REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

SITE INSPECTION – 1 AUGUST 2003

1.

TCP/19499/G P/01121/03 Parish/Name: Newport Registration Date: 03/06/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Alterations & single/2 storey extension to provide additional sales area on ground floor with 8 self-contained apartments over on 1st & 2nd floors (revised scheme) 5 Lugley Street, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO305HD

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application has proved to be particularly contentious and has attracted a number of representations including a petition and relates to a site within the Newport Conservation Area and therefore it is considered Committee determination in this case is appropriate.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This is a minor application received on 2 June 2003 and has taken seven weeks to process. A decision at this meeting would mean that the application would have been dealt with within the prescribed eight week time limit which expires on 28 July 2003.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site on southern side of Lugley Street close to its junction with Holyrood Street.

Immediately abutting the eastern boundary is in part the building which makes up no. 1 Lugley Street and then extends into further buildings which make up nos. 1 and 2 Post House Cottages which are accessed off Holyrood Street further to the east. Abutting the southern boundary wall is in part a SEB substation and parking area which backs onto the Job Centre building. Parking area is accessed off Holyrood Street.

The application site itself is L-shaped with its western and southern boundaries immediately abutting the parking area to "Boots". The existing building which stands at the back of footpath to Lugley Street is part two storey and part single storey consisting of retail on the ground floor with storage, toilets, office and retail at first floor level with a flat roof over the single storey element attached to the rear. The remaining part of the site is made up of a gravel parking area enclosed on three sides by walls and which abuts the eastern boundary and a wall which separates it from the Boots car park area. This gravel car parking area formerly accommodated a building which was demolished in the mid-nineties.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Most recent history relates to an application for one/two/three storey extension to provide additional sales area on the ground floor with ten self-contained apartments over on first and second floors. This application was refused in March 2003 under the delegated powers procedure with the reasons being:

Overdevelopment and excessive density, mass and height likely to give rise to overlooking, loss of outlook and be overbearing in nature as well as out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the area.

Height and mass of proposed building would be overbearing and overdominant and have an adverse impact on the designated Conservation Area and therefore the proposal failed to enhance or preserve that area.

By not indicating the position, height and mass of adjacent properties applicant had failed to indicate how the existing environment enjoyed by occupiers of adjoining properties were to be protected from adverse impact.

Other planning history as follows:

In January 1996 Conservation Area Consent granted for demolition of two storey property at 3 Lugley Street.

In May 1996 detailed consent granted for replacement building providing additional retail area for no. 5 Lugley Street for storage at first floor and parking area to rear. (This application has been implemented and reflects the existing situation on site).

With regard to the Conservation Area demolition consent a demolition notice was received by the Building Control Department in November 1995. There is photographic evidence that the previous building on the site was two to three storeys in height. The reason for the demolition, again according to the records, was the poor state of repair of the building with some parts of the building being unsafe.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Proposal seeks consent for extensions and conversions which involves total site coverage. In detail proposal involves the infilling of the existing courtyard parking area to the rear of the site along with the existing covered arch off Lugley Street which gives access to that courtyard.

The ground floor element of the proposal provides for additional sales area and stock room within the courtyard area. All sales areas to be rationalised and to include staff room, offices and toilets, all to be located on the ground floor. Finally, alterations indicate creation of an entrance lobby with staircase to first floor and includes for a service corridor with ramps to reflect changes in levels.

At first floor proposal indicates the creation of three single bedroom flats within new first floor extension with a further five one bedroomed flats within the existing Hellerslea building, with those five flats being through two floors. In this regard proposal involves insertion of four dormer windows within the roof slope which faces Lugley Street, with these windows being in addition to the one existing second floor window within that elevation. Other additional windows are in the form of roof lights, some within the south facing slope of the existing two storey Hellerslea building, the remainder being within the new pitched roofs. In this regard the three new single bedroom flats are to be provided with pitched gabled slated roofs. The proposal provides for four recessed balconies with the roof being cut back accordingly to provide both ventilation and light to the main rooms of those three flats.

Those elements of the proposed extensions which are exposed to be finished in facing brick under slated roofs.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

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

To provide wider housing opportunity and choice by including better mix and size, type and location of housing.

