PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE -

TUESDAY 1 JUNE 2004

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES

WARNING

1. THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT OTHER THAN PART 1 SCHEDULE AND DECISIONS ARE DISCLOSED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.

2. THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. (In some circumstances, consideration of an item may be deferred to a later meeting).

3. THE RECOMMENDATIONS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO ALTERATION IN THE LIGHT OF FURTHER INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE OFFICERS AND PRESENTED TO MEMBERS AT MEETINGS.

4. YOU ARE ADVISED TO CHECK WITH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENVIRONMENT SERVICES (TEL: 821000) AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON ANY ITEM BEFORE YOU TAKE ANY ACTION ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.

5. THE COUNCIL CANNOT ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY ACTION TAKEN BY ANY PERSON ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

Background Papers

The various documents, letters and other correspondence referred to in the Report in respect of each planning application or other item of business.

Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and, where necessary, consultations have taken place with the Crime and Disorder Facilitator and Architectural Liaison Officer. Any responses received prior to publication are featured in the report under the heading Representations.

Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, following advice from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, in recognition of a duty to give reasons for a decision, each report will include a section explaining and giving a justification for the recommendation.

LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 1 JUNE 2004

1.	TCPL/04724/M P/00619/04 83, Carisbrooke High Street, Newport, PO30 1NT Alterations; extensions at ground, 1st & 2nd floor levels & conversion of 4 flats into 5 flats; detached garage (revised scheme)	Newport	Conditional Approval
2.	LBC/04724/N P/00624/04 83, Carisbrooke High Street, Newport, PO30 1NT Alterations; extensions at ground, 1st & 2nd floor levels & conversion of 4 flats into 5 flats; detached garage (revised scheme)	Newport	Conditional Approval
3.	TCP/04748/C P/00601/04 Land adjacent 1, Vinings Road, Sandown, PO36 Chalet bungalow; vehicular access	Sandown	Conditional Approval
4.	TCP/05544/D P/02000/03 Rosegarth, The Mall, Totland Bay, Isle Of Wight, PO39 0DS Demolition of dwelling; construction of detached house with garage at basement level (revised scheme)	Totland	Conditional Approval
5.	TCP/08546/G P/00714/04 40-42, Regent Street, Shanklin, PO37 Change of use from hairdressers (Class A1) to food & drink (Class A3)	Shanklin	Conditional Approval
6.	TCP/10506/F P/02364/02 Le Veness, Esplanade, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO38 1JT Demolition of building; 6 storey building to form 2 shop units on ground floor with 9 flats over (revised scheme)(readvertised)	Ventnor	Conditional Approval
7.	TCP/12917/P P/00307/04 Wootton Bridge Recreation Ground, Footways, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, PO33 Formation of footpath/cycleway link from High Street to footways and associated landscaping (revised scheme) (readvertised application)	Wootton	Conditional Approval
8.	TCP/16388/C P/02369/03 Land adjoining Sun Crest, The Green, Calbourne, Newport, PO30 Outline for 3 dwellings	Calbourne	Refusal
9.	TCP/17579/G P/02254/03 Site A, land east of Sandown Airport, Newport Road, Sandown, PO36 Use of land for storage of building contractors plant & use as builders yard	Newchurch	Refusal
10.	TCP/22670/C P/02500/03 Land adjacent Westridge Leisure Centre, Brading Road, Ryde, PO33 Use of land for outdoor go-kart track with building to provide cafe and associated facilities; storage building & workshop	Seaview	Conditional Approval
11.	TCP/24145/A P/02289/03 Former coal distribution depot adjoining Brading Station, Station Road, Brading, Sandown, PO36 Outline for residential development (Revised Plans)	Brading	Conditional Approval
12.	TCP/25072/A P/00841/04 Avalon, Morton Road, Brading, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO36 0BJ Retention of vehicular access & hardstanding	Brading	Refusal
13.	TCP/26055 P/02523/03 8 Redwing Close, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO30 5SW Outline for end of terrace house; formation of vehicular access (revised scheme) (readvertised application)	Newport	Conditional Approval
14.	TCP/26192 P/00529/04 1 Clatterford Road, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO30 1PA Conversion of existing property to form 7 flats; two/three storey extension to form 3 flats; alterations to vehicular access	Newport	Conditional Approval

TCPL/04724/M P/00619/04 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Carisbrooke West

Registration Date: 18/03/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. D. Booth Tel: (01983) 823856

Applicant: Mr L Verstraeten

Alterations; extensions at ground, 1st & 2nd floor levels & conversion of 4 flats into 5 flats; detached garage (revised scheme)

83, Carisbrooke High Street, Newport, PO301NT

This is a joint report with application no. LBC/04724N

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Before any work hereby authorised is begun, steps shall be taken to secure the safety and stability of those parts of the existing building which are to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the existing building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	The doors and door/window frames of the extension/ building shall be constructed of timber and shall be painted and thereafter maintained to match those of the existing building to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the existing building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Matching materials - S01
5	Submission of samples - S03
6	No development shall take place until the applicant or their agent has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in writing to facilitate monitoring of the on site archaeological works, notification of the start date and appointed archaeological contractor should be given in writing to the address below not less than 14 days before the commencement of any works: County Archaeologist County Archaeological Centre 61 Clatterford Road Carisbrooke NEWPORT Isle of Wight PO30 1NZ Reason: In order to ensure access by specified archaeologists during the permitted operations and to comply with Policy B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	The method of demolition and construction for the development shall be carried out in accordance with a scheme to be approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to any development commencing. Reason: The site is in a very sensitive location with respect to groundwater and in order to protect the quality of drinking water supplies, the working methods will need to be carefully considered and to comply with policy U19 (Safeguards of Aquifers and Water Resources) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Tree protection - excavations - N11
9	Any excavation work within the existing crown spread of the trees to be retained shall be carried out only by hand and under the supervision of a representative of the Local Planning Authority. Any roots over 40 mm in diameter shall not be severed without the prior agreement of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the trees are not adversely affected by the construction of the development and to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	The alterations hereby authorised shall not be begun until full details of any changes to interior features or existing fabric of the building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the work should be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the Listed Building and to comply with Policy B1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

LBC/04724/N P/00624/04 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Carisbrooke West

Registration Date: 18/03/2004 - Listed Building Consent

Officer: Mr. D. Booth Tel: (01983) 823856

Applicant: Mr L Verstraeten

LBC for alterations; extensions at ground, 1st & 2nd floor levels & conversion of 4 flats into 5 flats; detached garage, (revised scheme)

83, Carisbrooke High Street, Newport, PO301NT

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This application is particularly contentious and has attracted a substantial number of representations.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 10 weeks and has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning applications due to the need for Committee consideration.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The site is located on the southern side of Carisbrooke High Street opposite the western end of the Churchyard. The existing building is currently occupied as 4 flats and comprises elements of varying date but of traditional construction. The main part of the building fronts on to the High Street and there is a narrow access to the west serving dwellings and a garage to the rear. There is also an open garden area and vehicular access to the east of the main dwelling with a private drive and parking area leading to a detached garage.

The property has a long garden to the rear which abuts the rear of nearby properties including those which front on to Castle Street.

The majority of the buildings on the southern side of Carisbrooke High Street front directly on to the road, many of the properties are terraced although there are some larger properties which are detached and interspersed with garden areas. Immediately opposite the site, the ground levels rise with a substantial stone retaining wall forming the Churchyard to St. Mary's Church.

RELEVANT HISTORY

A previous application relating to similar proposals was withdrawn in order to clarify issues relating to land ownership and the serving of Notices.

TCP/0472/J - P/02537/03 - An application for construction of a detached cottage at the rear of this property was refused in April 2004 for reasons of insufficient information regarding vehicular access, assessment of ground water conditions and assessment of archaeological importance.

DETAILS OF APPLICATIONS

The applications now under consideration are for Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent in respect of alterations and extension to the existing property and the provision of 5 flats instead of the 4 flats in the existing building. The proposals also include demolition of the existing detached garage which is in poor condition and construction of a replacement garage with a pitched roof.

The alterations to the existing building comprise some internal rearrangement and relocation of previously installed partitions, together with an extension to the central part of the building which adjoins the driveway to the west and alterations to the central part of the roof.

The applicant has confirmed that the existing trees and landscaping in the vicinity of the replacement garage would be retained.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is situated within the designated development envelope and AONB.

The building is listed Grade II and is situated within the designated Conservation area. Therefore Government guidance in PPG15 is applicable. Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are as follows:

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

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.

D1 - Standards of Design.

B1 - Alterations and Extensions to Listed Building.

B2 - Settings of Listed Buildings.

B6 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas.

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

There are considered to be no highway implications associated with this proposal.

AONB Officer has no comment in respect of the application.

Archaeology Officer has commented that the development involves a site of archaeological importance and requests Conditions to ensure a programme of archaeological works in accordance with the original scheme of investigation and monitoring is submitted and agreed prior to commencement in accordance with guidance in PPG16 - Archaeology and Planning.

The Environment Agency have indicated that the site is in a very sensitive location with respect to ground water and request a Condition to ensure that the method of demolition and construction shall be carried out in accordance with a scheme to be approved in writing.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Letter received from Local Member on behalf of residents who signed a petition relating to the previous applications in respect of this development and also the proposed construction of a cottage at the rear of the property. The letter confirms that the comments received in respect of previous application are still considered to be valid and equally applicable to the development now under consideration. The petition contains 177 signatures and states "we the under-signed protest most strongly to the proposed development and alteration to Berry Hill, 83 Carisbrooke High Street. This is a Listed Building within the Carisbrooke Conservation Area and part of the historic village scene overlooking the castle and church".

Letter received from Island Watch indicating that whilst happy that most of the proposed alterations and extensions are more appropriate to the Listed Building than those which they replace, they object to the roof lights which always look intrusive whatever their design.

Four letters have been received from local residents objecting to proposal with matters raised summarised below:-

· Proposal represents over-development of the existing property and would not blend with the surrounding premises to constitute an acceptable improvement to the area.

· Concern expressed regarding increased use of shared driveway which is narrow and hazardous. Any additional doorways opening on to this driveway could put people and especially young children at risk.

· Principle of conversion is considered acceptable but this could be done in a more sympathetic manner to reflect the building and the needs of others using the lane and surrounding properties.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

The material considerations are considered to be the effect of the proposals on the architectural character and integrity of the Grade II Listed Building and the designated Conservation Area as well as the effect of the proposals on the amenities of the occupiers of the property and nearby residents.

These applications relate to Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent for works which affect a substantial Grade II Listed Building situated within the designated Conservation Area. The proposals include alterations to the building itself, together with replacement of a detached garage and reconfiguration of the accommodation to provide 5 flats instead of the 4 flats which currently exist within the building.

The building itself is of distinctive appearance incorporating the remnants of timber framing, brick infill panels and part rendered elevations with projecting bay windows and decorative barge boards to the gable elevations. The main elevations of the property front onto the High Street with a return frontage to the eastern side overlooking the access drive and garden area. There are various further extensions at the rear of the property including a late 19th century addition with a high level gabled roof and projecting bay windows and a modern timber framed conservatory on the eastern side access from the garden.

There is a narrow access lane to the west of the property with doors leading to the ground floor and upper floor accommodation. There are various elements to the existing building including later flat roof structures and some poor quality alterations which detract from the overall integrity of the building.

The proposed alterations to the main building have been the subject of discussions and negotiations with the applicant and his agents. This has resulted in some revisions to the original proposals to minimise the alterations to the historic parts of the building and to ensure that the new extensions and alterations reflect the overall characteristics and historical integrity of the structure. In this context, Members are advised that the main alterations include a new gabled extension on the western elevation which would reflect the character and appearance of the existing western gable to the front part of the property and would replace some of the later flat roofed elements of the building. New proposals also include some alterations to the roofline of the central part of the building to include additional accommodation at second floor level. These roof alterations have been incorporated to reflect the varied roofline of the existing building which includes several different elements comprising various gables and projecting rooflines which reflect the different development stages of the property. Whilst most of the alterations relate to the central and rear sections of the property, Members are advised that the overall roofline is an important feature of this building and can be viewed from the higher levels including the nearby church and from the vicinity of Clatterford Road.

The proposals also include some alterations to the elevations including the provision of additional projecting bay window in the eastern gable elevation overlooking the garden and some additional "conservation" style rooflights to the rear and central elements of the roof. Overall, I am of the opinion that the proposed alterations and extensions as now proposed would be sensitive to the characteristics of the existing building and would retain the historic elements of the building whilst replacing and improving some of the later unsympathetic alterations which have been carried out.

The works have been carefully designed to reflect the characteristics of the existing structure and the proposed alterations would not be over-dominant or uncharacteristic of the existing property. Whilst the concerns regarding the installation of roof lights have been noted, and it is acknowledged that roof lights can be a visual intrusion, in this particular case I am of the opinion that the number of roof lights have been minimised and would only be in locations where they would not be visually prominent. In addition, the proposals confirm these would be "conservation" style roof lights of a traditional character and appearance incorporating a central glazing bar which would be similar to roof lights which are traditionally seen in historic buildings.

Members will note that the proposals include the provision of an additional flat within the existing property which has been accommodated, partly by re-arranging the internal layout and partly by extending the roofline of the property. The level of accommodation now proposed would appear to be acceptable and the provision of one additional unit of living accommodation would not, in my opinion, adversely affect the overall amenity of the area or the characteristics of the existing property. This is a substantial building situated in a large plot and the addition of one extra flat is considered to be acceptable in this context.

The proposals also include replacement of the existing detached garage with a new detached garage of slightly larger size with a traditional gabled roof. This would be in a similar location to the existing garage and the applicants have confirmed that the existing trees and landscape screening would be retained. The overall design and appearance of the proposed garage are considered to be acceptable and would not unduly affect the setting of the Listed Building or the characteristics of the designated Conservation Area.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to balanced with the right of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations raised in this report, I am of the opinion that the development proposed in these applications would be acceptable in respect of the effect on the character and appearance of the Grade II Listed Building, the designated Conservation Area and the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with the requirements of Policies D1 (Design), B1 (Protection of Listed Buildings) and B6 (Protection of Designated Conservation Areas) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan, together with guidance contained in PPG15 "Planning and the Historic Environment". I therefore recommend the applications for approval.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Both applications)

Conditions/Reasons:

Time limit - listed building - A11

The alterations hereby authorised shall not be begun until full details of any changes to interior features or existing fabric of the building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the work should be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the Listed Building and to comply with Policy B1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/04748/C P/00601/04 Parish/Name: Sandown Ward: Sandown North

Registration Date: 17/03/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. C. Boulter Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Mr & Mrs A Ayres

Chalet bungalow; vehicular access

land adjacent 1, Vinings Road, Sandown, PO36

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Local Member, Councillor Ms Humby, following consultation under the Part 1B procedure, who is concerned that the majority opinion is that proposal would lead to loss of privacy to adjoining occupiers.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 11 weeks to date. It has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination, which expired on 12 May because the Local Member requested Committee consideration.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site of 11 metres frontage to west side of Vinings Road, mid way between Vinings Gardens and Queens Road. Site depth of some 17 metres.

Within a residential area, containing a mixture of dwelling types, bungalows adjoining to north, with mostly two storey to west and south. Nearest adjoining dwellings are a bungalow some 9 metres north of the site and the rear of the two storey dwellings fronting Queens Road are dome 18 metres to the south.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/4748/B – Single storey extension to form annexed accommodation and proposed garden shed at 1 Vinings Road, Approved with conditions 27 August 2002.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Two bedroomed dwelling proposed, building measuring 5.8 metres frontage by 7.4 metres depth, in form of chalet bungalow. Ground floor to contain lounge, dining room, kitchen, hall and stairway, with two bedrooms and bathroom in the upper floor roof area, lit by front and rear facing single dormer windows. Parking area and new vehicular access onto Vinings Road on northern side of site, whilst rear garden area (including patio) would be some 6 metres deep by 11 metres wide. Site is presently garden area to number 1 Vinings Road with a 1 metre brick wall surmounted by larchlap fence to total of 2 metres, on back of footpath.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG3 (Housing) encourages efficient use of land in urban areas by promoting higher densities while also stressing the need for good design in new housing developments in order to create attractive high quality living environments in which people would choose to live. Site is situated within the development envelope and parking zone 3 as identified on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Relevant policies are as follows:

S1 – Development Concentrated in Urban Areas;

S6 – High Standards of Design;

G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages;

G4 – General Locational Criteria;

D1 – Standards of Design;

D2 – Standards for Development Within the Site;

H5 – Infill Development;

TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development; and

TR16 –Parking Policies and Guidelines.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

6 letters received from local residents (3 from the same address) objecting on grounds summarised as follows:

· Loss of light;

· Outlook from lounge and bedroom will be onto huge brick wall;

· Overlooking of garden from upstairs window and garden;

· Overshadowing and loss of sunlight;

· If suitable for dwelling would have been built in 1850’s with rest of estate;

· Will be of out of keeping with area as all other properties this side of road are bungalows;

· Inadequate amenity space;

· Proposed dwelling in front of building line;

· Area at capacity for parking and road width often restricted by inconsiderate parking;

· Construction traffic/deliveries will hamper residents living in proximity.

