TUESDAY 1 JULY 2003
REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
|
|
TCP/04655/T P/00809/03 Parish/Name: Ryde Registration Date: 22/04/2003 -
Outline Planning Permission Officer: Mr. G. Hepburn Tel: (01983) 823575 Demolition & removal of all farm buildings & slurry store;
outline for 119 dwellings, nursing home, 28 sheltered housing units &
health centre/community building; formation of new roundabout providing
access off Brading Road; public amenity space; nature conservation area Prestwood Farm, Smallbrook Lane, Ryde, PO331BB |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This is a major application and a departure from the Unitary Development
Plan.
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
This is a major application.
Determination on the 1 July 2003 will allow the application to be
processed within thirteen weeks.
LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
This is a large site of some 32 hectares situated to the southeast of
Ryde on an area of land farmed by Prestwood Farm. It is bounded to the east by the main Ryde to Sandown road and is
between the Westridge Garage and the Busy Bee Nursery to the north and south
respectively. The northern boundary in
part follows the Smallbrook Lane with the western boundary abutting existing
main railway line between Ryde and Sandown and in part the Monktonmead
Brook. The southern boundary is varied
and delineated by field boundaries. In
general the land is flat to the east, undulating but falling to the west down
to the Monktonmead Brook. Prestwood Farm
is currently used for dairy farming and associated arable use.
RELEVANT HISTORY
Various planning applications under TCP/4655 relating to the
agricultural use of Prestwood Farm.
TCP/4655N – Erection of agricultural worker's dwelling and new farm
buildings for livestock and storage purposes approved 29 November 1995.
TCP/4655P – Straw barn, additional silage bay, cattle pens and store
approved 6 November 1996.
Following these permissions details were submitted with a view to
seeking compliance with conditions. An
Enforcement Notice was served on the 10 February 1998 seeking to resolve the
breaches of planning control which included:
1.
A slurry area/pit
2.
A wastewater pond
As part of the determination of the subsequent appeal additional details
were submitted. The Enforcement Notice
was upheld but the Notice was corrected requiring:
“Implement the details of a slurry storage area and dirty water pond as
set out in drawing no. 2405/YW/95/D-S.2 submitted to the Council on the 15
October 1997 pursuant to condition 3 of planning permission TCP/4655P and
condition 6 of planning permission TCP/4655N.”
These details have been subsequently implemented.
Running parallel to this planning process has been a complaint which has
been upheld by the Ombudsman.
Maladministration was judged and any injustice caused should be
compensated. The Council (not the Local
Planning Authority) is seeking to resolve this matter and ideally would like to
move completely any disamenity that is caused.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Application is for outline planning permission with access to be
determined at this stage. The
application has been submitted with a transport assessment. In essence the application has seven salient
proposals:
1.
Dairy and slurry store
removed, other buildings demolished.
Shared drive to farmhouse and nature/recreation area.
2.
Farmhouse retained with
associated field of 0.8 hectares (2 acres).
3.
Public amenity space, site
area approximately 1.9 hectares.
4.
Health care/community
facility, site area approximately 0.5 hectares in size. Design further to detailed discussion.
5.
Residential development of
around 119 dwellings including affordable housing, site area approximately 4
hectares.
6.
One hectare site for
nursing home, detailed proposal subject to Nursing Home requirements.
7.
Farm land to be transferred
to local Nature Conservation Trust and managed as Nature Conservation Area
incorporating access for informal recreation.
Detailed proposal to be developed in partnership with Nature
Conservation Trust area approximately 24.5 hectares.
The plan submitted is attached as appendix with the development envelope
shown marked in blue.
In addition the applicant further comments
"S.54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that
development proposals should be determined in accordance with development plan
policies unless "material considerations" justify a departure. As I have previously stated, I consider that
there are a considerable number of material considerations in this case that
outweigh the policy.
Prestwood Farm is perceived by residents to create a nuisance and it
needs to be closed down with all the buildings and dairy uses removed. The council does not have the money to
adequately compensate the farmer for this course of action. Therefore, the logical way forward is to
compensate the farmer by way of development.
