PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE B

TUESDAY 1 JULY 2003

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT 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 JULY 2003

1.	TCP/01018/F P/00898/03 Hillway Annexe, Hillway Road, Bembridge, Isle Of Wight, PO35 5PJ	Bembridge	Conditional Approval
2.	TCP/06741/E P/02344/02 1 Baring Drive, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO31 8DD	Cowes	Conditional Approval
3.	TCP/08996/M P/00471/03 Sun Inn, Sun Hill, Calbourne, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO30 4JA	Calbourne	Conditional Approval
4.	TCP/11277/K P/02093/02 land adjoining Osborne Cottage, Main Road, Arreton, Newport, PO30	Arreton	Conditional Approval
5.	TCPL/13233/G P/00061/03 Downside House, St. Boniface Road, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO38 1PJ	Ventnor	Conditional Approval
6.	LBC/13233/H P/00062/03 Downside House, St. Boniface Road, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO381PJ	Ventnor	Conditional Approval
7.	TCP/20325/H P/00642/03 Royal Corinthian Yacht Club, Castle Hill, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO31 7QU	Cowes	Conditional Approval
8.	TCP/20710/A P/00732/03 3 Hornsey Rise The Mall, Brading, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO36 0BS	Brading	Conditional Approval
9.	TCP/24460/B P/01034/03 land between 1 and 5, St. Johns Road, Newport, PO30	Newport	Conditional Approval
10.	TCP/25293/B P/00737/03 Bexhill Cottage, Newport Road, Whitwell, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO38 2QW	Niton	Refusal
11.	TCP/25525 P/00722/03 25 Hilton Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO31 8JB	Gurnard	Conditional Approval
12.	TCP/25580 P/00941/03 Vecta House Nursing Home, 24 Atkinson Drive, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO30 2LJ	Newport	Conditional Approval

LIST OF OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 1 JULY 2003

(a) E/13890B Kent House, York Avenue EAST COWES

(b) TCP/19153C Norman Court, Quarry View, Camphill NEWPORT

(c) E/20324X Thorness Bay Holiday Park, Thorness Lane COWES

1.

TCP/01018/F P/00898/03 Parish/Name: Bembridge Ward: Bembridge South Registration Date: 02/05/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. D. Booth Tel: (01983) 823577 Applicant: Mr T Beales Conversion of existing dwelling into 2 chalet bungalows to include provision of 1st floor accommodation & replacement roof; vehicular access & parking (revised scheme) Hillway Annexe, Hillway Road, Bembridge, Isle Of Wight, PO355PJ

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by local Member as he is not prepared to agree the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure, for the reasons outlined in the letter under "Consultee Responses" in this report.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application. The processing of this application has taken nine weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed time limits because of the need for determination by the Committee.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to a detached single storey property situated on the northern side of Hillway Road almost opposite the junction of the lane which leads to Whitecliff Bay Holiday Club.

The area is semi-rural in character with a scattering of dwellings, mostly bungalows and chalet bungalows, along the northern side of Hillway Road with open land to the south. There are fields to the rear of the site and a smaller chalet bungalow to the eastern side with open land to the west and north.

The property itself comprises a single storey flat roofed structure with rendered elevations and a glazed verandah along the front. It is understood that the property was previously used as a dwelling with attached shop/cafe but has recently been in residential use. There are a number of other structures and outbuildings at the rear of the property and a fore court/garden area at the front.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/1018/C - Consent granted in 1965 for conversion of the shop unit to a self contained flat resulting in two separate units of accommodation at the property.

TCP/1018/E - Refusal of planning permission 7 March 2003 for roof extension and conversion to two units for the reason that the roof extension would be an intrusive addition out of scale and character with the existing and adjoining dwelling and adversely affect the amenities of the locality.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Planning permission requested for the provision of a pitched roof extension above the existing flat roof of the property to provide additional bedroom accommodation and to use the building as two separate residential units as previously agreed.

The submitted details which have been revised to overcome the previous reasons for refusal, also show alterations to the elevations of the building and provision of vehicular access and car parking at the front.

A number of poor quality outbuildings at the rear of the property would be removed to provide amenity space.

Additional information has been provided by the applicants' agent addressing concerns regarding this proposal. It is indicated that prior to purchasing the property trial holes were excavated in several places around the perimeter of the existing structure to expose foundations. The Building Control Officer was invited to attend and has confirmed that in his opinion they are suitable to carry the additional load of the design as proposed. The existing structure shows no sign of any movement and it is understood this is similar to the adjoining property. With regard to the gas main and drainage, both of these have been in place for many years and the footprint of the building is not being extended and in fact would be reduced by demolition of rear extensions and outbuildings.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is situated outside the designated development envelope as identified in the Unitary Development Plan. Unitary Development Plan policies D1 and H7 are considered to be applicable to the extensions to the residential property.

The application site is situated outside the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but is close to the boundary which encompasses land to the south of Hill Way. Unitary Development Plan policy C2 indicates that development should not have detrimental impact on the landscape of the AONB.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer requests conditions regarding the visibility access and parking and turning areas if application is approved.

Letter received from local member objecting to development for proposed enlargement of existing property outside development envelope and adjacent to AONB. Increasing the size of the building from single to two storeys would be of a height and mass incompatible with the adjoining buildings and would adversely affect the amenities of the adjoining property by virtue of loss of daylight, overlooking and overbearing and unneighbourly building. Only limited attempts have been made to minimise the impact of the roof and concern is also expressed regarding generation of additional traffic for the proposal. The changes are minimal and the proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies D1, H7 and C2.

Consultee Responses on Previous Proposal which are relevant to this Application

The Area Building Control Surveyor comments that the suitability of the existing structure and foundations to carry the additional load are relevant questions which will need to be addressed at the building regulation stage. A site visit has been made in this respect and no insurmountable difficulties are expected in relation to this. The question over land stability may relate to local knowledge that several properties in the vicinity have been under pinned. The land in question is not particularly unstable in itself but can be affected by changes in moisture levels in the subsoil, such changes that can affect buildings are usually caused by the introduction or removal of trees. At present there are no trees of significance near the property and so there is no reason to believe that the ground is unstable.

AONB Officer has made the following comments:

"The application is sited just outside of the boundary of the AONB, but is visible from higher ground in the area.

I have the following observations to make:

Scale of the proposed roof the new structure - The roof structure would seem to be a predominate feature of the proposed design being somewhat higher than the neighbouring property.

The applicant has not specified the materials to be used for the new building. It is essential should the Authority be minded to approve the site that these reflect the local character of the area and adjacent properties."

Southern Water have commented in respect of drainage that any new connection to the public sewer will require the formal approval of Southern Water. 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 records of blockages at other properties in the area but not at this site. It does not appear that there is a lack of capacity for this development. Southern Water also confirm that a water supply can be provided for the proposed development.

Comment received from Transco indicating that a main gas service line runs through Hillway Road itself. No records are kept of the position of gas services to individual consumers but it should be assumed that a gas service exists to each property from the nearest main. Services should be located by hand dug trial holes prior to commencement of work.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Parish Council recommend application for approval as this would represent an enhancement to the appearance of the street scene.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Three letters received from local residents expressing concerns about the proposal with matters summarised below;

Proposal is not in keeping with adjacent bungalow or others in the vicinity as the roof extension would be too high and would cause loss of light.

Proposed buildings would be out of character with surrounding properties and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and should remain single storey.

Existing drainage pipes and services run across adjacent property and have been the subject of endless problems and a real health hazard. The additional number of toilets shown within the property would cause a real problem and it is suggested that a separate connection can be made to Hill Way Road to alleviate the ongoing problem.

Building works on adjoining site may affect stability of existing property next door.

Parking would be a danger to highway users due to poor visibility.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

This application relates to a substantial detached property of unusual design situated on the northern side of Hill Way in Bembridge. It is understood that the property was formerly part commercial and part residential with subsequent conversion to two separate residential units although the accommodation has I understand, recently been occupied as a single unit.

The existing building is of unusual design with rendered elevations and a flat roof with parapet edging. There is a glazed verandah on the front of the property as well as a number of outbuildings and other structures at the rear. The adjoining property to the east is a traditional hipped roof chalet bungalow and there are a scattering of similar properties in the area. There is open land to the side (west) and rear of the site.

The existing property contains a total of six bedroom accommodation with three living rooms, two kitchens and two bathrooms. There is a separating wall through the centre of the property which currently has an opening linking the accommodation.

The proposal now under consideration is a revised scheme for alterations to the existing property together with a new roof extension to provide additional bedroom accommodation at first floor level. The separating wall would be reinstated to provide separate accommodation for each of the two units. Each unit would have two bedroom accommodation at first floor level contained within the roof space together with additional bedrooms and living accommodation within the existing ground floor of the building.

The main roof extension would have a ridge running parallel with the front elevation. As the existing building as an "L" shaped footprint there would be a gabled projection to the rear. The front elevation would also have a gable feature, together with a dormer and projecting porch to reduce the visual scale of the roof. The ends of the roof are now hipped to reduce the visual impact and maintain the impression of space between the buildings.

The applicant's agent indicates that the existing building was previously occupied as two separate units each with a separate drainage connection. One unit connects directly to the sewer within Hill Way Road whilst the other unit connects to a 100 mm diameter pipe passing through the adjoining properties drainage system and then into the road system.

Whilst the concerns of local residents about the drainage system are noted, it does appear that the properties each have a separate connection to the existing system and whilst the additional accommodation may put an extra load on the existing system, this would be a matter for control under the Building Regulations if the development goes ahead.

Matters relating to highway access and parking are also noted and the Highway Engineer has recommended conditions regarding visibility sight lines access and parking and turning areas should the application be approved.

The determining factors are therefore considered to be the size and scale of the proposed roof extension, together with other alterations to the property on the overall amenities of the area and the adjacent property in particular.

The submitted details indicate a street scene showing the relationship between the proposal and the adjacent property which, although smaller, is also a chalet style dwelling. It should also be noted that there is a flat roofed garage situated between the existing property to the east and the development now under consideration such that the proposed roof extension would not be in close proximity to any existing windows on the adjoining property.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the roof extension would be somewhat large due to the existing footprint and width of the building, the details now under consideration are considered to have improved the design or appearance of the building and I do not consider this to be significantly out of character, over dominant or unduly overbearing in respect of the adjoining property. Comments have been received regarding the effect of the proposals on the overall character of the area which is semi-rural in nature. The site itself is in fact outside the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but is close to the designated area which is to the south of Hillway. The proposals have therefore been considered with regard to their effect on the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but are considered to be compatible with other buildings in the locality and would not appear unduly uncharacteristic or over dominant in this regard provided suitable materials are chosen for the roof cladding. This matter could be covered by condition if the application is approved.

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 properties 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 of freedoms 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 outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the proposed alterations and roof extension, together with use of the accommodation as two separate dwellings would be acceptable and would not unduly affect the amenities of the area or nearby residential properties, and have therefore overcome the reason for refusing the previous application. Evidence indicates that previous consent was granted for the occupation of the property as two separate units and the property was so occupied until recently. Whilst concerns regarding the existing drainage system are noted, these are not considered to be sufficient to warrant refusal of the planning application and would be for agreement for owners of the property and control under the Building Regulations. Overall, the proposed alterations and extension to the roof are considered to be acceptable in accordance with policies D1, H7 and C2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The additional information received from the consultees in respect of the structure of the existing building and the drainage and gas services indicate that there would be no concerns in these respects which would indicate that the proposals would be unsatisfactory. There is no evidence of overall land instability in the area and the foundations in respect of the existing building appear to be adequate. The proposals are therefore considered to be acceptable and I recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (REVISED PLANS)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	The alterations and extensions 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. 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.
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. Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and the adjoining residential property in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policies D1 and H7.
4	The new boundary wall (as on drawing number 2002/45.3) shall be no higher than one metre above road level. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	The access and crossing of the highway verge and/or footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for light vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use: (a) Footway Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The car parking and turning area shown on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice shall be retained hereafter for the use by occupiers and visitors to the development hereby approved. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

2.