Despite raising issues as above, one correspondent indicates that in principle he has no real objections to the building plans put forward.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Size of site compares favourably with plots opposite and fronting Vinings Gardens and Queens Road. Proposed building is some 2.2 metres in front of building line of 1 Vinings Road but this will not be significant in the street scene. Garden depth is not as great as adjoining properties but this will not be significant in the street scene. Proposal complies with S1 and G1.

Dwelling proposed is small (5.8 metres frontage by 7.4 metres depth) and will fit comfortably on the site. It will be somewhat smaller than those nearby; two storey dwellings opposite and a longer frontage bungalow to the north. However area has no specific theme or character and street scene would not be unduly damaged by proposal. Materials were facing bricks and concrete tiles are appropriate for the area. Design is simple, with roof ridge parallel with road and dormer window in front roof plain. Complies with S6, G4, D2 and H5.

Rear wall will be 6 metres from boundary with rear garden of nearest property in Vinings Gardens but only windows in upper floor are bedroom and bathroom. Comments of neighbour are noted but I do not believe overlooking from these windows would be so significant as to warrant refusal. Windows looking towards the rear of Queens Road properties are bathroom and landing. No significant overlooking sufficient to warrant refusal will occur. Details of boundary fencing will need to be agreed to ensure maintenance of privacy to adjoining gardens at ground floor level. Property is of limited mass and will not over dominate adjoining rear garden to such a degree as to substantiate refusal. No adverse effects are seen on 1 Vinings Road which will be left with adequate amenity space. Complies with D1 and H5.

Highway Engineer requires visibility splay over part of garden of 1 Vinings Road; this can be achieved by condition as that property is shown to be in the applicant’s control. One parking space is provided and there is space for another in the grounds of 1 Vinings Road which can be provided if necessary under permitted development. No turning space necessary. Complies with TR7 and TR16.

Whilst noting objections from nearby residents, proposal makes best use of urban land and should be approved.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as discussed in this report, I am of the opinion that the scheme under consideration is an acceptable form of development, making best use of urban land and without serious adverse effect on adjoining occupiers such as to warrant refusal. The proposal therefore accords with the aims and principles of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Submission of samples - S03
3	No structure or erection or natural growth, plants, shrubs, etc, exceeding 1 metre in height above existing road level shall be placed or permitted within the area of land as shown coloured yellow on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice TCP/4748/C. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Vehicular access - J30
5	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building hereby permitted is occupied. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/05544/D P/02000/03 Parish/Name: Totland Ward: Totland

Registration Date: 09/10/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Hastings

Demolition of dwelling; construction of detached house with garage at basement level (revised scheme)

Rosegarth, The Mall, Totland Bay, Isle Of Wight, PO390DS

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by the Chairman of this Committee, Councillor Mrs M Miller, following consultations under delegated procedure. The reason for this request is based on the significant increase in the size of the replacement building and the impacts and issues arising from such an increase, particularly as the previous application was refused, although it is recognised that the current proposal seeks to address the reasons for refusal.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 34 weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of applications due to negotiations and subsequent consultations.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to a modest detached bungalow located on the southern side of The Mall, approximately 40 metres east of its junction with The Broadway. Plot is elevated above The Mall by just over 1 metre with a raised grass verge separating the site from the unmade surface of the adjoining highway. Site is almost square with a frontage of some 20 metres with an electricity sub station in the north western corner.

Site is located within an area characterised by a mix of dwelling types, including some large detached two storey dwellings. Property to east is chalet bungalow and dwelling to south, of similar style, is set back from The Mall within a secluded garden with access over shared driveway which runs alongside the western boundary of application site.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/5544/C – P/837/03 – Demolition of dwelling; construction of detached house with garage at basement level – Refused 23 June 2003. The reasons for refusal can be summarised as follows:

· Unacceptable level of overlooking owing to provision of windows in the western and southern elevations and the construction of a balcony on the south western corner.

· Out of scale and character with prevailing pattern of development in the locality owing to size, height, design and external appearance.

· Although the site is not considered to be within an area of known or potential land instability, insufficient information was submitted to demonstrate that the substantial excavation works associated with the proposal would not undermine the stability of the site or adjacent land and buildings.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full consent is sought to replace the existing bungalow with a detached house including double integral garage at basement level. The creation of the basement garage would involve substantial excavation work in order to ensure that ground floor is set at an appropriate level in relation to adjoining properties.

Proposed dwelling would comprise of double garage, entrance hall and hobby room at basement level; two bedrooms, two bathrooms, study and utility room at ground floor and open plan living accommodation and a third bedroom at first floor level.

Roof plane facing the Mall would have a catslide appearance in order to keep eaves level at 3.5 metres above existing ground level and would contain a gable feature at the eastern end of this elevation. Rear elevation would have eaves level set at some 4.7 metres.

First floor windows in the south and east elevations are now shown to be a high level or fitted with obscure glass in an attempt to overcome previous reason for refusal relating to overlooking and loss of privacy. Balcony also referred to in this reason has been omitted. Submitted plans indicate that dwelling would be clad in natural cedar boarding under photo voltaic slates.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is within development envelope. The following policies are considered relevant to the determination of this application:

S1 – New Development will be Concentrated within Existing Urban Areas

S6 – All Development will be Expected to be High Standard of Design

G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development

G7 – Development on Unstable Land

D1 – Standards of Design

D2 – Standards for Development Within the Site

H4 – Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined

Settlements

H5 – Infill Development

TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should consent be granted.

Council’s Senior Structural Engineer comments as follows:

“I am not aware of any historic slope instability or flooding problems in this area. Engineers feasibility letter has identified in broad terms underlying soil characteristics and implications in construction of basement area. However, I would suggest a preliminary design for retaining walls together with method statements for works should be submitted to establish how basement works are to be constructed.“

Electricity Board raise no objection to the proposed development but ask that advice contained in their standard safety leaflets is taken into consideration by the developer.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Totland Parish Council object on grounds that the proposed building is out of character with the surrounding area and that the public footpath along The Mall may be affected.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Four letters have been received from local residents objecting on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

· Ground stability issues owing to extent of proposed excavation work

· Proposal would compromise pedestrian safety

· Possible disruption to adjoining sub-station

· Loss of privacy

· Surface water and mud from construction work may flow onto neighbouring land

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Site is within development envelope as shown on the Unitary Development Plan and is currently in residential use. Proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle. Main consideration in this respect is whether previous reasons for refusal have been satisfactorily overcome. Matters relating to scale, mass, design and ground stability will be examined in detail.

The overall design concept remain much the same as the previous proposal, but attempts have been made to reduce the overall scale of this development. The refused scheme included a double gable feature on the front elevation, which added quite significantly to the bulk of the development. In the revised scheme gable feature at the western end of the building has been omitted, with the result of reducing overall mass. Front elevation also includes a pitched canopy between basement and ground floor levels which, in my opinion, provides good visual definition and again helps to reduce overall scale and mass.

The provision of a garage at basement level was always considered as contributing substantially to the overall size of the proposed building. Whilst this is still shown as forming part of the development, the access and driveway to serve the proposed garage has been reconfigured so that the raised level of the front garden will provide adequate screening to the proposed basement accommodation. The combination of these measures leads me to the conclusion that the proposed dwelling would, on balance, be of an appropriate scale for this site.

In terms of the wider area in general, immediate area is characterised by a mix of dwelling types, including some large detached two storey dwellings. The site forms part of a group of 4 dwellings fronting onto The Mall. The application site is at the western end of this group with a large two storey detached house at the eastern end, being some 32 metres from the site. In between lies a bungalow and a chalet bungalow. Agent has submitted a cross section along this part of The Mall and a model showing how the proposal would relate to surrounding development. Having regard to the revisions made together with the mixed residential character of the surrounding area, I am of the view that the proposal would be of an acceptable scale, mass and design and therefore in accordance with Policies D1, D2 and H5 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Previous reasons for refusal referred to overlooking from first floor accommodation, particularly windows in the south and eastern elevations and a balcony on the south western corner of the building. The proposal before Members shows windows in the south and east elevation to be either high level or fitted with obscure glass. This can be controlled by way of an appropriate condition should Members be minded to grant consent. It should also be noted that the balcony as originally proposed on the south western corner of the building has been omitted.

There are several living room windows at first floor level in the west elevation which may have the potential of overlooking properties which front the Broadway. However, bearing in mind that these properties are situated at a lower level, and 20-25 metres away and separated from the site by an unmade track, it is my opinion that the proposed windows in this elevation are likely to look over the roof tops of the dwellings and therefore not give rise to an unacceptable level of overlooking. I am therefore satisfied that this aspect of the proposal does not conflict with Policies D1 and H5 of the Unitary Development Plan which seek to ensure that development does not unduly damage the amenity of neighbouring properties.

In terms of ground stability implications, application was accompanied by supporting information prepared by an engineer. This in turn has been assessed by the Council’s Senior Structural Engineer who confirms that he is not aware of any historic slope instability or flooding problems in the area and that the submitted information has identified in broad terms underlying soil characteristics and implications in the construction of the proposed basement. He does suggest that a preliminary design and methodology statement for retaining walls is submitted for consideration prior to work taking place. I am of the opinion that this can be satisfactorily dealt with by way of an appropriately worded condition, should Members be minded to grant consent, and as such, I am of the opinion that the scheme before Members does not conflict with Policy G7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

In respect of highway issues, the Council’s Highway Engineer considers that the site can be adequately accessed without adding unduly to the hazards of highway users, subject to appropriate conditions. Parish Council make reference to a public footpath. The definitive map in respect of public footpaths confirms that a public footpath does not adjoin the application site and is in fact a considerable distance away from it. With regard to surface water/mud from the site, Building Control will ensure that the site is adequately drained and this will also be considered to a certain extent as part of the retaining wall design.

To conclude, I am satisfied that the scheme under consideration has satisfactorily resolved the issues referred to in the previous reasons for refusal and, as such, that the proposed development does not conflict with policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material consideration referred to in this report, it is considered that the revised scheme for a replacement dwelling now proposed has addressed the previous reasons for refusal and the resultant development in terms of its visual impact, effect on adjoining properties and ground stability implications is acceptable and therefore accords with policies of the Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (REVISED PLANS)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Submission of samples - S03
3	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and en-enacting that Order) (with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed unless otherwise agreed in writing with 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.
4	Notwithstanding the provisions of any current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no extension, building or structure permitted by Part 1, Classes A of the 1995 Order, as amended, shall be erected within the curtilage of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	The first floor high level windows in the south and east elevations as detailed on the approved plans shall at all times be retained with a sill height of a minimum of 1.8 metres above floor level and fitted with obscure glass unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and privacy of neighbouring property occupiers and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	The large landing window and first floor bathroom window in the east elevation shall at all times be fitted with obscure glass. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and privacy of neighbouring property occupiers and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	No development shall take place until details and a methodology statement for the construction of the proposed retaining walls have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the development will not adversely affect or be affected by ground conditions and to comply with Policy G7 (Unstable Ground) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	Provision of turning area - K40
9	The development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of 2 parking spaces including garages has been provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	Any gates to be provided shall be set back a 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.
11	No development shall take place until details of the proposed fence and gates to be erected along the highway boundary have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Development shall proceed in accordance with agreed details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
12	Advance/screen planting - M13
13	All material resulting from the demolition of original building and excavated as a result of general ground works including site levelling, installation of services or the digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the area identified in red on the submitted plans. The material shall be removed from the site prior to the construction of the dwelling hereby approved proceeding beyond damp proof course level. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/08546/G P/00714/04 Parish/Name: Shanklin Ward: Shanklin South

Registration Date: 02/04/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. P. Smith Tel: (01983) 823570

Applicant: Mr Y & Mr G Kotsapas

Change of use from hairdressers (Class A1) to food & drink (Class A3)

40-42, Regent Street, Shanklin, PO37

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

At the request of the Local Member, Councillor Rees, who raised the concern that if planning permission is granted it would lead to the over-proliferation of food and drink establishments in Shanklin. He thus has requested a review to be taken of the town plan.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application taking 8 weeks to determine.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The application sites comprises the first floor space above the Co-Op and B Wise Store on the west side of Regent Street, Shanklin. The premises are adjoined on either side by what appears to be the first floor store room area of Woolworths and a vacant premise on the other. Neither two are currently in residential use. The site is located within the development envelope of Shanklin, and in an area that has been designated for retail frontage only development. The access the premises is via an internal staircase accessed from inside the ground floor store.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None in respect of this application site.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks to convert part of the first floor of premises, from a hairdressers (Class A1) to a food and drink establishment (Class A3). Submitted information indicates that the applicant intends the premises to be used for the preparation and selling of low odour/low grease category food. There are no proposed evening opening hours, and no external alterations proposed. The applicant has stated that the premises have been unoccupied for 5 - 7 years.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is located within the development envelope for Shanklin in an area designated for retail frontage only development. Relevant policies of the plan are considered as follows:

D1 Standards of Design

S1 New Development Concentrated Within Existing Urban Areas

G10 Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development & Existing Surrounding Uses

R5 Retail Only Frontages

R1 Existing Town Centres

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Environmental Health Officer recommends conditions with regards to opening hours, delivery times and restrictions on the category of food that can be made and sold from the premises.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None at time of writing report.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

There has been 1 letter raising concerns over the following:

Increased traffic problems in Landguard Road caused by additional delivery vehicles.

Exacerbated problems associated with additional rubbish disposal.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Proposal before Members seeks consent to change the use from a hairdressers (Class A1) to food and drink (Class A3). Determining factors in considering this application are whether the provision of a cafe or restaurant at this site would lead the over proliferation of food and drink establishments in Shanklin and be contrary to Policy R5 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Policy R5 seeks to protect areas from concentrations of non A1 uses, viewed as detrimental to the vitality of this area. Policy does indeed refer to ground floor and a strict interpretation would indicate this proposal is not contrary to this particular policy. Weighting should also be given to the fact that the premises has remained unoccupied for 5 - 7 years which gains support from the exceptions set out within Policy R5.

Third party concerns have been raised with regards to the exacerbation of current traffic problems caused by increased delivery vehicles to the site. Taking into account the town centre location and land uses in the immediate area, I feel the addition of such would not pose a significant alteration to conditions currently experienced. The issue of the potential impact of refuse storage was also raised, but I am of the opinion that this can be successfully overcome with inclusion of the suggested condition.