The development we are proposing will compensate the farmer, remove the
nuisance for residents and provide much needed market housing, affordable
housing, sheltered housing, public open space and a surgery/community centre as
well as a nursing home.
As I have previously expressed, I consider that these benefits outweigh
the policy objections in this case. As
you know, each application should be dealt with according to its individual
merits and I have spelt out the merits of this application above.
Although i do not expect officers to reverse their recommendation at
this late stage, I would appreciate it if officers could ensure, at the
committee meeting on 1 July, that the extensive merits of the development
proposal are made clear to members. In
addition, members are given every opportunity to seek a deferral of the
application if they are minded to grant approval. If a deferral is forthcoming, we are quite prepared to enter into
negotiations with yourselves and your colleagues in order to put together a
package, to be controlled by a S.106 agreement, to provide financial
contributions towards education, social housing, community facilities,
transport and public open space in the local area. We believe that a satisfactory package can be put together that
will appease residents and provide the council with comfort for the future of
the scheme."
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
National Policies
National policies are covered in PPG1 - General Policies and Principles,
PPG3 - Housing - March 2000) and its recently published companion document by
Design - Better Places to Live, PPG4 - Industrial and Commercial Development in
Small Firms and PPG13 - Transport (plus Publication Draft of that
document).
PPG1 - General Policy and Principles covers the following:
Promotion of sustainable development which seeks to deliver the
objective of achieving now and in the future economic development to secure
high living standards whilst protecting and enhancing the environment.
Document emphasis the need for a plan-led system which is given
statutory force by Section 54A of the Act which requires that an application
for planning permission shall be determined in accordance with the Development
Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
PPG3 - Housing - March 2000:
This document emphasis the following:
Meet housing requirements of the whole community, including those in
need of affordable housing.
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 pressure off development of green field sites.
Create a more sustainable pattern of development ensuring access ability
by public transport to jobs, education, health facilities, shopping etc.
Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities
(between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare) and seek greater intensity of
development in places with good public transport, access ability such as towns
and local centres or around major nodes along good quality public transport
corridors.
Place needs of people before ease of traffic movement in designing the
layout of residential development.
Seek to reduce car dependence by improving linkages of public transport
between housing, jobs etc and reducing the level of parking. More than 1.5 off street spaces per dwelling
are likely to reflect Government=s emphasis on sustainable residential development.
Promote good design and new housing developments in order to create
attractive, high quality living environment in which people will choose to
live.
Delivery of affordable housing with the need of a mix of housing types,
including affordable housing being a material planning consideration which
should be taken into account in deciding planning applications involving
housing. Such a requirement should be
reinforced by a full assessment of local housing needs.
Decisions about the amount and type of affordable housing to be provided
in individual proposals should reflect local housing need and individual site
suitability and be a matter for agreement between the parties. Local Planning Authorities and developers
should be reasonably flexible in deciding the types of affordable housing most
appropriate to the particular sites.
The objective should be to ensure that affordable housing secured would
contribute to satisfying local housing needs as demonstrated by a rigorous
assessment. It emphasis that such
provision should be the subject of close liaison with Housing Departments and
such procedure will be subject to monitoring through Government regional
offices.
Companion Guide to PPG3 - By Design - Better Places to Live
The purpose of this guide is to help deliver the radical approach within
PPG3 to residential development and represents a guide to better practice, with
particular attention as follows:
Assist in the deliverability of the fundamental principles behind PPG3.
Prompt to attention to urban design principles and approaches, with
emphasis on addressing the broader aspects of overall urban design.
Recognising shortcomings of recent practice and learning from best
examples of residential development which have created successful housing
environments. Document lists a number
of attributes of successful housing under the following headings:
Movement, mix, community, structure, layout, place, amenity, parking,
safety, space, adaptability, maintenance, sustainability and detail.
The application site is outside the defined development envelope for
Ryde and the following strategic policies are relevant:
S1 – New development
will be concentrated within existing urban areas.
