PAPER B2                                                                     

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

 

 

1.                  NEW APPEALS LODGED

 

E/21034/E                                         Dr J A Parsons against Enforcement Notice relating to the installation of UPVC windows in a Grade II Listed building at West Billingham Farm, Billingham, Newport.

 

E/25293                                             Mr M Sheppard and Mrs M Knowles against Enforcement Notice relating to vehicular access at Bexhill Cottage, Newport Road, Bierley, Niton.

 

TCP/12323/M                                                Mr and Mrs P J Colson against refusal of outline for dwelling and vehicular access, part OS parcel 9000, East Lane, Merstone, Newport.

 

TCP/23380/B                                                Mr G Osman against refusal of outline for residential development and alterations to vehicular access at Ivylands Holiday Park, Broadway, Totland Bay.

 

TCP/12948/B                                                Mr E Luter against refusal of outline for bungalow, land adjacent Liz-Beth, 16 St Faiths Road, Cowes.

 

TCP/6137/X                                      Mr K Mole against condition imposed on consent for continuation of storage of boats and dinghies for all year round at Ashengrove, Swainston, Calbourne.

 

TCP/24977                                        Abbeyfield Isle of Wight Extra Care Society against refusal of outline for two storey building comprising twelve elderly persons units, 24 bed nursing home and associated facilities to include training/day support centre and vehicular access and parking, land between Grasmere Avenue and Thornton Close, Appley Road, Ryde.

 

TCP/10832/D                                                Mr M Burr-Hersey against refusal for detached house rear of 28 John Street, Ryde.

 

TCP/9637/C                                      Mr and Mrs Wershat against refusal for outline for bungalow, land adjacent Sea Tang, Maythorne Way, Luccombe, Shanklin.

 

TCP/9309/F                                       Mrs E M Rodwell against refusal for demolition of dwelling and detached house with double garage, garden store and wood store, alterations to vehicular/pedestrian access, 24 Howgate Road, Bembridge.

TCP/5746/H                                      Wadham College against refusal of outline for residential development and associated access, land part OS parcels 1238, 0135, 0952, between Weeks Road and Ashey Road, Ryde.

 

TCP/23405/B                                                Ms J Pomroy against refusal of outline for bungalow, access and hardstanding, Dyers Lane Nursery, Dyers Lane, Newchurch.

 

 

2.         HEARING/INQUIRY DATES

 

No new dates to report.

 

 

3.                  REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS

 

(a)               TCP/23688/B                        Robeck Registered Caravan and Camping Site against refusal for three holiday units, manager=s accommodation incorporating toilet and washing facilities for use of camp site, land at Gatehouse Road, Upton Ryde.

 

Officer Recommendation:           Refusal.

 

Committee Decision:                    Refusal (Part 1) - 15 July 2002.

 

Appeal Decision:                            Dismissed - 22 May 2003.

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

$                   The principle of development and the effect of the proposal on the aims of the Development Plan=s tourism policies.

 

$                   The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Upton area of Ryde.

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

$                   The site is not an allocated permanent accommodation site in the UDP.

 

$                   The proposal does not represent upgrading but would be new development in the countryside.

 

$                   The need for the manager=s accommodation is not proved but the replacement and washing facilities would accord with UDP policies.

 

$                   The four approved units are aligned in a row and result in a repetitive and fragmented appearance.

 

$                   The addition of the proposed manager=s house and toilet block would reinforce and consolidate the estate like suburban layout to the detriment of the rural area.

$                   The three proposed holiday units would further establish the development as having the character and appearance of a rigidly set out permanent housing layout.

 

$                   The design, distribution on the site and the materials would appear as an incursion of housing into the countryside, eroding a significant amount of the remaining rural nature of the landscape of the surrounding area.

...................................................................................................................................................

 

 

(b)       TCP/3886/P                          Binstead Garage Limited against refusal for demolition of garage, workshops and stores and the erection of nine houses in two terraces with parking and access off Binstead Hill, land adjacent and forming part of Binstead Auto Centre, Binstead Hill, Ryde.

 

Officer Recommendation:           Approval.

 

Committee Decision:                    Refusal - 27 August 2002.