The proposed development is considered a suitable use within this site and location as a whole, taking into account of the current uses in the surrounding area and the impact upon the local amenity. The proposal would help maintain vitality within the existing town centre in accordance with the spirit of Policy R1.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the evaluation section above, it is considered that the resultant development in terms of its use and effect upon neighbouring properties is acceptable, and therefore consistent with Policies D1, S1, G10 and R5 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	The premises hereby permitted shall not be open for business before 0700 hours or remain open after 2300 hours. Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residential properties and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and G10 (Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	No deliveries or dispatches from the [premises shall take place outside the hours of 0700 to 2300 Mondays to Fridays, outside the hours of 0700 to 1300 on Saturdays and at any times on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance, in particular sleep disturbance from noise emissions from the premises and to comply with Policy G10 (Potential Conflicts Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	The permission shall authorise the use of the premises as a coffee shop or restaurant and takeaway of a low odour/low grease food category unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining properties it is felt that the preparation and sale of foods falling within a category of moderate odour/moderate grease content, moderate odour/high grease content, high odour/high grease content and very high odour/very high grease content at the premises would, in the absence of details of installed ventilation and extraction equipment, adversely affect the amenities of the adjacent properties through annoyance and disturbance from odour emissions from the premises and to comply with Policy G10 (Potential Conflicts Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	The use hereby permitted shall not commence until provision has been made within and in the vicinity of the site for the disposal of litter resulting from the use, and such provision shall be in accordance with details agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of occupiers of the area and nearby properties and to comply with Policy D1 (Standard of Design) and Policy G10 (Potential Conflicts Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/10506/F P/02364/02 Parish/Name: Ventnor Ward: Ventnor West

Registration Date: 29/01/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Ventnor Apartments Limited

Demolition of building; 6 storey building to form 2 shop units on ground floor with 9 flats over (revised scheme)(readvertised application)

Le Veness, Esplanade, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO381JT

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a minor application, which is considered to be contentious having attracted a large number of representations and raises a number of issues to be resolved.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 72 weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of planning applications due to negotiations on the design of the building and discussions/consultations on matters relating to ground stability. These negotiations/consultations have been further protracted by a heavy workload.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to rectangular site, fronting the Esplanade approximately 20 metres east of its junction with Alma Road. The site rises steeply to rear with land adjacent the rear boundary of the site between 10 and 11 metres above the esplanade road. The site is flanked on either side by quite substantial Victorian style properties. Property to east is elevated above Esplanade, with ground floor level approximately 5.5 metres above road, whilst property to west rises from esplanade to higher level on Alma Road. Original building which occupied the site was demolished several years ago with only element of ground floor of property remaining.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/10506C/SB17157 – Outline planning permission for two maisonettes and four flats in a four storey block conditionally approved in February 1984.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Original submission sought consent for demolition of building and full planning permission for a four storey building to provide two maisonettes and four flats. Ground floor to building was shown to be elevated approximately two metres above Esplanade with wall across frontage to site and access to maintenance area under building containing hydraulic levelling rams. The building stepped up through site, rising to the higher ground to rear of the site with balconies/sun terraces across front of the building. In plan form, the design of the building adopted a nautical theme with the shape of the balconies/sun terraces representative of the bow of a ship.

Following negotiations with applicant’s agent, the scheme was revised, and further plans submitted showing a six storey building, increasing the number of flats from six to nine, also incorporating two shop units at ground floor level fronting the esplanade. The increase in number of floors has been achieved, with only a modest increase in height, by bringing the ground floor level with the esplanade and replacing the more conventional hipped roof with a shallow curved roof. The design and general appearance of the building has changed radically, maintaining some nautical features such as port-hole style windows, overall adopting a more modern approach. Design retains balconies/sun terraces to all floors, except ground floor level, with curved fronts and projecting beyond side elevation of the building to give appearance similar to that of a flying bridge on a ship.

Original submission was accompanied by ground stability report and additional information was provided with revised plans in the form of a suggested Method Statement for the construction of the new building. These reports have been the subject of consultations with the Council's Consulting Geotechnical Engineer. In addition, revised plans were also accompanied by a Design Statement for the proposed building, copy of which is attached to this report as an appendix.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is shown on the plans which accompany the Ventnor Landslip Potential Assessment to be within an area likely to be subject to significant constraints on development, where it is expected that planning applications will be accompanied by a desktop study and walkover survey together with information derived from a ground investigation or geotechnical appraisal. In this respect, Planning Policy Guidance Note 14 - Development on Unstable Land, advises as follows:

"The handling of individual applications for development on land which is known or suspected to be unstable or potentially unstable will need to take account of the potential hazards that such instability could create both for the development itself and to the neighbouring area. Whilst there is scope for flexibility and each application must be treated on its merits, it is important that a Local Planning Authority should be satisfied by the developer that any instability has been taken into account."

Application site is located within development envelope as defined on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

S1 New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

S2 Development will be encouraged on land which has been previously developed (brownfield sites), rather than undeveloped (greenfield) sites. Greenfield sites will only be allocated for development where they are extensions to urban areas and where no suitable alternative brownfield site exists.

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

G1 Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 General Locational Criteria for Development

G7 Development on Unstable Land

D1 Standards of Design

D2 Standards for Development within the Site

H1 New Residential Development to be Located Within the Main Island Towns

H4 Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements

H6 High Density Residential Development

TR16 Parking Policies and Guidelines

R2 New Retail Development

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

Environmental Health Officer recommends conditions should application be approved.

Coastal Manager submitted comments in respect of original submission in which he described the site as a "longstanding eyesore" and indicated that he was delighted with the prospect of something happening which could prove to be of great benefit in terms of regenerating the Esplanade. However, he is aware that the site has significant constraints in terms of its past history. In this respect, he advises that the former South Wight Borough Council had to carry out extensive structural works in the interests of public safety. In addition, he recalls that the building became structurally unsound and that there are issues relating to support from the retaining wall to the rear, as well as on both flank walls. It is believed that the Silvermere Hotel to the west of the site is also subject to structural constraints and, therefore, the site will need to be approached very carefully. With regard to the geological appraisal which accompanied the submission, the Coastal Manager commented that this seemed quite comprehensive and factual and therefore would suggest that the main input is likely to be required from Building Control.

Application has been considered by the Architects' Panel who, in response to the original submission, made the following observations:

At pavement level drawings indicated a wall with two windows, which were provided as access for maintenance to sub-basement, and it was felt that this was hostile given that general public would pass across frontage. Panel recommended that some use (perhaps commercial) be provided on ground floor.

Side elevations did not indicate properties on either side and Panel felt this was necessary to see the relationship.

Block plan inadequate and required more detail including floor level.

Roof was most uninteresting and panel suggested that use of non-traditional materials would be appropriate.

Rear elevation was poorly articulated and window configuration quite bland and boring, requiring more attention.

Bow-shaped balconies seem to be an innovative piece of design but was poorly handled, particularly at the ground floor.

Access for properties was via staircase either side of block. However these are not shown on the elevation, presenting an incomplete picture of the frontage.

With regard to the revised scheme, the Architects' Panel made the following observations:

Panel considered details to be a considerable improvement and that a modern design approach to this site on the sea front would be considered acceptable in principle.

Adjacent buildings considered to be of mediocre design and it was not felt that proposal needed to respond to appearance of these buildings.

Panel had previously considered other new development on Ventnor Esplanade and indicated that a Policy Design Brief for this area would be of assistance.

Panel noted that the form and design of the building could set a precedent for future development in the area and noted that whilst there were few empty sites on the Esplanade, there was potential for redevelopment of some of the existing properties, and this could result in changes to the overall character of the area.

It was noted that the building was close to the site boundaries, resulting in narrow accessways to either side. However, it was noted that these would be screened from the Esplanade by entrance gates.

Whilst no parking is to be provided, the Panel were aware of the policies in this respect and that this could be acceptable under the guidelines of the Unitary Development Plan.

It was noted that the balconies returned at the sides of the building and would be very close to properties either side. Whilst Panel considered the design and appearance of this to be acceptable, they questioned the possible effect on the amenities of occupiers of adjacent properties.

Materials and finishes for the building were questioned, and it was acknowledged that the plans indicate a rendered appearance but that this should be confirmed. In particular, the Panel noted that design of building would result in the balcony soffits being particularly prominent and the finishes to this aspect should be specified.

The panel commented that the perspective drawings were particularly helpful in assessing the scheme and confirmed that the overall design approach was acceptable.

Proposal has been subject to consultations with a Civil, Structural and Geotechnical Engineer regarding possible ground stability implications. In this respect, consultant advises that he has some knowledge of this site as he acted for the Council at the time when a Dangerous Structure Notice was served on the former owner of the property due to ground movement affecting the building in 1988. He advises that, in 1988, the front of the property suffered from back-tilting of about 3 inches across its depth and that the right hand side of the property also suffered from severe distortion caused by the thrust from the side retaining wall, and the rear retaining wall to this section was on the point of failure. In 1988 the rear half of the property was derelict but evidently had suffered through taking thrust from the high retaining wall at the rear.

The Council's Consulting Engineer advises that the position of this site in relation to any likely slip is such that the weight of the building could be beneficial. He considers that the report which accompanied the application is reasonably thorough and its conclusions as to the type of foundation and superstructure which would be suitable is satisfactory. However, he considered that a number of points relating to differential settlement, stability during demolition and construction and new retaining walls needed to be addressed. He concluded that the site investigation report and general approach were satisfactory although more information was required to ensure that local stability to the adjacent properties is maintained during demolition and construction and to ensure that the building will not be adversely affected by movements caused by landslip, particularly horizontal movement.

Council's Consulting Engineer has considered the revised proposal together with the suggested method statement and considers that the latter describes a reasonable course of action. Whilst he would normally expect much of the investigative work and a more fully worked up design, particularly with regard to the jacking system, to be done before planning permission was granted, he considers that, in this instance, approval could be granted subject to conditions requiring submission of further details in this respect.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ventnor Town Council raised no objection to the original submission, subject to checks on ground stability.

Ventnor Town Council object to revised scheme on grounds of over-development of the site, that the proposed development is out of keeping with the area and detrimental to adjoining properties. They express the view that any development on this site should not exceed four storeys.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Original submission attracted six letters from local residents, including one from and on behalf of occupants of three flats within the adjacent property, objecting to proposal and raising the following issues:

· Accepted that site is an eyesore and is in need of redevelopment.

· Concern expressed that construction work will seriously impact on stability of surrounding properties.

· Overdevelopment.

· Loss of privacy.

· Loss of light.

· No parking to be provided in area where such facilities are already at a premium.

· Access to be made to Alma Road, which is un-adopted.

· Proposal is out of keeping – development is unattractive and does not reflect character of the surrounding area, detrimental to the amenities of the locality.

· Inappropriate materials for area, should reflect Ventnor’s Victorian image.

The revised plans attracted a further ten letters from local residents, including one from and on behalf of occupants of three flats within the adjacent property, and letters from Isle of Wight Society and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, objecting to proposal and raising additional points as follows:

· Shops will be an asset to the esplanade but number of flats above is excessive bearing in mind density of dwellings in area.

· Council has report in its possession suggesting that only light timber framed building should be constructed on site.

· Proposed building would be higher than adjoining properties – this is visually unacceptable.

· Increase in height of building in revised proposal would exacerbate impacts on neighbouring properties.

· Adverse impact on adjacent Conservation Area.

· New design does not reflect Victorian architecture in locality and lends itself more to Florida or Spain.

· Proposal would detract from Victorian charm of area, a feature which attracts visitors to the Island.

· Building would be intensive and dominate the bay to detriment of character of seafront.

· Garaging or parking should be provided.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether the proposed building is of an appropriate size, scale, height, design and general appearance or would detract from the amenities of the area and neighbouring occupiers. In addition, having regard to location of site, ground stability implications are an important consideration and, in particular, whether proposal would give rise to instability to adjacent land and buildings.

It is accepted that the design of the proposed building bears no resemblance to the neighbouring properties and does not reflect the more traditional Victorian character of Ventnor. However, it is considered that the building is, in its own right, not unattractive and incorporates a number of interesting features which contribute to its overall design. In particular, the balconies are considered to be a major feature of the building, dominating the front elevation, with projections beyond the side elevations and curved fronts emphasised by a stainless steel handrail. The submitted plans indicate that the building will be finished in a white painted render, which is not uncommon in the immediate locality, and white powder coated aluminium double glazed windows.

In terms of the scale and overall height of the development, the submitted plans indicate that the principal element of the building is only marginally higher than the property to the east which, although only three storeys in height, is elevated some 5.5 metres above the level of the Esplanade with a high retaining wall immediately abutting the back edge of the public highway. Small element forming part of the stairwell to the proposed building would project some 1 metre (excluding a finial) above the main roof of the building, providing more interest to the roofscape. The site and neighbouring properties have been the subject of a detailed level survey and I am advised by the applicant's agent that the neighbouring properties have been physically measured.

Whilst Ventnor is characterised by a strong Victorian theme, there is a mix of dwelling types and styles within the area, particularly along the Esplanade, and a number of more modern additions have been successfully accommodated within the town, one of the most recent examples involved the redevelopment of the Rex Cinema site in Church Street. I consider that the variation in the design of buildings along the Esplanade provides a greater degree of flexibility in the design approach to new buildings and I am satisfied that the proposal can be accommodated within this site without detracting from the amenities and character of the immediate locality. This view is supported by the comments of the Architects' Panel. With regard to the suggestion that proposal will adversely impact on the adjacent Conservation Area, the site is approximately 140 metres from the boundary of the designated area and is considered to be a sufficient distance away so as not to have an adverse impact on the setting of the area.

Proposal would result in a substantial building which will have some impact on neighbouring properties. In particular, layout of the balconies would potentially give rise to overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. However, following discussions with applicant's agent, it is considered that it would be possible to provide screening to the sides of the balconies in order to minimise any overlooking which would otherwise occur. Concern has also been expressed that proposal would result in loss of light to neighbouring properties. Whilst noting these concerns, it is considered that, having regard to the number of windows involved and their position within the neighbouring properties in relation to the proposed building, refusal on grounds of loss of light would not be justified.

Site is, for most part, bounded to rear by private land with pedestrian only access in northwestern corner from Alma Road. Having regard to this factor, together with the topography of the site, provision of vehicular access and parking to the rear is not in my opinion possible. Furthermore, I consider that any proposal to provide parking to the front of the side would detract from any development and would potentially create a hazard for other highway users. Whilst concern has been raised that development of site without off-street parking may cause further congestion and parking on Alma Road, I consider that the steepness and narrowness of this road would dissuade residents from doing so. Many of the properties along the Esplanade do not have the benefit of off-road parking facilities and parking is generally available either on the road or within car parks at eastern and western end of the Esplanade. Whilst these facilities will be well used during summer months, I do not consider that there is a problem with congestion on the roads in this area or that refusal of the application on grounds that the proposal does not make provision for on-site parking would be justified.

The application was accompanied by a ground stability report and further information submitted in the form of a suggested Method Statement for construction works and, following consultations with the Council's Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, it is considered that, whilst further information in this respect will be required prior to work commencing on site, the applicants have satisfied the requirements of PPG14. In this respect, and notwithstanding the exercise carried out by the Authority in determining the ground stability implications associated with the development, PPG14 clearly indicates that the responsibility for determining whether land is suitable for a particular purpose rests primarily with the developer. In this respect, the PPG advises as follows:

"In particular, the responsibility and subsequent liability for safe development and secure occupancy of a site rests with the developer and/or the landowner. It is in any case in the developer's own interests to determine whether land is unstable or potentially unstable since this will affect the value of the land and the costs of developing it. The developer should therefore make a thorough investigation and assessment of the ground to ensure that it is stable or that any actual or potential instability can be overcome by appropriate remedial, preventative or precautionary measures."

Side elevations of buildings to east and west contain a number of windows overlooking the site. The position of these windows has been compared with those within the side elevations of the proposed building and I am satisfied that no direct conflict would arise in this respect. In particular, majority of windows within building to west are set back from the boundary a distance of some 8 metres. Having regard to these factors, I am satisfied that the provision of the windows within the side elevation of the proposed building will not give rise to direct conflict with windows within the neighbouring properties or give rise to an unacceptable level of overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. Similarly, windows within the rear elevation of the building at first, second and third floor level would look out onto the slope at the rear of the site with only windows at fourth and fifth floor level having a view across land to rear of site which is at higher level. Again, having regard to the distances between these windows and properties to the rear, I do not consider that they would give rise to unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy.

