retrospective nature of application for wall and its safety, due to its mass, height and inadequacy of foundations.

 

·     Concern regarding disposal of manure.

 

·     Objection to removal of conifer hedge, which was a condition on the permission of the initial build of Bevois Farm house.

 

·     Should permission be granted no work should start until September due to birds nesting in hedge.

 

6.       Evaluation

 

          6.1     The main issues relating to this application are:-

·    Policy

·    The scale, mass and design of the carport.

·    Impact on the adjacent dwelling and the surrounding area.

·    The loss of the conifer hedge on the south eastern boundary

·    The impact of the wall on the northern boundary.

 

6.2     With regard to policy, there is no objection in principle to an additional outbuilding on site, which lies within the development envelope. The proposal complies with the policies listed above.

 

6.3    The size of the carport and number of outbuildings existing on site have been taken into consideration. Due to existing buildings on the site and neighbouring properties the carport would be well screened from Laceys Lane. The design, in materials to match the existing, is not considered to be out of keeping with the existing dwelling and related outbuildings, or, given its small infill scale in relation to the built form on the site, to present overdevelopment of the site. A link between the dwelling and adjacent barn was granted consent on the previous application TCP/14737/A. Any proposal to convert the carport into further accommodation can be subject to planning control.

 

6.4     With regard to the impact on adjoining residential properties, and surrounding area, although on the boundary of the site the proposed carport is not within close proximity to neighbouring dwellings. Use of development solely as a carport will be a condition of approval. Occurrence of detrimental levels of noise would fall under the remit of Environmental Health and fire risk will be assessed at the Building Regulations stage.

 

6.5     Condition 16 of TCP/14737/A, (consent for the dwelling known as ‘Bevois Farm’) states the existing hedge along the south eastern boundary of the site is to be retained. A determining factor in this application is whether the loss of this hedge is detrimental to the amenity of the area, privacy of neighbouring properties and wildlife in the vicinity. Due the siting of the carport and layout of the site the loss of the hedge in the current position is not considered detrimental to the amenity of the area.

 

6.6    The wall, being over 2m in height requires planning permission. Consideration therefore needs to be given to its siting, scale, materials and impact to neighbouring properties and the street scene.

 

6.7     The disposal of manure was covered by condition on previous planning consent TCP/14737/A, and is not a material planning consideration of this application.

 

7.       Conclusion and justification for recommendation

 

7.1     The removal of the garage adjacent drifters presents minimal impact outside the site. The removal of condition 16 of consent TCP/14737/A which refers to the retention of the conifer hedge along the south eastern boundary, is considered acceptable with the replanting planned along the realigned boundary. Retention of the boundary wall to the north of the site is considered acceptable in siting, scale and materials with limited impact to neighbouring properties or the street scene. The carport would be well screened from outside the site and due to its siting is also considered to present limited impact to neighbouring properties or the surrounding area.

7.2     Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations the proposed development is considered acceptable and to comply with the relevant policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

 

8.       Recommendation

 

Conditional Approval

 

Conditions/Reasons:

 

1

 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from date of this permission.

 

Reason:  To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

2

 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the carport hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling on site, samples of which shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its approval in writing prior to the commencement of development.

 

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

 

3

 The car port hereby permitted shall be used only for the purposes of housing domestic or non-commercial vehicles incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such and shall not be used for any business, commercial, industrial or other purpose whatsoever, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

4

 No works in connection with the removal of the hedge on the south east boundary shall be carried out between the months of February and July inclusive.

 

Reason: To avoid disturbance to nesting birds which is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act and to comply with Policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

 

5

 Prior to the commencement of development there shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its approval in writing a landscape scheme comprising native species of hedge to be planted along the common boundary with "Drifters" to the extent shown on Drawing 1203/02 Rev.A.  Such scheme as may be agreed shall be planted in the first planting season following the grant of this permission.

 

Reason:  To ensure that a proper scheme of boundary hedging is planted and because the use of leylandii, a non-native species, is considered to be inappropriate in this rural location.

 

6

 No development shall take place until a schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of five years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The schedule shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.

 

Reason:  To ensure satisfactory long-term maintenance of the landscaping of the site and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

7

 Within 3 months of the date of this permission the boundary wall between the application site and "Sandstones" shall be reduced in height to a maximum of 2m and the work shall be undertaken and finished in a good and workmanlike manner.

 

Reason:  To ensure that the boundary wall does not present an oppressive and overbearing appearance to the occupiers of "Sandstones" and because permission ref: TCP/14737/A only granted consent for a wall lower than that constructed.

 

 

6.

Reference Number: P/00885/05 - TCP/26412/A

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

Registration Date:  16/05/2005  -  Full Planning Permission

Officer:  Mr C Hougham Tel: (01983) 823576

Applicant:  Techaid Facilities Ltd

 

Residential development of 3/4 storey block of  8 flats

16, Union Road, Ryde, PO33

 

 

The application is recommended for conditional permission

 

 

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

 

The local member has requested that the matter should be determined by Committee because of local concern about the application in terms of potential over-development, traffic generation/adequacy of Union Road and parking difficulties in the immediate locality.

 

 

 

1.          Details of application

 

             1.1        This is a full application comprising a scheme for a three-storey block of 8 flats.  Application is supported by a brief covering letter from the applicant’s agent and copy letters of correspondence between the local Civil Engineer and southern Water in terms of sewer capacity in the immediate vicinity of the site, as well as a Design Statement with supporting photographic evidence that will be referred to in the latter part of this report.

 

             1.2        The submitted drawings show a relatively substantial predominantly three-storey block with a footprint that takes up in excess of 50% of the overall site area sitting in a forward position close to the metalled carriageway of Union Road with amenity space to the rear and no “on-site” car parking facilities.  Proposed accommodation will comprise 6 two-bedroom flats and 2 one-bedroom flats.  In detailed terms the submitted drawings show a building of traditional appearance finished in facing brickwork with contrasting banding courses under a pitched sloped roof.

 

2.          Location and site characteristics

 

             2.1        This is an “L” shaped site on the eastern side of Union Road, approximately midway between the junctions with Cross Street and Castle Street, backing onto properties on the western side of George Street in Ryde.

 

             2.2        Notwithstanding the fact that Union Road slopes steeply in a northerly direction, from Castle Street up to Cross Street, this site is relatively level.  There is evidence that small trees and shrubs have recently been removed although some undergrowth remains on the site.  The principal characteristic is the substantial varying height natural stone boundary walls along the northern, eastern and southern boundaries of the site. 

 

             2.3        Immediately to the south of the site is a small private car park and to the north are additions and outbuildings which form part of the curtilage of 40 George Street which is currently undergoing renovation and conversion into multiple residential units.

 

             2.4        In terms of character, traditionally Union Road has provided access to a variety of residential, business and commercial users as well as being an important means of rear access/servicing for commercial premises in Union Street and larger residential properties and hotel/guest house accommodation in George Street.  The immediate vicinity is not especially attractive with a mismatch if building types in terms of age, size, design and condition although in recent years there have been a number of renovation/conversion projects and redevelopment which has led to a significant improvement in visual terms of a very sustainable location for both residential and commercial development.

 

3.          Relevant history

 

       3.1        In August 2004 a detailed major application to redevelop this site with a three/four storey block of 14 flats was refused permission on grounds that can be summarized in the following terms.

 

·         Intrusive and over-dominant development out of scale with the character of the area.

·         Failure to preserve or enhance the designated Conservation Area.

·         Inadequate information in terms of relationship with neighbouring properties.

·         Failure to demonstrate the linkage with any future development on neighbouring sites.

 

                          This decision was not the subject of an Appeal.

 

4.          Development Plan policy

 

4.1        PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) with specific reference to the Government’s objectives, national planning policies, delivering sustainable development and design.  This new PPS is read in conjunction with a publication from the ODPM (The Planning System: General Principles).

 

                         PPG3 Housing (2000) with specific reference to provision of sufficient housing, reusing urban land and buildings, determining planning applications, designing for quality and making the best use of land.