S2 – Development will be encouraged on land which has been previously
developed.
S3 – New development of a large scale will be expected to be located in
or adjacent to the defined development envelopes of the main Island towns of
Cowes, East Cowes, Newport, Ryde and Sandown/Shanklin.
S4 – The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.
S5 – Proposals for development which on balance will be for the overall
benefit of the Island by enhancing the economic, social, or environmental
position will be approved providing any adverse impacts can be ameliorated.
S6 – All development will be expected to be of a high standard of
design.
S7 – There is a need to provide for the development of 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 undefined sites,
enough new land will be allocated to enable the target to be met and to provide
a range of choice and affordability.
S11 – Land use policies and proposals to reduce the impact of and
reliance on the private car will be adopted and the Council will aim to
encourage the development of an effective, efficient and integrated transport
network.
The following Part 2 policies of the Unitary Development Plan are
appropriate:
G1 – Development
Envelopes
G4 – General Locational
Criteria
G5 – Development
Outside Defined Settlements
G10 – Existing
surrounding Uses
D1 – Standards of
Design
D2 – Standards for
Development Within the Site
D3 – Landscaping
D11 – Crime and Design
D12 – Access
D13 – Energy
Conservation
D14 – Light Spillage
H1 – New Development
Within the Main Island Towns
H2 – Variety of Houses,
Sizes and Types
H3 – Allocated
Residential Sites
H4 – Unallocated
Residential Development
H6 – High Density
Residential Development
E1 – Creation of New
Employment Uses
E8 – Employment in the
Countryside
P1 – Pollution and Development
P2 – Minimise
Contamination from Development
TR1 - An Integrated
Transport Network
TR3 – Locating
Development to Minimise the Need to Travel
TR6 – Cycling and
Walking
TR7 – Highway
Considerations for New Development
TR17 – Public Rights of
Way
U1 – The Location of Health, Social Community, Religious and Education
Services
U2 – Ensuring Adequate Educational, Social and Community Facilities for
the Future Population
U5 – Schools Provision
U9 – Residential Care and Nursing Home Accommodation
U11 – Infrastructure and Services Provision
L1 – Informal Recreation Provision in the Countryside
L2 – Formal Recreation Provision
L10 – Open Space and Housing Developments.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
DEFRA comment:
“While it is regrettable that this agricultural business has closed and
that the development will result in the loss of agricultural facilities we have
no objection to this development. We
note that the loss of agricultural land to development is relatively minor –
amounting to about 4.5 hectares and
that the land remaining (24.5 hectares) will be managed for its nature
conservation interests. As such we do
not consider
this to be a significant loss of agricultural land and the indications
are that it is not land that would be described as better or more versatile
land (which DEFRA particularly wish to protect).”
County Archaeologist comments:
“There are currently no sites of archaeological importance within the
development area recorded on the County Sites and Monuments Record. Consequently I recommend that there are no
archaeological implications at present in regard to this site.”
Network Rail respond with their standard letter regarding construction
works close to the railway line.
Southern Water comment on two areas, drainage and water.
“Drainage – Where new on-site sewers are to be offered for adoption as
public sewers, the development layout should be designed so as to ensure that
the new sewers will be located in highways or open areas to which vehicular
access would be possible at all times.
A necessary sewer layout could have a significant influence on the
development layout and this aspect should be considered at an early stage. The point and details of the proposed
connections to the public sewer will require the formal approval of Southern
Water Services Ltd. There are no public
surface water sewers in the vicinity of the site. No surface water should be discharged to the public foul sewer as
this could cause flooding to downstream properties. There are a number of sewer incidents recorded in this area. I have requested a capacity check for the
foul sewer and will advise you of the results shortly.
Water – Southern Water has a water main running across the site as shown
on the enclosed plan and no development or new tree planting should be located
within three metres of the centre line of the main. A water supply can be provided for the proposed development as
and when required.” (NB no plan was enclosed.)