The provision of commercial units at ground floor are considered to be an asset to the area contributing to both local and tourist economy and I am satisfied that, subject to appropriate restrictions on the use of these premises, they will not detract from the amenity of the area in general or occupiers of neighbouring properties and the flats within the development.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that, whilst proposal involves introduction of a substantial building in a prominent sea front location, it is of a good design and appropriate in terms of its scale and overall height and will not, in my opinion, detract from the amenities of the locality. Furthermore, whilst the proposal will clearly have some impact on neighbouring properties, I am satisfied that, subject to provision of appropriate screening to balconies, development will not result in unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy or result in a significant loss of light to neighbouring properties which would justify refusal of the application. In view of the above comments, I do not consider that there is any sustainable planning objection to the proposal and I recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Prior to any work commencing on site a detailed method statement, including full details of the foundation design, including the proposed jacking system, and full details of a site investigation as set out in the suggested Method Statement (dated December 2003) together with measures to be adopted during the construction phase to ensure that development does not cause instability to adjoining retaining walls and buildings shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To minimise risk of development causing instability to adjoining land and buildings and to comply with the requirements of Planning Policy Guidance Note 14 - Development on Unstable Land, and Policy G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Construction of the building hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include materials to be used in the balustrading on and to the underside of the balconies. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The building hereby approved shall not be occupied or brought into use until the external finish shown on the approved plans or agreed with the Local Planning Authority has been completed and the finish shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	All material resulting from the demolition of the existing building and excavated as a result of general ground works including site levelling, installation of services or the digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the area identified in red on the submitted plans. The material shall be removed from the site prior to the construction of the building hereby approved proceeding beyond damp proof course level. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Prior to any of the flats within the building hereby approved being occupied, screens shall be erected on the eastern and western perimeter of the balconies, with the exception of those at first floor level. Such screening shall have a minimum height of 1.8 metres above the decking of the balcony on which it is situated and shall be in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site. Thereafter, the screening shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Prior to the flats hereby approved being occupied, lockable gates shall be provided to the pedestrian accesses either side of the building in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the gates shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To reduce the opportunities for crime and to comply with Policy D11 (Crime and Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Prior to the commercial units at ground floor level being brought into use, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified of the intended business hours of the activities to be undertaken therein. The uses shall not commence until these hours have been approved, or amended as necessary, by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the premises shall only open/operate during the approved hours. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and future residential occupiers of the development itself and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	Notwithstanding the provisions of any Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order or Use Classes Order, the commercial units at ground floor level shall be used only for purposes within Classes A1 (Retail) or A3 (Food & Drink) of the Schedule to the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or in any provision equivalent to that class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and occupiers of neighbouring residential properties and the development itself and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	No deliveries to or despatches from the commercial units within the development hereby approved shall take place outside the hours of 0700 hours to 1800 hours Monday to Friday, 0700 hours to 1300 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or recognised Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interest of the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential property and future occupants of the flats hereby approved and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	Prior to any use falling within Class A3 (Food & Drink) of the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order, the Local Planning authority shall be notified of the intended range of foods to be prepared and sold at the premises together with details of an extract ventilation system to include the point at which emissions are released to the atmosphere and the elevations of nearby premises. The use of the premises for such purposes shall not commence until such details have been approved and the extraction system installed in accordance with the agreed details. Thereafter, only the approved range of foods shall be sold from the premises and the extract ventilation system shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and occupiers of neighbouring properties and the flats hereby approved in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/12917/P P/00307/04 Parish/Name: Wootton Ward: Wootton

Registration Date: 10/02/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Ms L Smith

Formation of footpath/cycleway link from High Street to footways and associated landscaping (revised scheme) (readvertised application)

Wootton Bridge Recreation Ground, Footways, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, PO33

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

As application involves Council owned land and has attracted considerable public interest the application has been prepared for Members formal consideration.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 13 weeks to date principally due to need to readvertise revised submission and outstanding consultation with Sport England.

LOCATION SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to L shaped recreation ground bounded by High Street to south, Palmers Road and Church Road to east and west respectively and footways to north. Main entrances to recreation ground are gained from north and south approaches with car park located in north east corner of site. Currently recreation ground is characterised as a level grassed area with pavilion on western boundary used by rugby club.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Consent originally granted in 1971 for changing rooms with further extension approvals in 1972 and 1976.

Consent granted in 1993 for four 2.1 metre high portable floodlights.

Planning consent granted in 1999 for portable building to be used as changing rooms and store. Application is currently under consideration for renewal of this temporary consent.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

As amended scheme proposes retention of two rugby pitches and full size football pitch together with smaller junior football playing area with construction of path/cycleway having width of some 2.5 metres (with potential to increase this width) together with introduction of formal and informal landscaping generally around southern fringes of playing areas.

Submitted plans also indicate potential for additional play area at southern end of site and community sports and social building which is indicated to replace current pavilion located in a more central position.

By way of background, application has been formulated as part of Wootton Bridge Regeneration Plan which has been initiated by Parish Council, Village Partnership and endorsed and supported by Countryside Agency. Plan takes a strategic look at village including local economy and sets out the framework seeking to achieve a thriving, vibrant community over the next three years. The main objectives of the Social and Community Task Group is to foster social cohesiveness and inclusion by strengthening and supporting all sectors of the community so that they can participate in and benefit from the regeneration process. The Task Group acknowledge Wootton Bridge being almost of the size of town and in relation to population recreation facilities were considered to be lacking. Members agreed that there already existed a very large open recreation ground, use of which could be maximised to encourage all sections of the community to enjoy it. The Task Group commissioned Consultants to undertake a community consultation exercise and, as part of this consultation exercise, local residents and stakeholders were informed as to the concept of a Development Trust which was to be created to manage and revitalise recreation ground. Methodology and result of consultation exercise are included with application.

Main priority for Task Group was seen as securing funding to meet costs of creation of Doorstep Green at recreation ground to investigate setting up of Development Trust and to investigate improvement to sporting facilities at recreation ground itself. The aim of the Doorstep Green scheme is to help optimise use of ground making it a place for all ages and physical ability to enjoy themselves. None of the existing sports facilities are to be lost and in long term they will be improved.

Phase 1 of ground improvements includes two informal areas for physical activities plus a dual use pathway to provide a good working surface aimed to encourage people to walk, run or job on an all-weather surface as well as to accommodate disabled people/wheelchairs/prams etc. It will also provide an alternative and safe green route to nearby primary school, again encouraging more people to walk and take physical exercise. It will also provide a place where people can watch and enjoy sports being played.

Phase 2 (which is not subject to current application) refers to replacing and providing better sited sports pavilion with properly surfaced access route. Following initial concerns by Sport England, a statutory consultee, the applicant (Parish Council) has commented further stating that in respect of crime and disorder concerns, in the interests of surveillance and security the height of landscaping will be controlled accordingly, width of cycle track is 2.5 metres throughout, interactive play space will be maintained by Council, and whilst there are existing barriers at each end of footpath they are investigating possible improvements at car park end of footpath. Furthermore a surface that is not compatible with skateboarding could be provided and the existing gate to the school rear entrance could be locked when necessary. Reference was also made to comments of Community Development & Leisure Manager which are referred to in later section.

Parish Council go on to state that proposal does not affect existing sporting facilities on the ground in terms of quality or quantity of pitches and in fact proposal involves development of a new soccer pitch. Pitches can also be rotated to ease maintenance and repair areas at end of each season. Proposal does not result in loss or inability to use existing pitches or safety margins and no existing facility will be lost. Parish Council is supporting junior sport developments and to this end have agreed to establish a grant/bursary scheme up to value of £500 per year to organisations that use recreation grounds. Parish Council in partnership with other agencies has agreed to help fund new artificial cricket wicket. This is first phase of recreation ground improvements. Extensive public consultation highlighted desire for Doorstep Green whilst maintaining existing sports provision. Parish Council also referred to fact that community primary school is fully supportive.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG17 - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation.

Policy L1 - Informal Recreation Provision in the Countryside.

Policy L2 - Formal Recreation Provision.

Policy L4 - Protection of Open Spaces, Village Greens and Allotments.

Policy L5 - Development within Parks and Gardens.

With regards Wootton Bridge Village Design Statement, reference in document is made to recreation ground wherein it states:-

"care should be taken to keep our recreation ground an open space and resist all temptation to build over the grass. (We should do little more than keep the grass cut for our youth and young adults to play their sports and for others to walk their dogs). The Parish Council will continue to support the use of the recreation ground for multiple activities which benefit the local community."

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Initial comment received from Sport England advised that this Body will oppose granting a planning permission for any development which would lead to loss of, or would prejudice the use of, all or any part of a playing field, or land last used as a playing field or allocated for use as a playing field in the adopted or draft deposit Local Plan, unless, in the judgement of Sport England specific circumstances apply. Initial objections related to loss of central area playing field and further restrictions that would appear to be created to width of playing field area by path and restriction of amount of semi-formal training area and reduction in ability to move pitches over time to reduce wear on high traffic areas. It is possible that specific exemption clauses may apply in this particular case. However there was insufficient information supplied with the application and consequently Sport England raised objection to proposed development as originally submitted.

Following the submission of revised plans and associated detail, Sport England are now aware that:-

· The Local Authority's Playing Pitch Assessment (2001) did not identify any shortfall in playing pitch provision within locality.

· Proposals now demonstrate that adequate safety margins can be maintained for all pitches and that pitches can be moved and rotated to aid maintenance.

· An informal unmarked area of recreation ground will remain adjacent to rugby pitches.

· There is commitment to re-establishing junior football at site by adding mini football pitch and introducing Parish Council Bursary Scheme.

· Parish Council will help fund development of new artificial wicket which will enable cricket site to develop its activities.

· Proposals have support of Isle of Wight Football Association along with local Head teacher as scheme will support School Sport Co-ordinator project.

· Existing proposals form first phase of improvements to recreation ground that aim to encourage more use of facilities.

As a result of this further information it is understood that existing pitches will be unaffected by proposals. In addition it is Sport England's opinion that development of mini football pitch along with introduction of other measures outlined above appear to adequately compensate for any detriment to sport caused by loss of existing unmarked area of playing field. Given the above and their subsequent correspondence with the Council's Community, Development & Leisure Manager, Sport England is now satisfied that proposed development meets, with combination of acceptable exceptions to, Playing Fields Policy. Consequently Sport England withdraw their previous objection to application.

Highway Engineer raises no objection in principle, however does point out that there will be a need to fine tune parking and access arrangements as proposed layout is formalised.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Parish Council being applicant has not commented directly on merits of application. However, Parish Council have responded in detail to Sport England comments. These comments have been incorporated in appropriate section of report.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Twelve letters have been received from local residents objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:-

Possible crime and disorder implications.

Conflict with Village Design Statement.

Adverse change in character of recreation ground.

Loss of playing pitches.

No need for improvements.

Potential impact from cycles and motorbikes using newly constructed footway.

Conflict of path with pitch users.

Inappropriate landscaping of recreation ground.

Excessive width of path and its proximity to surrounding housing.

Impact from noise and implications for frequency of accidents.

Problems from surface water run off.

Loss of sports facilities.

Potential conflict of landscaping and provision of sports facilities.

Following re-advertisement 6 further letters have been received, one writer expressing concern over proximity and type of trees to be planted close to boundaries of site and need to ensure sensible and sensitive landscaping scheme being incorporated within proposal. Further writer objects in respect of change of use of recreation ground whilst voicing support for installation of footway/cycleway. Other relevant planning points raised relate to works involved in landscaping recreation ground and subsequent change in character, variance with Village Design Statement, potential loss of alternative recreational facilities and request to move footpath away from nearest residential boundary to avoid any drainage problems. In addition further comments relate to very limited area for use as a junior football pitch, proximity of football pitches and housing, creation of 'nature' areas, erosion and wear and tear on sport pitches and potential traffic congestion in and around car park area.

Isle of Wight Football Association support Doorstep application for provision of youth football pitch to be put in at later date.

Wootton Community Primary School consider the proposal would benefit school insofar as children from school would be involved in some of specific design elements i.e. play area, car park area, footpath/cycleway will allow safer routes to school, children will use wetland habitat for science curriculum work and use of interactive play space for art and design work. Sports field area could be used to supplement school field, i.e. when mini soccer tournaments are held. School considers there are many more benefits of scheme for children and families of Wootton and this is ideal project to enhance whole community.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Architectural Liaison Officer has commented that proposal is acceptable in principle, however there are several detailed issues which need consideration.

Firstly height of landscaping should be appropriate, unlikely to support 3.6 metre cycle track as this would encourage vehicles. He also makes the point that hard surfacing introduces cycles/skateboards not currently used in this location. However provision of footpath may attract more use which would be a positive factor from surveillance point of view. With regard to interactive play space this is acceptable but an exit strategy is required if areas are not maintained whilst principle of barriers to houses and paths is good. There is also a requirement for barriers at the start and end of footpaths and adjacent school would need gated access to maintain its security.

EVALUATION

Recreation ground is designated as open space within adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy L4 seeks to prevent applications which will result in loss of established, proposed or future public or private open spaces. PPG17 (Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation) generally seeks to protect such spaces from development unless such open space has been clearly shown to be surplus to requirements.

Proposal does not affect any existing sporting facilities on the ground in terms of quality or quantity of pitches provided and, indeed, scheme involves development of new mini soccer pitch with the retention of 2 rugby pitches, full-size football pitch and artificial cricket pitch.

With regard to landscaping this would take place mainly along eastern and western boundaries of recreation ground with more extensive informal planting towards southern end of site. Plans indicate potential for additional equipment and play area together with interactive play space.

Finally proposal also involves construction of footpath/cycleway running north-south through recreation ground and skirting eastern boundary of site to avoid playing pitches.

Members should appreciate that whilst scheme should be assessed as overall project individually certain aspects of current proposal would not require the express consent of the Local Planning Authority, ie re-siting of playing pitches and landscaping. Construction of cycleway/footpath is an engineering operation which would in itself require express consent. Nevertheless proposal should be seen as overall package of measures and assessed accordingly.

In land use terms there is no objection to upgrading of recreational facilities or in respect of land changing emphasis of formal recreational activity to more informal approach as envisaged particularly in respect of southern section of recreation ground. Introduction of footway/cycleway is seen as meeting aims of sustainability in providing more user friendly footway which will potentially provide important link to proposed cycleway which routes south of Wootton and links to Round the Island cycleway. Such a change in emphasis and works themselves are unlikely to have any appreciable impacts on adjoining residents.

Given the above comments there is no planning objection to proposed recreation ground alterations which also provides potential for further phased improvement of recreation ground.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in this report I am satisfied that proposal will not compromise recreational facility and indeed provides impetus for further phased improvement of recreation ground and accordingly application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

Time limit - full - A10

Before the development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme and details of other hard surfacing shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of trees to be planted, the phasing and timing of such planting and shall include provision for its maintenance during the first 5 years from the date of planting.

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

TCP/16388/C P/02369/03 Parish/Name: Calbourne Ward: Brighstone and Calbourne

Registration Date: 27/11/2003 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550

Applicant: Island Cottages Ltd

Outline for 3 dwellings

land adjoining Sun Crest, The Green, Calbourne, Newport, PO30

REASONS FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Local Member, Cllr Mrs Wareham. Her reasons for making this request are that she considers the Local Planning Authority should be more flexible when dealing with proposals for housing in rural areas and need to take into account the requirements of young people and affordable housing. In addition, she considers that it is necessary to take into account the sustainability of villages and the preservation of village life.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which will have taken 27 weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of applications owing to protracted consultations and case officer workload.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to an almost rectangular site situated on the eastern corner of the Lynch Lane and Sun Hill junction at Calbourne. Site rises quite steeply from Lynch Lane to eastern boundary and is enclosed on east, south and west boundaries by substantial hedgerows.

The junction at Lynch Lane and Sun Hill comprises of open land on both sides to south of the main road with the application site to the east and the cricket ground to the west. To the south is the older section of Calbourne, which retains a more traditional style in terms of building types and spatial arrangement, hence its designation as a conservation area. To the north of Sun Hill lies the more modern part of Calbourne, interspersed with some older properties. The area of open grassland (including application site) to the south of the junction essentially provides a visual barrier between two areas of distinct character.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/16388/SB/6363 - Outline for 2 dwellings. Refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal in 1978 on grounds of policy, principle and would detract from the rural character of the area, designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

TCP/16388/B/P/465/02 - Outline for bungalow and garage; alterations to vehicular access. Refused May 2002 on grounds of policy, principle and that the proposal would be detrimental to the rural character of the area and would fail to protect and enhance the special quality of the landscape designated as an AONB.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Outline planning permission is sought for 3 dwellings with all matters reserved for subsequent approval. Application is accompanied by an illustrative layout plan showing a pair of semi-detached dwellings and a detached unit with a shared access, parking and turning area off Lynch Lane. It is also apparent from the indicative layout plan that a considerable amount of excavation work would be required to facilitate this development.

Agent submitted a detailed letter with application offering his interpretation of development plan policy and, in particular, how the proposal accords with the intentions of the UDP.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG3 (Housing), Annexe B "Providing for Rural Exception Housing" states:

"General market housing, or mixed developments consisting of high value housing used to cross-subsidise affordable housing on the same site, are inappropriate on exception sites."

It is also made clear that the exceptional release of land for low cost housing should take full account of environmental considerations. It is of great importance that the style and character of such housing should be in keeping with its surroundings, and particularly with local building styles.

PPG7 (The Countryside-Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development) indicates the following at para. 3.20:

"The pattern of new development should be determined through the development plan process, and should be well related in scale and location to existing development. Expansion of villages and towns should avoid creating ribbon development or a fragmented pattern of development."