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

Create more sustainable patterns of development ensuring accessibility to public transport, 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 density, with even greater intensity of development being appropriate in places with good public transport accessibility such as town centres etc.

Conversions of housing, buildings formerly in other uses and the upper-floor space over shops, can provide an important source of additional housing, particularly in town centres.

Local Authorities should promote developments which combine a mix of land uses, including housing, either on a site or within individual buildings such as flats over shops. This is important not only to accommodate new households but also to bring new life into our towns and cities.

Relevant local Plan policies are as follows:

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site

H5 - Infill Development

B6 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

Finally, reference is made to the 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 considers there are no highway implications.

Council's Archaeological Officer recommends appropriate condition should application be approved.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has been the subject of a twenty two signature petition. This petition is against the new development but does not give any specific reasons. A breakdown of signatories is as follows. Eight from the general area of Newport, six from immediate local residents in Holyrood Street, four from residents of Lugley Street and one each from residents of Sea Street and Watchbell Lane, and a Totland and a Carisbrooke resident.

Application has been the subject of single objection letters from adjoining property owner in Lugley Street, nearby property owner in Holyrood Street and a Ryde resident. Application has also been subject of four separate letters from one of the neighbouring property occupiers which also includes a copy of a letter which was sent direct to the applicants. The points raised within the above are summarised as follows:

Proposal will result in loss of privacy, loss of outlook and loss of light to neighbouring properties, with particular reference to those which are in close proximity to the east.

Newport town is already subject of excessive development and this proposal will simply exacerbate the general overcrowding that is occurring.

Proposal will have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area.

Proposal is architecturally inappropriate, out of keeping with the character of the area with particular reference to nearby Listed buildings.

Proposal will intensify traffic generation resulting in increased pollution, disturbance and noise.

Proposal fails to provide any parking facilities and will therefore contribute to the car parking congestion which already takes place in the immediate area.

Failure to provide any car parking spaces will increase pressures on the limited parking that is available in the area resulting in a further deterrent to potential customers to businesses in the area.

Disturbance caused by construction traffic using roads which are already inadequate with particular reference to Holyrood Street and Lugley Street.

Proposal represents an excessive density and should be reduced both in scale and number of flats proposed.

Concerns that the close proximity of the buildings will present a high fire risk with reference being made to the minimal space between properties.

Reference made to the excessive size of flat 6 and its closeness to and therefore effect upon property 1 Lugley Street.

One objector suggests that the open courtyard area should be used more formally as a car park for public use.

Concern that there may be a conflict between the retail and residential uses being proposed.

Some concern is raised regarding the potential for this type of close development affecting the function of damp proof courses etc.

One objector considers that any extensions providing additional accommodation should be restricted to the existing building and should not involve any further extensions to the property.

Concern that the close proximity of foundation works will adversely affect the structural integrity of the adjoining properties and that the ground conditions generally are of poor quality likely to be unable to accept any additional weight.

The proposal represents yet another inappropriate type of development in Newport further impinging on the character of the town.

Concern that the level of occupancy of the development along with its close proximity to neighbouring properties will cause noise disturbance which will contribute to the existing excess of noise which already occurs in Newport, particularly when the clubs and pubs close.

There is already a problem in the area in respect of collection of refuse and this proposal will simply exacerbate that problem.

Concern that the site may contain interesting archaeological material.

Claim that the new development will not improve the economy of the environment.

One objector questions the accuracy of the plans, making particular reference to heights of adjoining properties 23 and 24 Holyrood Street and the failure of the applicant to indicate the roof tops in relation to 25 and 27 Holyrood Street.

Concern that this proposal will be a forerunner to further extensions.

Approval to this development will result in a feeling of encirclement resulting in a loss of open space which is in relatively short supply in Newport.

One objector considers that these types of development should be restricted to the edge and outskirts of Newport only.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

Two further letters of representation received, one from the owner of a property in Sandown and one from a resident of Lugley Street, with the contents of the letter raising no additional issues that have not already been covered in the report.

