Representations

Sandown Town Council has no objection.

Highway Engineer has no comments.

Environmental Health Officer makes no adverse comment.

Two letters of objection from local residents on grounds of intrusive development and loss of privacy; increased vehicular flow as the hotel will continue to trade in addition to the dwellings.

Evaluation

This application relates to the rear part of a site which is currently used as a hotel located almost centrally between the junction of New Street and Royal Crescent on the north west side of Beachfield Road at Sandown. The existing hotel is a two storey property with modern additions with an existing access located on its north east end of the frontage onto Beachfield Road. The rear wing of the existing property is a single storey flat roofed structure with much of the area surrounding formerly gardens, but now overgrown.

To the north western boundary is a brick and corrugated steel roofed depot and to both east and south western boundaries are large properties fronting Royal Crescent and New Street respectively, properties which are comparatively close to the rear boundaries.

Permission is sought for residential development and plans indicate a terrace of six two storey properties in a 'C' shaped configuration fronting in a south easterly direction towards the rear of the hotel. The drive would be extended into a parking and turning area for six vehicles, one space for each of the six units. Only ground floor plans have been supplied and these indicate that the properties would have a kitchen/dining room/lounge on ground floor, but no details have been submitted for first floor. A front elevation shows that the properties would be contained within a single building of two storeys in height. The plan indicates that such a building would be within 2.4 metres off the north eastern boundary and 3 metres of the south western boundary.

Determination of this application turns on matters of policy and principle, access, effect on adjoining properties and density.

In principle terms, the development does not result in the loss of hotel accommodation and on the face of it would not appear to be contrary to Policy T5.

Access to the site is proposed via that existing and does not result in the loss of any existing car parking. It is apparent that the Highway Engineer has raised no objection to the scheme, although it is suggested that the scheme does not incorporate adequate space for larger vehicles to turn on site.

In terms of density, the proposal covers a good proportion of the site, with its associated parking and turning. In the form indicated in the scheme, whilst it leaves fairly substantial amenity areas for each unit, the two ends of the terrace are in close proximity to the common boundaries (2.4 metres and 3 metres respectively), gable end walls which will inevitably contain windows, probably bedrooms which will overlook the adjoining properties as boundaries could not be of sufficient height to provide acceptable screening. A reduction in numbers would enable greater distances between the buildings and the common boundaries and the ability to lay out the site differently, especially in terms of the shape of the building's footprint, to enable windows to be incorporated in elevations facing a less sensitive direction. Accordingly, I consider that six dwellings on this site is overdevelopment which would be out of keeping with the general densities in the area and detrimental to the amenities and privacy of adjoining properties.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard to all the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, the development of the site is proposed is considered to be of excessive density with an adverse overlooking effect on adjoining properties and therefore contrary to Policies D1 and D2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

           Recommendation                 -          Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

M J A Fisher

Strategic Director

Corporate and Environment Services