The PPG also indicates at para. 3.22 that in an increasing number of rural areas there are pressures on the limited housing stock which can result in a serious shortage of affordable housing for those with modest incomes who already live and work in the area. Advice is given on this issue including the "exceptions policy" in rural areas, which should include "arrangements for ensuring that the benefits are passed to successive occupants".

The village of Calbourne does not have a development boundary and is therefore subject to policies which seek to protect the countryside from further development. Site is shown on Unitary Development Plan (UDP) to be within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

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

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.

G2 - Consolidation and infilling of scattered settlements outside development envelopes.

G4 - General locational criteria for development.

G5 - Development outside defined settlements.

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

H9 - Residential development outside development boundaries.

H15 - Locally affordable housing as rural exceptions.

C1 - Protection of landscape character.

C2 - Areas of outstanding natural beauty.

TR7 - Highway considerations for new development.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should consent be granted. One such condition seeks to achieve a maximum level of visibility by lowering the roadside frontage of the site across its entire length.

Planning Policy Manager makes the following comment:

"In principle the proposal is contrary to Policy H15 of the UDP because the proposed development does not solely provide housing to meet an identified local need.

The proposal consists of outline planning permission for two affordable housing units and one additional open market house. Even though the policy objective is to help meet the needs of local people unable to afford market rents or to purchase property outright I consider the current proposal as it includes open market housing does not solely satisfy this need."

Housing Development and Initiatives Officer states:

"Whilst I fully support the development of rural housing schemes it must not be at the expense of the current use.

My view on this is that the scheme does not meet the ethos of policy H15 of the UDP in the following ways:

· Locally affordable housing schemes should comprise 100% of the proposed development. Open market housing should not be seen as a way of developing affordable housing in these instances.

· I am not sure if affordable housing on this site has access to appropriate facilities."

AONB Planning & Information Officer objects to the proposed development, and states:

"The site lies on high ground which is the crossroad junction between Elm Lane, Lynch Lane and the B3401. Although the applicants state that they intend to build into the land and provide screening to minimise the visibility of the proposed housing, we consider that development on this site would intrude upon the landscape when approaching Calbourne, particularly when traversing along the B3401 from Newport, where, currently, we are afforded an open vista of the AONB when at the crest of the rise preceding this site. It is also worth noting that this is the first opportunity for long range views to the Island's central chalk downland ridge, a prominent feature of the AONB, when travelling in this direction.

In conclusion, we consider that the application proposal will have a detrimental impact upon this part of the Isle of Wight AONB and therefore is contrary to Policy C2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Additionally, we believe that the application would have a negative effect upon the overall character of the area and that evidence to support "exception" status for development is insufficient. We therefore object to this outline proposal."

AONB Planning and Information Officer makes the following comment in respect of the submitted survey report:

"Whilst this is important background information it needs in our opinion to be worked up into its final version and then referred to within the Calbourne Parish Plan before it becomes influential in the consideration of Rural Exceptions policy in the UDP. At the very least we would wish to see the community within the village of Calbourne suggest their preferred location for such development based on a true understanding of local need, the establishment of the requirement local management structure for affordable housing administration, and the impact of such development on the character and setting of the settlement.

I would suggest therefore that as it stands at the moment the document lends little support to the evocation of the rural exceptions policy."

County Archaeologist recommends a condition should consent be granted.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Calbourne Parish Council fully support the proposed development and endorse the concept of affordable housing in achieving balance in mixed communities.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

The Rural Housing Enabler of the Isle of Wight Rural Community Council (RCC) has submitted a letter of support. The following has been extracted from this letter:

"The continuing rise in house prices on the island has made it impossible for many local people to afford to buy properties, particularly in rural areas such as Calbourne. First time buyers are particularly disadvantaged and even those who are in full time employment with an average island salary are now unable to buy homes within their local areas.

These three homes would provide a privately owned home for a local family, (who have already been forced to seek accommodation outside their village community due to a lack of affordable options in the area), as well as two homes to be rented to those with local connections through family, previous residence or employment. There are currently very few properties in Calbourne to rent either privately or through housing associations and these homes would provide an option currently unavailable.

I recently undertook a full Housing Needs Survey of the Calbourne Parish area, in conjunction with the Parish Council, as part of the Parish Plan process. The results of this survey showed that there is a need in the parish for 9 homes for local people, the majority of which are families. The survey also showed that 58% of respondents would not object to a development to meet local housing need. As a housing need has been proven by this survey I would wholeheartedly support this application as a provision towards meeting this.

The IW Rural Community Council are currently involved in a number of projects and a variety of work in support of rural communities. Affordable local housing is a vital component of any community and I would hope that this application will be considered favourably."

The RCC has also submitted a copy of its report which was produced in conjunction with Calbourne Parish Council following a postal survey of Calbourne residents. Out of 450 surveys distributed, 96 were returned, representing a 21% response rate. Of the 96 households responding, 9 indicated that they are in need of housing. A variety of reasons were given as to why a new home is being sought, such as independence from relatives/friends, requirement for a larger home, closer to work and nearer to family. The report concludes that all of the 9 households in need would qualify for housing by local connection, 8 by current residents and 1 by previous residents. The report recommends the following:

"There is a requirement for a mixed development of mixed tenure. Shared ownership options should be seriously considered and some additional research done as to levels of affordability.

Longer term there is also likely to be a need for smaller, low cost homes to purchase on the open market."

Three letters received from local residents objecting on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

· Serious erosion of conservation area, partly owing to amount of excavation and re-contouring involved.

· Proposed access is potentially hazardous.

· Not a very sustainable location owing to inadequate public transport.

Two objectors indicate that they would not necessarily oppose a single bungalow on this site.

One letter received from a Porchfield resident stating that the development should only be allowed if the proposed dwellings are of a small scale and built of Island stone, thatched and for people born in the village. Otherwise, the application should be resisted.

One letter received from a Porchfield resident, who is also Vice Chairman of the Calbourne Parish Council, who supports the application on grounds that the proposal would provide much needed affordable homes for two starter families, or a rented or part purchase basis. It is thought that such a development would help contribute to village life and activities and provide a home for those unable to afford inflated house prices.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

The site is outside of any settlement defined by the development envelopes on the UDP, where there is generally a presumption against granting consent for new residential development. Policy H9 does, however, list six exceptions to this policy. As the proposal is not a replacement, a conversion or acceptable infilling and is not related to agriculture or tourism, then five of the six criteria cannot be justified in this instance. The remaining exception is "a specifically locally affordable housing scheme". This essentially forms the basis of the application and is the subject of a survey and report produced by the Rural Housing Enabler of the RCC.

In listing "specifically affordable housing schemes" as a possible exception, H9 also draws attention to Policy H15 which refers to "locally affordable housing as rural exceptions". This states:

"exceptionally, planning applications for small scale residential developments on sites in, or adjoining, villages may be approved to help meet the needs of local people, unable to afford market rents or to purchase property outright, providing the following criteria are met:

a) dwellings are shown, to meet a particular local need that cannot be accommodated in any other way;

b) the developers enter into planning obligations to ensure the dwellings serve local need in the long term;

c) the scheme can be demonstrated to be viable and capable of proper management by a registered social landlord;

d) appropriate local facilities exist in the village to cater for the occupants;

e) the proposal would not seriously prejudice other policies of the plan.

As mentioned above, the Rural Housing Enabler of the RCC conducted a survey and subsequently published a report indicating that there is a need for an element of affordable housing in Calbourne. The identified need to provide a new home for 9 households is not disputed, but it does not necessarily follow that consent should be granted purely on this basis as there are many other issues to be taken into consideration.

Both PPG3 and Policy H15 indicate that rural exception sites should provide solely for the needs of local people, unable to afford market rents or to purchase property outright. PPG3 is quite explicit in this respect, Annexe B states that "general market housing, or mixed developments consisting of high value housing used to cross-subsidise affordable housing on the same site, are inappropriate on exception sites". Out of the three dwellings proposed, the detached unit would be available on the open housing market although the agent does indicate that the landowner and his family would occupy this property. Agent does indicate that the landowner has family connections with Calbourne and that he would offer the other two plots at agricultural value rather than development value to the registered social landlord. He also indicates that the site is within the "perceived boundary" of Calbourne. Whilst taking these points into consideration, I am firmly of the opinion that these circumstances would not justify granting consent for a cross-subsidisation scheme for a rural exception site. Approval in this respect would essentially undermine the integrity of both national and local policies and would doubtlessly make it very difficult for the Local Planning Authority to resist proposals of a similar nature in the future.

Notwithstanding the cross-subsidisation issue and assuming that need is accepted for Calbourne, consideration must be given to the suitability of this site to provide for residential development. This is an extremely prominent site on the corner of the staggered crossroads and plays an important role in contributing to the character and appearance of the AONB. Furthermore, taken with the cricket ground opposite, the site also provides visual separation between two distinct areas of Calbourne. Any form of built development on this site together with associated excavation work would, without doubt, have a significant detrimental effect on the setting of the AONB and would effectively merge the two distinct areas of Calbourne and detract from the overall character of the village. Furthermore, the visual impact would be further exacerbated by the requirement to reduce the entire roadside frontage to 1 metres in order to achieve the necessary access and visibility standards. It is my opinion that the development does not comply with the duty of regard for the purpose of the designation as an AONB and is clearly contrary to the aims and objectives of Policy C2.

Whilst the report prepared by the RCC recognises a need for new houses in Calbourne, it fails to address the environmental consequences of this development such as those just outlined and neither does it address alternative sites which may be more suitable and perhaps have a lesser impact. In any event and whilst acknowledging the case put forward by RCC, I am not satisfied that the need has been justified sufficiently at this stage to warrant approving new development, not just on this visually sensitive site but in Calbourne as a whole. In this respect, criterion D of Policy H15 does state that appropriate local facilities shall exist in the village to cater for occupants. Regardless of any future case put forward in respect of need for housing, I question the sustainability of any rural exception housing scheme for Calbourne owing to lack of services such as schools, shops and inadequacy of public transport.

Taking the above points into consideration, the proposed development clearly conflicts with Policies H9 and H15 as it does not solely provide for a locally affordable housing scheme. In the absence of further information regarding need and availability of other sites, I am not satisfied that Calbourne offers sufficient services to accommodate the proposed development and its future occupants, and as such conflicts with the objectives of sustainability that underpin the UDP. The development of this site as proposed would have a detrimental effect on the setting of Calbourne as a village, and the character of the AONB in general, and as such is contrary to Policies S4, G4, C1 and C2 of the UDP.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that the proposed residential development outside of any defined settlement boundary cannot be justified against any exception listed under Policy H9 and therefore conflicts with development plan policy. Furthermore, the development as proposed would have a detrimental impact on the rural character of this part of Calbourne and the landscape character of the AONB and therefore conflicts with countryside protection policies.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The site lies outside the designated development boundary and the proposal, which comprises an undesirable intensification of residential development in the countryside, would be prejudicial to the rural character of the area and therefore contrary to Policies S1 (New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas), S4 (The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development), G1 (Development envelopes for towns and villages) and G2 (Consolidation and infilling of scattered settlements outside development envelopes) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
2	The site lies outside the defined development envelope and insufficient justification has been established to show why the proposal should be permitted as acceptable development in the countryside as defined in Policy G5 (Development outside defined settlements) and is therefore contrary to Policies S1 (New developments will be concentrated within existing urban areas), S4 (The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development), G1 (Development envelopes for towns and villages), G2 (Consolidation and infilling of scattered settlements outside development envelopes), H9 (Residential development outside development boundaries) and H15 (Locally affordable housing as rural exceptions) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Whilst the Local Planning Authority would consider proposals for locally affordable housing schemes in the countryside, the proposed development includes a dwelling that would be available for purchase on the open market and as such conflicts with advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance note 3 and the intentions of Policies H9 (Residential development outside development boundaries) and H15 (Locally affordable housing as rural exceptions) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The proposal would be detrimental to the rural character of the area by reason of the physical impact it would cause and would therefore conflict with the intention of the Local Planning Authority to protect the natural beauty of the landscape and, in consequence, would be contrary to Policy C1 (Protection of landscape character) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	The proposal fails to protect and enhance the special quality of the landscape designated by the National Parks Commission under Section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/17579/G P/02254/03 Parish/Name: Newchurch Ward: Newchurch

Registration Date: 20/11/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567

Applicant: G V K Jenkins Esq

Use of land for storage of building contractors plant & use as builders yard

site A, land east of Sandown Airport, Newport Road, Sandown, PO36

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is particularly contentious and a report is requested by the Local Member Councillor Richards as he is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This application, if determined at the June meeting, will have taken 22 weeks to determine, the delay due to the volume of work.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The site is located joining the west side of Scotchells Brook, between the brook and the airport buildings and at the rear of a group of buildings fronting Airport Road comprising various uses or workshops, a dwelling, offices etc. and presently disused. The site's boundaries are marked by wire fences, on cranked concrete posts where the site abuts the adjoining property at the South, hedgerows to the West and East and, along the Northern boundary, there is no discernible boundary between it and the open land further to the North. At the time of inspection the site was occupied by some trailer units from a part of the haulage business and other items including rubbish though it is understood that much of this has now been cleared. The site is in a low lying area west of the Safeway Filling Station and close to the airport boundaries. Access is presently off Newport Road at a point of a few metres east of the junction with Airport Road.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Consent was granted for a small area of part of the site, the staff car park for a temporary period of 5 years expiring in June 1986 and a further consent granted which expired in June 1991. Refuse vehicles storage compound was approved in February 1988, a personal consent to the then Borough Council, a use which it appears was not substantially commenced. Two year temporary consent granted to an independent party to store aggregates on the site of 16 metres x 44 metres located on the western side of the site. No details of quantities were included but a condition limited the storage height to 2.5 metres.

Three applications were submitted in May 2001 for alterations to the vehicular access; the formation of a trailer and lorry park; alterations to vehicular access and for the formation of a contractors yard; alterations to the vehicular access. The vehicular access alterations were approved but the two applications for the contractors yard and the formation of the trailer and lorry park were both refused on grounds of being inappropriate use outside the development envelope boundary, incompatible with adjoining and nearby residential properties by generation of noise, dust, fumes and other general disturbance.

Enforcement action was undertaken and the subsequent appeal against the notices was unsuccessful. The Enforcement Notice was upheld with corrections and variations which required the cessation of the use of the land for the parking of trailers and lorries for the purposes of a transport haulage business, the removal from the site of all mounds of material and the restoration of original ground levels.

The appeal against the deemed application for the piece of land for the temporary contractors yard was also dismissed and the inspector, in considering the deemed applications for the trailer park and the contractors yard felt that the determining issues were the effect of the respected uses on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside and whether any harm would be outweighed by the employment and the economic benefits and the need for a site outside the built up area and, secondly, the effect of each of those from the living conditions the residents of the nearby residential property. He concluded that both of the uses would be harmful to the character and appearance of the locality and that, at least, the trailer park would be an unsatisfactory use due to disturbance and noise generated by vehicles and other activity. He concluded that the contractors yard, due to the distance detached from the adjoining the residential property would not be detrimental by way of disturbance.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The application seeks consent for the use of land for the storage of building contractors plant and use as a builders yard. Plans show site to be that subject of the application for the haulage contractor's business previously refused.

In support of the application the agent makes the following points:-

· That an aggregate depot on part of the site has been approved and that this proposed use be continued extension incorporating building contractors plant and yard

· Part of the site already has the benefit of planning permissions for light industrial use and has the advantage of access onto the primary road network.

· Circumstances have changed in so much that there is a significant intensity of light industrial use to the south west.

· That the site is well screened by hedgerows and trees.

· The site fulfills a shortfall of land allocated for storage of building contractors plant which would also contribute to employment in the locality.

DEVELOPMENT PLANS/POLICY

The site is shown to be outside the designated development envelope, and notated on Sandown and Shanklin inset of UDP.

Policy G1 - Expects new development to be located within settlements defined in the plan other than exceptions specified in other policies or proposals therefore would be resisted.

Policy G5 - Allows for exception for Policy G1 to be made where it requires a rural location, as a benefit to the rural economy and is well designed and landscaped and falls within certain categories which include a major employment use and developments covered elsewhere in the plan.

Policy E8 - Accepts employment related development on land out side the development envelope where it benefits the rural economy and where the development is associated with another employment operation and is compatible to that use.

Policy TR7 - Includes the need to observe matters of highway safety regarding access points and effects of all road users.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineers recommend conditions if approved.

Scottish and Southern (Electric) - No objection

Forestry Commission, whilst raising no comment, point out the nearby ancient woodland and the fact that industrial effluent may be carried into the ancient withybed habitats at Ninham or subsequently equally important SSSI habitats near and including America Wood.