The Environment Agency has no objection in principle and suggests conditions
to prevent pollution of the water environment, to prevent flooding and ensure
future maintenance, to prevent pollution of grant water and to prevent
pollution of the water environment.
In addition they suggest that the drainage system "downstream"
of this development is likely to take further increased flows. SUDS should be
employed. A wildlife corridor is suggested and also water conservation.
Highways Officer recommends refusal on grounds of inadequate information
requesting that the applicants supply information on the following:
·
Confirmation the roundabout
has been designed to DMR&D volume 6, TD 16/93
·
Swept paths
·
Entry path curvature
·
Forward viability, TD16/93
·
Vertical curvature, TD9/91
·
Vertical alignment, TD9/94
The Council’s Ecology Officer comments:
“The environmental and nature conservation impacts of the proposal are
not possible to assess, as insufficient information has been provided. Although no statutory or non-statutory
nature conservation sites are involved, there are old, species rich hedgerows,
important trees, woodland and protected species which would be impacted by the
development. There may well be other
features of nature conservation and landscape importance. I do not believe that an outline application
is able to provide the required level of detail to reach an informed judgement
on the impacts of a large development in the countryside and whether or not
these impacts are acceptable. I am also
unclear how the transfer of 24.5 hectares of the site to a Nature Conservation
Trust would provide mitigation for the loss of 7.4 hectares of countryside to
development and what the benefits of such a transfer would provide.”
The Council’s Housing Officer comments:
“I would be grateful to know the percentage of affordable units
designated in this new development and whether the developer has made an
approach to any of the housing associations for the on tap provision of the
units. Suffice the comment from this
office still stands that we will be wanting a percentage of affordable units to
be higher than the current 20% as this is an exceptions site.”
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Brading Town Council comment:
“Although not in our Parish, the Town Council is of the opinion that the
above application will have a significant effect on Brading and therefore wish
to make the following comments.
Firstly, the Town Council understand that the Isle of Wight Council has
been involved in the long running dispute with the owner of Prestwood Farm, and
after a poor planning decision was made, compulsory purchase and
Discontinuation Orders have been considered.
In view of this the Town Council request that the Isle of Wight Council
seek the appropriate legal advice as to whether its Members should play any
part in making a decision regarding this application, or whether it should be
called in.
·
The Town Council strongly
oppose this application. The proposed
development is not within a development envelope, the land has not been
identified for residential development and therefore conflicts with the UDP.
·
The infrastructure for such
a massive development does not exist in this vicinity, which presumably is one
of the reasons it is not identified for housing in the UDP.
·
Local schools would be
unable to cope with the influx of children such a development would bring. The long term ongoing costs to the local
taxpayer would be huge.
·
The proposed development
would set a precedent to develop the entire area between Westridge Cross and
Barnsley.
·
Access onto the A3055 would
be dangerous and can be demonstrated at the Busy Bee Centre.
Members of Brading Town Council are of the opinion that this will not
solve the problems of Prestwood Farm, it will merely create another, more
severe problem.
The UDP was a consultation process that involved an entire Island
community. A great deal of time, effort
and money went into creating the document.
Members of this Council therefore urge the Isle of Wight Council to
adhere to the policies within the UDP and refuse permission for this planning
application.”
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of objection with one being a letter of objection/comment
from SEAGAP raising the following concerns/comments:
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder implications anticipated.
EVALUATION
All planning applications must, by virtue of Section 54A of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990, be determined under the provisions of the Unitary
Development Plan unless material considerations outweigh the primacy of this
Plan.
The Unitary Development Plan provides a strategic and detailed framework
to encourage and guide development on the Island and to protect and enhance the
environment. It brings forward
proposals for the use and development of land.
There are many pressures for development on the Island which can work in
combination or in conflict with each other.
If an engineering solution can be found then any piece of land on the
Island can be developed and accordingly chaos would reign if development was
not directed to the best place. By
viewing all development at the same time (through the UDP process) decisions
can be made to minimise the impact on infrastructure, reduce the need to travel
and generally improve the life of the community on the Island as a whole.