EVALUATION

Firstly, Members will note that this application has been the subject of a considerable level of representations with one neighbour raising an extensive number of issues, all of which are duly noted. Members will also note the recent refusal of consent in respect of a more extensive scheme and this evaluation will assess whether or not the applicant has addressed the three reasons given for refusal. Therefore, the material considerations are as follows:

Appropriateness of density in relation to mass and height.

Appropriateness and accuracy of the level of information provided linked to the likely impact of the proposal on adjoining properties.

Quality of the environment that could be provided to any future occupiers.

The impact of the proposal in relation to the Newport Conservation Area.

Firstly, the proposal represents a reduction in density which has more importantly reduced the height and mass of the scheme resulting in development more in keeping with the area generally.

A second useful comparison would be between the current proposal and the height and mass of the former building which stood on this site up until the mid-90's. There is photographic evidence of this building just prior to its demolition which suggests a structure of at least two storeys to three storeys stood on this site being the former building of no. 3 Lugley Street. I would suggest that in terms of the curtilage of no. 3 the current proposal presents a lesser overall mass and height when compared with that previous building. Given this assessment I am of the view that this new proposal has fully addressed any question of development of an overbearing nature and loss of outlook from neighbouring properties.

The resultant reduction in mass and scale has, as Members will note, reduced the number of units from ten to eight with the type of units, i.e. one bedroomed flats, fully according with the greatest demand identified in the Council's Housing Needs Survey. In this regard I make reference to the contents of PPG3 with particular reference to conversions of buildings and use of upper floor space providing an important source of additional housing, particularly in town centres. The introduction of eight units of accommodation on this site accords with this approach with PPG3 advising that Local Planning Authorities should adopt positive policies to:

"Promote such conversions by taking a more flexible approach to Development Plan standards with regard to densities, car parking, amenity space and overlooking."

Again this scheme to mix retail with residential fully accords with the advice in PPG3 with particular reference to the promotion of mixed use development.

In terms of the general employment and housing strategy proposal indicates a commitment to both retaining and expanding a retail outlet in the town centre which obviously should be encouraged in relation to the vitality and viability of the town centre and also provides additional employment opportunities.

With regard to potential impact on neighbouring properties particularly in this case to those properties to the east, a very careful analysis of this aspect of the proposal has been carried out. I am satisfied that the information provided in terms of existing ridge and eaves heights in relation to the proposed development provides an accurate reflection of the existing situation. The result of this analysis is that the abutting residential properties are three in number being nos 1 and 2 Post House Cottages and no 1 Lugley Street. Post House Cottages are mainly two storey with single storey elements whilst Lugley Street is mainly two storey. None of these three properties have windows which face towards the application site.

Further to the east are other established properties which directly abut the back of footpath to Holyrood Street with the rear of these properties being approximately 8.5 metres off the eastern boundary of the application site. These properties do have west facing windows and have accommodation on three floors. One of these properties has been visited by the Case Officer which confirms that a first floor kitchen window and second floor bedroom and box room windows face towards the application site.

In analysing the impact on the outlook from these windows I am satisfied that the proposal will have a very limited impact on outlook from the second floor bedroom window with that outlook being limited to a very small section of the roof slope. Such a limited encroachment on outlook could not, in my opinion, sustain a reason for refusal.

Obviously this type of development would come under the auspices of the Party Wall Act which is civil legislation involving exclusively the two parties, which in this case would be the developer and immediately abutting property owners, with the onus being on the developer to give those abutting owners notice of their intentions with those owners either agreeing or disagreeing with the proposal. Where there is disagreement the Act provides for the resolution of any disputes. It is important to appreciate that this is separate from planning legislation.

Similarly with regard to the construction of the development which, because of the restrictive nature of the site, is going to present logistic problems in terms of management. However, again this is not a sustainable reason to refuse an application. I would suggest that if Members are mindful to approve the application a separate letter be sent to the applicants strongly advising careful management of the construction works on site and to control movement of construction vehicles to cause minimum disturbance to local residents. Members will appreciate however, that any construction works, particularly within a brownfield site with the constraints that this site has the potential to cause some temporary disturbance and nuisance to existing residents.