 

                         PPG13 Transport with specific reference to overall objectives, integration between planning and transport, housing and parking.

 

                         PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment with specific reference to development control and (re)development within designated Conservation Areas.

 

             4.2        Relevant Strategic Policies are S1, S2, S6 and S7.

 

Key Local Planning Policies are identified.

 

           G1      (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages)

           G4      (General Locational Criteria for Development)

           D1      (Standards of Design)

           D2      (Standards for Development within the Site)

           B6       (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas)

           H1       (Major New Residential Developments to be Located within the Main Island Towns)

           H4       (Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements)

           H5       (Infill Development)

           H6       (High Density Residential Development)

           TR1             (An Integrated Transport Network)

           TR3             (Locating Development to Minimise the need to Travel)

           TR7             (Highway Considerations for New Development)

           TR16  (Parking Policies and Guidelines)

 

4.3        Recently approved Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on residential infill has a number of useful reference points that could be applied in this particular case.

 

4.4       The site is within the designated Conservation Area for Ryde where statute places a duty on the Council, as Local Planning Authority, to protect or enhance the character and appearance of the area.

 

5.          Consultee and third party comments

 

             5.1        Internal consultees

                                    

Highway Engineer raises no objection but recommends the imposition of certain conditions should the application be approved.

 

Similarly Environmental and Health Officer has no adverse comment to make on the application but advocates the imposition of a condition which relates to levels of sound insulation which, in my view, would probably be more appropriate to a conversion scheme as opposed to a redevelopment.

 

             5.2        External consultees

 

None, other than a letter from Southern Water to a local Civil Engineer confirming the results of a capacity check for foul water and surface water drainage confirming that adequate provision can be made in connection with the proposed development.

 

             5.3        Town or Parish Council comments

 

There is no locally elected body for this particular area.

 

             5.4        Neighbours

 

There are 9 letters of objection from 7 addresses, all but 2 of which are from Hawk House.  The reasons for objecting to this application can be summarized in the following terms.

 

·         Union Road is narrow and serves as a service road for premises in Union Street and properties in George Street.

·         Failure to provide any on-site parking facilities.

·         Over development of the site as the proposed building will overshadow neighbouring properties and result in overlooking, causing a loss of amenity for residents in the immediate vicinity.

 

6.          Evaluation

 

6.1         In terms of planning policy members are asked to give due regard to national policy contained in PPS1, PPG3, PPG13 and PPG15.  There are numerous considerations to be taken into account in the determination of this application highlighted by the relevant national policies which in the simplest possible terms can be summarized in the following way.

 

6.2        The development of this site satisfies the Government’s broad policy objectives and requirements in terms of developing in sustainable locations and the overarching aim of ensuring high quality in inclusive design for those involved in the development process.

 

6.3        The proposed development satisfies the objectives and aims of the Government in terms of focusing new development in sustainable locations within existing urban areas by making the best possible use of urban land which is achieved by higher densities of 30 to 50 dwellings per hectare and in town centre locations in excess of 50 dph while giving due regard to all other material considerations.

 

6.4        A contentious aspect of the development of this site without “on-site” parking facilities accords with the Government’s policy which advocates the use of maximum parking standards and advocates reduced parking levels in connection with development in sustainable locations.  The provision of nil 'on-site' parking is in accordance with the guideline supporting Policy TR16.

 

      6.5        In similar terms there are a substantial number of Strategic and Local Planning policies which need to be taken into account and although some of these policies conflict the view is taken that this particular application generally accords with the Council’s objectives for the following reasons.

 

6.6        The scheme is in accordance with Strategic Policies S1, S2, S6 and S7 and satisfies the requirements of Policy G4 with the principal “tests” set out in G4(a), (b), (c), (h) and (k).

           

In this context development which takes place should maintain or positively contribute to the environment and fit in to its surroundings.

 

6.7        Opinion is that development of the site also satisfies criteria set out in Policies D1 and D2 as it is considered to respect the visual integrity of the site, to be sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting laying and detailing, of a height and mass and density which is compatible with surrounding buildings and uses, provide adequate daylight, sunlight and open aspects to the development and adjoining uses and does not constitute over-development leading to cramped appearance and obtrusiveness.

 

6.8        Development of this site will protect and enhance the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area and therefore is in accordance with Policy B6.  Development also accords with specific housing policies, particularly H6 which focuses on the provision of higher density residential development where the site is close to public transport services and town centre facilities and the amenity of surrounding areas will not be unduly affected.

 

6.9        Notwithstanding the fact that this site is within the designated Conservation Area the applicant’s agent, in his Design Statement, has quite correctly identified that the quality of the urban fabric in this immediate vicinity, principally Union Road, is in need of regeneration, repair and upgrading.  The view is taken that the development of this site for residential purposes will not only provide new homes in a sustainable location but will also promote the rehabilitation of the area and set a precedent for further development of a similar nature which will lead to a rehabilitation and substantially improve the character and appearance of the area.  Notwithstanding the clear support for the development of this site in policy terms and the usual development control considerations, it is important to respond to the concerns of local residents who have objected to the application and in this context members are asked to give appropriate weight to the following observations.

 

·         In this town centre location, the site is clearly suitable for (residential) development and it is doubtful whether 8 one or two-bedroom flats would generate a significant increase in vehicular traffic using this thoroughfare, particularly as there are no on-site parking facilities, which accords with policy (see above), to warrant withholding permission.  While it is recognised that Union Road is narrow and serves as a rear access facility for a number of commercial/residential properties, it is apparent that many of these have the benefit of a small access yard or car parking area which means that the likelihood of any obstruction leading to congestion is considerably reduced; a view that is confirmed by the absence of any objection from the Highway Engineer.

 

·         The decision to make nil provision in terms of “on-site” parking is in accordance with national and local planning policy (see above) and any attempt to provide “on-site” parking facilities will not only impact on the overall scale and size of the building with an associated reduction in the overall density but would also eliminate the prospect of any amenity space for future occupants and, mot importantly, result in an increase in the amount of vehicular traffic using Union Road above that anticipated in connection with the application as submitted.  A broad objective is to reduce the level of vehicle penetration within town centres to enable existing prospective residents to enjoy the benefits of living in a sustainable location close to various facilities including good transport connections.

 

·         This is an amended scheme showing a considerable reduction in the proposed density when compared with the application which was refused permission less than 12 months ago.  Notwithstanding the scale, size, height and overall footprint of the proposed building the agent has positioned the building and designed internal accommodation to minimise any serious loss of amenity by placing the building at the front of the site and ensuring that there is adequate space between the rear of the building and the rear boundary; the rear element of the building is only two storeys; there are no windows in the two storey element facing properties in George Street and those windows in the main part of the building facing this direction are bedroom/landing windows.  If due regard is given to the overall height of the existing natural stone boundary walls and the intention to retain these walls, it is unlikely that this building will exacerbate the situation any further in terms of overdominance or overshadowing, and any overlooking will only be minimal and would certainly not justify withholding permission.

 

6.10      The design consideration is clearly critical but nevertheless there will always be a degree of subjectivity, particularly when considering a scheme for development in an area which is undergoing some degree of regeneration with new infill development, recently completed and ongoing renovation and conversion and a number of extant permissions for new development and conversion of nearby former warehouse buildings.  Within the context of the area the proposed building will enhance the overall appearance and could set a precedent by setting a benchmark for future development in the immediate locality, which seems to be highly likely if you take into account the buoyancy of the local economy and the positive support given to the provision of new homes in sustainable locations through national and local planning policies.

 

7.          Conclusion and justification for recommendation

 

7.1        The decision to refuse the earlier application was justified and the benefit is that the resulting negotiations led to a scheme which should see the site developed for residential purposes providing homes in a sustainable location and making a substantial contribution to the character and appearance of part of the town centre, which has seen considerable change in recent years.  The concern of local residents on traffic/parking related issues is a valid material consideration and consequently has been carefully analysed in this report, but a decision not to develop this site because of the adequacy, or otherwise, of Union Road as a thoroughfare is not a realistic option if the Council wishes to see this area regenerated, and the provision of (some) “on-site” parking facilities would conflict with other objectives and aims in terms of the overall size of the building and the higher density which is being achieved in such a sustainable location.