TCP/06741/E P/02344/02 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Castle East Registration Date: 02/01/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Applicant: Mr & Mrs Board Detached double garage with storage space over; 2 single storey extensions to form entrance hall & sitting room; extension & new roof to provide 1st floor to include verandah on rear elevation 1 Baring Drive, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO318DD

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application site falls within larger area which is the subject of the Cowes to Gurnard Coastal Slope Stability Study where there are known or potential slope stability problems. Therefore, in accordance with the advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 14 - Development on Unstable Land, applications in this area will be expected to be accompanied by an appropriate slope stability report. In this instance, the report which accompanied the application was considered to be inadequate and further information requested, including sub-surface investigations. Applicant has indicated a reluctance to provide this information, particularly if the application may be refused. Therefore, application is before Members in order to seek an agreement in principle to the proposed extensions and to provide some comfort to the applicant prior to embarking on the additional investigations.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application. The processing of this application has taken 26 weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed time limit due to non-receipt of information requested in respect of slope stability considerations.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to property forming part of small group of dwellings on northern side of Baring Road, immediately to west of its junction with Ward Avenue. Application site is situated at western end of group of dwellings, immediately adjacent junction of access drive and Baring Road.

Property presently provides single storey accommodation only comprising lounge, dining room, kitchen, two bedrooms and bathroom. Existing flat roof garage is located to front of dwelling, close to boundary of site with Baring Road. Application site falls away quite steeply in northerly direction and bungalow itself is situated at lower level to Baring Road with road level above the ridge of the dwelling.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Proposal involves demolition of the existing garage and construction, in approximately the same position, of a double garage with storage space within roof. Permission is also sought for alterations and extensions to the dwelling itself comprising two single storey extensions to form entrance hall and sitting room, removal of existing roof and construction of first floor element with new pitched roof and verandah to rear elevation. Proposal involves quite substantial additions to building and resultant dwelling would provide accommodation comprising sitting room, dining room, kitchen/breakfast room, utility room and w.c. at ground floor level with entrance hall on upper level and two bedrooms, both with en-suite facilities, and verandah at first floor level.

Application was accompanied by a design statement and planning brief, a copy of which is attached to this report as an appendix. Application was also accompanied by a desktop study and geo-technical slope stability report.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Application site is shown on plans which accompany the Cowes to Gurnard Coastal Slope Stability Study to be within an area likely to be suitable for development where developer will be expected to undertake appropriate mitigation and stabilisation measures. Applications in this area will be expected to be accompanied by a full stability report prepared by a competent person.

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 hazard 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."

The guidance note goes on to advise that if the information about instability initially provided by the applicant is insufficient to enable the Authority to determine the application and refusal on other planning grounds is unlikely or not clear cut, the applicant may need to be asked to provide further information about stability. It is also suggested that, at this stage, it may be possible to indicate to the applicant whether stability is a major issue which needs to be resolved before determination i.e. if the Local Planning Authority is minded to grant permission provided that it can be satisfied that any actual or potential instability can be overcome.

Site is located within development boundary defined on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and is adjacent a designated Conservation Area. Relevant policies of the UDP are considered to be as follows:

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

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

G7 - Development on Unstable Land.

D1 - Standards of Design.

H7 - Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

No highway implications anticipated.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Cowes Town Council raise no objection.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime or disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering the acceptability of proposal are whether alterations and extensions of the nature proposed would result in a dwelling which, by reason of its scale, design and general appearance, would be out of keeping and detract from the amenities of the locality or have an adverse impact on occupiers of neighbouring sites. Furthermore, having regard to location of site in area of known or suspected ground/slope instability, it is clearly necessary for the applicant to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that this factor has been taken into account and that any mitigation measures are environmentally acceptable.

Site is located in area of low density development characterised by a mix of dwelling types and styles generally comprising large dwellings in generous sized plots. Dwellings within Baring Drive are not visible from Baring Road due to fall of the land. Whilst proposal includes alterations and extension at first floor level, resulting in a two storey dwelling, due to changes in level through site, I do not consider that resultant building would have significant impact in street scene. Due to position, forward of dwelling, garage element of proposal will have greatest impact when viewed from Baring Road. However, I do not consider that this element will have an unacceptable impact, due to its position immediately adjacent area of woodland to west of application site which will provide degree of screening, particularly when approaching site from the west. Having regard to these factors, I do not consider that proposal would result in development out of keeping with the locality or which would have a significant or unacceptable impact on the amenities of the locality.

Proposal would result in single storey flat roofed element on eastern side of property and whilst submitted plans show provision of small balcony feature over this element, accessed from en-suite facility, majority of roof area would remain unenclosed with access for maintenance purposes only. Proposal would also include provision of one window in eastern elevation at first floor level and verandah across full width of rear of property. Distance between two storey element and eastern boundary of site measures approximately 7.5 metres and site is bounded to east by footpath providing pedestrian link between Baring Drive and Stanhope Drive. Having regard to these factors, and subject to appropriate restriction preventing use of entire flat roof area as a sun terrace, I am satisfied that proposal will not have excessive or adverse impact on neighbouring property by reason of either over dominance or overlooking and loss of privacy.

The Council's Consulting Geotechnical Engineer has been approached for comments on this proposal. He comments that, in the stability report which is submitted in support of the proposal considerable reference is made to the Halcrow Report (the Cowes to Gurnard Coastal Slope Stability Study) and suggests that the description of geology in this document contains some inaccuracies and should not be relied upon. I am advised by him that bore holes taken in the area indicate that the site is situated at the head of a scarp face of deep seated landslide complex and that it is likely that Baring Drive is wholly situated on a terrace formed by past land slipping. He suggests that this can be verified by a deep bore hole taken down to a recognisable strata such as the Fishbourne Beds. He makes some observations regarding the engineer's findings and calculations and having studied the proposal, concludes that the works will result in an increased loading at the head of a landslide complex which is likely to be in a condition that is critically stable, i.e. one that may become unstable with a relatively minor change in circumstances. Therefore, he considers that it is imperative that work should only proceed once it has been demonstrated that it can do so in a safe manner which will not lead to an increased risk of instability. He considers that the stability report submitted in support of the application is inadequate in this respect and recommends that approval is not given until further site investigation works are undertaken and a revised report submitted.

At the present time, I am not satisfied that the information accompanying the application is adequate to determine the application and, in particular, that it has been demonstrated that the ground conditions in the locality would not pose a threat to the dwelling and that the development would not cause instability to the neighbouring area.

However, I am satisfied that the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties or detract from the amenities and character of the locality. Therefore, I consider that it would be appropriate to advise the applicant that the proposal is acceptable in principle and that the scale, design and general appearance of the resultant building are acceptable and that planning permission is likely to be granted, subject to further information being submitted to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the development would not be at risk from ground behaviour in the locality or cause instability to adjacent areas.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In reaching the conclusion that the development is acceptable in principle, subject to submission of further information which adequately addresses ground stability considerations, 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, including the effects of the development on ground stability in the area, require careful consideration. 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 am satisfied that scale, design and general appearance of the resultant building are acceptable and will not have an adverse impact on the character of the locality or amenities of neighbouring properties. However, in the absence of sufficient information to demonstrate that ground behaviour in the area does not pose a threat to the property and that the development will not adversely affect stability of adjacent sites, I consider it would be inappropriate to grant planning permission at this time. In view of the additional expense to the applicant in providing the additional information required, I consider that it would be appropriate, in this instance, to advise the applicant that subject to submitting further information adequately addressing ground stability, planning permission is likely to be granted.

RECOMMENDATION - That the applicant be advised that proposal is acceptable in principle and that the scale, design and general appearance of the resultant building are considered appropriate, subject to submission of further information and Members being satisfied that ground behaviour in the locality does not pose a threat to the building and that the development will not cause instability to adjacent sites.

3.

TCP/08996/M P/00471/03 Parish/Name: Calbourne Ward: Brighstone and Calbourne Registration Date: 02/04/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Applicant: D Kennett Esq Retention of model railway to include associated kiosk & storage container Sun Inn, Sun Hill, Calbourne, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO304JA

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Councillor Mrs Wareham as she is not prepared to agree to application being dealt with under the delegated procedure due to number of objections received.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application. The processing of this application has taken 13 weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed period due to Case Officer's workload.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to rectangular area forming part of larger parcel of land situated adjacent western end of car park to Sun Inn public house at Calbourne.

Site is relatively level and is bounded to south by main Newport to Freshwater road and to north by garden area of adjacent property. Southern boundary of site is defined by hedgerow having height of approximately 2 metres with grass verge along roadside. Existing culvert runs along northern side of site with hedgerow defining boundary with neighbouring property.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Proposal involves use of site for creation of model railway attraction to include provision of shed for admissions kiosk and storage facility. Plans which accompanied original submission showed admissions kiosk located at eastern end of site, immediately adjacent boundary with car park to the pub, and siting of metal storage container adjacent southern boundary. Plans also showed new hedge planting running adjacent culvert along northern boundary of site and along western boundary.

Work in connection with the creation of the model railway has already commenced, including landscaping of the site to form an island, on which the main model railway attraction would be situated, surrounded by a water feature. Two timber sheds have been constructed on site, one for use as the admissions kiosk and a second, having width of approximately 2.1 metres and length of 2.75 metres, to be used for storage purposes as an alternative to the metal storage container originally proposed. Revised plans have been received in this respect. In addition, at time of recent site inspection, fencing with height of approximately 1.8 metres was in process of being erected adjacent the culvert which runs along northern boundary of site. Applicant has confirmed that this will continue along whole of northern boundary and along western boundary.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located outside any development boundary defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and is adjacent but not within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Relevant policies of the Plan are considered to be as follows:

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

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.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

D1 - Standards of Design.

T1 - The Promotion of Tourism and the Extension of the Season.

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

AONB Planning and Information Officer acknowledges that site is adjacent AONB and while she is not unduly concerned with the proposal she would wish to ensure that the rural character of the site is maintained as a result of any development approved. Therefore, she suggests that planting of native species be carried out to screen the relatively new timber post and rail fence erected to serve as an entrance to the site from the car park.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Calbourne Parish Council object to application and raise the following concerns:

Application should be for creation of model railway not retention - railway should not be installed without planning permission.

Members of the Parish Council are under impression that there is an agricultural restriction on the land in question. If so then it is felt that this land should be de-restricted before any planning applications are valid.

Submission suggests that there will be no change in contours of the land but it is suggested that area has already been excavated - without planning permission.

Submission indicates that consultations have been carried out. However, Parish Council advise that none of neighbours have been consulted about this application.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Six letters received from local residents objecting to application on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Out of keeping to detriment of character of village.

Proposal involves commercial development on agricultural land outside Village Plan - need for change of use questioned.

Noise and traffic generation - use of car park causes disturbance to neighbouring properties.

Increased use of access to pub car park where visibility on main road is limited - no opportunity to improve visibility - cars approaching from stretch of road subject to a 40 mph speed restriction.

Metal storage container would have detrimental impact on landscape.

Change in ground cover will prevent natural absorption causing surface water to run off into adjacent site causing flooding - could spill onto road causing icing in winter.

New 1.8 metre high chain link fence erected topped with barbed wire fence resembling prison camp.

Facilities would be inadequate to operate outside licencing hours.

New hedge screen to adjacent property will take several years to become effective screen - in meantime adjacent property would be overlooked.

Proposal would be better located at established theme park such as Calbourne Mill.

Site adjacent AONB boundary.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether use of land for intended purpose is acceptable in principle and whether proposal will detract from character of locality and amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

Whilst site is located outside development boundary in an area which is classified as countryside for purpose of applying UDP policies, in accordance with Policy G5 of the Plan, development may be exceptionally permitted where it satisfies relevant criteria and falls within the categories set our in the policy, including appropriate rural tourism development or small scale development ancillary to an existing housing, industrial, commercial, tourist, recreational or community development. In this instance, it is understood that the attraction is to be operated in association with the adjacent public house premises. Therefore, I am satisfied that proposal accords with Policy G5 and is acceptable in principle.

Site is well screened from road by dense hedgerow having height of approximately two metres and, therefore, I do not consider that attraction would have significant impact on the character and amenities of the locality in general. Whilst upper part of storage shed may be visible above top of hedge, I consider that this structure is more appropriate in this location than the metal storage container originally proposed. Subject to implementation of further appropriate landscaping, I am satisfied that proposal is acceptable in visual terms.

Visitors to the attraction would use the existing car park to the public house which is of relatively generous proportions with access onto main Newport to Freshwater road. Whilst concern has been expressed regarding adequacy of this access to serve the proposal, I consider that visibility is relatively good and, in the absence of any objection from the Highway Engineer, I do not consider that refusal of application on highway grounds would be justified.

