PAPER B2
ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
TUESDAY 10 DECEMBER 2002
REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
TCP/5394E/P00576/02 Retention of petanque terrain and play equipment at the Barley Mow Public House, 57 Shide Road, Newport.
SUMMARY
To determine the abovementioned application in light of the failure to negotiate an alternative position within the site.
This application was the subject of a report to this Committee at the meeting held on 6 August 2002. Members decided to grant permission; a decision contrary to the recommendation. This resolution was reached on the basis that any potential noise or disturbance problems could be controlled under the environmental health legislation.
The Environmental Health Manager expressed his concern about the “reasoning behind the decision”. The matter was raised with Members and the application was reconsidered by the Committee at a meeting held on 27 August 2002 when it was decided to defer consideration in order to enable negotiations to take place with the applicant with a view to resiting the petanque terrain elsewhere within the curtilage of the public house, away from the boundary with the neighbouring property.
A letter was sent by the Development Control Manager to the application on 29 August 2002 but there was no response. A further letter was sent on 8 October 2002 and this resulted in a site meeting which was held on 23 October 2002.
Following the site meeting the Development Control Manager again wrote to the applicant rehearsing the issues that were discussed on site, setting out the various options and setting a timescale for a response on the basis that this is a retrospective application. I regret to inform Members that there has not been a response.
The Environmental Health Manager initially commented on the application and came to the conclusion that the current position is not suitable because of the close proximity of the neighbouring property.
Post resolution to grant approval prior to the issue of the decision notice the Environmental Health Manager made the following observations:
“I am very concerned at the reasoning behind the decision to allow the application. I understand that the Committee were of the opinion that we could use our legislation to overcome any problems that may arise from the proposed use. Whilst this is correct if a nuisance is caused, the problems may not always be serious enough or appropriate for us to take nuisance action”.
“Most of the comments we make are designed to prevent disamenity (which is of less severity than a nuisance by our interpretation) and future complaints which invariably take up both your and my staff’s time, mostly with no success”.
“It was the former Chairman who pressed for us to increase our input at the planning stage in order that we can head off the difficult to deal with complaints and this recent decision is a setback to all our efforts to date”.
Following the receipt of the application several months ago the owner of the neighbouring property submitted two letters of objection which, in earlier reports, were summarised in the following terms:
· Loss of amenity due to close proximity of petanque area to the boundary.
· Loss of privacy.
· Interest for highway safety compromised.
1. To refuse planning permission and authorise enforcement action to be taken to ensure the removal of the petanque area and the return of the land to its former condition with a compliance period of three months; and to also invite an application for the retention of the play equipment.
2. To grant retrospective approval for the retention of the petanque area as per the resolution made on 6 August 2002 prior to the later comments of the Environmental Health Manager.
Whilst it is appreciated that the Barley Mow is a public house with outdoor seating, the location of the petanque terrain is considered to be an unneighbourly addition, detrimental to the residential occupier’s amenity due to the close proximity to the common boundary. In terms of the children’s play equipment, the siting and design of the equipment are considered to be acceptable.
In earlier reports on this retrospective application it was make clear that due regard and appropriate weight had to be given to all material considerations with the conclusion that the retention of the petanque terrain in this position was likely to adversely affect the amenities of the adjoining residential property contrary to policies D1 and G10 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned resolution Members will recall that the intervention of the Environmental Health Manager resulting in a decision to defer consideration in order to enable negotiations to take place with the applicant about the possible resiting of the petanque terrain. Although a site meeting eventually took place with the applicant there has been no further progress in the matter since the Development Control Manager wrote to the applicant several weeks ago setting out the various issues that were discussed and her possible options.
Although I understand that the petanque terrain is not in use at the present time, simply leaving the application in abeyance is not an option since this is a retrospective submission and what is effectively an unauthorised use could recommence at any time. The applicant has seemingly declined the opportunity to negotiate a solution to this problem and consequently, in my view, this Committee is under an obligation to determine the application in its submitted form. It is important in this type of matter that the professional advice is consistent and on this basis the recommendation to refuse permission is maintained.
RECOMMENDATION
To refuse planning permission and authorise enforcement action to be taken to ensure the removal of the petanque area and the return of the land to its former condition with a compliance period of three months; and to also invite an application for the retention of the play equipment.
Reason
The petanque area is considered to be an intrusive and unneighbourly addition that has resulted in development detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining residential property and is therefore contrary to Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and Policy G10 (Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Uses) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
C S HOUGHAM
Development Control Manager
M J A FISHER
Strategic Director
Corporate and Environment Services