 

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

 The details of the landscaping of the site required to be submitted shall include details of a scheme for the preservation or laying out of that part of the application site shown on drawing number 63-2003.3 as amenity land .

 

Reason:  To ensure an adequate provision of amenity land, in the interests of the area and to comply with policies D1 (Standards of Design) and D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

3

 None of the dwellings shall be occupied until the sewage disposal and drainage works have been completed in accordance with the approved plans.

 

Reason:  To ensure an adequate system of sewage disposal is provided for the development and to comply with policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

4

 Development shall not commence until details of the facilities to be provided for the storage of refuse have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  No building shall be occupied until the facilities have been provided in accordance with the approved details and the facilities shall thereafter be retained.

 

Reason:  To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

5

 The height to ridge of the completed building shall not be more than 10.2 metres above the finished ground floor level.

 

Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

 

6

 All material excavated as a result of general ground works, including site levelling, installation of services or the digging of foundations, together with all debris shall not be disposed of within the area identified red on the submitted plans.  The material shall be removed from the site prior to the construction of the building proceeding beyond damp-proof course level or such other timescale as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

 

7

 Notwithstanding any necessary repair work, the existing stone boundary walls shall be retained at their present height and shall not be lowered or removed without prior consent of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Development Plan.

 

8

 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.

 

 

7.

Reference Number: P/00973/04 - TCP/26344

Parish/Name:  Newchurch - Ward/Name: Newchurch

Registration Date:  05/05/2004  -  Full Planning Permission

Officer:  Mr C Hougham Tel: (01983) 823576

Applicant:  A M L UK Limited

 

Continued use of buildings as (class B2) general industrial (Black & Blue Hangars, Buildings 1 & 2)

former Aircraft Museum, Sandown Airport, Embassy Way, off, Newport Road, Sandown, PO36

 

 

The application is recommended for conditional permission

 

 

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

 

The local member and another member have asked that it be determined by the Development Control Committee as, in his view, the continued use would be in contravention of current policies which he has not identified.

 

 

1.       Details of application

 

          1.1    This application seeks retrospective approval for the continued use of the former Aircraft Museum at Sandown Airport for Class B2 General Industrial Purposes.

 

1.2    Initial submission was supported by a report prepared by agents acting on behalf of the applicants comprising an overview, description of manufacturing processes, ethical and environmental policy, health and safety policy and impact on adjoining premises.  The report concludes with a summary which focuses on the benefits to the Island community and a closing statement, which are appended to this report.

 

1.3    Following a request from the Environmental Health Officer the agents have also arranged for consultants to prepare a Noise Survey which principally focuses on the nearest residential property which is known as Timber Lodge; elements of this report will be referred to in the latter part of this Committee Report.

 

2.       Location and site characteristics

 

2.1    Site of approximately 0.6 hectares on the far side of Sandown Airport to the north-western side of the grass runway off Embassy Way comprising two former hangar buildings, which provide approximately 1500 sq. metres of floor space, a concrete apron and a parking area.  Within the vicinity of the site are other commercial premises, Cheverton Copse Caravan Park and a private residential property known as Timber Lodge.

 

3.       Relevant history

 

3.1     An application by Teknacron Circuits Limited, who were then operating from their site in Landguard Manor Road in Shanklin, to vary a condition on an earlier consent to allow Class B2 use, was approved in July 2001.  This was made personal to Teknacron who appear to have occupied the site briefly before ceasing to exist as a company in or about late 2001.  Premises are now used by AML UK Ltd who specialise in composite mouldings.  This current retrospective application was submitted  following an investigation by Enforcement Officers.

 

3.2     Prior to that, in March 2000, planning permission was granted for a change of use from Aircraft Museum to B1 (light industrial use).

 

4.       Development Plan policy

 

4.1     The relevant national policies are contained in PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) and the sister document, The Planning System: General Principles; PPG4 (Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms); PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas; PPG23 (Planning and Pollution Control) and PPG24 (Planning Noise).

 

4.2     In terms of the Unitary Development Plan, the relevant strategic policies are S1, S4 and S5.

 

4.3     In terms of the Unitary Development Plan the relevant local planning policies have been identified.

 

·                 G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements)

·                 D14 (Light Spillage)

·                 E1 (Promote Suitably Located New Employment Uses)

·                 E6 (Expansion of Existing Industry and Offices)

·                 E8 (Employment in the Countryside)

·                 C1 (Protection of Landscape Character)

·                 P1 (Pollution and Development)

·                 P2 (Minimise Contamination from Development)

·                 P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise)

·                 T1 (The Promotion of Tourism and the Extension of the                                                    Season)

·                 TR3 (Locating Development to Minimise the Need to Travel)

·                 TR19 (Airports)

 

5.       Consultee and third party comments

 

5.1    Internal consultees

 

5.1.1 Initial observations of the Environmental Health Officer referred to complaints he had received from a local resident and a local business alleging that the noise of machinery was resulting in a nuisance.  Since unconditional approval of the application could cause loss of amenity to neighbouring land uses he was of the view that the initial submission contained insufficient information to assess these environmental implications.  Therefore, he requested a comprehensive noise assessment to be carried out by a competent person conducted in accordance with BS4142: 1997.

 

5.1.2 Having assessed the Consultant's report he concurs with the conclusion that there are no grounds for objection to the application on noise grounds.  He points out that there remains the possibility that there may be some degree of odour although the concentrations at which the chemicals concerned could result in harm to health are considerably below those at which they can be detected by smell.  Consequently he expresses the view that while there may be some slight loss of amenity as a result of odour, that we may consider this to be acceptable bearing in mind other material considerations.  He recommends that a condition be imposed to minimise any loss of amenity during hours of darkness by the imposition of an appropriate condition.

 

5.2    Highway Engineer raises no objection to the application but does recommend the imposition of appropriate conditions in respect of parking, loading and unloading, turning space and cycle parking if the application is to be approved.

 

5.3    Neighbours

        

5.3.1  Owner/occupier of nearest residential property (Timber Lodge) expresses concern over access, litter, previous use of buildings, noise pollution, inappropriate location conflicting with tourist aims and the likely future importance of Sandown Airport.

 

5.3.2 A Newport Road resident has submitted virtually identical representations to those made by the owner/occupier of Timber Lodge.

 

5.3.3 Representations objecting to the application from two adjacent commercial users on the basis that the continued use conflicts with the adjacent commercial undertaking (flying school) where there is accommodation and refreshment facilities; loss of business because of smell/dust; deterioration of access on north side of airfield.  If approved one objector suggests that conditions should be imposed relating to pollution control with improvements to the existing access.

 

5.3.4 Objection from nearby holiday park expressing similar concerns to local residents and the nearby commercial premises.

 

6.       Evaluation

 

6.1     The main issues in the determination of this retrospective application for the continued use of these premises within a framework of the relevant local planning policies (see above) can be summarised in the following terms.

 

·                 Previous use of building/site.

·                 Potential for noise/odour pollution and the impact on neighbouring premises, the nearby residential property and the nearby caravan park.

·                 Outcome of noise survey report and comments of Environmental Health Officer.

·                 Various employment issues focusing on the need to protect jobs and the suitability of these premises in a rural site within the curtilage of an operational airport.

·                 Suitability of vehicular/pedestrian access via Embassy Way off Newport Road.

         

6.2    Premises comprise two former hangars previously used as an Aircraft Museum with an extant permission for Class B1 (Light Industrial) use.  The July 2001 permission for Teknacron for the variation of a condition to allow Class B2 (General Industrial) use was justified at the time with the following comment:

 

         "Bearing in mind the relatively isolated position of the premises and the limited proportion of the use of the premises as general industrial (B2) the change of use from B1 to B2, one employment class to another, is consistent with UDP employment policies."