Applicant has confirmed that opening times of attraction would coincide with periods when the public house is open and would generally open between 11:00 hours and 19:00 hours Monday to Saturday and midday and 20:00 hours on Sundays. Applicant has also indicated that whilst there may be some sound effects, these will be relatively quiet and no amplified music will be played within the attraction. Having regard to these factors and the limited size of the attraction, I do not consider that proposal would be likely to generate significant number of visitors to the site, over and above those already attracted by the pub or that proposal would have excessive or adverse impact on neighbouring properties. Furthermore, erection of a 1.8 metres high fence running parallel to northern boundary of site should ensure that privacy of neighbouring property is maintained. Subject to this fencing being finished in an appropriate colour, I am satisfied that it will not detract from the rural character of the locality.

Proposal does not result in the introduction of significant areas of impermeable surfaces and I am satisfied that drainage ditch along northern boundary of site should remain unobstructed. Having regard to these factors and limited size of the site, I do not consider that proposal would have significant impact on the surface water drainage regime in the immediate locality.

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 given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the provision of this attraction is acceptable in principle and that it will not detract from the character of the locality or have an excessive or unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Prior to the attraction hereby approved being brought into use, the fencing along the northern boundary of the site together with the external surfaces of the admissions kiosk and storage shed shall be painted and thereafter maintained in a green colour to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
2	The model railway attraction hereby approved shall be operated as an ancillary facility to and retained in one ownership with the Sun Inn public house and shall not be sold off or otherwise disposed of separately without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and neighbouring properties in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	The model railway attraction hereby approved shall open to members of the public between 11:00 hours and 19:00 hours Monday to Saturday and midday and 20:00 hours on Sundays and recognised Bank Holidays and at no other time without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and neighbouring properties in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	Prior to the model railway attraction hereby approved being brought into use, details of any sound effects, including the method of generation and noise output shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, with the exception of the approved sound effects, no other amplified sounds or music shall be operated in conjunction with the attraction. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and neighbouring properties in particular and to comply with Policy P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Within one month of the date of this permission, 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.
6	All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the development hereby approved is brought into use or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

4.

TCP/11277/K P/02093/02 Parish/Name: Arreton Ward: Central Rural Registration Date: 14/11/2002 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Applicant: M Gough Builders Terrace of 3 houses, access & parking area, (readvertised application) land adjoining Osborne Cottage, Main Road, Arreton, Newport, PO30

This application was originally submitted to seek consent for two detached dwellings, but was deferred at officer's request to enable the negotiation of a more dense scheme.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by local Member as she is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site is located on the northeast side of Main Road approximately 150 metres northwest of the junction with Cherrywood View. It has a frontage of about 25 metres and a depth of about 19 metres (max) and situated between existing residential properties contained within the ribbon of development off Arreton Street. The site falls away from the road, its rear boundary adjoining Arreton Stream, a watercourse flowing at the backs of the properties in Arreton Street in a southeasterly direction.

To the southeast of the site is a pair of red brick semi-detached houses whilst to the northwest of the site is a pair of cottages immediately abutting the footpath. Beyond is an access track and footpath serving the residential properties, set some way back from the highway. There is an existing vehicular access to the site and the site contains two septic tanks serving the adjoining properties to the northwest.

Arreton Street is a long narrow ribbon of development and with the exception of Hazely Combe, Cherrywood View and development around the church and Arreton Barns, comprises a ribbon of development with shallow sites fronting the main road.

RELEVANT HISTORY

House and garage were approved on the southeastern part of this site in November 1990, renewed in January 1996. A vehicular access adjoining the extreme northwestern end of the site was approved in February 2001 and the planning permission for the house and garage was subsequently renewed again in December 2001.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full consent sought for erection of a terrace of three houses with a vehicular access and parking area. Plans show dwellings to be sited approximately 3 metres back from the front boundary, vehicular accesses in north west end of the frontage with provision made for access and parking to the adjoining property to the northwest. Removal of both septic tanks and replacement of new sewage management plant in extreme north corner of the site with treated discharge water into Arreton Stream. Three individual essentially two storey properties, each comprising living room/kitchen and WC on ground floor with two bedrooms and bathroom on first floor, with a third en-suite bedroom in the roof space. Dwellings shown to be approximately 1.8 metres apart. Dwellings proposed to be constructed in facing brick under concrete interlocking tiled roofs.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Land is shown to be within designated development envelope as shown on Arreton inset X on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Policies G1, G4, D1, D2 of UDP apply and PPG3 supports development which utilises land within development envelopes more economically, also steers residential development towards areas designated or within development envelopes.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Environment Agency raise no objection subject to safeguards.

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Parish Council object on grounds of excessive development and inadequate amenity space for each unit; difficulties with sewerage discharge. Land is liable to flooding from the main road and the stream; land has a steep incline towards the stream.

Parish Council consider the revised scheme to be overdevelopment, questions discharge to stream, suggest liable to flooding from road and stream. Objects and requests site inspection.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Original scheme:

Five letters of objection from local residents on grounds of inaccuracies in the plan (mainly identification of properties); inadequate drainage; overdevelopment; overlooking; stating that the septic tank is too near their property and that it will discharge treated water to the watercourse; that the development is incompatible as it is two dwellings and the properties are sited too far back from the highway to be in keeping with the general pattern of development.

Readvertised scheme:

Sewage treatment plant too close to property. Objects to discharge of water into Arreton Stream. Increased vehicular activity impacts on property. Overlooking of rear garden, inadequate parking, inadequate detail on plans, overdevelopment, inadequacy and inability of septic tank to cope. Possibility of flooding from the stream. Noise and disturbance caused by an increase in vehicular traffic.

EVALUATION

This is a site located within the designated development envelope in what is mostly a ribbon of development fronting Arreton Street. Given the fact that the development envelope includes this site, the principle of residential development is not questioned, especially since there is a valid permission for a single dwelling granted and renewed over the last twelve years. Despite the fact that a single dwelling has been approved, the use of the site for three dwellings should be determined on the basis of whether or not the development works practically and the resultant density.

Bearing in mind the existing development in the vicinity, particularly to the southeast, it would appear that three dwellings on this site would result in a slightly higher density of development. PPG3 supports the increase in densities generally and policies D1 and D2 seek to provide development with an acceptable impact on adjoining properties through the design and layout of the scheme. The principle of residential development of three dwellings is considered therefore to be acceptable as it results in the best use of the land.

The Highway Engineer has recommended conditions if approved, indicating that matters relating to access and parking can be satisfactorily accommodated within the site.

In design terms, Arreton Street is not a Conservation Area but development should be compatible with surrounding development within which it is to be accommodated. In terms of scale and mass, the three dwellings fit into the street scene satisfactorily, increased frontage depth since development in the immediate vicinity, especially to the northwest does not obey a rigid building line, but it is close to the back of the footpath.

The site is partially presently occupied by two septic tanks and the proposal involves removal of these and their replacement with a sewage management plant located in the extreme northern corner, with the new dwellings discharging into it before its discharge of treated water into the Arreton Stream. The existing septic tanks are to be removed and replaced by a single treatment plant but I am assured by the Building Inspector that, subject to a satisfactory specification for the sewage management plant, there is no reason why both the existing and the proposed plots could not be adequately served. Removal of the existing septic tanks and the provision of the new and the connection of the existing properties to it will be a matter of legal agreement between the developer and the owners of the properties concerned and the arrangements for servicing the new plant will also be for their agreement. However, it would be desirable if the sewage management plant were installed and operational prior to commencement of any other works on the site.

Members will note that the Environment Agency are satisfied with the proposed scheme as will be seen from the consultee response above.

With regard to effect on adjoining properties, most windows are restricted to the front and rear elevations and in the case of plot 1, only landing and toilet windows have been included in the gable end, but these can be obscure glazed windows. Plot 3 is the same and these can also be obscure glazed.

In design terms, the terrace of smaller dwellings is considered to be more in keeping with the character of this village location. The street scene shows the overall height to be similar to that of the adjoining property to the south east, enough though the roof space is intended to be used for accommodation. It includes only a single roof light to the rear slope to provide light and ventilation to the bedroom. This will not be apparent in the street scene.

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 and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

This is a site within the development envelope, flanked by other residential property and the site has had a consent for a residential property in the past. Current proposal seeks to use the land in a more economic way, developing with two smaller dwellings. Arreton Street is a mix of residential ages, styles, designs and materials and two dwellings with smaller curtilages will still fit in with the character of the street scene. The development will therefore be consistent with policies H5, D1, D2 and G1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Construction of the buildings 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. 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.
3	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 development is commenced. 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.
4	Notwithstanding conditions 3 and 6 of this permission a wall of one metre in height, in materials to be agreed as part of the submission of details as required by condition 2, shall be constructed along the full width of the frontage except for the sections required for access. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and in accordance with Policy D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, the roadside boundary of the site shall be lowered to a maximum of 1 metre in height above existing road level over the whole frontage and shall be maintained thereafter at a height no greater than 1 metre. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The access and crossing of the highway footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for light vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use: (a) Footway Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	The car parking and turning areas shown on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice shall be installed before the dwellings are occupied and retained thereafter for the use of occupiers and visitors to the development hereby approved. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	The development shall not be brought into use until a suitable turning space is provided within the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This space shall thereafter always be kept available for such use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; hard surfacing materials. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	All of the existing properties and the proposed properties hereby approved shall be connected to a new sewage disposal system and development shall not commence until drainage works have been carried out in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of sewage disposal is provided for the development and to comply with Policy U11(Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
11	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, B, C and E) 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.
12	Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03
13	The windows included in the northwest elevation of plot 1 and the south east elevation of plot 3 shall be glazed and shall thereafter be maintained in obscured glass and only the top half of the window shall be opening with the remaining, lower half fixed shut. Reason: In the interests of the adjoining residential property and in accordance with Policy D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

5.

TCPL/13233/G P/00061/03 Parish/Name: Ventnor Ward: Ventnor East Registration Date: 13/06/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Applicant: R Churchill Esq Demolition of conservatory; construction of 2/3 storey extension on rear elevation & single storey extension of front elevation to enlarge & improve accommodation, (revised plans), (readvertised application) Downside House, St. Boniface Road, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO38 1PJ

See joint report on application number LBC/13233H

1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Construction of the extensions 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 together with details of the surface finish to the forecourt to the front of the building has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 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.
3	Notwithstanding the information provided in the submission, the roof of the extension to the rear of the building and alterations to the original roof shall be finished in natural slate and no development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall also include full specifications and design of the balustrading to be erected around the perimeter of the roof to the single storey extension to the front of the building. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Window and door frames - P08
5	Prior to any work commencing on site, including site clearance, a full Method Statement providing details of the timing of operations and commencement of construction works, to include measures to be implemented to ensure ground stability is maintained during the construction works shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the agreed Method Statement. Reason: To ensure that construction work does not adversely affect ground stability in the general locality and to comply with Policy G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	The extensions 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.
7	No windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be provided within the building. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring properties and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	All material 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 accommodation hereby approved being brought into use. 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.
9	No work shall commence on site until a detailed method statement providing timescales for the excavation of material and commencement of construction work and measures to be implemented to ensure stability of the ground during construction work shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA. Thereafter, work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To minimise the risk of the development causing instability to surrounding land and to comply with Policy G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION - That the applicant is advised that demolition of the boundary walls would require Listed Building Consent and attention drawn to the comments of the Ecology Officer regarding lizards and the requirements of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Applicant should also be advised that the materials to be used in the construction of the extension should reflect the particular architectural merit of the building.

6.

LBC/13233/H P/00062/03 Parish/Name: Ventnor Ward: Ventnor East Registration Date: 10/01/2003 - Listed Building Consent Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Applicant: R Churchill Esq LBC for demolition of conservatory; construction of 2/3 storey extension on rear elevation & single storey extension on front elevation to enlarge & improve accommodation, (revised plans), (readvertised application) Downside House, St. Boniface Road, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO38 1PJ

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Councillor Mrs Lawson as she is not prepared to agree to application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

These are minor applications. The processing of these applications has taken 25 weeks from date of submission due to negotiations with applicant's agent regarding design of proposal and discussions in respect of number of issues, including ground stability. However, the correct fee was not received with the application and the statutory period for determination of the application did not commence until this deficiency was resolved. In this instance, the balance of the planning fee was received on 13 June 2003 and a decision at this meeting would mean that the application has been dealt with within the prescribed 8 week time limit.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to substantial detached property located on northern side of St Boniface Road approximately 100 metres east of its junction with Spring Hill. The property is a Grade II Listed building providing accommodation on four levels and is presently used as a nursing home.

