ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE –
TUESDAY 10 DECEMBER 2002
REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
TCP/24267/P1208/01 Demolition of assembly hall/club; construction of pair of semi-detached houses (revised plans), site of British Legion Hall, Richmond Meade, Freshwater
Summary
To determine the abovementioned application following negotiations between Officers and applicant’s agent to secure an alternative scheme in accordance with Members’ suggestions.
This detailed application was initially considered by the Committee at the meeting held on 8 January 2002. It was resolved to defer consideration in order to enable Members to visit the site before making the decision.
The subsequent site visit was inquorate but based on the observations of those Members who attended, the Development Control Manager wrote to the agent offering the following advice:
“….. no objection to the demolition of the existing building and, we are not opposed to the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes. However, there was a concern about the overall scale and mass, and particularly the height, of the proposed pair of semi-detached houses. Those Members attending the site visit are recommending to the Development Control Committee that the application should be deferred for further negotiations on this particular issue with a view to you submitting further revised plans.”
When the matter was considered again by the Committee, Members concurred with the decision to defer consideration for negotiations.
The agent subsequently submitted a further set of revised drawings, still seeking approval for a pair of semi-detached houses on the site. The overall size of the proposed buildings had been reduced by almost 10% in terms of overall ground coverage to 98.75 square metres.
This reduction is discernable in the following terms:
· A reduction in the overall width of the proposed building by 0.5 metres.
· The reduction in the width has the effect of moving the building a further 0.3 metres away from the neighbouring property.
· A reduction in the overall depth of the proposed building by 0.5 metres.
· A reduction in the overall height of the proposed building by 0.20 metres.
The agent also submitted an accurate street scene, with a correct presentation of the height of the neighbouring detached property.
The revised proposal was considered by the Development Control Committee at the meeting held on Tuesday 12 March 2002 when Members again resolved to defer the application for further negotiations on scale, size, mass and design.
Since this matter was last considered by the Development Control Committee, one additional letter has been received from a local resident in support of the revised proposal. Resident indicates that he is pleased to learn that site is to be redeveloped and advise that a lot of problems have been experienced as the site attracts young people and disreputable behaviour.
1. To grant conditional planning permission in accordance with the recommendations set out in the report submitted to the meeting of the Development Control Committee on 12 March 2002 with additional condition relating to provision of access splay to adjacent property.
2. To refuse planning permission on grounds relating to overall scale, mass and height in relation to adjoining and nearby existing properties.
In my view, the agent and his client responded to the concerns expressed by Members, following the site visit on 18 January 2002, about the scale, mass and height of the proposed pair of semi-detached houses by reducing the overall ground coverage of the proposed building by almost 10%, and in achieving this, reducing the overall width, the overall depth, the overall height and the distance between the proposed flank wall of the semi-detached houses and the side wall of the flat roof extension which is on the boundary between the two properties.
Notwithstanding the Officer’s recommendation for approval, the Development Control Manager advised the agent that a reduction in the overall scale and mass of the proposed building could be achieved by reducing the width and/or reducing the overall ground coverage. The agent was advised that the objective of the Committee was to achieve a development more in keeping in terms of the overall scale and mass of existing housing in the immediate vicinity, particularly the neighbouring properties in Richmond Meade, which should reduce the impact of redevelopment and overcome objections to the scheme which included over dominance and overshadowing of adjacent properties.
The revised scheme retained the earlier design concept and although the dimensional alterations are minimal, they certainly go towards the objectives set by Members who visited the site. Although the amendments to the scheme were relatively modest, Officers continued to support this particular application and to recommend approval.
Nevertheless, in accordance with Members’ resolution to defer the application and the meeting held on 12 March 2002, further negotiations have been undertaken with the applicant’s agent on issues of scale, mass and height of the proposed building.
Following these latest negotiations, further plans have been submitted. However, these plans show no changes to the dimensions of the dwellings and merely indicate the line of a visibility splay to allow continued access to parking within the adjacent property. Furthermore, an additional street-scene plan has been submitted including dwellings further to the east on Richmond Meade in an attempt to demonstrate that, whilst the proposed building is larger than the two detached properties immediately adjacent the site, the development is generally of a scale and mass which is in keeping with properties in the wider context.
It is clear from the additional plans submitted by the applicant’s agent, and discussions with him, that his client is not prepared to amend the scheme further and would wish the application to be considered in the submitted form.
I am satisfied that the proposal represents an acceptable form of development and will not detract from the character of the locality or the amenities of neighbouring residential properties. In particular, I consider that this proposal is consistent with the advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 – Housing which places emphasis on concentrating development within existing areas, where inefficient use of land should be avoided, and maximising the reuse of previously developed land and empty properties and conversions of non-residential buildings for housing in order both to promote regeneration and minimise the amount of greenfield land being taken for development. In this instance, I do not consider that the proposal in any way compromises the quality of the environment.
Recommendation
To grant conditional planning permission in accordance with the recommendations set out in the report submitted to the meeting of the Development Control Committee on 12 March 2002 with additional condition relating to provision of access splay to adjacent property.
M J A FISHER
Strategic Director
Corporate and Environment Services