Environment Agency reiterate their previous comments in respect of the previous proposals, recommending conditions if consent is granted.

PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Newchurch Parish Council object to the development on grounds of the site being outside the development envelope, the use of which would result in increased traffic hazards on Newport Road.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

CPRE continue to object to the development stating that there is no change in the circumstances since the appeal decision.

Six letters of objection from local residents on grounds of unnecessary development, high generation of disturbance through noise, dust, smells; inadequate access and increased pressure on highway system; adverse effects on the airport in terms of the appearance of the area upon approach; incremental deterioration of the quality of the environment in this area; loss of environmentally valuable site and development contrary to policy. In addition, one writer points out that only temporary uses of the land had previously been granted.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received. It is not anticipated that there would be any crime and disorder implications.

EVALUATION

Determination of this development turns on matters of policy and principle, visual impact, traffic and access considerations and effect on adjoining properties.

In policy terms, UDP Policy G1 states that the development would be expected to be located within settlements defined by the development envelopes and that only exceptions specified in other policies will be allowed. There is a presumption against development of this site since it is outside the designated development envelope. Policy G2 presumes against development which will lead to the consolidation of scattered, dispersed or low density development in the countryside, and Policy G5 allows for exceptions where certain criteria are met sufficient to justify the development.

Conversely, Policy E8 is supportive of appropriately located development uses outside the development envelopes and Policy TR7 recognises the need to provide any form of development with adequate and appropriate access. As with the previous development proposals on this site, there are conflicts between policies within the UDP and the weighting of those policies will determine whether, in principle, such a development would be acceptable.

Other factors taken into account in order to determine the proposal are those of the Inspector's determination, how the proposed development aligns with those findings and whether previous uses, if lawful, are comparable to the present proposal.

It appears that the previous uses of the site were comparatively short-lived and involved smaller areas of land than that presently proposed, and therefore as the current proposal covers the same area as one of those matters the subject of an appeal, the comparability with the appeal case is perhaps of paramount importance. It is clear that the Inspector felt the use of this site as a yard for a haulage business was inappropriate visually, would have been damaging in terms of the character and appearance of the area and disruptive to the adjoining property. Whilst a transport haulier's business is not sought, but a contractor's and builder's yard for the storage of plant and materials is the proposed use, this is now in closer proximity to the adjoining residential property than that proposed before and therefore it is felt that the use remains inappropriate as the Inspector had ruled.

Objections to the scheme have been raised on grounds of highway safety, inadequacy of access, increase in vehicular flow to and from the site and the resultant traffic hazards. These issues were addressed by the Inspector who resolved that there was insufficient reason to withhold permission on that ground in that access was adequate. In addition, with regard to the current proposal, the Highway Engineers have found there have been no grounds to withhold permission, recommending conditions if approved.

In summary I do not consider there to be sufficient changes to the nature of the scheme from the findings of the Appeal Inspector, especially as the site is increased in terms of its area from that area which was previously used for other purposes. Refusal is again recommended.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above and the recent, comparable developments determined under appeal, the use of this site for a contractor's plant storage area and builder's yard would have a distinct and significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of this area and would result in an unacceptable disturbance to the adjoining residential property and would therefore be contrary to Policies G5, E8 and G10 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

The use of the site as for the storage of building contractor's plant and use as a builder's yard would result in an inappropriate use outside the development envelope boundary incompatible with adjoining and nearby residential properties by reason of noise, dust, fumes and other general disturbance, and consequently is in conflict with Policy G5 (Development outside Defined Settlements) and contrary to Policy E8 (Employment in the Countryside) and G10 (Existing Surrounding Uses) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

10.

TCP/22670/C P/02500/03 Parish/Name: Seaview Ward: Seaview & Nettlestone

Registration Date: 16/12/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550

Applicant: Westridge Racing

Use of land for outdoor go-kart track with building to provide cafe and associated facilities; storage building & workshop

land adjacent Westridge Leisure Centre, Brading Road, Ryde, PO33

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Although a minor application, it does raise a number of issues that warrant Committee consideration.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 24 weeks and 1 day to date and has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of applications due to negotiations, subsequent consultations and Case Officer workload.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site is situated behind Westridge Leisure Centre, immediately south of Cothey Bottom Copse and comprises mainly of open grassland, sloping from front to back.

Area is characterised by a mixed use development comprising of Westridge Leisure Centre itself, golf club, Tescos, industrial and residential at Bullen Village. The latter being situated some 200 metres away in a north westerly direction.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/22670/P/826/98 – Outline for 3 star 120 bedroom hotel with ancillary accommodation and associated parking, land north of Westridge Leisure Centre. Approved 5 January 1999.

TCP/22670/A/P/2112/01 – Renewal of above. Approved 21 January 2002.

TCP/22670/B/P/1459/02 – Outline for hotel, leisure centre and office accommodation; formation of access and parking areas, land rear of Westridge Centre. Refused October 2002 on grounds of policy and principle as majority of development would have been situated on unallocated land within open countryside.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought for a Go-Karting facility comprising of two tracks, one adult and one junior, together with a facilities building and a storage/workshop building. Parking would be provided off gravel road which also serves Westridge Golf Club.

The main track itself would be approximately 255 metres in length being situated on a level plateau. Smaller junior track would be approximately 144 metres in length. Facilities building would measure some 24 metres by 15 metres and would provide changing facilities, small retail area, office accommodation, kitchen/café, seating area and briefing room. Other proposed building would be 'L' shaped and would be used as a workshop and car storage.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is situated outside of any development envelope boundary as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan (UDP), but is specifically allocated as a Tourist Development Area. The following policies are considered to be relevant:

S4 – The Countryside will be Protected from Inappropriate Development

S6 – All Development will be Expected to be of a High Standard of Design

G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G2 – Consolidation and Infilling of Scattered Settlements Outside

Development Envelopes

G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development

G5 – Development Outside Defined Settlements

D1 – Standards of Design

D2 – Standards for Development within the Site

P1 – Pollution and Development

L2 – Formal Recreation Provision

T1 – Promotion of Tourism and the Extension of Season

T2 – Tourism Related Development

T7 – Site Suitable for Tourism Related Development

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should consent be granted.

Forestry Commission offer general advice as application site adjoins an ancient woodland “Cothey Bottom Copse”. No specific advice in given regarding the merits of the proposed development.

Environmental Health Officer recommends conditions should consent be granted. This observation is made on the assumption that Property Services will provide new windows with an improved acoustic performance, together with acoustically-baffled trickle ventilators, to the offices within the Westridge Centre. Furthermore, it is stated that:

“The estimates of noise experienced by local residents come to a similar conclusion to that of the acoustic consultant employed by the applicant. That is, that assuming 68dB (A) at about 5 metres from the track, premises on Bullen Road, and Barnsley Farm are likely to be exposed to levels of noise that are between 2 and 7 dB higher to those which are currently exposed. The resultant estimated noise at about 42 dB (A) Leq, 5 mins. is lower than the maximum recommended by the World Health Organisation for outdoor areas at night. These estimates are subject to a certain unpredictability; they do not take account of additional attenuation due to ground affects.”

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Nettlestone and Seaview Parish Council raise no specific objection but suggest that it would be an idea to test sound levels during the quietest period in the evening when, presumably local residents would be most likely to be inconvenienced.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Isle of Wight Tourism and an individual member of staff advise that there are approximately 30 office staff who are based in offices at Westridge, some of which have windows overlooking and opening towards the proposed track. As such, there is a concern that noise and smell associated with the development would adversely affect occupants of these offices.

Head of Community Development and Tourism Community Development has since confirmed that he is content and supports the measures put in place to minimise the impact of this development on occupants of adjoining offices. As such, the original objection from Isle of Wight Tourism has been withdrawn although at least one member of staff maintains his individual objection to the proposed development.

Campaign to Protect Rural England comment that the basic design of the proposed facilities building is unfortunate. It is stated that this is a substantial building which appears to be of the cheapest possible design – simply an industrial shed within interior divisions.

One local resident from Bullen Road makes reference to a go-karting facility that existed some 40 years ago and recalls that noise was an issue at that time. Also makes reference to noise from the speedway track at Smallbrook but recognises that this is only for a few hours a week. Objector also questions the suitability of this site for a go-kart track bearing in mind the different uses that surround the application site.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Main issues for consideration relate to policy, principle, noise, highway issues and general appearance of the proposed development.

Site is situated outside of any development envelope but is specifically allocated for tourist related development under Policy T7. G5 refers to development outside of defined settlements and refers to numerous categories of development that may exceptionally be permitted. Two such categories refer to recreational and tourist development appropriate to the countryside. T7 confirms that the Council aims to encourage tourism development and the promotion of tourism facilities on specifically allocated sites. Although, the proposed use is principally a recreational use, it clearly does have a tourist dimension and is therefore considered acceptable in principle and consistent with land use policies in the Unitary Development Plan, namely G5 and T7.

In terms of noise, this application was accompanied by a noise assessment which was subsequently added to in order to consider the nearest noise sensitive premises, that being Westridge Leisure Centre and, in particular, the offices contained therein. Further to revised noise assessment, discussions also took place between the developer, Environmental Health, Property Services and Isle of Wight Tourism in order to investigate ways of mitigating against the impacts of the proposed development. As a result, it was agreed that the developer would contribute financially towards double glazing and acoustic ventilation to the offices at Westridge. This would have to be controlled through an appropriate legal agreement should Members be minded to grant consent.

Environmental Health Officer considered the noise impact of this development relative to adjoining offices and the wider area in general, including residents of Bullen Village, Bullen Road and Barnsley Farm. He is satisfied that the proposed mitigation measures at Westridge offices would keep noise levels to an acceptable level. In terms of the area in general, it has been confirmed that numerous background noise levels were taken including readings during the evening at 2100 hours. It is concluded that premises mentioned above are likely to experience noise levels between 2 and 7 dB higher than those to which they are currently exposed. The resultant estimated noise is however lower than the maximum recommended by the World Health Organisation for outdoor areas at night. To further minimise any likely impact, conditions controlling operating hours and the provision of an acoustic bank are also recommended. Taking the above points into consideration, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with Policy P1 which states that before granting planning permission for development which may have the potential for causing pollution, the Council will wish to be satisfied that the chosen location, site and proposed operation together with any protection measures, will avoid adverse affects onto the use of land and the surrounding environment.

Local resident refers to a go-kart track that existed on this site many years ago. Circumstances have changed considerably since the go-karting track referred to was in operation. Bearing in mind the changes since made to the physical environment, planning policy and perhaps the mechanics of go-karts, I see no justifiable reason to compare previous and proposed schemes. The appropriateness of this site for the intended use is also questioned. This is essentially a mixed use area offering employment, retail, leisure, recreation and tourist related uses. As mentioned above, Westridge has also been identified as an area for further tourist related development. Bearing in mind the characteristics of the immediate area, the nature of the proposed use and the specific allocation for this site, I see no reason to believe why the proposed use is inappropriate for this site.

In terms of design and external appearance, the proposed building is utilitarian in appearance and not particularly innovative. It is not, however, necessarily out of context when considering surrounding buildings such as Westridge itself and Tesco's. Therefore, whilst not necessarily enhancing the quality and character of the surrounding built environment, I do not consider that the proposal would detract from it sufficiently in order to warrant refusal of this application. I therefore conclude that the proposal accords with the intentions of Policy D1 of the UDP.

To conclude, I consider that the proposal to use this site as a go-karting track is acceptable in principle and that its associated impacts would not impact significantly on nearby land uses or the surrounding area in general.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that the principle of developing this allocated site for go-karting purposes outside of any defined development envelope is acceptable in principle and that the inherent impacts such as noise and visual intrusion are, with appropriate safeguards, not of such significance as to justify withholding consent. As such, the proposal is considered to comply with policies contained in the UDP.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Subject to the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement in respect of a financial contribution of £4,000 towards double glazing and acoustic ventilation to offices at Westridge Leisure Centre).

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
3	No karts shall be operated on the premises before 0900 hours nor after 2100 hours on any day unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent disturbance from noise emission from the premises and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Noise emitted from the operation of karts at the premises from the use hereby approved, shall not exceed L_{Aeq 5 minute}of 70dB (and shall have no significant tonal component within any 1/3 Octave Band Level. Where any 1/3 octave band level is 5 dB or above the adjacent band levels the tone is deemed to be significant). The noise levels shall be determined at a point within 2 metres of the outside edge of the track or on top of the bank around the track by measurements or calculation. The measurements shall be made in accordance with BS4142:1997. Reason: To prevent disturbance from noise emission from the premises and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Before the use hereby approved is put into effect, the applicant shall submit to the Local Planning Authority for approval a scheme to provide a bank around the outside of the track as a noise barrier. The scheme shall show details of the bank in particular on the north east, east and south east sides and shall include calculations from a suitably qualified and experienced Acoustic Consultant to demonstrate the effect of the bank in further reducing the levels of noise experienced at Barnsley Farm and Bullen House. Development shall only proceed pursuant to the agreed details. Reason: To prevent disturbance from noise emission from the premises and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Details of any lighting scheme associated with the proposed development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to any development being brought into use. Thereafter only such approved lighting scheme shall be used. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D14 (Light Spillage) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Prior to the commencement of any works authorised by this consent, a condition survey of the Westridge access road between the site and its junction with the Tesco roundabout shall be carried out under parameters agreed in advance with the Local Planning Authority and, prior to the development being brought into use a further condition survey shall be undertaken and any damage to the road attributable to construction traffic in connection with the approved development shall be rectified by the developer in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that an adequate standard of access to the property is maintained, in accordance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	The development shall not be brought into use until the petrol interceptor is installed as part of a surface water drainage scheme in accordance with plans to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise pollution/contamination from the proposed development and to comply with Policy P2 (Minimise Contamination from Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	Details of roads, etc, design and constr - J01
10	Before the development hereby permitted is commenced a scheme indicating the provision to be made for disabled people to gain access to the site shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme shall be implemented before the development hereby permitted is brought into use. Reason: To ensure adequate access for disabled persons and to comply with Policy D12 (Access for People with Disabilities) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	The development shall not be brought into use until a minimum of 28 parking spaces including garages has been provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	Retention of parking - K08
13	Provision of turning area - K40
14	The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until provision has been made within the site for the secure (and covered) parking of a minimum of 10 bicycles. Such provision shall be made in the form of "Sheffield" Hoops unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles and to comply with Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

11.

TCP/24145/A P/02289/03 Parish/Name: Brading Ward: Brading and St Helens

Registration Date: 25/11/2003 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. C. Boulter Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Centra Estates Ltd

Outline for residential development (Revised Plans)

former coal distribution depot adjoining Brading Station, Station Road, Brading, Sandown, PO36

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Site lies outside but adjoining development envelope and therefore it is appropriate for Members to consider the implications of the proposed development.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 27 weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination because of the need to obtain revised plans following receipt of comments from Highway Engineer and Environment Agency and officer workload.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site is a long, narrow tract of land with an area of approximately 0.18 ha located to the north of Brading Railway Station between the railway line and residential development of Station Road and Station Gardens. Maximum width of site is approximately 20 metres with overall useable length of about 120 metres. It is overgrown and low lying with access off the station yard on its southern boundary. Southern part of the site has been used for many years as a coal distribution depot but currently appear little used and the majority of it is heavily overgrown.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/24145 – Outline for residential development – Refused – 16 October 2001 on grounds that the site was in a rural area outside the development envelope and the proposal was an undesirable extension of residential development prejudicial to the rural character of the area and contrary to Policies H9 and G5 of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Subsequent appeal dismissed by letter dated 20 February 2002.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This is outline application with all matters reserved for future approval. Illustrative plans submitted show 8 semi-detached dwellings, play area in southern part of site, proposed road running alongside eastern side of site to a central car parking and turning area. One pair of 1 bedroom and one pair of 2 bedroom dwellings shown south of the car park, and a pair of 3 bedroom dwellings and one pair comprising 3 bedroom and 4 bedroom semi-detached dwellings in the northern part of the site. The protected Weeping Ash tree immediately west of the entrance is shown to be retained.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site outside development envelope for Brading and within parking zone 4, as defined in the UDP. Relevant policies are as follows:

S1 – New Development Concentrated in Urban Areas;

S2 – Encourage Development of Previously Developed Land;

S4 – Countryside Protected from Inappropriate Development;

S6 – All Development to a High Standard of Design;

G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages;

G4 – General Locational Criteria;

G5 – Development Outside Defined Settlements;

G6 – Development in Areas Liable to Flooding;

G10 – Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development & Existing Surrounding Uses;

D1 – Standards of Design;

D2 – Standards for Development Within the Site;

D11 – Crime and Design;

H9 – Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries;

H15 – Locally Affordable Housing as Rural Exceptions;

C1 – Protection of Landscape Character;

C12 – Development Affecting Trees and Woodland;

P3 – Restoration of Contaminated Land;

P5 – Reducing the Impact of Noise;

TR6 – Cycling & Walking;

TR7 – Highway Considerations in New Development;

TR16 –Parking Policies & Guidelines; and

L10 – Open Space in Housing Developments.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Environment Agency originally lodges a holding objection but as a result of revised plans now recommend conditions if approved.