When viewed from road, lower ground floor is virtually totally obscured from view by raised garden area contained within retaining walls. Ground area immediately to rear of building rises steeply to garden area which is at approximately same level as upper ground floor level. Property is situated within line of buildings along northern side of St Boniface Road of similar scale and character.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/13233B/SB/8579 - Planning permission for change of use from dwelling to nursing home conditionally approved April 1979.

TCP/LB/13233C/SB/15257 and TCP/LBC/13233D/SB/15257 - Planning and Listed Building Consent applications for three storey extension to rear to form thirteen residents bedrooms, staff room, residents lounge, two bathrooms and external staircase refused December 1982 on grounds that the size and design of the proposed extension was considered to be excessively large, inappropriate and out of keeping with the existing building which is Listed for its particular historic and architectural interest and that the extension and its relationship to buildings on adjoining sites was considered obtrusive for the locality giving rise to overlooking and loss of privacy of neighbouring properties. In addition, proposal did not incorporate adequate facilities to enable vehicles to turn on the property and so enter and leave the highway in a forward gear to the detriment of highway safety.

TCPL/13233/E/P/00488/01 and LBC/13233/F/P/00489/01 - Applications for planning permission and Listed Building Consent were submitted to the Authority in March 2001 for a two storey extension to form lounge, dining room and four en-suite bedrooms. Proposal was considered to be unacceptable by reason of its height and position which would have significant impact on neighbouring properties, resulting in unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy. In addition, it was considered that extension would form a dominant feature on the building, detrimental to its character. Applicant's agent was advised of the Authority's concerns in a letter and, due to any lack of response in this respect, the application was treated as finally disposed of in June 2002.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Planning permission and Listed Building Consent are sought for demolition of conservatory to rear of property and construction of a two/three storey extension on rear elevation and single storey extension to front elevation to enlarge and improve accommodation within the property.

Proposed extension to rear would provide six additional bedrooms, two at lower ground floor level, four at upper ground floor level and a lounge at first floor level.

Alterations to front of property would involve removal of raised garden area and construction of single storey extension providing reception area and dining room with roof terrace over. Internal alterations to original building are also proposed to facilitate provision of lift. This would also necessitate formation of a dormer style feature in the rear plane of the roof to accommodate the lift shaft.

Original submission involved extension having more modern design and which included provision of external staircase to rear of building providing access to garden area from proposed lounge accommodation at first floor level. Following negotiations with applicant's agent revised plans were submitted showing extension of more traditional design reflecting character and appearance of the original building. A further publicity exercise was carried out and objectors to original scheme notified of receipt of revised plans.

Applicant's agent submitted further information in support of proposal, a copy of which is attached to this report as an appendix.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is located within development boundary on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of the Plan are considered to be as follows:

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

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

G7 - Development on Unstable Land.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site.

B1 - Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings.

U9 - Residential Care and Nursing Home Accommodation.

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends refusal on grounds that proposal provides insufficient parking provision. He acknowledges that site is within Zone 3 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan Parking Guidelines where 0-75% of non-operational parking provision applies. He has calculated that the property currently attracts a parking requirement of 4 spaces and development will increase requirement to 6. Therefore, despite the UDP guidelines, he considers the 2 on-site parking spaces to be insufficient.

Ecology Officer advises that description of lizards suggests that they are Common Lizards which are protected against killing and injuring under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. He has visited the site and advises that the walls of the house and the forecourt are well maintained and repointed and are quite unsuitable for lizards. However, the rear garden and the boundary walls to either side of the site provide a suitable habitat, although none were found at the time of the inspection. I am advised that, providing the dividing walls between the properties are not affected and the majority of the garden is undeveloped, there should be no impact upon lizards. Alternatively, if the walls are to be affected, a survey should be carried out and mitigation measures put in place to ensure that the requirements of the Wildlife and Countryside Act are met.

National Care Standards Commission raise no objection, subject to requirements of Care Standards Regulations 2001 and National Minimum Standards (For Older People) 2001 being complied with.

National Air Traffic Services Ltd raise no safeguarding objection to either original submission or revised proposal.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ventnor Town Council raise no objection to either original submission or revised proposal.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Original submissions attracted total of eleven letters from local residents, one accompanied by petition containing fourteen signatures, and a letter from Islandwatch objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Proposal shows total disregard to the setting of terrace and right to privacy of neighbours.

Out of keeping with Listed building contrary to policies B1 and B2 of UDP and PPG15 - design of additions is too modern.

Proposal would spoil outlook.

Although need for adequate care for elderly accepted, uniqueness of terrace should be preserved.

Loss of light.

Overpowering.

Proposal would have adverse impact on tourism.

Proposal would set precedent and would make it difficult to resist other proposals such as another property within garden areas.

Existing parking already inadequate - proposal would lead to increase in demand for parking in area where there is limited on-street parking.

Proposal would threaten stability of adjacent property and land.

Proposal would result in destruction of walls.

It is suggested that applicant may eventually convert building into flats to detriment of area - insufficient parking for such a use.

Publicity of revised proposal attracted ten letters from local residents, one accompanied by a petition containing sixteen signatures, and a letter from Islandwatch raising no new issues with exception of following point:

Construction of extension would necessitate demolition of historic walls which provide habitat for lizards.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether extension is of an acceptable scale, design and general appearance or would detract from the character of the building which is Listed Grade II for its architectural merit, or would have adverse effect on neighbouring properties.

Original submission involved additions which were considered to be out of keeping with and did not reflect the architectural features of the original building. In particular, the extension to the rear of the property incorporated a roof design and window styles and proportions which were considered to be totally incompatible with the original building. Furthermore, extension incorporated windows in both eastern and western (side) elevations at first floor level and an external walkway and staircase providing access to the garden area which it was considered would result in unacceptable overlooking of neighbouring properties.

Following negotiations with the applicant's agent revised plans were submitted showing an extension of more traditional style and incorporating features which reflect the appearance and character of the original building. In particular, first floor element of extension to rear was reduced in length from 8.6 metres to 6.8 metres and roofscape of extension reduced and simplified with gable features on rear elevation reflecting the scale and appearance of the roof of the original building. Applicant's agent indicates that roof would be finished in Eternit slate which, given the status of the building, is considered to be inappropriate and I would suggest that, should Members be minded to approve application, approval is subject to a condition requiring submission of samples of materials to be used in the construction of the extension to ensure that they reflect the particular architectural merit of the building, including use of natural slate on the roof.

Windows at first floor level in the eastern and western (side) elevations have been omitted from the scheme and whilst extension would still contain windows in these elevations at lower and upper ground floor levels, having regard to ground levels between site and neighbouring properties and, in particular, nature of boundary treatment to either side of property, I am satisfied that these windows would not result in unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy.

Revised scheme also includes alterations to extension to front of building with particular attention to window/door styles and proportions. It is considered that these are now compatible with and reflect the style of those within the original building. Proposed extension to front of building would provide improved access arrangements, particularly having regard to purpose for which building is used and would occupy approximately same area as the raised garden area in front of the property. Submitted plans indicate that elevations to the extension would be finished in a horizontal reticulated banding maintaining appearance of building sitting on plinth of contrasting materials when viewed from St Boniface Road.

Proposal would involved excavation of soil and cutting into bank to rear of building and applicant's agent has submitted details of a study on ground conditions and stability, including calculations for proposed retaining wall. In this respect, site is shown on the plans which accompany the Ventnor Landslip Potential Assessment to be within an area likely to be suitable for development in which contemporary ground behaviour does not impose significant constraints on development proposals. Where appropriate, applications for development in these areas will be expected to be accompanied by a desktop study and walkover survey.

Following receipt of the study on ground conditions and stability submitted by the applicant's agent, consultations have been carried out with a geo-technical engineer and consultant who is satisfied that proposal will not be affected by instability from outside the site or cause instability to the surrounding area. However, he advises that proposal will require careful design of the excavation and temporary works for both the extension at the front and that to the rear, as well as for the retaining walls in order to maintain stability during construction. He suggests that consideration should be given to providing a movement joint between the existing and proposed works to the rear of the building to cater for differential movement. He notes that the retaining walls are an integral part of the proposed building and, therefore, their design should be checked when considering an application for Building Regulations. However, having regard to depth of excavations and proximity to boundary, he suggests that it would be advisable to impose a condition requiring submission of a detailed method statement as to how stability is to be maintained during constructions works.

Whilst noting concerns regarding inadequacies in parking provision at site, having regard to the purpose for which building is used, I do not consider that proposal would generate a significant increase in the demand for parking facilities or that this issue would provide a sustainable reason for refusal of the application. In particular, property is located on a bus route and is close to other facilities in Ventnor and, notwithstanding comments of the Highway Engineer, I consider that parking provision at the lower end of the scale would be appropriate in this instance. Furthermore, information submitted in support of the proposal indicates that, despite the success of the property as a Nursing Home, the financial viability of the operation is not secure and proposal will address this uncertainty. The information also indicates that the property is in need of significant repair and maintenance. In this respect, PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment advises that new uses may often be the key to a buildings preservation and that controls over planning matters should be exercised sympathetically where this would enable a historic building to be given a new lease of life. The guidance note also provides the following advice regarding the use of Listed buildings:

"Generally the best way of securing the upkeep of historic buildings and areas is to keep them in active use. For the great majority this must mean economically viable uses if they are to survive, and new, and even continuing, uses will often necessitate some degree of adaptation."

In this instance, whilst the proposal does not involve a new use, the current business operated from the property is considered to be acceptable and provides an income which assists with the upkeep of the building. The extension proposed would facilitate an expansion of the business, which would be likely to improve its viability and provide the necessary funds to ensure the preservation of the building. Therefore, I consider that these factors are sufficient to outweigh any objection to the proposal on grounds of inadequate parking provision.

Furthermore, whilst it has been suggested that it may be applicant's intention to convert building into flats at a later date, such a proposal would require submission of a further planning application which would be considered on its merits. Similarly, whilst concern has been expressed that proposal may set precedent for future proposals of a similar nature, such proposals would also be considered on their individual merits.

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 given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that proposed extensions are of an appropriate scale, design and general appearance, particularly having regard to the Grade II Listed status of the original building. Furthermore, I do not consider that proposal will have excessive or unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties.

1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - conservation area consent - A12
2	Construction of the extensions 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 together with details of the surface finish to the forecourt to the front of the building has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 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.
3	Notwithstanding the information provided in the submission, the roof of the extension to the rear of the building and alterations to the original roof shall be finished in natural slate and no development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall also include full specifications and design of the balustrading to be erected around the perimeter of the roof to the single storey extension to the front of the building. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The extensions 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 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 accommodation hereby approved being brought into use. 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	Window and door frames - P08

2. RECOMMENDATION - That the applicant is advised that demolition of the boundary walls would require Listed Building Consent and attention drawn to the comments of the Ecology Officer regarding lizards and the requirements of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Applicant should also be advised that the materials to be used in the construction of the extension should reflect the particular architectural merit of the building.

7.

TCP/20325/H P/00642/03 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Castle East Registration Date: 01/04/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Royal Corinthian Yacht Club (RCYC (Cowes) Ltd) Demolition of 2 storey extension, boundary walls & outbuildings; construction of single & 2 storey extensions to enlarge & improve facilities, including repairs to site boundaries Royal Corinthian Yacht Club, Castle Hill, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO317QU

REASONS FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Council's Environmental Health Department is suggesting an hours restriction on the use of the external area which the applicants consider to be unreasonable and would not be prepared to accept and therefore it is considered that this application should receive Committee determination on this issue.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Application has taken thirteen weeks and one day to process to date. Application has gone beyond the prescribed time limit due to conflicting issue referred to above and the 1 July meeting is the first available meeting for consideration.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Royal Corinthian Yacht Club situated south eastern side of Castle Road opposite junction of that road with Queens Road with its southern boundary abutting the unadopted gravel road The Grove.

RELEVANT HISTORY

In August 1998 conditional approval granted for demolition works and provision of first floor extension to form members' room and roof terrace. Conditions did not include any time restriction on use.

In March 2000 conditional approval granted for decking over existing east terrace and new decking with balustrading. Again no conditions were applied relating to hours restrictions.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application relates in the main to the southern area of the building where it abuts The Grove and involves extensive demolition works and replacement structures in the form of refurbishment and extensions. The extensions rationalize the internal layout in respect of preparation of food servery areas, provision of toilet facilities, bath facilities including new staircase to first floor, provision of administrative offices on that floor. The proposal also provides for alterations and repair to boundary walls, particularly in respect of the southern boundary.