 

6.3    By January 2002 the building had been vacated.

 

6.4    However the permission granted was on a personal basis to Teknacron and also made the subject of a number of conditions, several of which being recommended by the Environment Agency with the specific objective of avoiding any potential pollution from waste.  Premises now used by AML UK Ltd, who specialise in composite mouldings, a use which does not appear to be wholly inappropriate for these former hangar buildings as the business produces composite laminates for the aviation and marine industry and provides employment of a number of skilled Island residents.  They have advised that the company relocated from the mainland and recognising the quality of local marine skills, in particular composite processes, and at the time of the submission of the application they had recruited 21 local employees.  In the report which accompanied the application they state:

 

"The company has committed further substantial capital funds to improve the infrastructure of the site by improving the electricity supply to the application site at a cost of £36,000.  Furthermore AML UK Ltd are committed to improving the visual impact of the site by investing in landscaping and have opened negotiations with the other users of the access road, with a view to organising the repair of the access road and a generous contribution towards that work.

 

"The economic benefits to the local community are substantial, long term employment for 21 local people, increased revenue for local traders and suppliers and the enhancement of the reputation of the Island as a quality manufacturing base and a leader in the GRP and composite processes."

 

6.5     The most important single environmental factor in the determination of this application is the issue of potential noise pollution and the work done 5n behalf of the applicants by the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research at the University of Southampton.  This report is based on recent survey work and contains the following conclusion.

 

          "An assessment of the noise from the blue hangar has been carried out at Timber Lodge.  The majority of the measurements were done with the doors closed.  A measurement was also taken with all equipment running and the doors open.  For all the test conditions with the doors closed, the difference between the rating level and the background was less than 0dB.  With the doors open the difference was +1.7dB.  The standard considers this to be less than marginally significant and it is considered, therefore, that complaints are not justified."

 

6.6      The Council's Environmental Health Service concurs with this view and raise no objection to the application other than to suggest a restrictive condition on operating hours.  It is concluded that there is not a sustainable objection to the continued use of the premises for general industrial purposes on grounds of noise/odour pollution.  Similarly there is clearly no sustainable objection in terms of visual amenities since the buildings have been on site for a number of years and have previously been used for B1 and B2 purposes.

 

6.7      While the continued use of the premises could be interpreted to be in conflict with some local planning policies, in this particular case, members may choose to give greater weight to the overarching objective of the Council encapsulated in Policy E1 to promote and encourage the development of new and existing employment uses despite the relatively unsustainable location of the site.  Subject to appropriate controls by a condition the view is held that, although this is a somewhat unique case because the site is within the curtilage of an operational airport the buildings have previously been used for industrial purposes, and the continued use does not substantially conflict with policies relating to employment in the countryside any more than did the activities of the previous occupier.  The argument that suggests that the continued use might compromise the future use of the airport is not sustainable since the buildings, which have been used for a variety of related purposes, will obviously remain.  If members are minded to refuse permission they will need to give clear planning reasons to differentiate AML's request to use the site for B2 purposes from Teknacron's B2 use: in planning terms both are equivalent uses and the name or nature of the applicant company is irrelevant.

 

6.8      A key factor is the application of the relevant policies in respect of pollution both from odour and the need to reduce or mitigate against any potential impact from noise.  It is considered that the work carried out by the applicants, their agents and the consultants has been sufficient to satisfy the Environmental Health Officer and is therefore in broad compliance with Local Planning Policies P1, P2 and P5.  Consequently a decision to withhold permission on these grounds would be unjustified, difficult to support and therefore not sustainable.

 

6.9      The issue of the alleged deterioration of the access (Embassy Way) is a material consideration but not one that should be given considerable weight, particularly as the applicants have recognised their responsibility with other commercial undertakers in ensuring that this private road is properly maintained.

 

7.       Conclusion and justification for recommendation

 

7.1    The retrospective nature of the application is disappointing but is not a material consideration.  However, members should appreciate that there is an extant permission for the use of these buildings for Class B2 (General Industrial) use but an application was required because the earlier permission was made personal to the operator who previously occupied the premises.  While this is not an ideal situation as it has caused some concern to a local resident and neighbouring and nearby commercial operators, it is considered that the work carried out in order to establish that the continued use of the premises for general industrial purposes will not have an environmental impact on other residential/commercial premises sufficient to sustain a recommendation to refuse permission, particularly as the expert findings are supported by our Environmental Health Officer.

 

8.       Recommendation

 

          To grant conditional permission.

 

Conditions/Reasons:

 

1

 No industrial process as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2005 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) shall be carried on at the premises outside the building(s) the subject of this application.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy P1 (Pollution) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

2

 No equipment, raw materials, finished or unfinished products or parts, crates, packing materials, derelict vehicles, vehicle bodies or waste materials shall be stacked or stored on the site at any time except within the existing buildings or storage areas identified for those purposes on the plans hereby permitted.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the visual appearance of the site and the visual amenity of the surrounding area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

3

 No plant or machinery shall be operated at the premises subject of this permission outside the following times:

 

0700 to 1800 Mondays to Fridays

0800 to 1300 Saturdays

not at all on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays

 

Reason:  To minimise the disturbance to neighbouring residential properties and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

4

 Within 3 months of the date of this permission a vehicle parking layout including garages consistent with the IWC Unitary Development Plan Parking Guidelines that shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its approval in writing and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes.  The agreed scheme shall be provided within the curtilage of the site in a formal manner and shall be implemented within one month of the date of the Local Planning Authority's written approval.

 

Reason:  In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

5

 Within three months of the date of this permission space shall be laid out within the site for 15 bicycles to be parked and for vehicles to be loaded and unloaded and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear.  The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition.

 

Reason:  In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

6

 All areas where materials related to activity on the site are stored, handled or transferred shall be underlain by impervious hardstanding with dedicated drainage to foul sewer or sealed tank.  No sewage or trade effluent shall be discharged to any surface water drainage system.  All temporary storage of non-special waste on site shall be in secure containers and/or secure areas only and all temporary storage of non-waste liquids on site should be in secure, imperviously bunded areas only.

 

Reason:  To prevent pollution of the water environment and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

 

7

 Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstanding should be passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained (roof water shall not pass through the interceptor).

 

Reason:  To prevent pollution of the water environment and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

 

8.

Reference Number: P/01011/05 - TCP/25508/D

Parish/Name:  Arreton - Ward/Name: Central Rural

Registration Date:  25/05/2005  -  Full Planning Permission

Officer:  Mr D Long Tel: (01983) 823854

Applicant: Mr T Smith

 

Temporary use of part of land for car parking in connection with the Bestival Event at Robin Hill from September 9th to 12th 2005

Gore Basin Motocross Circuit, Downend Road, Newport, PO30

 

 

The application is recommended for limited period permission.

 

 

 

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

 

The local member, Councillor Oulton, has requested that this application go before the Development Control Committee due to the previous history on the site. 

 

 

1.       Details of application

 

          1.1     This is a full application.

 

1.2    The proposal seeks to use 6.25 hectares of land opposite Gore Cemetery for the temporary use of land for car parking in connection with the Bestival event at Robin Hill between 9th and 12th September 2005 inclusive.  The intention is that people will park here and be bussed to and from the event site which lies some 1.5km up Downend Road.  Following consultation with Highways and the Police the application is accompanied by a Traffic Management Plan.

 

2.       Location and site characteristics

 

2.1     The site comprises grade 3 agricultural land within open countryside and is bounded to Downend Road by a hedge broken only by the two access points and a section of wooden fencing.  This affords a view into the site from the road. 

 

2.2     Although part of the site has been sculpted for the Motocross circuit it has been left fallow.  There is no current use in operation and neither is the site used for agricultural purposes.

 

2.3     By reason of the works undertaken in association with the Motocross event, two plateau areas have been created within the field.  They are of a substantial nature but are currently covered in vegetation, making them blend into the field.  They are accessed via a narrow gravel strip running up the field.