It is not disputed that arguments can be made for various forms of
development on the basis of need.
However, the Inspector, through the Unitary Development Plan, took on
board the demand for need and concluded that adequate provision remains within
the life of the Plan to accommodate these pressures.
Therefore, with a development of this nature the first consideration is
whether or not the proposals fall within the framework of the Unitary
Development Plan. It can be seen from
the attached plan (which outlines the proposals) that this area of land is
clearly outside the development envelope and accordingly does not meet the
strategic policies which seek to direct development to within the development
envelope.
Sites within the development envelope have had infrastructural
requirements taken into consideration.
Outside the development envelope these tests on infrastructure have not
been undertaken and would have to be investigated further should Members be
minded to approve the application.
Remembering of course that the development should not take anything away
or put additional burden onto the community but add to the existing amenity.
Although not explored in detail, letters of objection and concern from
Southern Water do focus on the capacity of the area to take this magnitude of
development.
Therefore, if it fails to meet the strategic policies of the Unitary
Development Plan then it must be shown that other material considerations
outweigh the importance of these policies.
At this point I make it quite clear that this application is being
determined by the Council in its statutory role as a Local Planning
Authority. Other roles that the Council
may exercise in no way whatsoever have any bearing on the planning merits of
this case.
However, from the applicants point of view I understand that this
application has been made to alleviate any disamenity caused by the
juxtaposition of Prestwood Farm and houses to the immediate north on Great
Preston Road and its immediate environs.
I believe it is one of the options that has been explored with the
Council to resolve any disamenity.
It must be remembered that from a planning point of view the planning
position is acceptable and has been judged at appeal via the appeal of an
Enforcement Notice to be acceptable from the Government Inspectorate.
Therefore, it is agreed (by the applicant) that to resolve the
disamenity caused by the farm that material considerations outweigh the primacy
of the Unitary Development Plan.
There may be an argument here but I feel that any “planning gain” should
be in proportion to the opposing force that it is trying to negate. In lay terms and in the absence of figures
to justify the position, it would appear that a limited planning
permission on the site of the outbuildings and slurry pit would compensate for
the removal of the barns and slurry pit.
These could be better located site within the farm holding itself or any
profits could pay for a similar farm to be purchased on the Island. Remembering of course that existing farm and
associated land will retain a value. In
the absence of any plans and calculations I would anticipate this being in the
order of five to ten residential units.
Therefore, the planning application for approximately 120 residential
units, a nursing home, health care and community facilities, public amenity
space and a nature conservation area seems somewhat excessive.
Although I have outlined some detailed policy considerations in the
appropriate section above I do not believe at this juncture it is appropriate
to focus on the details without establishing the planning position in
principle.
Highways recommend refusal on inadequate information.
If Members are minded to approve this application in principle it will
have to be referred to the Government Office for the South East under the Town
and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation) (Departures)
Directions 1999. I anticipate that the
Government Office for the South East would need justification on how this
decision relates to Government policy and the framework of the Unitary
Development Plan.
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 other properties 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 all material
considerations this proposal represents inappropriate development in the
countryside contrary to policy and I recommend accordingly.
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The site lies outside the designated development boundary of Ryde and
the proposal, which comprises an undesirable
extension/incursion/intensification of development and would be prejudicial
to the rural character of the area and therefore contrary to Policy S1
(Concentrated within existing urban areas), Policy S2 (Development will be
encouraged on land which has been previously developed rather than
undeveloped greenfield sites), S4 (The countryside will be protected from
inappropriate development), policies G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and
Villages), G2 (Consolidation and Infilling of Scattered Settlements Outside
Development Envelopes) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2 |
The information accompanying this application is inadequate and
deficient in detail in respect of highway design including forward visibility
so that the Local Planning Authority is unable to consider fully the effects
of the proposal on highway safety, and in the absence of further details it
is considered that the proposal is unsatisfactory by reason of width,
construction, visibility, and gradient and would therefore be contrary to
Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
ANDREW ASHCROFT
Head of Planning Services