With regard to concerns relating to ground conditions and foundations, I have consulted with my Building Control colleagues who confirm that the nearby "Hursts" development did not throw up any major ground condition problems with that development using traditional trench foundations as opposed to piling. In any event, these issues would be fully covered within the auspices of the Building Regulations. As such the resultant building would be constructed to a standard much higher than adjoining properties in terms of Fire Regulations, foundations, thermal and sound insulation.

With regard to the internal layout and the type of accommodation it will be noted from the description that the development does not provide windows directly on the party boundary walls but has used recessed balcony areas to overcome the issue of providing natural light. Also, the use of roof lights to bedrooms, kitchens and bathrooms within the sloping roofs provides a second source of natural light. Such an arrangement of windows is not unusual within intensive in-town developments such as this and is deemed to be satisfactory. I certainly do not consider that any of the roof lights would result in the capability of overlooking occurring on neighbouring properties. In terms of the accommodation itself, all eight flats are aimed at two person occupancy and whether for rent or open market purchase aimed at lower income groups.

With regard to the issue of impact on the Conservation Area, with particular reference to the duty of preservation and enhancement of such areas, I am now satisfied that this proposal in terms of height, mass and architectural design, along with use of appropriate materials will satisfy those two tests. The existing buildings and walls within this area contribute little or nothing to the visual amenities of the Conservation Area with this current proposal obviously rectifying this situation. In any event, this proposal will have very minimal impact on the Conservation Area when viewed from Lugley Street or any other public highway.

In terms of parking, the site is within Zone 1 in respect of parking policies and therefore this proposal which provides no parking is in accordance with Policy TR16 Appendix G. Because the proposal, however, is under ten units and the additional retail floor area is under the required threshold this proposal will not attract a contribution to the Transport Infrastructure Fund. Whilst accepting that zero parking schemes such as this may impact on the general pattern of parking within the town centre recent appeal decisions both on the Isle of Wight and elsewhere suggests that Inspectors fully support the principle of reducing, and in this case omitting, parking provision altogether on those sites within town centres. A recent appeal decision in respect of Clifford Street which was in a Zone 2 area confirms this with at that time the Inspector placing considerable weight on Policy TR16 Appendix G when coming to the decision to allow the appeal on a site with zero parking.

Following Members' decision to defer this application to enable a site inspection to take place, the following represents additional information which Members may need to determine this application.

Members will note that the previous application was refused, mainly in respect of mass and height. However, it was also considered to be excessive in density. As a comparison, the density of that refused application was 50 units per hectare which compares with the density of the current application which is 200 units per hectare. Whilst these figures may appear excessive when comparing the potential level of occupancy, the current proposal represents a considerable difference. The refused scheme results in a density of 675 persons per hectare on the basis of a total number of 27 persons, whereas the current proposal results in a density of 400 persons per hectare resulting from a total of 16 persons. It is also important to appreciate that the type of dwellings being proposed fully accord with priority needs identified in the Housing League Survey.

Members will appreciate from the description of the development that the visual impact of the proposal is limited to the additional dormer windows on the front elevation. Because of this minimal impact in visual and architectural terms, it is not considered appropriate to place this application before an Architects Panel. However, consultation with the Council's Conservation Assistant confirms that such an approach is acceptable with his concerns being in respect of use of appropriate materials which is covered by condition in any event.

Further consultation with the Council's Building Control Department confirms that if and when this proposal becomes the subject of a Building Regulation application then there will be a requirement upon the applicant to comply with those regulations, particularly in respect of fire resistance. The Area Building Control Officer confirms that the retail and residential areas would be fully complimented with the structures providing minimum one hour fire resistance. Also any alarm system within the retail unit would be linked directly to the proposed flats with the flats themselves also having a stand-alone system. More significantly the party walls both within the development and where they immediately abut adjoining properties would be required to have a one hour fire resistance. Finally, although not a requirement, the Building Control Department can recommend the introduction of a sprinkler system. This particular issue has been raised with the applicant's agent who has also suggested that a sprinkler system will be actively considered.