 

3.       Relevant history

 

3.1.    Report of the Head of Planning Services to Development Control Committee, site inspection; 3rd September 2004.  Report submitted informing members of proposal to use this site as car parking for the Bestival event in 2004.  Members decided that although the use of the site as a car park would be in breach of Planning Control, a resolution was taken not to take any enforcement action regarding this matter as a significant highway problem would arise if this site were not used.  However members should note that use of this site was in breach of planning control due to its use as a motocross circuit.

 

3.2     At the Development Control Committee meeting on 29th January 2005 members considered a request from landowner to indicate how they would respond to the use of the site for a GP Motocross Event in 2005.  Members resolved not to take action against this activity providing a legal agreement was signed which imposed controls on such an event.  At the time of writing a draft agreement has been prepared but it has yet to be signed.  An enforcement notice was served in February 2005 relating to the unauthorised use of site.  Appeal lodged and notice is held in abeyance.

 

4.       Development Plan policy

 

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

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 impact can be ameliorated.

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

G4 -  General Locational Criteria for Development.

G5 -   Development outside Defined Settlements.

G10 - Existing Surrounding Uses.

D1 -  Standards of Design.

T11 - Special Events or Festival Sites.

TR7 -          Highway Considerations for New Development.

C1 -  Protection of Landscape Character.

 

5.       Consultee and third party comments

 

          5.1     Internal consultees

 

·         Highways Authority recommend approval subject to conditions.

 

          5.2     External consultees

 

·         There are no external consultees relevant to the determination of this application.

 

5.3     Arreton Parish Council suggest that a closer site should be considered as it would be much more convenient          for visitors as well as overcoming Highway Department's present concerns about the use of Gore Basin site. They indicate that people leaving the site did not use the Park & Ride scheme but walked back along unlit roads and pavement to the detriment of highway safety.  The current site is highly contentious with its current use.  They request that should this application be approved from effect of 12 September 2005, no temporary planning applications will be considered until all activities and issues relating to this site have been resolved.

 

5.4     Neighbours

 

          The application has attracted one letter of objection which can be summarised as follows:

·         The description of the site indicates Gore Basin Motocross Circuit, which is a misleading title as no circuit officially exists.

·         The car park terraces are currently illegal with no formal determination or formalised planning application being favourably received.

·         No permission exists for the access points to the site.

·         Enforcement notices have been sent to the land owner requiring the work to be removed and the land reinstated to its former condition.

·         It would be indefensible to allow this application to succeed as it breaches planning procedure and planning law.

·         Last year pedestrians were at great hazard on the unlit roads and a closer site should be looked at.

 

5.5    The Campaign to Protect Rural England objects to the application on the following reasons:

·         There is no extant planning permission for use of this site which includes vehicular/pedestrian access off Downend Road.  Consequently, permission for this use would imply permission to use this access which is unauthorised.

·         The history of the site is too sensitive, with pending enforcement action, restoration of the land and the requirement of an Environmental Impact Assessment, for any subsequent use.

·         An Environmental Impact Assessment will be required.

·         The event needs to scale down aspirations not to impinge on the amenities of local residents.

·         Highway safety will be compromised with the increased load on Downend Road and will also increase noise and fumes generated by all the vehicular and transfer buses.

·         The description of the planning application is misleading, using the title of Gore Basin Motocross Circuit.                

                  

6.       Evaluation

 

          6.1     The main issues relating to this application are:

·         highway considerations

·         impact on the countryside and third parties

·         the history of the site

·         policy implications.

 

6.2     In consultation with the Highways Authority it is considered that there is adequate provision by way of the Conditions and Management Plan to be implemented through both this planning application and the Isle of Wight Act to safeguard the highway concerns within the localised area.  Through the Management Plan the Highways Authority have negotiated that all the surrounding roads surrounding Robin Hill will be designated as a clearway, enabling them to tow any cars parked within these areas with immediate action, therefore stopping any persons parking in close proximity to the festival event.  Members must note that the Highways Authority have a limited timescale to implement the temporary traffic orders, as it takes approximately one month to implement such a scheme.

 

6.3    The events organiser is willing to pay for a number of Highways staff to monitor the pedestrian access from the site, but will also provide Highway officers to patrol in vehicles around the surrounding area to monitor the vehicular and pedestrian movements.

 

6.4    The events organiser has also agreed to a reduction in car park fee price, lower than last year's fees.  The bus service provided from the Gore Basin site to Robin Hill will be free of charge.

 

6.5    Members must note that last year no traffic orders were in place, enabling people to park along Burnthouse Lane, the Downs Road and Long Lane.  This resulted in cars parking within these areas, with visitors walking to the festival event site.  This year all these roads will be kept clear by regulation thereby encouraging visitors to use the controlled parking area and then using the bus service provided.  It has been noted by third parties that a number of pedestrians last year were using the roads to the detriment of highway safety, but through consultation with the traffic management team at the Highways Authority this was mainly caused by  people walking to their cars in Burnthouse Lane, Long Lane and the Downs Road.  They note that an insignificant number of people walked to the Gore Basin site and actually used the bus service provided.

 

6.6    The local Police representative is in full support of this application subject to the conditions and Management Plan being in place.

 

6.7    It has been suggested that this site should not be used due to its existing history and pending enforcement action but members are cautioned against conflating these two issues.  Due to the temporary nature of this application and the current infrastructure in place, with the imposed conditions and Management Plan this is the most suitable site for this operation and more importantly one over which a degree of control can be exercised. 

 

6.8    Members should note that generally an application for car parking would not be needed on open land as it is of a temporary nature, but due to the current history of the site planning permission is required due to the status of the motocross circuit.  If members were to refuse this site the events organiser would be entitled to use a neighbouring field which would not be subject to any form of condition or control by the Local Planning Authority, which could have more detrimental impacts on highway safety and the amenities of the area.  The access to the site is safe which will allow vehicles to enter and leave in an orderly fashion, safeguarding highway users within the area.  Another such field may not offer that level of safety for both car users and pedestrians alike.

 

6.9    Although Arreton Parish Council request that no planning application should be permitted after 12 September 2005 each planning application is treated on its own merits for formal determination.  Any use of the site from 12 September onwards would require the benefit of planning permission and would be determined on all material considerations submitted with that application.

 

6.10  Highways Authority are satisfied that through the measures provided by the Management Plan (which forms part of the submission in connection with the application under the Isle of Wight Act) that this site is suitable for use as a car parking facility, complying with relevant UDP policy (TR7).

 

7.       Conclusion and justification for recommendation

 

7.1     In light of all material considerations outlined within this report the Local Planning Authority are of the opinion that by reason of the conditions and management plan imposed by and approval by this Committee would lead to a satisfactory location for this car parking operation.  By way of the imposed conditions and the nature of the infrastructure provided at the site this is deemed to be the best location for this operation, allowing control and monitoring by the Highway Authority.

 

8.       Recommendation

 

The application is recommended for limited period permission subject to the following conditions.

 

 

Conditions/Reasons:

 

1

 The use hereby permitted shall operate only between 9th and 12th September 2005 only and thereafter the land restored to its former condition.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policies S6 (Standards of Design), D1 (Standards of Design), TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) and C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

2

 The Management Plan hereby approved and forming part of this application shall be strictly complied to, with all measures implemented in full accordance with details outlined within that plan at all times unless prior written approval has been granted by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

3

 The development shall not be brought into use until a vehicle parking layout consistent with the Isle of Wight Council Unitary Development Plan Parking Guidelines has been provided within the curtilage of the site in accordance with details that have been submitted to, approved by and thereafter implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes.  The agreed scheme shall be implemented before the development hereby permitted is brought into use.

 

Reason:  In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

4

 Steps, including the installation and use of wheel cleaning facilities in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, shall be taken to prevent material being deposited on the highway as a result of any operation on the site.  Any deposit of material from the site on the highway shall be removed as soon as practical by the site operator.

 

Reason:  In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policies TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

5

 The use hereby permitted shall not commence until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing for vehicles to be loaded and unloaded and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear.  The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition.

 

Reason:  In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

6

 No structure or erection or a natural growth, plants, shrubs etc. exceeding 1.05 metres in height above existing road level shall be placed or permitted within the area of land as shown yellow on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice.