 

Appeal Decision:                            Dismissed - 22 May 2003.

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

$                   The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

 

$                   The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of potential occupiers.

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

$                   The site is not particularly noticeable in the street scene but is conspicuously close to the rear gardens of dwellings in Forge Close.

 

$                   The layout of the proposal would be unusual in this mixed residential area.

 

$                   The opposing frontages of the medium sized dwellings would be closely spaced and would result in a cramped appearance.

 

$                   The form, siting and layout would not be sympathetic to the surrounding residential area.

 

$                   The arrangement of the parking spaces would make some difficult to use, provide no room for visitor parking or turning space and reinforces the cramped nature and inappropriate spacing between properties.

 

$                   The proposal would fail to maintain or enhance the quality and character of the built environment and would not create an interesting and attractive environment within the site.

 

$                   The undeveloped margins of the site contain a number of semi-mature trees which contribute to the character of the area.

 

$                   The development would result in the loss of these trees and the landscaping of the development would not reflect the existing features, character and locality.

 

$                   The orientation of the development would make it reasonably secluded and would not result in an unacceptable level of noise disturbance and vehicular activity.

 

$                   There would be a disturbance from pedestrian movements through the amenity space between the parallel frontages of the two terraces.

 

$                   The narrowness of space between the opposing frontages would result in lack of privacy by way of close window to window overlooking.

 

$                   The development would unacceptably affect the living conditions of the potential occupiers.

....................................................................................................................................................

 

(c)       TCPL/14420/R              Hotels Direct Limited against refusal for demolition of detached garage and single storey rear extension and conversion of part of hotel to form eight flats at The Tenerife Hotel, The Strand, Ryde.    

 

Officer Recommendation:            Approval

 

Committee Decision:                    Refusal - 29 October 2002

 

Appeal Decision:                            Allowed - 22 May 2003

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

$                   The effect of the proposal on the aims of the Development Plan=s tourism policies.

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

$                   The site is outside the defined hotel area and the proposed conversion to residential use would be contrary to Policy T5.

 

$                   The current and recent trading position of the hotel, its Listed status and situation in a Conservation Area are material considerations to be weighed in the balance.

 

$                   From the evidence put forward, the long term viability of the hotel of its present size is in doubt.

 

$                   The long term preservation of the Listed building in the Conservation Area is desirable and the demolition of the modern brick structures to the rear would enhance its character and appearance and historical presentation.

 

$                   The proposed conversion relates to numbers 34 and 35 The Strand, the hotel would continue to operate from 36 and 37.

 

$                   Considerable weight is attached to the appellant=s reference to funds being generated for investment in numbers 36 and 37.

$                   The proposal would provide for the long term security of the Listed buildings to the benefit of their architectural and historic interest and that of the Conservation Area.

 

$                   Whilst the proposed change of use would be contrary to Policy T5 there are material considerations which indicate that the proposal should be allowed. 

.....................................................................................................................................................

 

(d)               TCP/24849                            The Trustees of the A E Brown Discretionary Trust against refusal for single storey extension to form annexed accommodation to Merstone Lodge, Chapel Lane, Merstone

 

Officer Recommendation:            Refusal

 

Committee Decision:                    Refusal (Part 1) - 11 September 2002

 

Appeal Decision:                            Dismissed - 30 May 2003

 

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

$                   The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area in terms of scale and character.

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

$                   Although large enough to accommodate some extension, the house has a symmetrical appearance which would be unbalanced by the height, size and width of the proposed extension.

 

$                   The house is well screened but this does not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the house itself and consequently to this area of open countryside.

 

$                   The size and internal layout of the proposed accommodation are such that it would provide a good sized independent dwelling.

 

$                   The establishment of an unjustified independent dwelling would clearly conflict with UDP policies G2, G5 and H9.

 

$                   A planning condition restricting occupation of the annexe to purposes ancillary to the residential use of Merstone Lodge would not overcome the fundamental objections.

 

$                   The size of the extension and its lack of integration with the host dwelling reinforces the view that the development would be of an excessive scale that would fail to be subservient to the main house.

.....................................................................................................................................................

 

Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members= Room.  Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 4572) at the Directorate of Environment Services.