With regard to the type of structure, applicant confirms that the extensions will be constructed in the form of a timber frame structure in the interests of achieving a lighter weight. However, this type of structure is commonly used both in new build and in extensions. Such a system does not reduce fire resistant qualities, as such structures will be required to comply with the above mentioned levels of fire resistance under the regulations. It is important to appreciate that the building is to be clad in good quality facing brick and roofed in appropriate slates to achieve a traditional appearance and that the timber framed structure is merely a different type of construction method with the timber framed modules being pre-formed in a factory and delivered to site. The modules are then put together and then clad internally and externally, giving the structure an appropriate appearance and providing the necessary fire resistance to give the necessary fire, thermal and sound insulation requirements.

The Fire Prevention Officer has been consulted and providing the individual front doors to the flats are 45 metres or less from the nearest point that the fire appliance can access the property, then this will be acceptable to him. The plans now indicate that the distance is not exceeded and therefore that requirement is satisfied.

The plans have also been slightly amended to indicate cycle parking and refuse collection points.

Finally, it has been suggested that a condition be imposed to prevent any residents from applying for membership of the Local Residents Car Parking Scheme. It is considered however, that the planning system cannot be used to prevent anyone applying for such a membership for which they would be eligible. Therefore, such a condition would fail the test which apply to such conditions, ie being necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development being permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

It is important to emphasise that the area of the site on which the new build is to take place, ie no. 3 Lugley Street up until 1995 contained a building of which there is considerable photographic evidence, with that existing building at least equating to, if not higher, than the current proposal. Attached to this report are two photographs which were taken during the demolition works of no. 3 Lugley Street. The applicant has also submitted aerial photograph evidence of the existence of these buildings.

Whilst I appreciate the general strength of feeling in respect of this proposal evidenced by the extent of representations which raise a considerable number of issues, I am of the view that none of these concerns bear sufficient weight to enable a refusal decision to be sustained on appeal. I consider the scheme in its reduced form has fully addressed the previous reasons for refusal and fully complies with the relevant UDP policies and national policies, particularly those contained in PPG3. I therefore recommend accordingly.

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 applicants 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 this proposal represents an acceptable form of development which will not have an excessive impact on neighbouring properties, has fully addressed the need to both preserve and enhance the Newport Conservation Area, is of an appropriate height and mass and architectural appearance and fully accords with the Council's parking policies in terms of the provision of zero parking. Indeed the provision of eight one bedroomed flats accords entirely with the Housing Needs Survey which has identified this type of accommodation as representing the greatest demand. I am generally of the view that this proposal is likely to contribute to the vitality and viability of Newport town centre and as such should be encouraged and therefore I recommend accordingly.

1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Construction of the single/two storey 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 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any such scheme shall include details of the treatment of the side cheeks to the dormer windows. Any such schedule shall provide for natural slate to the 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) and Policy B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	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: 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	The developer shall afford access at all reasonable times to staff of the County Archaeological Centre and shall enable them to observe all groundwork and to record features of archaeological significance. Notification of the opening up and information as to whom the archaeologist should contact on site should be given in writing to the address below not less than 14 days before the commencement of any work: County Archaeological Officer County Archaeological Centre 61 Clatterford Road Carisbrooke NEWPORT Isle of Wight PO30 1NZ Reason: In order to ensure access by specified archaeologists during the permitted operations and to comply with Policy B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a specification of the provision to be made for the storage and disposal of refuse has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the implementation of such provision for refuse has been completed in full in accordance with such an approved specification and such provision shall be maintained thereafter. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	The new entrance doors and service entrance doors along with the four number proposed dormer windows at second floor level shall be constructed of timber and shall be stained in a colour to match the existing windows and thereafter maintained as such to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the existing buildings in the interests of the amenities and character of the Conservation 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.
7	None of the flats hereby approved shall be occupied until the cycle parking provision and refuse collection proposals as indicated on the plans have been provided and both facilities shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles in compliance with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION - That letter be sent to the applicant advising that construction work needs to be carefully managed to cause minimum disturbance to local residents and that all construction traffic be carefully controlled and programmed to cause minimum disturbance to other road users.

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Heading of Planning Services