 

Reason:  In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

7

 The site shall only be used for the parking of vehicles and no other use whatsoever.  For the avoidance of doubt no structure of any kind other than toilets, waste collection facilities and a small kiosk for security personnel shall be erected or placed upon the site.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities of the are and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

8

 For the avoidance of doubt there shall not be placed or erected upon the site any food or drink vending facilities or any other form of retail outlet or product display facilities.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

9.

Reference Number: P/01152/04 - TCP/18968/D

Parish/Name:  Niton - Ward/Name: Chale Niton and Whitwell

Registration Date:  08/06/2004  -  Full Planning Permission

Officer:  Mr A White Tel: (01983) 823550

Applicant: Mr R Russell & Mr Wells

 

3 detached houses with garages & access off Bannock Road (revised plans)

land rear of Alban Cottage, High Street and adjacent Whinscot, 49, Bannock Road, Whitwell, Ventnor, PO38

 

 

The application is recommended for conditional permission

 

 

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

 

The local member, Councillor W Arnold, has requested that this application is considered by the Development Control Committee for the following reasons:

 

1.   Overdevelopment of the site and backland development.

2.   Poor access, particularly for emergency vehicles.

3.   Inadequate drainage.

 

 

 

1.       Details of application

 

1.1     Full consent is sought for 3 detached houses (on a site of 0.087 ha.), which are shown to be accessed off Bannock Road and through a new residential development of 7 houses on adjoining land to the west.

 

1.2     Proposed layout confirms that Plots 1 and 3 would face west and south respectively, whilst Plot 2 is shown as an "L" shaped unit in order to account for the corner nature of this plot.  Plots 1 and 3 would contain four bedrooms through utilising their roof space, whilst the corner unit would offer three bedrooms.  Each dwelling is shown to have an attached single garage accessed over a communal courtyard and rear gardens that vary in depth between 6 and 8 metres and width in the region of 12 to 15 metres.

 

1.3     Each of the three dwellings would have its own individual design, yet all units are shown to contain certain details that arguably reflect the semi-rural nature of this site.  The suggested materials of artificial stone, brick detailing and plain roof tiles are shown to be used throughout the whole development in order to achieve a certain degree of continuity.

 

1.4     For information, the scheme before members is a revised proposal following a series of negotiations with the developer and his agent.  The revised proposal, reducing the number of units from 4 dwellings to 3, seeks to achieve a more coherent layout, a workable turning area and improved relationship with adjoining properties.

 

2.       Location and site characteristics

 

2.1     The site is roughly rectangular in shape and is situated to the rear of properties that front Bannock Road and High Street.  It previously formed part of the curtilage to Alban Cottage, High Street but has recently been fenced off.  The site does not have its own road frontage, and therefore would rely on the recently constructed access road serving the adjoining new development.  In essence, the proposal would result in the continuation and, to an extent, the termination of the adjoining commenced development.

 

2.2     Site has maximum dimensions of 29 metres by some 32 metres and slopes away in an easterly direction resulting in a fall of 2 metres over a 30 metre distance.

 

2.3     Site is bounded by domestic gardens along much of its northern, eastern and southern boundaries, with the development site to the west.  However, being on the periphery of a village, it is fair to say that the site does have a semi-rural character.

 

3.       Relevant history

 

          3.1     There is no history pertaining to the application site.

 

3.2    Consent granted in March 2005 for the construction of 7 houses and associated access road on land to the west.  The approved layout plan indicates that the access road would be taken up to the common boundary with the application site.  It should be noted that the approval was subject to a Section 106 Agreement in respect of a financial contribution towards affordable housing.  The agreed figure of £45,000 was  calculated on the potential of two adjoining sites to accommodate 10 dwellings, which is the threshold specified in the UDP where the host settlement has a population less than 3,000.  Monies are to be paid on a pro rata basis through an appropriate legal mechanism.

 

4.       Development Plan policy

 

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

 

4.2     The Unitary Development Plan (UDP) confirms that the site is entirely within, but partially adjacent, the development envelope boundary as shown on the Whitwell Inset Map.  Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

 

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

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

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

G1 -      Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 -      General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 -      Standards of Design.

D2 -      Standards for Developments within the Site.

D3 -      Landscaping.

H4 -      Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements.

H5 -       Infill Development.

H14 -     Locally Affordable Housing as an element of Housing Schemes.

TR7 -    Highway Considerations for New Development.

TR16 -  Parking Policies and Guidelines.

U11 -     Infrastructure and Services Provision.

 

5.       Consultee and third party comments

 

          5.1     Internal consultees

 

·         Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

 

          5.2     External consultees

 

·         Southern Water would not object to a modest number of dwellings being constructed on the site.  They confirm that sewer incident records in this area indicate that there are no incidents of flooding from the public sewers.  I am advised that there have been some blockages, but none of them recorded as causing flooding.  In addition, some private drainage incidents are recorded but the records held by Southern Water do not indicate that this has resulted in flooding. 

 

          5.3     Town Council comments

 

·         Whitwell Parish Council recommend refusal on grounds of over-development, backland development, poor access, particularly for emergency vehicles, and inadequate drainage.

 

          5.4     Neighbours and local residents

 

Application has attracted a total of 5 letters from local residents objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

 

·         Plot 1 is too large and too high.

·         Overlooking and loss of privacy, particularly for Plot 1.  Change in levels will exacerbate this.

·         Undermine health and stability of hedge/trees along parts of southern boundary.

·         Inadequate drainage.

                                     

6.       Evaluation

 

6.1     Having regard to location of site within the development envelope boundary, it is considered that the principle of developing this site for residential purposes 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.  In order to make this assessment, it is necessary to address the following issues:

 

·         Density

·         Layout

·         Design

·         Access

·         Drainage

·         Trees.

 

6.2    Members will be aware that adopted Council policy and guidance both at a central and local level encourages the best use of land, with PPG3 advocating densities of between 30 to 50 dwellings to the hectare, and even higher where efficient links to public transport can be achieved.  Such advice is echoed in Policy H6 of the UDP.  This proposal would amount to approximately 35 units to the hectare, and hence accords with the advice given in PPG3 and our own policies, and hence density cannot form a reason for refusal.

 

6.3    It is a requirement of Policies G4, D1 and D2 that development harmonises with its surroundings through respecting the distinctiveness of the surrounding area, is sympathetic in siting and takes full account of views into and out of the site.  The proposed layout would appear as a natural continuation of the adjoining new development, and has been arranged around a courtyard feature which would offer a visual termination of development at its eastern end but with the potential of extending through to the south if adjoining land ever comes forward for development.  As well as relating well to the adjoining new development, the distance of some 30 metres between the proposed dwellings and existing properties fronting High Street is acceptable.  Taking these points into consideration, the proposed layout would allow for 3 dwellings to be comfortably accommodated on this site, whilst paying due regard to the pattern of development in this part of Whitwell.

 

6.4    In terms of design, proposal shows three individually designed properties but with features that are complementary to one another.  Similarly, the overall external appearance of the proposed dwellings would be different to the adjoining development, but this is not considered to be detrimental given the variety of property types and styles in this part of Whitwell.  Revised plans have been submitted showing that the proposed development would make better use of the varying contours so that the houses would appear well anchored into the slope, as opposed to protruding into the skyline.  Accordingly, the design and external appearance of the proposed dwellings would be suitable for this context and would pay due regard to the views into and out of the site.  As such, proposal complies with policy in respect of design.

 

6.5    Neighbours have expressed concern in respect of overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy, particularly in respect of Plots 1 and 2 which would adjoin the common boundary with High Street properties.  Back to back distances are around 30m or more albeit the proposed garden depths are shallow.  The only first floor rear facing windows to Plot 1 would serve bathrooms, and therefore would be fitted with obscure glass containing little in the way of openings.  Plot 2 would have one rear facing bedroom window at first floor level, but this would be positioned at an oblique angle to the property of greatest concern.  A 2 metre high fence would be erected along the rear boundary and Plot 1 would be cut into the slope in order to prevent overlooking from ground floor windows and the rear garden.  Bearing these points in mind, any overlooking of adjoining properties would not be of such significance as to justify withholding consent.