Finally, proposal indicates a new decking to match the existing decking under the area used for a temporary marquee on the northern facing area of the building.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Application site is within the Cowes Conservation Area. Relevant local Plan policies are as follows:

D1 - Standards of Design

P5 - Reducing the Impact of Noise

B6 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Environmental Health Department recommend three conditions, two of which relate to noise emissions and control of the extract ventilation systems. The third recommended condition, and the reasoning behind it, are set out in full as follows:

"The application includes proposals for the use of an external area which has the potential to introduce a source of noise disturbance arising from customers using this area. This type of noise is notoriously difficult to control and accordingly this Section is opposed to this development proceeding including this proposed area.

However, should the Committee be minded to approve this application this Section would request the imposition of the following condition:

The use of the external area for use by customers shall be restricted to 09:00 hours to 23:00 hours daily. No recorded or live music shall be played or other entertainment be permitted to take place on the external area at any time without prior approval of the Local Planning Authority. The plans for access to the external area shall be amended to include a lobby. All doors shall be fitted with self-closing devices and be constructed so as to minimise the potential for noise breakout from the premises. The self-closing devices and lobby shall be maintained during the use of the premises.

Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance and in particular sleep disturbance from noise emissions from the premises."

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Cowes Town Council raise no objection.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None.

EVALUATION

In elevational terms main alterations relate to the southern and east facing elevation, particularly in respect of the southern corner where an additional two storey element is to be introduced. In all cases I consider the elevation alterations to represent a considerable improvement satisfying any test in respect of preservation and enhancement of the Conservation Area. Extensions have been designed to be in character with the architectural style of the existing building both in terms of window proportions and use of matching render under slated roof. Proposal also provides for reconstruction of the existing boundary/retaining walls to The Grove with those walls being taken down and rebuilt with fence above ground level. Therefore I consider the main elements of the application to be acceptable.

The proposed decking which is subject of the concern being expressed by the Environmental Health Department, is to be located abutting the north eastern facing elevation and consists of an area approximately 222 square metres in size. It is in addition to two existing decking areas, both of which face the same direction, one abutting the south eastern boundary and the other abutting the north western boundary. The proposed decking to be located in a part of the sloping garden area between the Yacht Club and the north eastern boundary wall/retaining wall beyond which is a two storey building which provides flatted accommodation known as The Castle Annexe. For information the existing decking which abuts the north western boundary currently accommodates a marquee.

Applicants advise that:

"The area shown for the extended terrace already currently covered by a marquee throughout the peak season and is to be provided in order to remove the need to temporarily leave this area with the use of scaffolding as a basis to this temporary structure."

The main issue to consider in this respect is the requirement of the Environmental Health Officer to impose an hours restriction on the use of this external area, and whether or not such a condition will satisfy the tests laid down in Circular 11/95 -The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions.

The main test with any condition is whether or not an application would have to be refused, were not the condition imposed. The main problem with this particular issue is the impracticality of imposing a noise restriction condition on this particular piece of decking whereas the previous approved decking areas and open terraced areas did not have a similar noise restriction imposed upon them. Such a condition would be unreasonable and ineffective, as it would not prevent noise arising from other parts of the site.

Any noise levels emanating from the use of the building are unlikely to increase as a result of the provision of this decking, particularly as it is in the main to be used as a base on which a marquee can be erected more conveniently as opposed to the current situation where scaffolding is used to support that marquee.

Therefore, whilst always wishing to support the Environmental Health Department in respect of controlling excessive noise, I consider in this case for the reasons given the imposition of such a condition would be likely to be deemed unreasonable and therefore I recommend approval without, in this case, the imposition of that condition.

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 application 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 on 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 referred to in this report I am satisfied that this proposal represents an acceptable form of development, both in terms of design, architectural appearance and is wholly appropriate in relation to the site's location within the Conservation Area. I also consider conditions which are to be applied are reasonable and for the reasons given the imposition of an hours restriction would be inappropriate.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the alterations hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and Policy B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Construction of the buildings 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. 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) and Policy B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) 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 design, height and type of fencing to be used on the southern boundary and any such agreed fencing shall be completed before the extensions and alterations hereby approved are ready for use. Thereafter such a fence shall be retained and maintained. Reason: In the interest of maintaining the amenity value of the area in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and Policy B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Prior to commencement of work a scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority for the sound insulation of plant and/or machinery. Such a scheme shall include physical controls, operational restrictions and administrative controls where appropriate. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details before the use commences and shall thereafter be maintained. Reason: To ensure a minimum noise disturbance from any plant or machinery and avoidance of nuisance to the local community in compliance with Policy P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	Prior to commencement of work full details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority of any extract ventilation system to the kitchen. Thereafter any such agreed ventilation system shall be installed in accordance with those agreed details and shall be suitably maintained thereafter. Reason: To protect the amenities of occupiers of any adjoining properties from undue fumes and smells in compliance with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

8.	TCP/20710/A P/00732/03 Parish/Name: Brading Ward: Brading and St Helens Registration Date: 15/04/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570 Applicant: Mr C J Hollis Conversion of house into 2 flats 3 Hornsey Rise The Mall, Brading, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO360BS

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by local Member Councillor P Joyce as he is not prepared to agree to application being dealt with under the delegated procedure and requests a site visit be undertaken on grounds that application involves Victorian crescent and may affect adjacent properties and he considers Committee should see property before determining application.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Request by local Member to report this to Committee has taken the determination outside the eight week period and if determined tonight will total eleven weeks.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a mid-terrace two storey property situated on eastern side of The Mall equal distance from junctions with Lower and Upper Adgestone Road.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Planning consent granted in January 1991 for garage.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The property which has benefit of both front and rear entrance doors presently comprises kitchen, lounge and hallway at ground floor level with two bedrooms and bathroom above. Loft has been converted to provide additional room in 1996.

Application seeks consent to convert property into two flats comprising single bedroom unit at ground floor level with one/two bedroom unit on upper floor. Proposal will involve internal alterations including partition and fire walls and installation of additional separate doorway entrance to provide access to ground floor flat in eastern elevation of property.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The following policies are considered particularly relevant in this case:

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

D1 - Standards of Design

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer raises no comment.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Brading Town Council support application as a means of providing affordable housing for local people.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter has been received from an adjoining resident objecting to proposal on grounds of intensification of use and general disturbance by reason of prospect of more people, more cars, more noise etc. Comment is also made that nos. 1 - 4 Hornsey Rise form classic Victorian terrace dating from 1840's and such conversion will adversely impact on aesthetics and character of premises.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.

EVALUATION

Members will be aware that application should be determined on basis of adopted policies contained within UDP unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Relevant policies of UDP are considered to be G1, which expects development to be located within defined settlements and Members should be aware that application site is located within development envelope boundary for Brading.

Furthermore, Policy H4 states that planning applications for new residential development including infill, conversion and redevelopment on sites not allocated within this Plan will be acceptable in principle where they are within the development envelopes of defined settlements, whilst Policy D1 seeks to ensure that development will not detract from reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings.

Members should appreciate that property itself represents modest Victorian premises and proposal seeks to maximise use of property and its associated floor space and particular care will need to be taken in considering any conversion and its implications for impact on adjoining occupiers.

Again, whilst Policy H4 does support principle of conversions within development envelopes, due regard must be given to potential impact of such usage on amenities of adjoining residential occupiers in this instance. Whilst proposal may intensify use of property it is not felt in principle that conversion to two separate flats would be so unreasonable as to warrant refusal. Nevertheless, opportunity should be taken by way of planning condition to require a survey of party wall construction in order that the Local Planning Authority may assess any need for additional sound proofing measures. I am advised that such measures cannot be covered by way of Building Regulations in this particular instance.

Providing safeguarding condition is imposed then on balance proposed use of property will provide opportunity to allow additional residential accommodation which it is considered not unreasonably impacts on amenities of adjoining occupiers.

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 application 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 on 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.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am of the opinion that there is no sustainable planning objection to use of premises as two flats and recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Prior to any development being carried out in accordance with this approval a detailed survey of both party walls shall be carried out and presented to the Local Planning Authority for consideration. Reason: To allow the Local Planning Authority to assess the adequacy of the existing property to provide sound attenuation.
3	Should, within one month of receipt of the information required by condition no. 2 the Local Planning Authority determine that sound proofing measures are required, such details shall be submitted and approved in writing prior to any development commencing on site. Such an agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to any development commencing on site and be maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the neighbouring property and to comply with Policy P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

9.

TCP/24460/B P/01034/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Newport South Registration Date: 21/05/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Mr P Rowling 2 storey building to provide 4 flats; alterations to vehicular access; parking for 2 vehicles (revised scheme) land between 1 and 5, St. Johns Road, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Councillor Cunningham has indicated during recent telephone conversation that he would not be prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

Application has taken six weeks and one day to process to date. 1 July meeting will enable a decision notice to be issued within the required eight week period.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Rectangular site located between St Johns Road and Mount Pleasant Road. Site has been the subject of recent site clearance and is relatively level although it does stand elevated above St Johns Road. There are detached properties either side, 1 and 5 St Johns Road. No. 1 is an older building whilst no. 5 is a more modern detached dwelling. Both these properties have windows which face the site. There is a stone wall along the St Johns Road frontage which is in part a retaining wall with the footpath being lower.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Outline consent for a detached dwelling granted February 2002.

An application for a two storey block of four two bedroomed flats with four parking spaces off Mount Pleasant was received in February 2003 and withdrawn in April 2003.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Detailed consent is sought for a two storey block providing one one and one two bedroom flat on the ground floor with their own separate access as with a similar arrangement at first floor, again with their own separate entrances. Block has a main central footprint measuring 8.3 metres by 7.9 metres with two smaller wings at either end resulting in a block which has an overall length of 14.6 metres. Block to be located 2 metres off the back of footpath to St Johns Road and to be provided with a 1 metre footpath on either side. Result is a building which, at its closest, is 2.7 metres off the side wall to no. 5 St Johns Road and 3.7 metres at its closest to no. 1 St Johns Road. Proposal provides for some communal area to the rear including a paved drying area. Finally, two parking spaces have been indicated in the north eastern corner accessed directly off Mount Pleasant Road via a new crossing off that road. Pedestrian access has been provided directly onto the footpath to St Johns Road.

Block to be constructed in a multi-red facing brick under a slated gabled roof and to have a maximum height of 8.5 metres ground level to apex of gable. Block has been designed to have vertical emphasis windows with string courses and brick soldier courses above windows.

Boundary treatments have been indicated to be retention of existing stone wall to St Johns Road, retention of existing wall between site and no. 5 St Johns Road, new timber fence between site and no. 1 St Johns Road and open railings along the front boundary to Mount Pleasant Road.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Relevant local Plan policies are as follows:

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site

D3 - Landscaping

H5 - Infill Development

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

TR6 - Cycling and Walking

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision

National policies covered in PPG3 - Housing March 2000. This document emphasises the following:

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 and to take pressures off development of greenfield sites.

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

Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with 30 units to 50 units per hectare quoted as being the appropriate levels of densities with even greater intensity of development being appropriate in places with good public transport accessibility such as town centres etc.

More than 1.5 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect Government's emphasis on sustainable residential development.

Finally, reference is made to Housing Needs Survey, one of the main conclusions of which is as follows:

A large proportion of demand is for single person accommodation although there continues to be an ongoing demand for two and three bedroomed homes to meet statutory homeless requirements.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions relating to access and ensuring suitable visibility on the Mount Pleasant Road frontage, should application be approved.

PARISH & TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has been the subject of four letters of objection, two from residents of St Johns Road, (one being from the immediate neighbouring property), one from Mount Pleasant Road resident and one from a Ventnor resident. Points raised are summarised as follows:

Inadequate parking provision with the development having the potential to attract twelve car owners with there only being two parking spaces provided. Such under provision is likely to affect highway safety.

Location of block impinges on the general building line to St Johns Road being set too far forward.

The introduction of open railing on the Mount Pleasant Road would be out of character with the street scene.

Proposal is inappropriate in terms of design, bearing in mind site's location adjacent to the Newport Conservation Area.

Concern that the under parking provision and general generation of traffic as a result of this proposal will cause hazards to road users, with particular reference to the junction of Mount Pleasant Road with Medina Avenue.

Proposal represents an overdevelopment with the site only being capable of accommodating one single dwelling.

Even the provision of two parking spaces will result in the loss of on-street parking in Mount Pleasant Road.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Material considerations are as follows:

Appropriateness of density.

Appropriateness of design.

Provision of parking.

Impact on neighbouring properties.