English Nature advises no significant impact on SPA, Ramsar or SSSI so no appropriate assessment and no comment.

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved.

Contaminated Land Officer recommends conditions if approved.

Network Rail asked for information regarding their requirements for development near railway lines to be sent with any approval.

Environmental Health Officer recommends design elements to minimise effects of noise from railway line on occupiers.

Rights of Way Officer asks for corridor for cycle way within development.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENT

Brading Town Council accepts the principle of development but points out that adjoining gardens flood regularly and that access appears inadequate. Cannot support illustrative layout – there is a protected tree near the entrance site, overlooking from properties at northern end of site, play area too small and question management of site.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Two local residents object on grounds of loss of outlook over countryside; noise and pollution to surrounding residents; parking problems; potential for increased vandalism; no space for children to play; application would not suit area; previous application rejected because of access, safety and floodplain; move to extend boundaries of AONB; possibility of purchase of site to develop Brading Trail and provide children’s play area and estate already largest in Brading and further buildings would increase road congestion.

Southern Housing Group supports. Mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units reflects perceived housing need identified in a recent survey, which also supports provision of a wide range of affordable housing, including shared ownership, in Brading.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Crime and Disorder Officer advises that he sees no need to consider proposal at outline stage, but will comment when the reserved matters are submitted.

EVALUATION

Site is outside the development envelope but does not read as countryside due to former use and location between the railway line and dwellings. The character of the site is such that approval would not compromise policies S4 and C1. The reuse of formerly developed land complies with S2 and PPG3 (Housing).

Applicant’s indicate conditions on any approval can ensure that dwellings will be available for sale or rent through a Registered Social Landlord. Development will therefore be defined as locally affordable housing adjoining the development envelope so complying with H9 and H15 and being a justified exception to policies restricting development in the countryside. It is this element, the affordable nature of the proposed dwellings, which is the essential difference between this scheme and that dismissed on appeal in 2002. In concluding that site did not fall within any of the exception categories set out in the UDP, the Inspector made particular reference to the fact that there was no suggestion would be for “a specific locally affordable housing scheme” as listed under Policy H9.

All matters are reserved but revised illustrative plans show how 8 dwellings, a play area some 24 metres by 12 metres, and access/parking arrangements acceptable to the Highway Engineer can be accommodated within the site. Access road would be between dwellings and the railway line – rear of new dwellings a minimum of 12 metres from the rear of dwellings in Station Road and Lower Furrlongs. Rear gardens minimum 7 metres maximum 9 metres long, comparable with others in the area. Illustrative layout shows proposal can comply with S6, D1, D2, G4, H5, L10, TR6, TR7 and TR16.

Impact from railway line on occupiers will be considered at reserved matters stage and appropriate detailed design features can be incorporated, in consultation with Environmental Health Officer and complies with G10 and P5.

Crime and Disorder Officer advisees no need to consider proposal at this stage, but would wish to comment at reserved matters stage, to ensure compliance with D11.

The TPO’d Weeping Ash at the entrance to the site can be retained, although one overhanging lower branch may need to be removed. In this respect, proposal complies with C12.

In consideration of the previous application and appeal, the opportunity permanently to remove a source of pollution (the coal yard) to adjoining marshland habitat (SSSI, SPA, Ramsar) was accepted by the previous Inspector as a material consideration. English Nature advise that the proposal is unlikely to have significant effect on the interest features of the SPA and Ramsar site and that the conservation interests of the SSSI are unlikely to be adversely affected. Proposal therefore is acceptable under C8, C9 and C10.

The Environment Agency has considered revised plans, which show potential ground levels above ordnance datum and finished floor levels and now has no objection to the proposal which will therefore comply with G10.

Subject to conditions covering submission of details, contamination issues, pollution control, disposal of soil and tree protection and appropriate planning obligation is entered into concerning affordability, the proposal is considered acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (subject to a Section 106 planning obligation ensuring the site is developed in its entirety for affordable housing)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01
2	Time limit - reserved - A02
3	Approval of reserved matters - A03
4	Details of roads, etc, design and constr - J01
5	Timing of occupation - J10
6	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 buildings 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 TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Provision of turning area - K40
8	Space shall be provided within the site, to a timetable agreed by the Local Planning Authority and consistent with the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan Parking Guidelines, for the loading, unloading and parking of vehicles and such provision shall be retained. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	Site contamination - remedial proposals - T06
10	Site contamination - groundwater protect - T05
11	No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until trees, not previously agreed with the Local Planning Authority for removal, shall have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: (1.2m minimum height chestnut paling to BS 1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted on 1.2m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground/or 2.4m minimum height heavy duty hoardings securely mounted on scaffold poles, or other method of agreed protection which forms an effective barrier to disturbance to the retained tree). Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site, during which period the following restrictions shall apply: (a) No placement or storage of material; (b) No placement or storage of fuels or chemicals. (c) No placement or storage of excavated soil. (d) No lighting of bonfires. (e) No physical damage to bark or branches. (f) No changes to natural ground drainage in the area. (g) No changes in ground levels. (h) No digging of trenches for services, drains or sewers. (i) Any trenches required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are left undamaged. Reason: To ensure that trees, shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected from damaged to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity and to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

12.

TCP/25072/A P/00841/04 Parish/Name: Brading Ward: Brading and St Helens

Registration Date: 16/04/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. L. Frood Tel: (01983) 823595

Applicant: Mr & Mrs B & M Lilley

Retention of vehicular access & hardstanding

Avalon, Morton Road, Brading, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO360BJ

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The local Member Cllr Patrick Joyce, contacted the Case Officer during the 21 day publicity period and requested that the application come before Committee for reasons of:

· There is no record of accidents on Morton Road,

· Mrs Lilley (applicant) holds a disabled badge

· Damage that has occurred to Mr Lilley’s car

· Parking on a busy main road creates a traffic hazard.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 6 weeks to date. A determination at this meeting would mean that the application had been dealt with within the prescribed 8 week period for determination of applications.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a semi- detached property located on the eastern side of Morton Road, an A Classified Road, approximately 300m south west of Yarbridge Cross. The area is characterised by linear residential development, with no on-road parking restrictions within the immediate area.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/25072 – An application for a vehicular access and hardstanding was refused in October 2003. Reasons for refusal were that the site could not accommodate adequate facilities to enable vehicles to turn on the site, so enter and leave the highway in a forward gear and the access would add unduly to the hazards of highway users.

DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION

Consent is sought for the retention of vehicular access and hardstanding to the front of the property. Submitted plans have identical measurements to those previously refused, these being 6.60m access frontage to the property with depth of 4 m measured from back edge of pavement. At time of recent site inspection work had commenced on formation of the hardstanding but front boundary wall remained and, therefore, access is not yet in use.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is located within the development envelope and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are:

D1 – Standards of Design

G4 – General Locational Criteria of Development

TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

The Highway Engineer recommends refusal on grounds that site cannot accommodate a turning area and formation of access as proposed, would add to hazards of highway users by virtue of insufficient area to accommodate parking of a vehicle to a satisfactory standard.

It is a highway requirement that on a classified road, that a turning hammerhead is provided with minimum measurements of 8m x 8m.

Applicant has discussed with the Highways department the possibility of providing lay-by style parking. However, as Morton Road is heavily trafficked and bounded by a footway, this arrangement would create a hazard to highway users, both vehicles and pedestrians. It is considered that provision of a sub-standard off road parking space would create greater hazard than the current arrangement of on -street parking.

AONB Officer raises no objection.

PARISH/ TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None at time of writing report.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None to report.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

The main considerations are whether the formation of a vehicular access and hardstanding would be acceptable in terms of highway safety.

The detailed dimensions of the parking area fall considerable short of the required minimum size, and due to the limited size of the front garden a turning area can not be provided to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear.

While it is appreciated that there are a number of dwellings on Morton Road which do not have any turning arrangements, these are well established. While this is a consideration, applications have to be determined on there individual merits, and in this instance highway safety is of paramount importance and sufficient space to allow safe off road parking in an acceptable manner does not exist. Therefore I have no other option than to recommend accordingly.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to create an access and parking facilities in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations referred to in this report, I am of the opinion that the formation of an access in this position would create a highway hazard for reason that the site cannot accommodate facilities to turn on site and the limited space available would result in a sub-standard parking area. Therefore, proposal is contrary to Policy TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The site cannot accommodate adequate facilities to enable vehicles to turn on the site and so enter and leave the highway in a forward gear and therefore the interests of road safety are compromised, and it would therefore be contrary to Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
2	The formation and use of an additional access to the classified road A3055 Morton Road at this point would add unduly to the hazards of highway users by virtue of insufficient parking area, and would therefore be contrary to Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

13.

TCP/26055 P/02523/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Carisbrooke East

Registration Date: 17/12/2003 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. S. Gooch Tel: (01983) 823568

Applicant: Mr E Raymond

Outline for end of terrace house; formation of vehicular access (revised scheme) (readvertised application)

8 Redwing Close, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO305SW

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application was originally reported to the Development Control Committee at request of Local Member, Cllr V Morey, who contacted the office concerned with regard to limited space available and overlooking of neighbouring gardens.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken twenty-four weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of applications due to the need for Committee consideration and subsequent negotiations with applicant's agent in respect of the siting of the dwelling. Members will recall following Committee meeting on 2 March 2004 a site visit was carried out on 12 March 2004. During the debate which followed the site inspection Members considered that the proposal in the submitted form would result in an unacceptable form of development. Therefore, Members resolved to defer the application in order that further negotiations could take place seeking an end of terrace and this report has been amended to reflect the outcome of further discussions.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Proposal is set within a cul-de-sac comprising of a small cluster of dwellings forming part of the Carisbrooke Estate. Dwellings comprise of 1970's style semi-detached properties and detached bungalows. Forward of the proposed site is a double detached garage one half of which serves number 8. Site is currently within the amenity space for number 8 and within the development envelope.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/16228/Y - Consent granted April 1980 for 28 houses and 15 bungalows (Phase V), Plots 104 - 146 inclusive.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Outline planning permission is sought for a detached house and formation of vehicular access. Matters to be taken into consideration at this stage are the siting and means of access with all other matters received for subsequent approval. Proposal will sit in the amenity space north of number 8 and will have a plot size of approximately 10.50 metres wide by 17 metres deep. Existing garage for number 8 will be transferred to the new plot and a new drive will be formed to a vehicle/garage space, between the existing dwelling and proposed dwelling, to serve number 8.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:

S1 New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas

S7 There is a need to provide for the development of at least 8000 housing units over the plan period. While a large proportion of this development will occur on sites 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 Development within the Site

H5 Infill Development

TR7 Highway Consideration for New Development

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highways Engineer raises no objections providing appropriate conditions are imposed.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Nine letters of objections received from neighbours raising issues which can be summarised as follows:

· Site is restricted and detached dwelling would result in the overdevelopment of the site, out of keeping with the character of the area

· Sub-division would result in plot sizes out of keeping with others in the area, cramped appearance and would be detrimental to the built environment.

· Difficult to see how a dwelling and vehicle access can be achieved whilst leaving adequate amenity space around the dwelling.

· Proposal would set a dangerous precedent for other developments.

· Additional traffic

· Previous work carried out is for accommodating family

· Plans are inaccurate and not to scale

· Drainage will be seriously affected as it passes under the area

· Proposal could cause overlooking

Revised proposal has been re-advertised and has attracted a further 6 letters of objection from neighbours raising no new concerns.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether site is of adequate size to accommodate development compatible with the surroundings and whether proposal would detract from the amenities of the area and neighbouring occupiers.

Policy H5 states that ‘Planning applications for infill residential development within development envelopes will only be approved where they will not unduly damage the amenity of neighboring property and the surrounding area. Where, in the opinion of the Council, an infill development would lead to an unacceptable loss of amenity to the surrounding area, the application will be refused or required to be appropriately modified.

The area comprises of semi detached dwellings and bungalows however no definitive pattern of development. I am satisfied that site is of adequate size to accommodate an additional dwelling and the mix of dwellings in the area provide a degree of flexibility as to how this could be achieved. In this respect, whilst plans which accompanied the original submission showed a detached dwelling, it was considered that it may be more desirable to link the new house to the existing dwelling. This could be achieved by provision of a car port or garage between the dwellings and would maintain what is considered to be an acceptable layout and provision of parking facilities. However, Members indicated that they would be supportive of proposal for an end of terrace house. Following negotiations with the applicant's agent, further plans have been submitted, showing the dwelling attached to the existing property, forming a terrace.

Proposal would be an adequate distance from neighbouring properties and would be unlikely to leave any adverse impacts. In terms of overlooking and loss off privacy proposal does not include design and therefore type of dwelling, position of windows and rooms is not currently known, however, this would be dealt with when considering an application for Approval of Reserved Matters or detailed permission.

Objection received about inaccurate plans, however after taking various measurements on site I am of the opinion that the submitted ordnance survey plans provide a relatively realistic and accurate portrayal of dwelling and amenity space surrounding it. The statement about the application 'is for profit' cannot be taken into account as this is not a planning consideration.

Concerns have been raised that proposal will seriously affect the drainage as it runs underneath. However, this could be dealt with by the Building Control Department.

I am of the opinion that proposal would not be likely to have a significant effect on the safety of all road users and in absence of an objection from the Highway Engineer I do not consider that refusal of application on these grounds would be justified.

Proposal now meets with Members' requirements and I am of the opinion provides a more comfortable arrangement of dwellings.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people, this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the right of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the environment, neighbouring properties or detract from the visual amenities and character of the locality. In view of the above the proposal is considered to satisfy policies D1 (Standards of Design), H5 (Infill Development), TR7 (Highway Consideration for New Development) and G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01
2	Time limit - reserved - A02
3	Approval of the details of the design and external appearance of the building(s), and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory development and be in accordance with Policies S6 (Standards of Design), D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards of development within this site), D3 (Landscaping), TR7 (Highway Consideration for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building is occupied. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	The building shall not be occupied until the means of vehicular access thereto has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plans.
6	The existing garage and additional parking hereby permitted shall be kept available at all times for the parking of cars and no trade or business shall be carried out therefrom. Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with Policy D12 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

14.

TCP/26192 P/00529/04 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Carisbrooke West

Registration Date: 09/03/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598

Applicant: Mr J Lavell

Conversion of existing property to form 7 flats; two/three storey extension to form 3 flats; alterations to vehicular access

1 Clatterford Road, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO301PA

REASONS FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application had proved particularly contentious in respect of design, access and parking issues, all of which result in the need for Committee determination in this case.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major application the processing of which will have taken 12 weeks to date.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to St Mary's Vicarage situated approximately 35 metres southwest of the junction of Clatterford Road/High Street/Priory Road. St Mary's Vicarage stands within a treed curtilage and slopes in a series of tiers from the road frontage towards the south east. There is a vehicular access off Clatterford Road located in the northern corner which not only gives access to the front of the dwelling but also serves an access drive which runs along the northeastern boundary of the curtilage, providing side access to the rear of the property. There is also an existing apparent access which extends the whole length of the northeastern boundary, the condition of which would suggest that its use has been very limited. It is assumed that it provides access to a Roman villa which, according to the listing, is only partially uncovered and has been classified as being within the grounds of St Mary's Vicarage.

Adjoining the southwestern boundary is a detached property, No. 9 Clatterford Road, which is a reasonably modern two storey detached house which stands in close proximity to Clatterford Road. This property has an extensive rear garden area with an access which runs parallel with the southwestern boundary off Clatterford Road and which gives vehicular access to other properties that sit in the lower land behind properties fronting Clatterford Road. This property has extensive rear garden which is overlooked by the vicarage building. Adjoining the northeastern boundary are in the main rear gardens to properties which front Carisbrooke Road, being Nos. 95 and 97 Carisbrooke Road. Opposite the site is the car park which serves the public house The Waverley. The frontage itself stands on the outside of a curve in Clatterford Road.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Detailed consent is sought for the conversion of the Vicarage to provide a total of 7 flats, 6 providing two bedroom accommodation and 1 providing three bedroom accommodation.