 

6.6    With regard to access, the adjoining development through which access is to be achieved for the application site was considered in light of adjoining land coming forward for development.  Accordingly, the access and associated roadway off Bannock Road has been designed to cater for such a scheme.  The Highway Engineer raises no objection, particularly as modifications have now been made to the proposed turning area.  Concern has been expressed regarding emergency vehicle access, but it should be noted that the adjoining developer has recently agreed a scheme with Building Control for a suitable turning facility for a fire appliance to be provided.  This would adjoin the application site meaning that the proposed dwellings would also comply with the appropriate regulations.  It would therefore appear that adequate access does exist for emergency vehicles, and legislation under the Building Regulations can be relied upon in order to secure the details of such.  There are thus no grounds for refusal by virtue of inadequate access or inaccessibility for emergency services.

 

6.7    Given the comments of Southern Water, there is no evidence to suggest that there is inadequate capacity within the drainage system to receive flows from the proposed development. The Local Planning Authority could not therefore recommend refusal on these grounds.  However, in order to restrict flows to the combined system, it would be advisable for surface water to be disposed of in some other manner.  This could include discharge into the highway storm water drainage system or alternatively via a soakaway system which would have to be agreed with Building Control.  I am satisfied however, that the proposal is compliant with Policy U11 in respect of drainage.

 

6.8    With regard to trees, there are no individual specimens within the site or along any of the boundaries that would warrant individual or group protection.  It would be advisable, however, to retain the line of hedging and other vegetation along the northern and southern boundaries to help soften the impact of the proposed development as well as paying due regard to the semi-rural character of the surrounding area.

 

6.9    Given the potential of this and the adjoining site to accommodate 10 or more units, the recent approval in respect of the 7 dwellings was subject to a legal agreement in respect of a financial contribution towards affordable housing of £45,000.  Although the completion of this agreement is imminent, it is considered expedient to impose a condition in respect of this application stating that work shall not commence on the 3 houses until the said legal agreement has been completed.

 

7.       Conclusion and justification for recommendation

 

7.1     Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, your officers consider that the proposed residential development is acceptable in principle and that the site is of a sufficient size to accommodate three units without having excessive or adverse impact on neighbouring property occupiers or the character of the area in general.  Furthermore, the recently constructed access and roadway for the adjoining development is sufficient to accommodate the traffic associated with the proposed development and that the existing drainage system is also adequate to serve the proposed dwellings.  Overall, it is felt that the proposal satisfies the objectives of making efficient use of land within existing settlements and therefore do not consider there to be any sustainable reasons to withhold planning permission.

 

8.       Recommendation

 

          Approval.

 

 

Conditions/Reasons:

 

1

 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from date of this permission.

 

Reason:  To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

2

 The 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 the planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the said Act in respect of planning permission pertaining to the adjoining land under Reference No. TCP/14661D/P/01832/04 has been completed.

 

Reason:  To ensure adequate provision of locally affordable housing and to comply with Policy H14 (Locally Affordable Housing as an Element of Housing Schemes) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

3

 No development shall take place until samples of materials and finishes to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

4

 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 commenced.  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

 Notwithstanding the requirements of condition 4, development shall not commence until a fence measuring 2 metres above ground level has been erected along the eastern boundary of the site.  Such fence shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities and privacy of the adjoining residential properties and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

6

 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development within Class E of Part 1 or Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out other than that expressly authorised by this permission.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

7

 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development within Classes A to E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out other than that expressly authorised by this permission.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

8

 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 in the eastern elevation of Plots 1 or 2 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

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.

 

9

 The first floor windows in the east elevation of Plot 1 identified green 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 if 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 adjoining property occupiers and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

10

 Development shall not begin until details of openings in respect of those windows specified under condition 9 have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Development shall only proceed in accordance with the agreed details which shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities and privacy of adjoining property occupiers and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

11

 Development shall not commence until details, including height and dimensions, of patio or decked areas off the eastern elevation of Plots 1 and 2 have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Development shall only proceed in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities and privacy of adjoining property occupiers and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

12

 The existing hedgerows along the northern and southern boundaries of the site shall be retained and maintained at a minimum height of 1.8 metres and, where necessary, reinforced with further planting comprising appropriate species to the existing hedgerows, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of IT Unitary Development Plan.

 

13

 In this condition "retained hedge or hedgerow" means an existing hedge or hedgerow which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars.

 

No retained hedge or hedgerow shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained hedge or hedgerow be reduced in height other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

If within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development the whole or any part of any retained hedge or hedgerow is removed, uprooted, is destroyed or dies, another hedge or hedgerow shall be planted at the same place and that hedge or hedgerow shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained hedge or hedgerow shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and particulars before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site.  Nothing shall be stored or placed in any fenced area in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered nor shall any excavation be made or fire be lit, without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:  To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing hedges or hedgerows and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

14

 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 that 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 shall systems have been completed in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason:  To ensure an adequate system of foul drainage is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

15

 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.

 

Reason:  To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

16

 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.

 

17

 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.

 

 

10

Reference Number: P/01440/04 - TCP/21427/H

Parish/Name:  Ventnor - Ward/Name: Ventnor West

Registration Date:  05/07/2004  -  Development by Council Itself (Reg 3)

Officer:  Mr A Pegram Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant:  Isle of Wight Council

 

Sewage treatment plant and associated drainage works

Ventnor Botanic Garden, The Undercliffe Drive, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO381UL

 

The application is recommended for Conditional Approval

 

 

 

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

 

This application has been submitted by the Isle of Wight Council and has attracted representations.

 

 

1.       Details of application

 

1.1     Full planning permission is sought for installation of sewage treatment plant and associated drainage works.  The sewage treatment plant would comprise a below-ground inlet pumping station and storm tank, two filter tanks and a control kiosk.  The filter tanks have a width of approximately 2.8 metres, one having a length of approximately 5.3 metres and the other a length of 6.2 metres.  The tanks would be sunken into the ground with only the lids being visible.  In addition, the proposal would involve the provision of an above-ground kiosk to house electrical equipment.  The various elements of the sewage treatment plant would be located within a compound measuring approximately 15 metres in length by 10 metres in width enclosed by security fencing and trellis screen.  In addition, the compound would be screened on three sides by new planting.

 

1.2     Associated drainage works would be carried out including laying new pipes within the Botanic Gardens and repairing the outfall on the foreshore. 

 

2.       Location and site characteristics

 

2.1    The proposed sewage treatment plant would occupy a position within the Ventnor Botanic Gardens (a historic garden of special importance) approximately 100 metres south-west of the Visitors Centre.  The plant would occupy an area of land presently laid to grass surrounded by well laid out gardens which includes some mature trees and shrubs.

 

2.2    The gardens are terraced falling away from road to lower level and installation would occupy a position within central area of gardens and would not therefore be visible from the outside the environs of the Botanic Gardens.  Members will be aware that site was previously occupied by substantial building, formerly used as a hospital, which has since been demolished.  Structures of any substance within the Garden include the Visitors Centre and glasshouses.

 

3.       Relevant history

 

3.1     The Gardens have been subject to a number of applications for buildings and visitor attractions associated with the operation of the Gardens.  However, there is considered to be no history directly relevant to the current proposal.

 

4.       Development Plan policy

 

4.1    Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 - Planning and the Historic Environment, advises that Local Planning Authorities should protect registered parks and gardens in preparing development plans and in determining planning applications.  The guidance note confirms that the effect of proposed development on a registered park or garden or its setting is a material consideration in the determination of a planning application.

 

4.2    The site is located outside the development boundary as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and is within an area designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast and a Historic Park and Garden.  In addition, the coastline is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation and a Special Area of Conservation.  Relevant policies of the UDP are considered to be as follows:

 

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.

G1 -    Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 -    General Locational Criteria for Development.