The site's location and former use makes it ideal for residential development given its urban status close to the town centre. Government policy encourages efficient use of urban land and therefore this proposal to accommodate a block of four flats in lieu of the single detached dwelling as approved on outline is not considered to be unreasonable. The proposal represents a density of 133 units per hectare which in the context of the general area is not considered to be unreasonable given that the proposal is for flats.

This application is the second for this site following the withdrawal of the previous proposal. The differences are that the block has been moved nearer St Johns Road and has been reduced slightly in footprint, reducing two of the flats from two bedroom to one bedroom units. This has enabled amenity and community land to be provided. This provides a sense of space about.

In terms of design applicants have purposely reflected the Victorian appearance of most of the dwellings in this area. This, coupled with vertical emphasis glazing proportions and use of a good quality red brick under slated roof, should, in my opinion, result in a block which will be compatible with the overall pattern of development in the area. The site is close to, but not within the Newport Conservation Area and there are a number of Listed buildings within the vicinity. Overall I consider the design, height and mass of the building will sit comfortably within the street scene.

The site is within Zone 2 in respect of the Council's parking policies. Within this zone the parking requirement is 0 - 50% of guidelines with those guidelines requiring at least one parking space per bedroom. The block will provide a total of six bedrooms and therefore maximum parking provision should be no more than three parking spaces, however, in this case applicants have chosen to only provide two spaces, still well within the 0 - 50% required.

Provision of these two parking spaces will obviously have an effect on current on-street parking within Mount Pleasant Road, however, the Highway Engineer has not commented on this issue which is not surprising as Members will be aware that the roads are for cars to pass one another as opposed to providing parking provision. Indeed the site's location close to the town centre and within easy walking distance of the bus station could well have attracted zero parking scheme on this site.

With regard to impact on neighbouring properties, any development on this site, be it one dwelling or four units of accommodation, would impact to a certain extent on the neighbouring properties both of which have windows in the side elevation facing the site. The revised location and slight reduction in the size of the block, along with level of accommodation and the provision of a reasonable level of communal/amenity space, leads me to the view that the impact will be at an insufficient level to warrant a refusal.

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 application 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 on 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 as described in the Evaluation section I am satisfied that this proposal represents an acceptable form of development which will not have an excessive impact on neighbouring occupiers and which will sit comfortably within the immediate street scene in particular and the pattern of development in the area in general. Parking provision is well within parking policy guideline and I do not consider that the introduction of four units within one block represents an unappropriate density of development. Indeed the provision of one and two bedroom flats accords entirely with the Housing Needs Survey which identified this type of accommodation as representing the greatest demand.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	The access and crossing of the highway footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for light vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use: (a) Footway Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) 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 fronting Mount Pleasant Road, 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 1.05 metres 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) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	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. Any such schedule shall make provision for a slated roof. 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.
5	No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Before development commences a hard and soft landscaping scheme shall be submitted which shall include details of any tree or shrub planting and details of hard surfacing, all of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of trees and shrubs to be planted and shall be fully implemented prior to occupation of any of the units hereby approved. The scheme shall include for the provision of their maintenance during the first five years from the date of planting. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the design, materials and height of boundary treatments as indicated on the plan hereby approved. Such boundary treatment scheme shall include for the retention of the existing walls along the southern and western boundaries. Such boundary treatment shall be completed before the building hereby approved is occupied. All development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interest of maintaining the amenity value of the area in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

10.

TCP/25293/B P/00737/03 Parish/Name: Niton Ward: Chale Niton and Whitwell Registration Date: 10/04/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Miss. D. Cooper Tel: (01983) 823854 Applicant: Mr M A Sheppard & Mrs M Knowles Retention of vehicular/pedestrian access; proposed hard standing/turning area Bexhill Cottage, Newport Road, Whitwell, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO382QW

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Councillor Mrs White was not prepared to deal with this application under the delegated procedure, as she supports the proposal, contrary to the Highway Engineer's advice.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application for which the processing has taken twelve weeks to date, due to waiting for highway comments and the need to prepare the report for the next available committee

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Bexhill Cottage is a residential property which fronts onto Newport Road, about 1 mile from the centre of Niton. To the north is neighbouring semi detached property Ferndale, to the east is open space. The frontage of the property between the highway and the dwelling is completely open and has been laid to brick paviors. Some properties in close proximity have similar open frontages used as a parking areas.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP 25293A Refusal of planning permission for retention of vehicular/pedestrian access without the proposed turning area on the 11/03/03. – The application was enforcement generated after a complaint from highways. On the 9 May 2003 the applicant was served an enforcement notice to close up the access and reinstate the hedgerow, an appeal against this notice has now been lodged.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Semi detached building. Proposal is for a vehicular/pedestrian access with turning area.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is well outside the development envelope for Niton. Policy D1 (Standards of Design), D4 (External Building Works), TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development), C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) and C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan are considered to be relevant

In particular Policy TR7 states that applications will be approved where they take account of matters for highway safety to ensure safe movement and separation of vehicular traffic, buses, bicycles and pedestrians and that any new vehicular access provides safe conditions for all road users. Policy D4 relates to planning applications minimizing damage to landscape, wildlife, trees and other aspects worthy of preservation. Policy C1 states planning applications for appropriate development in the countryside must maintain and protect the landscape and should be for the benefit of the people who live there and C2 relates to the need to reduce the impact of development within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highways Engineer has inspected the site and recommends refusal on the grounds of a new access being created and inadequate turning area on site, leading to unacceptable hazard to users of the highway.

AONB Planning and Information Officer considers the new application is not an improvement in terms of impact on the character of the AONB. The concern about the loss of hedge and the urbanizing of the hamlet made in the previous response remains.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Niton and Whitwell Parish Council recommend approval of this application.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

5 letters of support from local member and residents on the following grounds:

1. Vehicular access will not set any precedent as parking bays exist at other properties in the same road.

2. To remove a vehicle off the road must be supported, as the road is very narrow with no pavement.

3. In rural areas there is a need for some flexibility since originally these roads were not made with cars or buses in mind.

4. It would be dangerous for the applicants to walk to their car parked elsewhere as there is no pavement along the road. There is also no other alternative parking area in close proximity.

5. The vehicular access it is not an ideal location, however it would be safer for the applicants and other road users than if they parked in unsuitable spots.

6. There should be a measure to slow down the traffic.

7. The visibility mirror opposite the parking area provides good vision of other traffic.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

The Highway Engineer recommends refusal on the grounds that the property although paved over to provide a hard standing area, is incapable of accommodating a turning area to enable vehicles to enter and leave the highway in a forward gear. Therefore, vehicles would have to either reverse into or out of the site creating a hazard on the highway located on a bend and a classified road. Also the new access would add unduly to the hazards of the highway users by virtue of unacceptably poor visibility. Such development would therefore be contrary to Policy TR7.

There is a mirror erected in the hedge on the opposite side of the road to the access, which does assist an exiting driver to see an approaching vehicle; however, the land that the mirror stands on is not within the control of the applicant and cannot be taken into consideration when determining an application.

Access was constructed prior to the submission of the application and if refused, will need to be subject of enforcement action requiring closure of the access and reinstatement of boundary treatment.

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 impact this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties has 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 it 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 outlined in this report I am of the opinion that the application is contrary to Policy TR7, Policy D4, Policy C1 and C2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The formation and use of an additional access to the classified road at this point would add unduly to the hazards of highway users by virtue of unacceptably poor visibility and would therefore be contrary to Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
2	The site cannot accommodate a turning area to enable vehicles to turn around on the site, and therefore the interests of road safety are compromised and would therefore be contrary to Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

11.

TCP/25525 P/00722/03 Parish/Name: Gurnard Ward: Gurnard Registration Date: 09/04/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Mr & Mrs C Belford Demolition of shed; erection of single storey detached building to form cattery 25 Hilton Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO318JB

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Councillor Mundy has indicated during a recent telephone conversation that he would not be prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application. The processing of this application has taken twelve weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed time limits with the 1 July 2003 meeting being the first available following completion of consultations for this application to be determined.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a detached property on the south eastern side of Hilton Road approximately 170 metres northeast of the junction of Hilton Road with Cockleton Lane. Dwelling stands in an elongated curtilage measuring approximately 12 metres width by 87 metres depth. Dwelling stands within an area characterised by established detached and semi-detached properties whilst to the south east of the rear boundary is an open field.

Adjoining the part of the garden area on which the cattery is to be erected is a privet hedgerow along the north eastern boundary whilst the south western boundary is, at time of site visit, undefined having been subject of recent tree removal. There is also a group of conifer trees to the northwest.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent sought for a single storey cattery unit having overall length of 14 metres by width of 4.5 metres constructed in block work on a concrete base clad in UPVC with similar windows and doors under a polycarbonate shallow sloping roof. Building has a minimum height of 2 metres to maximum height of 2.5 metres. Building contains twelve cat units consisting of a sleeping area of 1 metre by 1.5 metres with exercise area of 1.8 metres by 1 metre. Building also contains an entrance and a kitchen area. Building to be located approximately 1 metre off the south western boundary and applicant has indicated that a 2 metres fence will be erected along this boundary.

Building to be located towards the rear of the garden being a minimum of 45 metres from the rear of the existing house. Application includes for a separate isolation unit to be located further to the southeast nearer the rear boundary consisting of a building which measures approximately 4.5 metres by 2 metres.

In support of application applicants have submitted the following information:

Traffic

· Visitors by car will be by appointment only arranged at specific time, with those times deliberately avoiding school run hours.

· Customers will be dealt with on a one-to-one basis resulting in only ever being one car parked at any time. In this regard applicant points out that there is a wide frontage to the property at this point in Hilton Road.

· Anticipated cattery will be at its busiest during school holiday periods when the road is quieter.

· There is a 10 mph limit on the road in any event.

· The cattery will be both administered and built in accordance with the advice provided by the Feline Advisory Bureau and will be built to the guidelines under the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health Model Licence Conditions and Guidance for Cat Boarding Establishments.

· Construction specification would be such as to ensure noise reduction.

Applicants state that they have good working relationship with local veterinary practice and the applicants have been associated with the RSPCA.

The Feline Advisory Bureau comments specifically in respect of this application under the following headings:

Traffic

· Delivery and collection of cats normally staggered.

· Length of stay ranges from 7 - 17 days or longer.

· Cattery of ten to twelve units average, average estimated traffic is one vehicle per day with there being many days when no cattery traffic occurs at all.

Noise

· Cats by nature generally quiet animals. Outside runs in catteries allow the boarded cat to experience sights, sounds and smells of a garden setting replicating their own home environment.

· Most boarded cats are neutered and therefore do not attract outside cats.

Smell

· Each individual chalet shall be heated with an external enclosed run.

· Litter trays shall be cleaned daily and litter renewed as often as necessary.

· Method of disposal should be agreed between the owner and the Environmental Health Department.

· Daily routine should involve opening up of the animals', feeding daily, cleaning of units, grooming and detailed disinfection routine on departure of the boarded cat.

Environment

· Landscape screening should be introduced.

· Location of catteries within urban areas reduces need for cat owners to travel some distance into the countryside.

· The shorter the car journey less stress is caused to the cat.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Application site within development envelope as defined on the Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of the UDP are considered to be as follows:

P1 - Pollution and Development.

P5 - Reducing the Impact of Noise.

G10 - Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses.

Relevant national policy document is PPG4 - Industrial and Commercial Development in Small Firms. This document makes reference to:

"In areas which are primarily residential Development Plan policies should not seek unreasonably to restrict commercial and industrial activities of an appropriate scale - particularly in existing buildings - which would not adversely affect the residential amenity. Planning permission should normally be granted unless there are specific and significant objections such as a relevant Development Plan policy, unacceptable noise, smell, safety and health impacts or excessive traffic generation. The fact that an activity differs from the predominant land use in any locality is not a sufficient reason in itself for refusing planning permission."

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions requiring the removal of the existing boundary wall to accommodate the construction of the vehicle parking bay within the front curtilage of the property whilst still retaining the existing garage setback area, thus providing a total of two parking spaces. He makes the following explanatory comments:

"Hilton Road, Cowes is an unadopted highway with no defined footways or parking restrictions. It is commonly used as an access road to Gurnard Primary School and is therefore subject of peak time traffic flows.

Roads are provided principally for the passing and re-passing of vehicles rather than a free waiting area. The nature of the proposed development could lead to parked vehicles obstructing the free flow of traffic."

He then makes reference to the advice provided by the Feline Advisory Bureau concerning potential traffic generation caused by this use. He then states the following:

"The applicant states that visitors arriving by car will be by appointment only outside the hours defined by the school run. Highways could not condition such a statement as it would be unenforceable.