Because of the sloping nature of the site the two flats on the ground floor are entered via separate accesses, one being from the south and the other being from the east. Remaining five flats are entered via the existing main entrance on the north facing elevation, with the internal layout being radically altered with new staircase entrances serving the first, second and third floors. The three bedroom flat is within the third floor, largely within the roof space.

The second element of the application relates to an extension attached to the western side of the existing building providing 3 two bedroom flats on ground floor, first floor and second floor accessed via a separate common entrance off the north facing element of the extension.

Design of the extension is an exact copy of the existing building in terms of window shapes, quoins, dressings around windows, with two gabled features with a central valley and decorative bargeboards. There is a total of six sash windows facing in a southwesterly direction.

Following negotiations with the Highway Engineer application now indicates the area immediately behind the existing frontage boundary to be cleared of all bushes and shrubs mostly by a general trim back not involving complete removal. Proposal also indicates some removal of lower branches on the existing trees, which are to be retained. This clearance is necessary in order to achieve an appropriate visibility in a southwesterly direction. The above apart, the existing feature chestnut tree and conifer tree to be retained, along with the general undergrowth. The proposal indicates a total of 5 parking spaces within the frontage area with turning. Further single parking space to be provided abutting the northeast facing elevation of the existing vicarage building accessed off the side driveway, which is in the form of a widening of the existing access. That access to be widened to provide a further 12 parking spaces and turning area set to the rear (southeast facing) elevation of the existing property. The creation of this access involves the removal of one of two existing yew trees situated to the south of the Vicarage. Finally in terms of existing trees, the proposed extension will involve the loss of an existing bay tree situated adjacent to the southwestern boundary.

In terms of car parking, a total of 18 car parking spaces are provided with the car parking areas to be finished in granite chipping.

In terms of visibility provision, submitted plan indicates that this has been carefully considered using four specific points at the access onto Clatterford Road, all of which will provide visibility splay distances which vary, with the minimum being 37.6 metres measured down the nearside kerb to maximum of 40.4 metres.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site stands within the Carisbrooke Conservation Area, with the southwestern boundary forming the edge of that Conservation Area. Site also stands within the development envelope boundary and is situated within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

National policies are covered in PPG3 - Housing, March 2000, with relevant issues as follows.

In relation to current application the document states the following: "Conversions of housing, buildings formerly in other uses and the upper floor spaces over shops can provide an important source of additional housing, particularly in town centres." It emphasises that Local Planning Authorities should promote such conversions by taking a more flexible approach to Development Plan standards with regard to densities, car parking, amenity space and overlooking.

Other general policies within the document are summarised as follows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment covers issues relating to development within or adjacent to conservation areas, and relevant points are as follows.

New buildings should be carefully designed to respect their setting following fundamental architectural principles of scale, height, massing and alignment and use of appropriate materials.

Document emphasises that developer has a duty of care to ensure proposed developments in conservation areas both preserve or enhance those areas.

Relevant Local Plan policies are as follows.

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

Other relevant policies are as follows.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 - Standards of Design

B2 - Standards for Development within the Site

B6 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

TR17 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

U2 - Ensuring Adequate Educational, Social and Community Facilities for the Future Population

L10 - Open Space in Housing Development

Site is located within Parking Zone 3 of the Unitary Development Plan which restricts parking to 0 to 75% of the maximum non-operational vehicle parking provisions.

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

CONSULTEE COMMENTS

Applicants have consulted with the Highway Engineer in respect of this proposal which has resulted in the submission of revised plans as described. At time of completing report detail comments have not been received.

Conservation Team have been consulted with regard to the general design approach, with particular regard to the extension, and they consider the proposal to be acceptable in principle providing good quality matching materials are used, including the provision of timber windows.

AONB Officer comments as follows.

"This is a landmark building in Carisbrooke which along with the church dominates the surrounding area. This is particularly clear when viewing this area from Carisbrooke Castle as can be seen in the attached photograph. Whilst we appreciate this site lies within the development boundary for Newport and that, in the main, the proposal is relatively sympathetic in design, we do have strong reservations that the scale of the proposed alterations will result in detracting from the overall character and history of this distinctive building."

Council's Archaeology Officer recommends appropriate conditions should application be approved.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

The application has been the subject of a total of 7 letters of objection, 3 from residents of Clatterford Road including neighbouring properties, and 1 each from the Isle of Wight Industrial Archaeology Society, the Isle of Wight Society and the Carisbrooke West Community Forum and one from a Newport resident. Points raised are summarised as follows.

Concern at the level of car parking that will be generated, with the initial proposal not indicating any specific parking provisions. (Revised plans have since been submitted indicating a total of 18 parking spaces dispersed throughout the site.)

Existing access incapable of servicing the additional traffic that would be generated by the proposal and would cause dangers to highway users. Reference is also made to the fact that there is no footpath at this point on the southeastern side of Clatterford Road.

Consideration that the proposal represents over-development, with particular reference to the addition of a two/three storey extension. Pointed out that the vicarage building is already a substantial premises larger than other buildings in the immediate location, and suggesting it would be inappropriate to further extend that building.

The Vicarage is a significant building although it is accepted that it is not listed, and is visible from various locations, and the extension would detract from the visual quality of the building.

Proposal would adversely affect the quality of the Conservation Area.

Reference made to the curtilage of the Vicarage containing a Roman villa. Some concern raised whether or not artifacts may exist within the Vicarage grounds which should not be disturbed. Concern also raised that any families living in the flats will have access to the historic site.

Concern that proposal will impact on significant trees which have the protection of being within the Conservation Area. Particular reference made to a horse chestnut tree which could be badly affected by the three storey extension.

Concern relating to additional pressures placed on existing drainage systems.

The proposal, with particular reference to the three storey extension, will impact unduly on the environment currently enjoyed by neighbouring properties.

Carisbrooke West Community Forum specifically refer to the following.

Because of the sensitive location of the building, i.e. a conservation area, historic village and within an AONB, any change of use should be resisted.

Proposed extension represents an excessively large increase in mass and scale.

Proposal does not show alternative fire escapes, which would be unacceptable if they were in the form of external staircases. Concern it would be inappropriate to use a timber frame construction process to construct the extension.

Isle of Wight Society reiterate points raised above.

Isle of Wight Industrial Archaeology Society refer to:

· Vicarage building best example of patterned brickwork on the Isle of Wight having been built in 1958.

· Any planning consent would result in the loss of the whole of the west wall which contains the patterned brickwork.

· Too many valuable references to building techniques have been lost through redevelopment and extensions.

· The building should be listed, not defaced.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

This application raises a number of material considerations which are addressed as follows.

Principle

There is no doubt that this is a substantial typical vicarage dwelling and as such appropriate for conversion. It would be very difficult to resist the principle of conversion into flats for there are many examples of successful conversions which provide a valuable source of much needed accommodation as identified in the Housing Needs Survey.

A more contentious issue is the proposed three storey extension to provide a further 3 flats. The main concern in this respect will be whether or not the mass and height of the extension is appropriately proportioned and is therefore subservient to the original building. Obviously the appropriateness of mass and height will vary dependent upon the overall scale and mass of the original building. In this case both the Conservation Officers and myself are of the view that the extension proposed is in proportion in terms of its mass and height and therefore as a matter of principle is considered to be acceptable. Design issues will be dealt with elsewhere.

Access and Parking

Members will note that the proposal has been revised, now indicating a total of 18 parking spaces generally dispersed throughout the site both to the front and the rear of the building. It is considered that the site's location makes it essential that parking provision is provided, and in this case the proposal provides a 75% maximum plus 2 casual parking spaces.

A second important element of the revised plan is the alteration to the access and the creation of an appropriate visibility splay. This is a matter which has caused some concern to the Highway Engineer and the proposals which have now been submitted represent the applicant's interpretation of the Highway Engineer's requirements, with the main emphasis being in answering appropriate visibility in a south westerly direction along Clatterford Road.

Whilst the applicant has been encouraged to provide guideline parking provision he has also been encouraged to carefully consider the dispersal of the parking spaces and the surface treatments to ensure that they are compatible with the historic and architectural character of the vicarage building. If Members are minded to approve the application I suggest a specific condition requiring full details of both hard and soft landscaping of the parking and turning areas. I am satisfied that if carried out appropriately these areas will not detract from but contribute to the setting of the building.

Similarly with regard to the creation of the visibility splay which inevitably will result in the loss of some existing shrubbery and lower branches of the substantial trees along the frontage. Again if Members are mindful to approve the application I suggest a specific condition requiring replacement planting of appropriate species and appropriately located as underplanting in order to restore the landscape quality which provides the setting to the existing building.

Design Issues

Probably the most controversial aspect of this proposal is the three storey extension and the likely impact that may have on the architectural integrity of the existing vicarage building. The position of the vicarage building on the edge of the Conservation Area does tend to result on it being slightly divorced from the main urban element of the Conservation Area. The character of the Conservation Area in terms of the built environment is to a large extent restricted to Carisbrooke High Street, and therefore I would suggest that any assessment of the suitability of the extension should be based on its impact on the building as opposed to the general impact it may have on the Conservation Area.

In this regard negotiations have strongly encouraged a pastiche approach to the architectural design of the extension, and the submitted plans reflect this advice. I am therefore satisfied that, subject to stringent conditions covering both use of matching materials and appropriate detailing, this extension will not adversely impinge on the overall architectural integrity of the vicarage building.

It is also considered that the width of the curtilage is sufficient to accommodate an extension without appearing cramped. The vicarage building itself is reasonably well screened by existing trees, most of which are to be retained, with probably the greatest impact being when approaching from the southwest along Clatterford Road.

In general I consider this is a stand alone building which is capable of accommodating an extension of the mass and height proposed and has been designed to satisfy the test of preservation and enhancement in respect of the Conservation Area.

With regard to the alterations to the existing building to accommodate the flat conversion it is considered that the window and door designs are appropriate to the architecture of the building. In terms of general treatment of fenestration, again if Members are mindful to approve the application I would suggest a condition requiring that all new windows, both within the existing building and the extension, are constructed in timber.

In terms of long distance views, the concerns expressed by the AONB Officer are noted, however I do not consider that they are sufficient to outweigh my view that the proposals are acceptable for the reasons stated above. Whilst accepting the proposal will have an impact on the AONB, this impact is only marginal and certainly would not warrant a refusal. This is particularly the case bearing in mind the proposal is within the development envelope boundary.

Impact on Neighbouring Properties

I do have some concern regarding the closer proximity of the extension to the adjoining property and its curtilage, which adjoins to the southwest. Whilst I consider the distance from that curtilage, which is interrupted by a vehicular access as previously described, is sufficient to avoid any impact in terms of outlook, there may be an overlooking problem from those windows which face in that direction. The windows in all cases are secondary windows, with the main windows being located on the front and rear elevations to the individual rooms. I would therefore consider that it would be appropriate in this case to apply a condition requiring the insertion of obscure glazing in the lower half of each of the windows facing in that direction, which would be sufficient to avoid any direct overlooking. I would also suggest an appropriate landscaping condition requiring some additional planting along that boundary, both in front of the extension and beyond towards the rear. This will not only provide additional screening but will also contribute to the overall landscape setting of the building.

Drainage - Impact on Roman villa.

Concerns expressed regarding the possibility of additional pressures on the drainage systems causing disturbance or damage to the listed structure are noted, however again I would suggest an appropriate condition requiring a detailed scheme to be submitted which should clearly illustrate the function of the drainage schemes and which should obviously be designed to avoid the above-mentioned concerns.

Landscaping

Retention and protection of existing landscaped features, particularly the mature trees, is essential, and this, linked with a quality landscaping scheme involving the planting of further mature trees and shrubs, is considered essential and can be dealt with through conditions. Applicants are fully aware of the need to retain the landscape setting, and I am satisfied that it is in their interest to ensure their retention.

Financial Contributions

The site's location within Zone 3 of the parking policies means that a transport infrastructure payment cannot be required in this case. However, in line with recent supplementary planning guidance advice, this development does reach the threshold which would require financial contribution towards education and open space where open space cannot be provided on site. In this regard the level of contribution would be £900 per unit in respect of the education contribution and £290 per unit in respect of the open space contribution. The education contribution would go towards upgrading education facilities in the area, and the open space contribution relates to monies which could be used to improve existing open space and recreational facilities in the town. This matter would need to be dealt with under the auspices of a Section 106 agreement.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section of this report I am satisfied that this proposal makes sufficient use of a large dwelling, and along with the extension will provide a density of accommodation which will contribute to the housing stock and will assist in satisfying a housing need. The overall curtilage is capable of accommodating the overall development and all matters which may cause concern can be adequately dealt with by condition or legal agreement. I therefore recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (revised plans)

Subject to Section 106 or Section 111 agreement covering the payment of the following contributions.

Education contribution: 10 x £900 = £9,000

Open space & recreational contribution: 10 x £290 = £2,900

TOTAL £11,900

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, the roadside boundary of the site shall be lowered to a maximum of 1 metre in height above existing road level over the whole frontage as indicated cross-hatched on the plan hereby approved and shall be maintained thereafter at a height no greater than 1 metre. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Notwithstanding the provisions of any Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order, no part of any boundary wall or fence erected on the site frontage, nor any hedge planted to mark the boundary or alongside any such boundary, wall or fence, shall at any time be permitted to be more than 1 metre above the level of the carriageway and the resultant visibility splays shall be kept free of obstruction. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The access shall be constructed in accordance with the details indicated on the plan hereby approved prior to occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	All new doors and windows including those windows within the three storey extension shall be constructed of timber which shall either be stained or painted and such windows shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the character of the building in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Before the development hereby approved is commenced detailed drawings at a scale of at least 1:20 shall be provided and agreed by the Local Planning Authority showing construction methods and materials to be used in respect of any new doors and/or new windows, particularly those windows within the proposed extension, and any other external decorative features including window sills and window dressings, quoins, decorative bargeboards. The Building shall be constructed in accordance with those details which shall be retained thereafter. Reason: To secure a satisfactory and sympathetic form of development in the interests of the character of the Conservation Area in compliance with Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Prior to commencement of work full specifications of the surface treatments to the turning areas and parking spaces shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such specifications shall ensure a permeable surface is achieved and shall be of a thickness to ensure minimal disturbance to tree roots where the parking spaces are within the crown spreads of existing trees. The parking spaces and turning areas shall be provided prior to occupation of any of the flats hereby approved. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and in the interests of ensuring the protection and retention of trees to be retained in the interests of the amenities of the area in compliance with Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) and D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	The dwelling hereby approved shall not be brought into use until provision has been made within the site for the secure (and covered) parking of a minimum of 10 bicycles. Such provision shall be made in the form of ‘Sheffield’ hoops, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall be retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles and to comply with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	Prior to occupation of flats 8, 9 and 10 within the proposed extension the lower half of the south west facing windows shall be glazed in fixed obscure glazing which shall be retained thereafter and shall not be altered without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining residential property in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	No development shall take place until a detailed scheme including calculations and capacity studies have been submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul water disposal. No connection to the existing foul water disposal system shall take place until checks have been carried out indicating that adequate capacity exists or can be provided to extract additional foul drainage discharge. No flats shall be occupied until such agree systems have been completed. 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.
11	Before the development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of the trees and shrubs to be planted both in respect of underplanting along the frontage boundary behind the proposed visibility splay and along the south western boundary. Such scheme shall include phasing and timing of such planting and include provision for their maintenance during the first five years from the date of planting. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all the existing mature trees indicated to be retained on the plan hereby approved shall have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification. 1.2 metre minimum of high chestnut paling to BS1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted on 1.2 metre minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground. Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works or until such time they need to be removed to enable approved works to be carried out within the crown spreads of the trees. The fencing shall be retained during which period the following restrictions shall apply. a) No placement or storage or material b) No placement or storage of fuels or 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 level h) No digging of trenches for services, drains or sewers i) Any trenches required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are left undamaged. Reason: To ensure that trees to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity and in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13	The materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the proposed extension forming part of the development hereby approved shall match those used on the existing building. A schedule of those materials along with samples shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with those approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
14	Access for archaeologists - P22

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services