G5 -    Development Outside Defined Settlements.

G7 -    Development on Unstable Land.

D1 -    Standards of Design.

B10 -  Parks and Gardens and Landscapes of Historic Interest.

C1 -    Protection of Landscape Character.

C2 -    Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

C4 -    Heritage Coast.

C8 -    Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration.

C9 -    Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation.

C11 -  Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation.

P1 -    Pollution and Development.

P2 -    Minimise Contamination from Development.            

 

5.       Consultee and third party comments

 

          5.1     Internal consultees

 

·         County Archaeology and Historic Environment Service confirms that site is located within a Historic Park and Garden of county importance and that English Heritage have placed the Garden on the register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest at Grade II level.  They recommended that English Heritage and the Isle of Wight Garden Trust were informed of the application.

 

·         The AONB Partnership is generally supportive of the proposal to improve the treatment and disposal of sewage on this site, particularly if it will improve the water quality of the groundwater and sea.  The Partnership believes that the siting of the treatment plant within the Gardens means that it can be sensitively screened and will not impact on the AONB.

 

          5.2     External consultees

 

·         English Heritage have considered the application and do not wish to make any representations on this occasion.

 

·         English Nature comment on the potential impact on the SSSI and cSAC arising from the discharge of effluent into the designated areas.  They acknowledge that boulders will be used to protect and hide the discharge pipe.  Therefore, they will expect only boulders to be taken from areas at the same distance inshore as the discharge pipe to be used and consider that planning permission should be subject to a condition requiring the developer to submit a Method Statement and plan for translocating into tidal boulders prior to commencement of the development.  They acknowledge that the treatment plant will improve water quality being discharged into the sea and would seek assurance from the Environment Agency that the discharge will not have a likely significant effect on the interest features of the cSAC and will not affect the interest features of the SSSI.  This issue will be addressed as part of an application to the Environment Agency for a discharge licence.

 

·         The Garden History Society consider the Ventnor Botanic Gardens to be of national importance and highlight advice in PPG15 which states that planning authorities should protect registered parks and gardens in preparing development plans and in determining planning applications.  In addition, they highlight the advice in the PPG which confirms that the effect on historic park or garden or its setting is a material consideration in assessing an application.  Whilst the comments from the Society clearly indicate that the site has not been visited in preparing their response, they have studied the Register Map and entry.  They express concern that the proposal has been brought forward without due regard for its potential impact on the historic landscape and consider that the sewage treatment plant in this location may have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape.  They also comment that no justification has been provided for this proposal or an Impact Assessment of the proposal on the historic landscape.  The Society strongly advise that an assessment of the impact of the development is carried out prior to determination of the application and that a justification is provided for this proposal.  In addition, they suggest that a landscape strategy and management plan for the whole site should be prepared in order to give clear guidance and priorities for future changes and, possibly, landscape improvements.

 

In conclusion the Society was concerned about the adverse impact of the proposal which would detract from the character and appearance of the historic landscape of Ventnor Botanic Gardens.  They considered that the potential damage to the fabric of the historic landscape is considerable and advise that the application is refused and an alternative site sought for the sewage treatment plant.

 

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

 

5.4    Neighbours and local residents

 

         None received.                               

 

6.       Evaluation

 

          6.1     Determining factors in considering this application are as follows:

 

·         Whether the proposed sewage treatment plant would have a significant and adverse impact on the Historic Park and Garden.

·         Implications for the other designations in this area, including the coastline.

·         Other factors which may outweigh any harmful effects that may arise through this development.

 

6.2     It is accepted that the installation will have an impact on the park and setting within which it is to be situated.  However, it is considered that the impact of these works can be properly mitigated by appropriate landscaping around the compound within which the plant will be situated.  Furthermore, whilst acknowledging the comments of the Garden History Society, it is considered that it is necessary to have regard for other material considerations and whether there are any other factors which may outweigh the potential impact of the proposal on the historic landscape.

 

6.3     The submission was accompanied by information in support of the proposal which highlights the need for the treatment plant.  The existing drainage system, which serves a number of properties in the vicinity of the Botanic Gardens, runs through the Gardens before discharging through an outfall on the coastline below the Gardens.  At present this results in untreated sewage being discharged into the sea.  Furthermore, the report advises that the outfall pipe has suffered some damage, resulting in the effective point of discharge at around highwater mark.  This does not comply with the consented discharge point and is therefore illegal.  In this respect, it is understood that the Environment Agency is concerned about the pollution resulting from the discharge and has the power to revoke the deemed consent.  It is understood that the Environment Agency has advised the Council that it may use its powers under the Water Resources Act if the Council does not remedy the situation.

 

6.4     The options for remedying this situation have been considered by the Council and include pumping sewage to the public system at Flowersbrook or a local treatment and discharge system.  However, pumping the sewage to the Flowersbrook transfer station would necessitate laying a new pipe having a total length of some 600 metres which would pass through the western side of the Garden, around the northern edge of Ventnor Cricket Ground and along Steephill Road to Flowersbrook.  The route of the main is known to pass through old landslide material and a large proportion of the main would be laid parallel to the geological boundaries.  Therefore, there is considerable potential for creating further instability in the existing landslide system if this work were to be undertaken.  In addition, the Engineer acting on behalf of the Council has confirmed that such a proposal would still necessitate the provision of a storage/pumping facility. For technical reasons associated with the existing system the most suitable location would probably be in the same position as the proposed treatment plant, the position being determined by the existing sewer routes.

 

6.5     The Engineer acting on behalf of the Council has also confirmed that, if the present illegal discharge is to be terminated, it is inevitable that some works must be carried out within the Garden.  Due to the issues associated with the option to pump sewage to the Flowersbrook, as highlighted above, a decision was taken to provide a treatment plant within the Gardens.  In addition to resolving the current illegal discharge of sewage, the treatment plant will also result in a significant improvement in the water quality of the current discharge from this area.  Therefore, any impact on the designated areas along the coastline is likely to be positive rather than negative.             

 

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 of the opinion that, whilst the installation of the sewage treatment plant may have an impact on the Historic Park and Garden, such impact can be minimised with appropriate landscaping, which should be carefully selected to reflect the existing species within the Garden.  Furthermore, I consider that the benefits arising from this proposal outweigh any potential harm that may result.

 

7.2     The Botanic Gardens have been subject to a number of planning applications in recent years and I consider that it would be beneficial for a landscape strategy and management plan for the whole site to be prepared in order to give clear guidance and priorities for future changes and possible landscape improvements, as suggested by the Garden History Society.  Therefore, should members be minded to approve this application I would also recommend that this requirement is drawn to the attention of the applicant.

 

8.       Recommendation

 

          That conditional permission be granted.

 

Conditions/Reasons:

 

1

 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from date of this permission.

 

Reason:  To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

2

 Prior to work commencing on site, a Method Statement providing full details of the repairs to be carried out to the outfall shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority.  Such work shall make provision for the translocation of intertidal boulders to be taken from areas at the same distance inshore as the discharge pipe, to be used in the protection of the outfall pipe.

 

Reason:  To minimise the impact of these works on the features of interest along the coastline and to comply with Strategic Policy S10 (Designated and Defined Areas) and Policies C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration), C9 (Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation) and C11 (Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

3

 Prior to any work commencing on site, and notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted plans, full details of the means of enclosure to and surface treatment within the proposed compound shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall be carried out and, thereafter, retained and maintained strictly in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason:  In the interest of the landscape character of this Historic Park and Garden and to comply with Strategic Policy S10 (Designated and Defined Areas) and Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design), C1 (Protection of Landscape Character), C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and B10 (Parks and Gardens and Landscapes of Historic Interest) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

4

 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.

 

5

 No development shall take place until a scheme of landscape implementation and maintenance for a minimum period of 5 years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.  The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:  To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved design and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

 

          Second Recommendation

 

          That the applicant is advised of the Garden History Society's recommendation to produce a Landscape Strategy and Management Plan for the whole site in order to give clear guidance and priorities for future changes and possible landscape improvements.