The proposed development site currently accommodates a garage and driveway with scope within the site to accommodate an additional car parking space. With this fact taken into consideration I feel the generation of traffic/parking could be accommodated by providing one additional parking space 2.4 by 4.8 metres parallel to the property and remote from the existing garage setback area by removing the roadside boundary wall of the property."

Council's Environmental Health Officer recommends refusal in order to protect the amenity of neighbouring residential properties. In detail he states the following:

"I have reviewed the available guidelines with respect to animal welfare and boarding establishments and can find no indication of recommended distances between them and neighbouring sensitive premises.

However, the plans indicate that a distance of only one metre is available between the proposed cattery and the neighbouring land used as a domestic garden and only 20 metres to the nearest house. Whilst I have not visited the site, in my opinion, irrespective of the applicants proposal for the cattery construction and the method of operation disamenity would most likely occur as a result of noise and/or odour, especially considering the number of cats intended to be kept at the proposed site. This may not subsequently be controllable through the legislation we enforce (either nuisance or licencing) owing to the availability of the best practical means defence.

I would therefore support in principle on environmental grounds the refusal of this application".

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Gurnard Parish Council has no objection to the application and so has no comment to make.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Three letters of objection and comment have been received, two from residents of Hilton Road and one from the CPRE. Points raised are summarised as follows:

This is a business use incompatible with the residential area, likely to cause problems in terms of noise and comings and goings of clients.

One letter writer does not object but expresses concern that unless the cats are kept within a controlled enclosed environment the whole area may be overrun with cats; suggests that condition be imposed restricting the number of cats and consider the imposition of a temporary consent.

Immediate neighbouring property owner objects on basis that area is entirely residential and therefore should not have any commercial use.

Reference made to parking problems within Hilton Road with particular emphasis on that road being used as a route to Gurnard Primary School.

The application property does not have any extra parking facilities.

Existence of such a cattery would need to be declared should they wish to sell their property and such a declaration may affect the sale of that property.

A concern that noise may emanate from this use causing stress and general disturbance.

Concern that the constant comings and goings of prospective clients wishing to inspect the cattery prior to making a commitment will also cause disturbance, particularly given that the cattery is to be sited well down the garden and therefore those clients would be travelling over a greater distance causing disturbance to the neighbouring property owners.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

It is accepted that there will always be difficulties in finding suitable locations for catteries and the issues raised by the Feline Advisory Bureau indicate that there is an unfulfilled demand. Rural locations probably offer the most ideal situation with urban locations less appropriate. In this case the site could be best termed as suburban and therefore the acceptability or not has to be assessed on its merits in relation to those local circumstances. Factors on which judgements need to be made relate to the size and extent of structures for the housing of the cats and their proximity to neighbouring properties and therefore their impact on those properties, increased comings and goings at the property due to the proposed use, generation of traffic and any potential disturbance caused by that traffic, and implications in respect of noise and smell which may accrue from the cattery use.

The main issue therefore is whether or not the overall environmental impact likely to be caused from the housing of twelve cats within a cattery building will be sufficiently extensive to warrant a refusal of the application. The individual issues are summarised as follows:

The overall size and height of structure in terms of its visual impact on neighbouring properties is not an issue. A building of this size and in this location could be constructed under permitted development rights, provided it was being used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house. There are already existing structures in this area used for housing pet rabbits. It is clearly the use of the building which is the issue and therefore the close proximity of the building to the adjoining gardens becomes an issue. I fully acknowledge the Environmental Health Officer's concern regarding noise and odours from this use. The noise element has been addressed by the advice given by the Feline Advisory Bureau which states that, providing the accommodation is acceptable, cats should make no significant amount of noise and in themselves are generally quiet animals. Clearly the dependant factors will be the quality of the environment being provided for the cats and, just as significantly, quality of management with particular reference to hygiene. It may be that in this particular instance given the relative distance from actual dwellings that any noise or odour problems will not be sufficiently detrimental to create a sufficient problem to warrant a refusal.

Again, I refer to the relatively low number of cats being housed which, although will obviously result in some comings and goings by prospective customers, the main issue is whether the extent of that movement will be sufficiently excessive to again cause disturbance to neighbouring properties. From the information provided the management of customers visiting, and delivering their cats will be very carefully managed on a one to one basis and I have no reason to believe that this will not take place.

In terms of traffic generation, again both the applicant and the Feline Advisory Bureau have suggested the likely level of traffic i.e. no more than one vehicle per day, and this, coupled with the suggested condition by the Highway Engineer requiring the creation of a parking bay to the front of the dwelling should overcome any traffic flow problems that might be caused by this use. The Highway Engineer recognises that this is a route to Gurnard Primary School and is conscious of the safe routes to school policies of the Council. The creation of this additional parking space will, providing appropriate parking management takes place, prevent the likelihood of additional on-street parking although obviously there is no guarantee.

Bearing in mind the various environmental impacts which are likely to result from the proposed development, I would suggest that the granting of a temporary personal consent with conditions could be justified, bearing in mind the Chief Environmental Health Officer's advice, and the uncertainty as to the exact impacts on the area which may arise.

Such an approach is advised within Circular 11/95 - The Use of Conditions and Planning Permissions which states:

"..... it might be appropriate to grant temporary permission in order to give the development a trial run provided that such a permission would be reasonable having regard to the capital expenditure necessary to carry out the development".

In this case there is some capital expenditure involved in terms of the erection of the cattery building itself along with the various facilities to be contained within it and the creation of a parking layby as suggested by the Highway Engineer. However, bearing in mind that the building itself could revert to a domestic use and indeed as such could be constructed without consent and the provision of an additional parking bay to the front of the house could also benefit the residential use of the dwelling regardless of whether or not a cattery use was being introduced, I do not consider it to be unreasonable to recommend a temporary consent despite this capital outlay.

This approach has been suggested to the applicants who raised no objection in principle.

I would suggest that an appropriate period would be two years, long enough for the business to establish itself and thus enabling a fair assessment to take place as to its actual impact. Again in terms of Circular 11/95 advice suggests that:

"A trial period should be set that is sufficiently long for it to be clear by the end of the first permission whether permanent permission or a refusal is the right answer".

Following the expiry of the temporary period then any formal application for renewal should either be granted on a permanent basis or refused on the grounds that the trial period has proved to create environmental problems which would therefore warrant a refusal.

In the circumstances, I consider a temporary consent for two years along with additional controlling conditions is the correct approach in this case and therefore recommend accordingly.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant temporary 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 application 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 on 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 as described in the Evaluation section above I am satisfied that a temporary consent is appropriate in this case in order to give the applicants an opportunity to prove that such a relatively modest cattery use for no more than twelve cats can co-exist with the adjoining residential uses without undue environmental impact.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	This permission shall be for a limited period expiring on the 30 September 2005 on or before which date the cattery business shall cease and the cattery building shall either be removed or be used for domestic purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house unless the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained in writing for a further period. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact of the proposed use in compliance with Policy G10 (Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
2	The cattery building hereby approved shall only house a maximum total of twelve boarded cats and the exercising and sleeping of those cats shall only take place within the building and in no other location within the curtilage of the property Westover - 25 Hilton Road, Gurnard. Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the adjoining properties in compliance with Policy G10 (Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and the Existing Surrounding Uses) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	The use hereby approved shall not be brought into operation until the existing roadside boundary wall has been removed in order to accommodate the construction of a vehicle parking bay in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	The use hereby approved shall not be brought into use until a maximum of two parking spaces including the garage has been provided within the curtilage of the site retaining the existing garage setback area and thereafter all those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision in the interests of highway safety in compliance with Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Prior to the use hereby approved being brought into operation an agreed boundary treatment and hedge planting scheme shall be carried out along an agreed length of the south western boundary and such boundary treatment and hedge planting shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining property in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

12.

TCP/25580 P/00941/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Fairlee Registration Date: 07/05/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Westminster Health Care Ltd Extension to provide additional bedrooms & associated facilities (readvertised application) Vecta House Nursing Home, 24 Atkinson Drive, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO30 2LJ

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application has been subject of local objection and Councillor Mellor has indicated following a recent telephone conversation that he would not be prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under delegated procedure.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application. The eight week determination period expires on 1 July.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a single storey 40 bedroom nursing home off Atkinson Drive immediately to the east of the Family Centre and north of Summerfields Primary School. The area of the site which is subject of the application is on the southern end of the building and the extension is to be provided within the area between that end and the southern boundary, which forms the rear boundary to bungalows fronting Atkinson Drive. This boundary has a dense conifer hedge within the curtilages of the bungalows. The area of the application site consists of communal landscaped area along with a service road which provides direct access to Vecta House and also to an enclosed refuse area. The site currently provides a total of twelve parking spaces all within the eastern area of the overall site.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Vecta House itself received consent in May 1993.

An extension providing two bedrooms with en-suite facilities was approved in November 1995.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Detailed consent sought for a single storey extension off the southern end of Vecta House providing ten additional intermediate care bedrooms each having en-suite facilities along with day room and day dining rooms, bathroom, physio room, kitchen, drugs preparation and multi-purpose space room. Building to stand slightly separate from the existing building but to be linked by way of a covered corridor.

Building has a total overall length of 33.3 metres by a maximum width of 39.8 metres. Proposed block will be 4.9 metres minimum to maximum of 30.7 metres from southern boundary. The area of the proposed building nearest the southern boundary is in the form of a wing to the main building accommodating two of the ten bedrooms with the windows facing west and east and there being no windows facing south within that wing. Four of the other ten bedrooms are within a narrow section of the proposed extension further away from the southern boundary with all these four bedrooms having south facing windows.

Proposal provides for additional screening within the southern area adjacent to the southern boundary.

Proposal results in the loss of the existing vehicular access to the southern area of the existing building which has now been reduced to a short spur off the main entrance road to the east. Patio doors have been indicated off the proposed day room and day dining room onto a hard surfaced patio area giving access to the overall garden area to the west. Building to be constructed in a mixture of, in the main, buff facing brick with red/brown brick soldier courses under plain grey concrete roof which is mainly hipped, with one gabled feature at the eastern end. Application includes for some brown stained diagonal timber cladding on the gable feature which forms the entrance. Finally, in appearance terms the proposal provides for a roof tower feature.

In support of the application, applicant points out the following:

"1. The existing 3 metres high conifer hedge precludes any view into the adjoining properties. We have designed in the following to further reduce any possible impact of these properties.

i) New screen planting (subject to detailed landscaping design) adjacent to the hedge.

ii) The number of windows facing this boundary have been kept to a minimum. The day room window closest to the boundary is to have decorative obscure glazing (see southwest elevation).

iii) The door exiting the extension towards this boundary will be for escape only in emergencies.

2. The refuse enclosure has been relocated across the access road at the request of the client.

3. We have indicated an additional 3 no. car spaces to accommodate the extra ten beds.

4. All principal materials will match those of the existing nursing home.

5. We have indicated the approximate layout of the existing on-site drainage. The final layout of the proposed drainage will be subject to detailed design."

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Relevant local Plan policies are as follows:

D1 - Standards of Design

D3 - Landscaping

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

U9 - Residential Care and Nursing Home Accommodation

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer considers there are no highway implications.

National Care Standards Commission comment as follows:

"The National Care Standards Commission can advise that the proprietors need to ensure all developments comply with the requirements of the Care Standards Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards (For Older People) 2001.

Providing these requirements are complied with in full the Regulatory Authority has no objection or observations to register".

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters of objection received from adjoining residents to the south with points raised being summarised as follows:

Proposal represents an unacceptable increase of 25% on the existing 40 bed space facility within a space which is inadequate and too close to the rear boundaries of domestic properties.

The pitch of the roof is too high bearing in mind its close proximity to the southern boundary and would therefore be overpowering.

Application seeks use of existing drainage systems without establishing capacity is available.

One writer makes reference to two properties being demolished in the area with two having to be severely under pinned and therefore questions the applicants' statement that there is no history of subsidence in the area.

Fact that the bedrooms are to be lived in notionally for 24 hours a day will result in living noise near to the rear of their property. Normally development would not see bedrooms used for that purpose. Particular reference is made to bedrooms five and six being too close to the rear boundary and there will still be windows to the side which would allow noise to affect the writer's property.

Particular reference is made to traffic noise emanating from Vecta House with particular concern being expressed regarding the noise which may emanate from additional visitors which will be created by this proposal. Reference is also made to school drop off/pick up times creating additional congestion with reduced visibility in the immediate vicinity.

One letter makes particular reference to existing situation with regard to noise pollution. Reference is made to:

Reversing lorries delivering before 07:00 hours and in some cases as early as 06:00 hours. Reference is also made to noise caused by refuse collection before 07:00 hours. Finally, concern is also expressed regarding noise from the kitchen complex, again before 07:00 hours and throughout the day until mid evening.

Particular concern is expressed regarding the general noise emanating from Vecta House which intrudes upon the use of the private garden areas on a daily basis including Bank Holidays. Reference is made to kitchen noises, banging of doors, loud conversations, noise from radios, noise from wheely bins and noise from refrigerator/freezer units. Finally, writer makes the following statement:

"We wish to make it clear that the 3 metres dense hedgerow referred to on the plans was planted by the owners of the properties with the exception of one in an attempt to mask out the existing building. Screening of this type does nothing to suppress the noise that we currently have to endure or from the proposed new unit. It is not a 3 metres hedge that is required but a brick wall to absorb and reflect the noise away from our properties".

EVALUATION

There is, of course, a demand for this type of accommodation with there being a general shortfall caused by recent closure of some of the smaller nursing homes. Some of the problems have been caused by the need for nursing homes to comply with Government regulations to upgrade the standard of accommodation. Obviously this proposal being new development complies with those upgraded standards and as a general issue will assist in satisfying the demand referred to above.

This does not however suggest that an impact on neighbouring properties should be disregarded. In this case there is no doubt that this extension will bring the Vecta House complex much closer to the adjoining residential properties. The applicant was advised in pre-application negotiations that this would be a major issue hence his reference to the care that has been taken in orientation of the extension and keeping any windows which face in a southerly direction down to the absolute minimum.

I consider this is the main issue and the judgement has to be made as to whether or not the level of intrusion that is likely to be caused by this is such as to warrant a refusal to the application.

Members will note from the details of the development that careful consideration has been given to the internal layout with the individual bedrooms being placed in the southern area of the extension. Whilst noise may emanate from these rooms the level of noise is unlikely to be excessive. Indeed most of the complaints relating to noise emissions appear to relate to lorries and refuse vehicles along with other noises which emanate from more general uses of the building as opposed to those emanating from individual persons within their own bedrooms.

Whilst there is a small kitchen to be provided within this new block the main kitchen and therefore the noise emanating from the main kitchen will be well screened by this extension, thus reducing the noise which currently emanates from that facility. Also the very location of the extension will prevent vehicles from being able to gain access to this area. Indeed vehicles will be restricted to the area to the east including relocation of refuse collection facilities and again this should reduce any noise nuisance which is currently being caused. Obviously it would be impossible to control noise emanating from uses of the external areas, however, in all other respects the general scale of the new building will in one respect help screen a number of the noise sources around the existing building.

There is, however, no doubt that this extension, because of its general footprint and size, will have an impact on neighbouring properties. Applicants have carefully considered the roof designs to ensure that they slope away from the southern boundary and therefore I do not consider that the impact will be as significant as feared by the adjoining property owners.

The applicants design approach to match the existing building is acceptable although I would suggest a specific condition requiring materials to match as closely as possible.

Whilst I accept that landscaping does not provide a noise buffer, there will be a need to ensure the provision of a dense landscaping screen of appropriate species along the southern boundary and I suggest that this be again subject of a condition.

With regard to drainage issues, applicants have indicated that there is an existing 225 mm surface water drain available and an existing 150 mm foul sewer available. I have consulted with the Council's Building Control Department who confirm that these size drains are unlikely to cause a problem in terms of capacity and in any event this would be a matter for them to consider at the Building Regulation stage. Similarly with regard to foundations which would be subject of a detailed assessment at the Building Regulation stage.

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 application 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 on 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 referred to in this report I consider that the proposed extension is considered acceptable and that any environmental impact caused will not be at a sufficient level to warrant a sustainable reason to refuse.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Matching materials - S01
3	Construction of the extension 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. 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	Before the development hereby approved commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme, apart from providing general landscaping within the environs of the proposed extension, shall also include for a dense planting scheme of a mixture of appropriate trees and hedgerows along the southern boundary, additional hedge and tree planting between the side boundary of no. 26 and the access road and in the area of the timber refuse enclosure on the eastern side of the access road. Any such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be planted and the phasing and timing of such planting and shall include provision for their maintenance during the first five years from the date of planting. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and that an appropriate standard of visual screening is achieved in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Prior to commencement of work all details of the relocated timber refuse enclosure as indicated on drawing no. 02-326 (D) 01 shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such timber refuse enclosure shall be constructed in accordance with the agreed details prior to the extension hereby approved being brought into operational use. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS

(a) E/13890B - Appearance of trailer body located in front garden area to Kent House, York Avenue, East Cowes

Officer: Mr S Cornwell Tel: (01983) 823592

Summary

To consider whether the current appearance of the trailer body has an adverse affect on the amenities of the area to the degree that a notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act should be served requiring remedial works.

Background

A complaint has been received asking the Local Planning Authority to investigate the presence of a lorry container in the front garden of Kent House, York Avenue, East Cowes. Although the front garden is well screened from the road with a high hedge, it would appear that the container was backed into an access driveway at some time in the past and as a result, the front section of the container is visible within the street. Although the container was originally painted red, over time this front section has started to deteriorate in appearance with the paint peeling off.

The property owner has been asked to address the situation with a request that he remove the container but no reply has been received to that response.

Planning records show that the presence of the trailer body was investigated in 1995, at which time records indicate that the container had been parked on site since 1991. Given this information, it does not appear that the Local Planning Authority could challenge the presence of the container on site.

Given the above circumstance the only available action for the Local Planning Authority to consider in utilising its powers to require an improvement in the appearance of the trailer under Section 215 of the 1990 Planning Act. A notice can be served on the owner of occupier of land if it appears to the Authority that the amenities of the area are “adversely affected by the condition of land in their area”.

I have assessed the appearance of the container within the area and believe that a case could be put forward asking for that part of the trailer currently exposed to be painted so it at least gives a uniform appearance.

Financial implications

There are no financial implications regarding the service of a notice under Section 215 in this case save Officer time.

Options

1. To note the present condition of the trailer and to take no further action regarding its appearance at this time.

2. To serve a notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the exposed section of the trailer to be painted so that it provides a uniform appearance.

Time period for compliance one month after the notice takes effect.

Conclusion

Previous correspondence with the owner of the property has not resulted in an improvement to its appearance and I do not believe that given the planning history that the Local Planning Authority can challenge the actual presence of the container on site. I do, however, believe that a notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 can be issued focussing on the exposed section of the trailer given its impact on the area.

In coming to this recommendation to take action utilising Section 215, 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. As required by Section 215 the appearance of the container on the amenities of the area has been assessed, particularly with regards to the section of the footpath that runs right across the front of the site. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the owner, I believe this has to be balanced with the rights of the wider community as expressed through the Planning Act. Accordingly, the proposed action is considered proportionate to a legitimate aim and in the wider public interest and therefore the interference is justified.

Recommendation

To serve a notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the exposed section of the trailer to be painted so that the structure provides a uniform appearance. Time period for compliance one month.

(b) TCP/19153C - Condition of land rear of Norman Court, Quarry View, Camp Hill, Newport, Isle of Wight

Officer: Mr S Cornwell Tel: (01983) 823592

Summary

To consider whether the condition of ground on the edge of the car parking area behind the residential units harms the amenities of the area to the degree that a notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring remedial work should be served.

Background

The Local Planning Authority has been requested to consider whether the condition of the site justifies the service of a notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This section of the Act empowers the Council to take action against the appearance of land which is considered to be detrimental to the amenities of the area.

This site has seen a number of planning applications which have added additional units of residential accommodation behind the original building which front Quarry View. One of the conditions imposed on a two-storey block of six flats required the provision of adequate car parking in the area behind and to the south side of the units. The Local Planning Authority has only recently achieved compliance with this condition which has involved additional space being created by the removal of a garage and by the removal of a section of an earth mound that had been formed in the corner of the car parking area and which it is believed is the material from the foundations when the two storey block of six flats was built. Unfortunately, rather than remove the material from the site the landowner has spread the spoil out along the southern boundary. In addition, contents held in the garage which include various items including a car battery, air filters, plastic wrapping/bottles and other rubbish has been spread across the edge of the remaining earth mound.

The site has been visited and an assessment made of its appearance. Whilst the site itself was entered in order to provide the information which is outlined above, the actual assessment insofar as determining whether the circumstances justifies the service of a notice has to be made from the public street (Quarry View) which is approximately 50 metres away from the material concerned. At this distance I do not consider that it is possible to sufficiently distinguish and be aware of the presence of the material to the extent that the Local Planning Authority could proceed with a Notice with any reasonable degree of confidence that a successful prosecution could be sustained if the requirements of the Notice were not originally complied with and the matter then proceeded through to the Magistrates Court.

The local member has been advised of this assessment but requested that the matter be placed in front of the committee.

Financial Implications

None.

Options

1. To note the information presented in the report but to accept that given the distance between the material and where a member of the public stands and from where an assessment of the condition of the site must be made, that the circumstances do not justify the service of a notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 at present.

2. To serve a notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the removal of the spoil and the waste materials which have been deposited.

Conclusion

Although I share the local member’s disappointment that the landowner has not considered it appropriate to remove the materials totally from the site, I believe that the abilities of the Local Planning Authority to respond to these actions must be governed by the generally accepted criteria laid down in the Planning Act and how this has been interpreted in case law. In that context, the assessment must take place from the public highway and when viewed from that position I do not consider that the materials referred to in the report are sufficiently identifiable within their surroundings that the Local Planning Authority has a reasonable prospect of success if a notice is challenged in the Magistrates Court. Accordingly, I do not consider that the circumstances justify the service of the 215 notice.

In coming to this recommendation not to take action under Section 215 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 impact of the material on the amenities of the area has been considered but found to be insufficient to justify the service of a notice. The service of an s215 notice could therefore be an unlawful interference with the rights of the landowner/occupier. This decision is considered proportionate to the legitimate aims as expressed through the Planning Act and in the public interest.

Recommendation

To note the information presented in the report but to accept that given the distance between the material and where a member of the public stands and from where an assessment of the condition of the site must be made, that the circumstances do not justify the service of a notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 at present.

(c) E/20324X - Erection of an abseiling tower approved under planning permission reference TCP 20324W, but sited incorrectly. Thorness Bay Holiday Park, Thorness Lane, Cowes

Officer: Mrs H Byrne Tel: (01983) 823569

Summary

To consider whether circumstances justify the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the repositioning of the structure to the approved location

Background

Consent was granted in April 2003 for an abseiling tower to be erected for May, June and July of each year, the position approved was a well screened area away from the main body of the site. The whole site is in an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

In May 2003 a complaint was received alleging that the tower had been erected in the wrong place, an enforcement officer visited the site and confirmed that this was the case.

The enforcement officer noted that the tower was no longer well screened but was highly visible from all elevations, in particular from the main road.

Following a conversation with the agent responsible for the application it was discovered that the tower could not go in the original position due to pipe and cable works being laid for nearby staff accommodation. The Officer was assured that the tower would not be sited incorrectly in future years but if it was found that the tower could not be sited in accordance with approved plans a new planning application would be made.

The following unitary development plan policies are considered to apply in the circumstance.

Policy G4 General Locational Criteria

Policy C2 Areas of outstanding natural beauty

Financial Implications

None.

Options

1. To serve an enforcement notice requiring the re-positioning of the abseiling tower

2. To write a strongly worded letter to the management of the park advising that any future breach will result in the service of an enforcement notice and to diarise for May 2004 to inspect the site as soon as the abseiling tower is re-erected.

3. To take no further action in respect of the abseiling tower

Conclusion

An enforcement notice generated at this stage would be futile as the 28 day timescale we are obliged to give would take the matter until the end of July, This is when the tower is due to be removed. Under these circumstances I consider the most appropriate response is to write a

strongly worded letter to the management of the park advising that any future breach will result in the service of an enforcement notice and to diarise for May 2004 to inspect the site as soon as the abseiling tower is re-erected.

Human Rights

In coming to this recommendation not to take enforcement action, 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 impact this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other properties in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Given the temporary nature of the facility the decision not to serve an enforcement notice is in the context of the necessary timescale a proportionate response to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the wider public interest.

Recommendation

To write a strongly worded letter to the management of the park advising that any future breach will result in the service of an enforcement notice and to diarise for May 2004 to inspect the site as soon as the abseiling tower is re- erected

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services